1998-03-303816SENATE146901998-03-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous14691469The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Bob Collins resigning his place as a senator for the Northern Territory. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the constitution, I have notified the administrator of the Northern Territory of the vacancy in the representation of that territory caused by the resignation. I table the documents.Bills1469r3531469Consideration resumed from 26 March.The bill.12:32:001469Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I move:(1) Schedule 2, item 23, page 30 (table item 5), omit "bubble jet", substitute "ink-jet".This is a very technical amendment. The amendment replaces the term `bubble jet' in the proposed subsection 91C(1) with the term `ink jet' in order to clarify the types of printers which will be considered as part 7A goods. Whilst the term `bubble jet' has become synonymous with the term `ink jet' in describing a type of printer that operates by a stream of ink being shot onto paper, it has been brought to the government's attention that the term `bubble jet' may be associated with one particular manufacturer.The amendment merely clarifies that all types of printers which operate by a stream of ink will be part 7A goods.Amendment agreed to.12:34:001469Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 3, page 48 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute: Schedule 3—Rail transport facilities(2) Schedule 3, item 1, page 48 (line 5) to page 62 (line 20), omit "land transport" and "Land transport" (wherever occurring), substitute "rail transport" or "Rail transport" (as the case requires).(3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 48 (line 5) to page 62 (line 20), omit "LTF" (wherever occurring), substitute "RTF".(4) Schedule 3, item 1, page 54 (line 6), omit "road,".(5) Schedule 3, item 1, page 54 (line 24), omit "that is a railway".(6) Schedule 3, item 1, page 54 (lines 26 to 28), omit subsection (6).(7) Schedule 3, item 3, page 63 (after line 7), omit "land", substitute "rail".(8) Schedule 3, item 15, page 64 (line 21), omit " land ", substitute " rail ".(9) Schedule 3, item 16, page 64 (line 25), omit " land ", substitute " rail ".(10) Schedule 3, item 17, page 65 (line 1), omit " LTF ", substitute " RTF ".(11) Schedule 3, item 19, page 65 (line 9), omit "land", substitute "rail".(12) Schedule 3, item 20, page 66 (line 6), omit "land", substitute "rail".(13) Schedule 3, item 20, page 66 (line 19), omit "land", substitute "rail".(14) Schedule 3, item 21, page 67 (line 14), omit "land", substitute "rail".The amendments concerned were foreshadowed in my speech during the second reading debate and they relate to the issues of whether we put a bias towards road or towards rail. The Senate will recall that in my speech I outlined the fact that in the last 15 to 20 years the expenditure by government on road has been of the order of $33 billion and the expenditure by government on rail has been of the order of less than $2 billion. In other words, road has been outspending rail by 18 times.I also indicated, with quotes from Economist articles and other sources, that, worldwide, governments are becoming concerned that rail has been underspent and road overspent, and that the situation needs to be adjusted and amended. I indicated how productive rail is in that it holds a market share of approximately 40 per cent, despite the problems which I outlined.Obviously expenditure on rail is occurring. Recently the Brisbane-Cairns line was improved and the consequence was a significant lift in productivity, performance and efficiency and a significant reduction in maintenance costs. One of the things we have to be aware of with rail is that, because the lines are so savagely deteriorating, maintenance costs are currently running into several billion dollars—I think there is about $4 billion to $5 billion worth of maintenance costs around the country.There are lines such as those between Sydney and Brisbane and Adelaide and Melbourne which, if improved, would radically improve the speed, efficiency and productivity of rail and would do a great deal of good to the country as a whole.Accordingly, we have moved in these amendments to directly challenge the government's decision to apply far more discretion to road. We challenge that approach. We believe that the bias should be far more to rail because that is where the greater need is for Australia as a whole. We did, with regard to the Development Allowance Authority Amendment Bill 1996, successfully move changes to that bill to remove tax concessions for private urban road builders, so we have a long history of approaching these matters in this way. I would remind the committee that the 1995 private infrastructure task force report by EPAC very firmly stated that tax incentives were needed for rail, not road, and the Australian Business Monthly in a July 1994 article described toll roads as a licence to print money. It may be necessary to provide tax subsidies, we believe, to improve the viability of investment in rail, although the EPAC report did find that direct public investment in infrastructure was more cost-effective than public subsidies through tax concessions.The problem for us is that the problems of rail are not as noted by consumers and by voters as are the problems of road. Road has a far higher political visibility than rail, yet we urge the government to consider the needs of rail ahead of roads. We do believe that the Australian rail industry remains hampered by a lack of infrastructure investment and a playing field markedly cambered in favour of road. The federal government has promised to spend $250 million on the interstate rail network over the next four years. This compares with $4 billion to be spent by the federal and New South Wales governments on the Pacific Highway between Brisbane and Sydney. I should point out that the expenditure by the federal government does not commence until 1 July 1998. The national transport planning task force identified the following needs for rail corridors: Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane, $2 billion; Melbourne-Adelaide, $500 million; Adelaide-Perth, $300 million; and Brisbane-Cairns, which has been attended to somewhat, $400 million.All over the world, railways are reviving, thanks to technology, deregulation and road congestion. Last year we dealt with the government's bill to change the way in which rail was dealt with in this country—who owned it, who managed it and so on—but that does not mean that government is able to withdraw from a serious consideration of the need for rail. We do know that technology is advancing in rail. New magnetically levitating trains can travel at up to 560 kilometres an hour, which makes them genuine competitors with air transport. Germany, for instance, is investing over $A7 billion on the Hamburg-Berlin route, with trains to travel at 400 kilometres an hour. Japan is likely to commit up to $A60 billion on a maglev track, as it is called—magnetically levitating track—between Tokyo and Osaka. Taiwan is pursuing the issue of high speed trains. Those examples demonstrate that around the world governments are recognising that rail can be appropriate technology and can out-compete road. It is the view of the Australian Democrats that those arguments are even more relevant for such a huge country—with such huge distances—as Australia. We think that rail investment in this country will produce a very favourable economic and social return.In summary, the point we make is that rail is appropriate for extracted resources transport, intercapital freight and urban public transport. It can carry huge loads very efficiently, and investment in this area has immediate and very considerable productivity improvements. Amendments Nos 1 to 14 have the effect of moving the emphasis from road to rail, and I hope that the committee will support them.12:42:001471Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Labor opposition will not—I might say through gritted teeth and regretfully—be supporting these amendments. I am not without a great deal of sympathy for what is being attempted here by the Australian Democrats. Let me explain that. The problem we have is that this is an omnibus taxation bill, Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997 . We have got two more such omnibus bills to go, at the very least. This bill is an example of the government amending very many parts of the tax act at once.Our experience of this is that when we supported a similar amendment, moved by the Australian Democrats to the Development Allowance Authority Amendment Bill 1996, and dropped road from the provisions of that bill the government junked the entire bill at that time and delayed the impact of very many other desirable changes. We do not want to be in a situation where that occurs again, so we balance the support for the case put by the Australian Democrats against the importance in this bill of many other clauses which we think ought to proceed with due haste.As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, changes are in some places over 18 months overdue. It took the government 18 months to enact changes in this bill which Labor was prepared to support which reflect major areas of tax avoidance and which in some cases have occasioned financial difficulties—if not financial loss—to particular companies in the computer field, particularly small business companies. So it is not that we are out of sympathy; it is that there are competing principles. On balance, the weight of the other competing principles against these amendments causes us not to favour the amendments for fear of losing the bill.Let me say a few words, in almost a contradictory way, about why I think there is a greater need to pay attention to some of the arguments put by the Australian Democrats. I was in Adelaide on the weekend. The traffic density on the main arterial roads in Adelaide is quite high compared to my home city of Perth and to other capital cities that I have been to in Australia. I think one of the reasons for that is that Adelaide is one of the few cities in Australia that does not have a developed rail network in its suburban areas—and it strives to be the Detroit of the Southern Hemisphere through the development of a car industry. As a consequence of having a fine set of heritage buildings, the chance to put a Los Angeles freeway system through Adelaide is reduced. As a consequence, traffic density is very high and the roads are clogged. This is a case where, sooner or later, there will have to be an underground rail system of some sort introduced into parts of Adelaide to relieve that congestion. This bill will of course help that.The second comment I make is that in previous Labor legislation approval was provided for the City Link freeway development in Melbourne to go ahead. I was distressed to see at the weekend in, I think, the Melbourne Age or the Sun-Herald—it was one of the two major papers in Melbourne—that it will cost an ordinary Victorian commuter something like $37 a week or more simply to travel on the City Link development. For ordinary working people in Melbourne that is an extra cost, that they do not now have to bear, for a major project designed to create a monopoly in the car transport system because the state government in Victoria has blocked off the minor roads, forcing users onto the major arterial network—City Link—and requiring them to pay tolls on the freeway. Thirty-seven dollars a week is a fair cost imposition, particularly for medium to low income earners.It is a cost which we know will not be the total end of it. We know it will not be the end of it because this government is committed to a GST, a goods and services tax. On top of the $37 to get on the freeway, you will have to pay whatever is the percentage of this government's goods and services tax. If it is 10 per cent, you will have to pay another $3.70 to the federal government in order to use this service, taking your bill to over $40. If the goods and services tax is 15 per cent, the cost will be even higher. It is another example of slugging medium to low income earners through a goods and services tax even harder than higher income earners, who of course can afford these facilities.With those remarks, let me come back to the point. While we do see considerable merit in what the Democrats are proposing, balanced against the overall objectives of this bill we think those objectives favour the urgent passage of this legislation without the game playing that we are now used to from the government of referring it back to the House, confronting the Senate with a trigger, and all the rest of the paraphernalia. We will support this bill.12:48:001472Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will make a couple of brief points before I deal with the specific issues which have been raised by Senator Murray. It was unfortunate that Senator Cook repeated that this bill had been delayed. If the bill has been delayed, it is a result of the delays imposed on it by Senator Cook and his colleagues.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is not true.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Ian Campbell went through in great detail, Senator Cook, the history of this. Senator Campbell said:The history of this bill is that it was introduced last year.He went on to say: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.So the bill was available a considerable time ago. Senator Campbell expressed in a very eloquent way how Senator Cook and his colleagues deal with bills that come before this chamber. If they wish to take up all the time, and they inevitably do on particular bills, then obviously the chamber does not have time to deal with the type of legislation we now have before us.We have another example coming up today of a Senator Cook motion to delay another tax bill, despite the fact that some of the key elements of that bill have already been to a Senate committee. Of all people, Senator Cook, you are the very last person who should be standing up and talking about bills being delayed when you have a motion on the Notice Paper today to delay another bill.Senator Cook then went into a frolic over a variety of issues dealing with the tax system. Senator Cook, as I have said in this place before, is one of the few Australians who believes that we have a first-rate tax system. His colleague Mark Latham, at the weekend I think, blew the whistle on that particular position that Senator Cook adopts. He does not even have the support of at least some of his colleagues when he goes about making great claims about the current tax system.Then Senator Cook decided to get into a discussion of a broad based indirect tax system. But of course he did not mention another key element which inevitably comes up on this issue: what happens to the personal income tax rates? The Prime Minister has made it very clear that the current taxes on income in this country are too high and the government will be looking at moves in this area, Senator Cook. So it is a pity that you relentlessly seek to play politics all the time. But, if you do, I suggest you do not quote selectively and, particularly, do not raise issues where your role and the roles of your colleagues are so inglorious in the delaying of legislation before this chamber.Turning now to Senator Murray, he is proposing amendments to the bill which would withdraw the infrastructure rebate from investments in roads. Under the rebate scheme, only road and rail infrastructure may be approved. Because of budgetary constraints, priority was accorded by the government to upgrading road and rail infrastructure. There is some evidence, in our view, of underinvestment and misallocation of investment in road, particularly urban, and rail transport but of overinvestment in some other infrastructure areas, such as electricity supply. There are substantial community benefits associated with land transport infrastructure, an area in which the government has traditionally been more involved.Senator Murray quoted the EPAC task force on the so-called BOOT—build, own, operate and transfer—structures. EPAC said their view does not imply that BOOT type road projects are undesirable in all circumstances. The so-called BOOT approach may be warranted if, for example, there are short-term budgetary constraints preventing good projects proceeding in a timely fashion under public ownership. It may well be that some of the more recent road projects, such as the eastern distributor in Sydney, which Senator Cook did not refer to, or City Link in Melbourne, may not have proceeded in a timely fashion if they were publicly funded.Arguments have been put forward that private sector involvement in the provision of roads does increase, it should be noted, efficiency; that it can lead to technological innovations, such as the use of transponders in the City Link project; that it results in better road investment decisions, and that it lowers costs. Ruling out roads from receiving any investment incentive simply adds further constraint in developing efficient roadworks. Senators need to be reminded that, in making a decision about which road project is selected to receive the tax offset, the Minister for Transport and Regional Development is to take account of specific selection criteria. One of the criteria is the economic or social benefits or costs associated with the project.For all these reasons, the government does not support ruling out private sector road projects from consideration under this scheme. All projects should be considered on a case by case basis taking into account the net benefits to the community from such projects receiving the tax offset. Allowing road projects to be evaluated does not rule out applications for rail projects. Each project would be considered on its merits against the relevant selection criteria contained in the bill. It would seem to be in the best interests of the public, or the best net benefit to the community, if such projects received the tax offset, so we will not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Murray.12:55:001473Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I regret that the minister has taken the approach that he has. I indicated in my remarks that I was supporting the government on these amendments, although I have considerable sympathy with the Australian Democrats' position upon them. I did set the record straight about the delay that has been occasioned by the government.The minister, in his remarks just now, purported to argue there has been no delay on the government's behalf. I wonder, therefore, Minister, if you might confirm this for me: is it true that this legislation was announced in August 1996 as part of the 1996-97 budget? Secondly, given that it was announced then—as I am sure you will confirm; it is a matter of fact—when did the government introduce this legislation for consideration in the House of Representatives? Can you give me the date on which after the announcement you introduced the legislation in the other place?12:56:001473Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I ask senators to just bear with me while I am getting some material. While we are waiting for this interesting material, as I said, I note that Senator Cook does have on the Notice Paper a motion to further delay the consideration of a tax bill. It seems to me that, if that is the approach Senator Cook is taking—and he is quite entitled to take that approach—it ill-behoves him to stand up and complain about delays in the Senate considering tax bills. Nonetheless, I am seeking some advice on the detail of the questions he has asked.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that the amendments be agreed to.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Mr Temporary Chairman, the minister has just signalled to the chamber that he is waiting for advice on the very basic question of when the government moved a matter. I thought he would have had that information at his fingertips, but it obviously requires considerable consultation with his advisers. I wonder if, before you put the question, you might get from the minister the answer to my question.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—There was an announcement in August 1996 about the computers but I understand not about the other measures—I am receiving some nods from my advisers. I think details of the measures in this were foreshadowed on 14 February 1997. They were announced in the 1997 budget, introduced into the House on 23 October 1997 and then, as I mentioned, they went to a Senate committee, which did not seem to be able to come to grips with it and delays were involved there.12:59:001474Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I just want to put the record straight. The government announced the computer fraud elements of this bill in its August budget of 1996-97. Fourteen months later, on 28 October, according to the report, it introduced that legislation in the House of Representatives.When the government attacks me over delay, I think it ought to be mindful of the fact that the time between announcement and introduction of the computer fraud element of this bill is something that, Minister, if you had read our minority report in the Senate inquiry, you would see is the main concern of the Labor Party here. The government was 14 months late.This bill was given immediate passage by the opposition in the House of Representatives. It came forthwith to the Senate. There was a Senate Economics Committee inquiry into this legislation. It involved many elements—there is avid interest in these matters. We have heard of an amendment today from the Australian Democrats, and there are other amendments on the list before us.That report was concluded in quick time and delivered in November. We indicated to you in this chamber that we were prepared to give the bill passage in November last year. It is now March—nearly April. I just want to put those facts on the record, Minister, because you did challenge me about delay, and they are the facts of the circumstances. I think it is well therefore to have them on the record so that people can judge for themselves who is the agent of the delay. In short, it took you 14 months. Then you want to rush it through here without proper opportunity for this chamber to examine the legislation and you accuse us of delay. I think that is frankly an argument you will be struggling to justify outside of this building.The second matter that you raised concerned a notice on the Notice Paper for another bill—Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7), which is to come before us. Minister, perhaps you can confirm this: is it true that Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7), the bill which you say we are frustrating the passage of, has not yet been introduced into the House of Representatives—sorry, it has been introduced but not yet committed for debate in the House of Representatives? Let me be precise.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Yes, you have corrected him there!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Is it true that on Friday some 49 amendments were proposed to this bill but you want this chamber to deal with this bill immediately? Is that a true statement of fact, Minister? Can you confirm that or not?13:02:001474Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am very glad that you were able to qualify the unqualified statement that you made in relation to the delay of this bill. You are now referring to a particular part of the bill, the computer section, and not to the overall thrust of the bill as it is now before the chamber that deals with the infrastructure issue and other issues. You have confined your broad sweeping comment now to the specific computer issue, which was not—I will check the Hansard —the impression you originally gave.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It has been the major issue.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—There are a number of major issues in the bill, but certainly the major issue and the one which is taking up the time of the chamber is the infrastructure issue. That was announced and then there was extensive consultation with the industry to ensure that the final bill as drafted reflected those consultations. You did not quarrel with the fact that measures were announced in the budget last year—1997—and of course were introduced in October 1997. Your earlier statement, even on the most generous interpretation, was an extreme exaggeration.On the second issue, relating to the TLAB (No. 7), we can canvass all that this afternoon. I am glad your advisers corrected you and indicated that the bill has been introduced into the other place. As far as I am aware, it is due for debate this week, so it can be right for the Senate to consider the following week. As you are aware, with taxation bills there often are amendments because the bill has been out for a long time and views have been put forward to the government and to others about various aspects of the bill. The government is always responsive to community consultation. But of course you will be tested this afternoon. We will test your fine words that you have made when complaining about delays. You have raised the issue of delays. We will now test you when this motion comes up this afternoon.I return to Senator Murray's matter. We have considered this issue carefully. We have listened, as we always do, Senator Murray, to your arguments. We find that we cannot support them. The government will be opposing the amendments that Senator Murray has put forward.13:05:001475Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I am pleased that at last the minister has acknowledged that it was 14 months from the announcement in 1996-97 of the computer fraud matter before it was put into legislation and that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) that you are complaining about has not yet been debated in the House and you have 49 amendments to it which were announced on Friday. You want to debate it this week or the next while this chamber has not had a chance to look at it. These are matters of procedure. I complain about them because in this particular case, the fraud matters did affect the operation of business and, in many cases, small business. I thought that was something the government was concerned about.While I am on my feet, I should correct the minister. He has made a statement about what my views purport to be both in question time and now. I did not have the opportunity in question time to correct him, but since he has made the statement about what my views are on tax matters in his contribution to this debate, it is an opportunity for me to correct him.Minister, I do appreciate the way in which you heroically uphold the government, right or wrong, on tax matters. Obviously you are a soldier who does not concern himself with the issues but just with getting on with the job and arguing the case, whether it is a good, bad or indifferent one, and putting it in politically loaded terms. I do appreciate that that is how you see your role.I do not appreciate, however, Minister—through you, Mr Temporary Chairman—that you put words into my mouth that I have not uttered and then, on the basis of putting those words there, you construct a case which attacks the opposition. I do suggest that that is manipulative; that it is a political misuse of your position. It ought to be corrected. I have not said—and I repeat this—that we have a first-rate tax system in Australia.I have often said that the tax system in Australia needs refurbishing from time to time; that it occasionally needs renovation; that as soon as tax law is made a major industry in Australia, committed to finding ways and loopholes through the tax legislation for tax avoidance, goes to work on what the legislation is, so that from time to time the parliament needs to squash tax avoidance by moving rapidly to cut off loopholes or technicalities it finds through the legislation. So, as far as taxation and the tax system is concerned, one ought to always be concerned to be across where tax leakage is occurring and move rapidly to close that off.What I have said, for the record, is to reject the Treasurer's assertion that Australia has a second-class tax system. At taxpayers' expense, the Treasurer has published a pamphlet alleging that. You will recall, Minister, that in the Senate estimates hearings I asked a question of the leading tax expert of the Department of the Treasury—the chairman of your secret tax task force examining how to introduce a GST in this country—to name a country in the world that, if Australia had a second-class tax system, would be a first-class tax system. You would recall as well that he declined to name any country at all and said that several countries had features of a first-class system but that no country had a system that he would regard overall as a first-class system.It is true that the government is trying to create an artificial impression in the community that the Australian tax system is in crisis. It needs to do that in order to justify a GST. The Australian tax system needs improvement. `Crisis' is too dramatic a word. I think it is lamentable that the taxpayers have to foot the bill for this propaganda war that this government is conducting.That is why I have drawn you up, Minister, on the question of the Treasurer's allegations about our tax system being second class. But it is not the case at all that I have said that it is a first-class system. Labor has many views about how the system could be improved to put it in the first-class category. Labor, after all, was the party of major tax reform in this country. We held a national tax summit in 1987. What flowed from that was major taxation reform in terms of fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and a number of other significant changes to the tax system. It remains a watershed for tax reform in this country—the most recent, far-reaching review of the system.What we did not do was introduce a goods and services tax. Your criticism of us is that we should have, while we maintain that we should not have. Let the voters decide that matter when you have the courage of your convictions to outline to them what you propose a goods and services tax to be in Australia—something that you have thus far failed to do.This is all a little aside from the point of the bill that is before the chamber. The reason I rise is that the minister is in the habit in this place of making glib, off-the-cuff arguments which, when one takes them carefully through the facts, do not stand up. This is another occasion of that. We can get on with this legislation if the minister wishes. But if he wants to indulge in this sort of crass soldiering on irrespective of the truth of the matter, then we will have an argument about the truth of the matter and I will take the time of the chamber to carefully set the record straight.13:11:001476Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It would not surprise me at all if you seek to further delay the bill. I note your views that you are unhappy with my use of the expression that `you think we have a first-class system'. Then you vigorously attacked the Treasurer's view that we have a second-class tax system, and then you said that the Labor Party has a variety of views—I'll say!—to be put forward on how to make it a first-class system. If anyone wants to distinguish all of the inconsistencies in that I invite them to read the Hansard . The argument still rests. We will not be supporting Senator Murray's amendments.Amendments not agreed to.13:12:001476Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(15) Schedule 3, item 1, page 58 (after line 4), at the end of section 396-70, add: (8) In making a decision under paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b), the Minister for Transport and Regional Development must give preference to suitable rail projects before approving suitable road projects.Before I move to the arguments that surround that amendment, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that I did advise his office that I would have some questions to ask on small computer equipment vendors and tax-free sales accreditations. I think you have been given those questions. I would appreciate it if the Temporary Chairman was aware that later I will be asking those without relation to any amendment.I will now move to amendment 15. When we talk about road versus rail, we as the Australian Democrats—and I am quite sure Labor in the sense of Senator Cook's responses—are not by any means talking about not spending any money on road. We are talking about using a limited tax incentive to maximum effect. It is our view that investment in rail delivers a far higher return—in the social, environmental and economic sense—than does investment in road.If you look at the explanatory memorandum on page 66, it remarks that the cost to rev enue of the rebate will be limited to $37½ million for the 1997-98 year and $75 million per annum thereafter. So, typically, in a three-year cycle of government, you are looking at the order of $220 million to $230 million worth of tax incentive, which is not inconsiderable. But the minister would be aware that that is far lower than the needs of either road or rail in this country. When you consider that the government always does have a limited ability to provide sufficient funds or a limited ability to provide sufficient tax incentives, we think the money should be spent where the return is greatest.If we could regard items 1 to 14 moved earlier as prescriptive, the amendment 15 moved now is really an instruction or a recommendation to the minister to in all cases give preference to suitable rail projects before approving suitable road projects. In other words, we are saying the need is so great in rail that if the minister were to act under proposed section 396-70, on pages 57 and 58 of the bill—which is the method in which he should consider applications—and if equivalent rail projects and road projects were before him, we would prefer the bias to be towards rail. We think, as we have outlined in the second reading debate, and as I have mentioned earlier, there are very sound economic, social and environmental reasons for doing so and the returns in terms of productivity, efficiency and infrastructure or development would be much higher than if the equivalent expenditure were on road.Whereas I could understand and react to Labor's rejection of our earlier amendments as being too prescriptive, I would hope that the advisory, recommendatory kind of instruction to the minister would in fact generate the support of the Senate. I do not think government is of the view that rail does not need investment. I do not think government is of the view that rail is not important. I do not think government is of the view that it should not encourage as much infrastructure development and rail as possible. Indeed we know that the Prime Minister specifically allocated $100 million to the proposed Adelaide-Darwin line. We do know that the government has made budgetary commitments in that area although, as I say, the expenditure has not yet gone in the ground. What I would like though, minister, is for the government to recognise that, if it is to indicate a bias or a kind of preference or priority, it should in all cases of equivalent projects put rail before road. That is the nub of my argument to this amendment number 15 and I look forward, hopefully, to the support of the Senate.13:18:001477Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Murray said initially that he had provided my office with a number of questions which he wishes to raise in relation to computer fraud. I have confirmed that we have those questions and we will be providing responses to you, Senator Murray. We think it is better, to be quite frank, to deal with projects on a case by case basis, according to the economic and social benefits and other criteria.Preferring rail is likely to eliminate road altogether. I do not know whether that is what you intended, but that would be the effect, I think, given that the revenue cost of this scheme is to be strictly limited. I think in the second reading debate we have canvassed this particular aspect of the scheme. We believe, just to repeat myself, that all projects should be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account the net benefits to the community of the projects receiving the tax offset.It should be stressed, of course, that allowing road projects to be evaluated does not rule out applications for rail projects or vice versa. Each project should be considered on its merits and it would seem to us that the best bottom line is that the project with the greatest net benefit to the community should be receiving the tax offset. So we will not be supporting the amendment that you have moved, Senator Murray.Amendment not agreed to.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Senator Murray, if you want to obtain the answers it would be appropriate to deal with your questions now.13:20:001477Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will lead in with some brief remarks. The Australian Democrats have supported 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. The Australian Democrats, however, have received a number of representations from small computer operators regarding the implementation of this measure—and we would expect the concerns to be well known to the government. These relate to uncertainties relating to the costing difficulties of gaining accreditation from the Australian Taxation Office as a bona fide vendor of sales tax exempt computer equipment.Proposed section 91K of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997 allows the Taxation Commissioner discretion to refuse accreditation to a vendor on the following basis:the Commissioner has reasonable grounds for believing that sales tax will not be, or is unlikely to be, paid . . . by the person.Accordingly, I have asked the Assistant Treasurer to demonstrate: first, that these measures have been implemented or will be implemented in a way that will not curtail growth of important, legitimate Australian industry, namely that of small computer equipment vendors; secondly, that the new scheme will minimise compliance costs to a level that is a reasonable impost on small business operators; and, thirdly, that the scheme will adequately protect the interests of small operators in relation to assessment of their applications by the Taxation Commissioner.13:22:001478Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, in relation to the earlier matter you raised with me on rail, it is worth recording in the Hansard that the government has approved $100 million for the Darwin to Alice Springs line, plus $65 million for Brisbane's light rail. I think they are under the Federation Fund. Also, I am advised that some $250 million has been approved for rail track upgrades. Those figures alone show that the government is giving some emphasis to rail issues, which you are concerned about. I am going to your questions now.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Minister, you will be aware that I quoted those figures for you, so I will not give you the appropriate credit.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Thank you, Senator Murray. When you give us credit for things, we always greatly appreciate it. Senator Murray raised a number of questions. The first is whether these measures will be implemented in a way that will not curtail growth of small computer equipment vendors provided they are complying with their tax obligations and taking some elementary precautions. Small business argue that they could not absorb the competitive disadvantage resulting from tax evasion and that tax evasion threatened their continued capacity to trade as a business. Therefore, any measures which reduce the extent of tax evasion improve the conditions for small business.I have received a number of visits from people in the computer area who rigorously comply with their tax obligations and who were outraged at some of the cheating and fraud that other people less scrupulous were conducting in this area. They raised that very important point: it is exceedingly hard for them to compete when others are not complying with taxation laws. These measures have been designed to minimise the impact on complying taxpayers and their customers. The new accreditation system does not generally apply to many small retail businesses. Provided they are careful about the suppliers they deal with and do not knowingly take advantage of evasion, the impact there will be small.As for wholesalers and importers, small businesses will have to be accredited if they want to buy or import goods tax free. They can take advantage of e-forms and the Internet to streamline the application process. I am advised that Customs will adapt their computer system to incorporate the authorisation requirement.The second issue was whether the new scheme will minimise compliance costs to a level that is a reasonable impost on small business operators. The general comment stands as I made it in answer to the first question—that is, people who are complying with the law are going to find it exceedingly difficult to compete with those who are not complying. However, as to the second point, the government acknowledges that compliance costs will be increased to a certain extent by the new legislation. But this is unavoidable. I think members of the industry have said that the increase in compliance costs is outweighed by the fact that evasion will be curtailed. The third question is whether the scheme will adequately protect the interests of small operators in relation to the assessment of their application for accreditation. A person will be accredited if that person meets the conditions for accreditation set out under the law. The commissioner will be able to exempt certain people from some of the conditions—for example, exempt new businesses from the conditions that certain records have to be maintained for a period of three years. There is a high degree of logic in that position.If the applicant meets the required conditions, the commissioner is obliged to accredit the applicant unless he exercises his discretion under proposed section 91K. The commissioner may refuse accreditation under proposed section 91K only if the commissioner has reasonable grounds for believing that tax is unlikely to be paid on the goods that the person is dealing with or the application for accreditation is false or misleading and the commissioner believes that to refuse accreditation would advance the anti-evasion purpose of these measures. Those deal with the issues that were raised by Senator Murray.13:27:001479Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I thank the minister for his response. To follow up: have you or your advisers any feeling that there will be a significant cost to small business arising from this move?13:18:001479Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In my remarks I said that the government acknowledges that the compliance costs will be increased to a certain extent by the new legislation.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Are they significant?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I do not know whether we have any figures we are able to share with you, but I will check. There will be a one-off start-up cost with regard to accreditation, but recurrent costs are not expected to be high. Administration will rely heavily on modern technology—as you would expect in the computer industry—such as e-forms and the Internet. There will be an extensive public education campaign, a number of ATO publications and a hotline for inquiries to help taxpayers prepare for the introduction of the new scheme.The accreditation process will not be any more difficult for eligible small businesses than it is for other businesses. In some cases, it will be a lot easier for there is less information to collate. The new reporting requirement should involve only information which taxpayers already collect for their own purposes. This government is very sensitive to those issues of compliance costs. In all areas, we try to have compliance costs minimised.13:29:001479Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 68 (lines 6 to 8), omit the item, substitute:1A Section 51-10 (table item 2.2, column headed ". . . the following amounts are exempt from income tax:")Repeal the cell, substitute: payments, other than payments on completion, under the CRAFT Scheme (the Commonwealth, Rebate for Apprentice Full-Time Training Scheme) or other Commonwealth incentive schemes for employees taking on apprenticesI have outlined the rationale for moving this and the amendment that follows in the second reading debate and will briefly acknowledge the minister's comments. Of course, we will give credit where credit is due, as always, but we are also going to give the government the blame when it does something wrong. The Australian Democrats are quite disappointed with one aspect of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997 , which is before us, which proposes to eliminate the tax exempt status of payments under the CRAFT scheme—the Commonwealth rebate for apprentices in full-time training. So the amendments that I move seek to stop that happening. As members of the chamber would be aware, employers currently receive $2,500 tax free for taking on new full-time apprentices under the particular CRAFT scheme. However, the budget announcements last year meant that this incentive would be made taxable, with a further payment of $1,500 being made available upon completion of the apprenticeship, which would be some three to four years later.I have outlined in more detail the effects upon small, medium and larger businesses in my speech in the second reading debate. But, just briefly: for an unincorporated small business, the effect of these measures is to reduce the commencement and the progression incentives by about $1,200 after tax; even after receiving the final payment, a small business would be roughly $427 worse off. Incorporated businesses lose $900 after tax on commencement and progression incentives, with the difference only being made up with the final payment when the apprenticeship is completed.Before the minister suggests that the government is, on the one hand, taking away this tax exempt status and that it is actually giving other incentives in the form of, I think, $52 million worth, I should point out for the record that there is a substantial gap between what is being saved and, according to the budget estimates, this measure—or the abolition of the CRAFT rebate, as such—will save around $135 million. But the extra incentives, the replacements that are being proposed by the government, only amount to around $52 million.So, clearly, there is quite a sizeable or substantial gap of around $83 million there over the next three years. We are not quite sure what the approximate value is in that particular move by the government. So we hope that we will receive the support of others in the chamber to stop the government from making this change.13:32:001480Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I look with considerable interest at this Democrat amendment. The opposition had the view that what was said in tax paper No. 2 was what the government meant and, therefore, are inclined not to support the amendment. But Senator Stott Despoja has raised an issue that has attracted our attention as well in the remarks she has just made.Through you, Mr Chairman: Mr Assistant Treasurer, I have in front of me Budget Measures 1997-98, budget paper No. 2. This is one of the papers circulated by the Treasurer for the budget. On page 169, under the heading `Conversion of the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training'—that is CRAFT—`tax expenditure to outlays', there is a table setting out the financial implications in millions of dollars. On that table, it says: for 1998-99, the saving is $35 million; for 1999-2000, $45 million; and the year 2000-2001, $55 million. That is my understanding of what the government said was the saving.But when I turn to page 41 of budget paper No. 2, there is the heading `Employment, education, training and youth affairs, changes to entry level training employer incentives'—I appreciate that this is not like with like—and it seems that the offsetting payments are rolled in with other payments here. So one cannot get a clear idea from looking at the published statistics what we are talking about, and that creates a problem with interpretation.But the outlays are nowhere near the savings that you achieve. Let me go to the relevant figures. On the table on page 41, `Financial implications millions of dollars': 1998-99, $6.4 million, and I remind you that the saving was $35 million; 1999-2000, $16.2 million, the saving being $45 million; and the year 2000-2001, $29.5 million, the saving being $55 million.Mr Minister, I wonder whether you could explain to us what the reason is for this discrepancy; and how is it that there is a neutral result here? My understanding of what the government has said is that they intended a neutral result. What causes me to be anxious about these figures is not only that they do not match with the savings but as well we are talking about other things, it would seem to me, because of the way in which you have described the outlays, and then the CRAFT tax expenditure.13:34:001481Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There are a number of issues which have been put on the table by Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Cook, and let me go through those matters. I think Senator Stott Despoja raised the question: will employers be worse off? I think you were saying that employers would be worse off with the result of the removal of the exemption.Let me make it clear that this government measure is designed to make taxable employers no worse off. Let me explain: prior to the 1997-98 budget, employers of apprentices received $2,500 in incentives, comprised of a $1,250 commencement payment and a $1,250 progression payment. Under the CRAFT system, these incentives were not taxable; the employer retained the full $2,500.Changes in last year's budget increased the level of incentives to employers of apprentices to $4,000, comprising $1,250 on commencement, $1,250 for progression, and $1,500 on completion. With the removal of the CRAFT exemption from 1 January 1998, and subjecting the amount to tax at the company rate of 36 per cent, employers will continue to receive, after tax, an amount in the order of $2,500. To put it another way: the additional $1,500 completion payment will almost be entirely recouped through tax payable, which I am advised is $540, on this extra amount, and tax payable, $900, on the previously exempt $2,500 incentive payments.On the advice that I have, Senator Stott Despoja, on this basis, employers will be marginally better off to the tune of $60 after the removal of the CRAFT exemption. That is the advice I have received. Senator Cook said he was not sure whether he was comparing apples with apples but there are some tables there which he wanted me to look at and to deal with. I think that the answer I have covers that.Senator Stott Despoja raised an $83 million difference and I understand this is arrived at by comparing the total of the financial implications for the conversion of CRAFT tax expenditure to outlays of $135 million, which is on page 169 of budget paper No. 2, and the total of the financial implications of changes to entry level training employer incentives of $51.2 million, which is on page 41 of budget paper No. 2. However, the change to the entry level training employer incentives is a package of which the conversion of CRAFT to an outlay is only a component. Other components of the changes to entry level training employer incentives include—and I list these: converting the CRAFT incentive into an outlay, retaining the existing payment regime, abolition of the $250 additionality payment, abolition of the AQF 2 progression payment, reinstatement of large employer eligibility for the ELT incentive payments, a $1,500 AQF 3 completion payment and an increase in the AQF 3 recommencement payment.As the financial impact of these change to the entry level training employer incentives incorporates these other measures, it is not appropriate to compare the financial impact of the conversion of the CRAFT exemption to an outlay. In the government's view, the CRAFT exemption is designed to make employers no worse off. I have been through those figures before so I will not repeat them.13:38:001481Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for his figures and for his response but there are just a couple of points I would like to clarify. I take on board your suggestion that the approximate value is made up within, presumably, three to four years for, say, a larger business. I am wondering if the government believes that this is providing an incentive to businesses, knowing that they may be potentially worse off or, if they do get that approximate value, that they have to wait three or possibly four years before they get it. Do you honestly think that is an incentive to businesses to take on apprentices?In relation to the approximate value, specifically in relation to larger businesses, I am prepared to take your argument but I still think there is a significant time delay that would act as a sufficient disincentive to companies to take on apprentices. In relation to small businesses, I would like to clarify the government's stance as to whether or not you honestly believe, and if your figures actually show, that these smaller businesses—and I am not quite sure of your actual words—would be marginally better off.I am also wondering if your advisers have looked at the statistics I made available in the second reading debate. The estimates that I have are for smaller businesses, the vast number of which are unincorporated. For these businesses the after tax value of early payments would be 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 would be a further $773, but they would still be worse off to the tune of around $427 over the life of the apprenticeship.I take on board your comments about the various tax incentives being different pieces or components fitting together but I think that would go some way towards explaining the figures and the savings that the government expects to make—an $83 million saving—as a consequence as a number of smaller businesses being worse off. Do you stand by your comments, Minister, that smaller businesses would be marginally better off under this scheme?13:42:001482Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The measure is not to provide an incentive because essentially it is to leave people in the same position. The measure is designed to get better transparency into what is being done here. The government, in a number of areas, has seen it appropriate to transfer elements to an outlays side and this is what we have done.The advice I have is that people will be marginally better off—that is, $60 better off—after removal of the CRAFT exemption. I am not sure whether I can provide any further information to you but I see that one of my advisers is writing frantically and we will see what transpires.13:43:001482Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—While that is happening and while we have a hiatus, I follow the argument that is being put by Senator Stott Despoja. If I can put it in a slightly different way, it seems to me that if one compares the money values then you can argue the case the government is putting, but if you take into account the time value of money then you can argue the case the Democrats are putting. If you are a business the time value of money is quite a significant factor, so the bottom line outcome of when you actually get paid is quite important if you have to wait until the end of the program to get reimbursed. As a small business you will have carried all your overheads all the way through and the high cost of overheads is what kills small business. If you were reimbursed through the tax system all the way through then you would be able to accommodate the costs of managing an apprentice. My question, which you might care to embrace in your answer, Minister, is: when you assure us that people will be better off or neutral, does that take into account the time value of the money that is the reimbursement as opposed to a tax deduction?13:44:001482Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The advice I have received is that the measure is to be broadly the same over the medium term. It does provide a higher value on the completion aspect, which is a plus for this particular scheme. As I said, the measure is to be broadly the same over the medium term based on certain assumptions. For example, with company tax rates it is not possible to consider the balance between employers on different tax rates and regimes. My advice is that people on lower than company rate will be better off.13:45:001482Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I wish again to make the point that I do not think that the three- or four-year time delay that it would take larger businesses to achieve the approximate value to which the government has referred in its papers counts as an incentive. Incentive and transparency are not two mutually exclusive concepts. The Democrats are all for transparency but we also recognise that this scheme has been established as an incentive scheme for employers to take on apprentices, so that is why we seek to retain it in its original form.As I said in the second reading debate, this is not the time to be cutting trainee or apprenticeship numbers. We have had a dramatic decline in the number of apprenticeship starts and, for that reason, I would think that the government would seek to provide more incentives to smaller and larger businesses to take on apprentices and trainees. I do not think that cutting the amount available to them in benefits or even giving them the approximate value after three to four years time is sufficient incentive to ensure that our work force is trained.13:47:001483Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The opposition is disposed to vote with the government on this matter, although we are mindful of the arguments being put by the Democrats. Minister, you have assured the chamber that people will not be worse off; in fact, you have argued just now that in some cases people will be better off. If this measure is carried and individuals can come forward and demonstrate that they are in fact worse off, will the government be prepared to look at this again and correct it so that it is at least neutral?13:47:001483Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The government is always prepared to look at measures to further improve the application of legislation. As I said, the advice which I have received and relayed to the chamber is pretty clear but, if people wish to point out other problems, this is a government which consults and listens.RF4COOKSenator Cook—So that is a yes.Amendment not agreed to.13:48:001483Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(2) Page 129 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 12—Amendment of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act 19361 After subsection 159J(1AA)Insert: (1AA) For the purposes of this section, and notwithstanding subsection (1A), a person is a dependant if: (a) the person is not yet 21 years old and has applied for youth allowance under the Social Security Act 1991 but, because of the Parental Income Test under Part 3.5 of that Act, the person receives youth allowance at a reduced rate or at a nil rate ( additional family tax rebate category A dependant ); or (b) the person is not yet 25 years old, is undertaking full-time study and has applied for youth allowance under the Social Security Act 1991 but, because of the Parental Income Test under Part 3.5 of that Act, the person receives youth allowance at a reduced rate or at a nil rate ( additional family tax rebate category B dependant ); and (c) the family income for the family is less than the family income ceiling contained in Part 3.8 of the Social Security Act 1991 , provided that dependants for the purposes of this section are deemed to be FTP children for the purpose of calculating the family income ceiling under the Social Security Act 1991 .2 Subsection 159J(2) (at the end of the table of rebates)Add: Column 1 ClassColumn 2 DependantColumn 3 Amounts of Rebate7Additional family tax rebate category A dependantan amount equal to the difference between the family tax rebate that the taxpayer is entitled to receive under Part 3.8 of the Social Security Act 1991 and the amount the taxpayer would be entitled to receive if dependants for the purpose of subsection (1AA) were regarded as FTP children for the purpose of the Part A rate of family payment. 8Additional family tax rebate category B dependantan amount equal to the difference between the family tax rebate that the taxpayer is entitled to receive under Part 3.8 of the Social Security Act 1991 and the amount the taxpayer would be entitled to receive if dependants for the purpose of subsection (1AA) were regarded as FTP children for the purpose of the Part A rate of family payment.This amendment relates to the definition of independence and dependant people. I acknowledge Senator Cook's comment earlier in the debate that this is an omnibus bill and, for that reason, the Democrats see this as a rare opportunity to counteract some of the policies put forward by this government which we consider to be anti-employment, anti-unemployed people, anti-family and anti-young people.Senators would be aware of the mooted changes in law, as a consequence of the common youth allowance debate, that define independence in relation to unemployment benefits for a young person at the age of 21 and for a young person engaged in full-time educational training. A student is deemed independent—that is, no longer dependent upon their parents—at the age of 25. The Democrats have put on record a number of times that we believe these concocted ages of independence are a sham and that there are not only very good economic and social reasons behind having fairer and younger ages of independence for the purposes of certain benefits; there is also a legislative imperative, and that is that there are a number of laws that define independence in many different ways. As I have said on record, the child support scheme and the family tax initiative are different from the proposed common youth allowance definitions as to the age at which someone becomes independent.During the debate on the common youth allowance, there was a lot of discussion about the adverse impact the government's common youth allowance changes would have on young unemployed people and their families, and Senator Harradine was particularly concerned. I think around 46,000—certainly tens of thousands—of Australian families would suffer as a result of the changes to independence and a parental means test that kicks in extremely early, at around $23,400 per annum. In order to secure Senator Harradine's support, he and the government decided that this should be a topic for discussion in the context of taxation reform. The Democrats today, with this amendment, are merely kicking off the taxation reform opportunities for the government—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Ha, ha!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Minister, taxation reform is a very serious topic. We are looking at it from the perspective of providing fairer measures for those families who are going to be significantly adversely affected by the changes in the common youth allowance legislation. I mentioned around 46,000 families who would have their benefits cut or, in some cases, cut out, and I mentioned the rather strict parental means test. By no means are these the only problems that we had with that legislation. We seek to standardise the ages of independence and to ensure that those people and their families who will be affected by the increased ages of independence—21 for unemployed and 25 for students—will have the family tax rebate extended to them until they meet the criteria of the common youth allowance.We think it is a fair measure to ensure that Australian families—particularly young unemployed people and their families—are not hit hard by the recent measures. We look forward to Senator Harradine's support, because at this stage we do not know of any specific guarantees or discussions between the government and Senator Harradine as to how they are going to ensure that your idea of taxation reform will actually assist those families who will be struggling not only as a consequence of the changes through the common youth allowance legislation but as a result of a previous budget measure which, because of the change in the age of independence, denied around 8,000 students and their families access to Austudy.13:52:001485Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think it was conceded halfway through Senator Stott Despoja's remarks that she saw this as one way—to quote her phrase—of kicking off the tax reform debate. The obverse of that is that it does not have anything to do with this bill. We understand that Senator Stott Despoja is taking every opportunity to make her point. That is the very nature of politics and we do not complain about that. But I do bring to the chamber's attention that this does not have anything to do with the bill which is before the chamber and is a wider issue which Senator Stott Despoja alluded to. Equally, I make the point that no-one need have any doubt about this government's commitment to families and the strong commitment it has made in difficult budgetary circumstances to increase the funds available to families. So on that general issue, Senator Stott Despoja, you should have no doubt at all about the government's intentions.I think Senator Stott Despoja is seeking to change the definition of a dependent child for working out the family tax payment under the social security law. As far as this tax law goes, the government is embarking on a major tax reform program, which was alluded to by Senator Stott Despoja. Let me assure you, Senator Stott Despoja, that the way families are treated under tax law will form an important part of the government's considerations in putting together its tax reform proposals. We do not support the amendment that Senator Stott Despoja has moved.13:54:001485Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Obviously, like the Democrats, we would have preferred that the government were fair to young unemployed people. During the debate on the common youth allowance it was certainly suggested to Senator Harradine that the government would look into these issues in the future. The Greens (WA) do not think that you can entirely replace something like a common youth allowance with a tax deduction. We were dealing with families with such small incomes, who do not necessarily pay huge amounts of tax, having allowances for unemployed young people taken off them. However, we do support this amendment because it helps alleviate the situation for those particular families.The government said ad nauseam during that debate that there were some winners and that, somehow or other, that made the people who were worse off feel better. I did not actually think they would. Therefore, I indicate that the Greens (WA) will support Senator Stott Despoja's amendment to extend the family tax rebate to families denied common youth allowance and who, as a result of changes, have additional dependent adult children whether they or their children like it or not.This amendment, of course, is a direct response to the reasons Senator Harradine compromised and allowed the common youth allowance to go through largely in the form that the government was presenting it—that is, on the assurance that those families would receive tax assistance. We would like to be helpful. We would like to be given a model of how this might be done; if you were going to do it. It still does not actually help those people who hardly pay tax, because you start taking money off them from a very low rate. But it is somewhere along the lines of what is required, so we will support it.13:56:001485Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This is an inspired amendment. I think Senator Stott Despoja is dead right in what she has said; and it does fly in the face of all the heroic words that the government has uttered about family friendly tax packages and things of that nature. Senator Stott Despoja's amendment would, if you like, address a social welfare problem through the tax system. There is nothing wrong with doing that; in fact, that is one of the things that you might do with the tax system. She said that this is an opportunity for the government to grasp the nettle and kick off the tax reform debate in Australia.I have to say to Senator Stott Despoja, that that is the last thing the government wants to happen. It does not want a fair dinkum tax debate in this country. It wants to do as it is doing and keep its proposals for a GST under wraps, chaired by a secret committee hidden in the bowels of Treasury which keeps no minutes, commissions no papers and issues no reports. It wants to do that with a militant desire to ambush the Australian electorate with a GST package that, on the eve of an election, they will say that they have no choice but to swallow. That is what it wants to do, so I doubt that there will be any government enthusiasm to kick off an open, transparent, all-the-facts-on-the-table debate about tax reform in this nation. There is no desire on the government's part for that at all; quite the reverse is the truth.Those of us who have sat on the Senate estimates committee, on the Economics Legislation Committee, through the hours and hours of examination of the government about what they are doing on tax, whether they will release any papers and whether they will enable people to see what the figures are, and been met with a blank wall, only have bitter memories that the government has no desire whatsoever to get anything like impartial consideration of the issues for electors into the public domain.That leaves me to say what the opposition's position is. I do take this amendment as a constructive proposal to right a wrong. In this omnibus bill, I have to balance that against our desire to get the bill through forthwith because it does address a major question of tax avoidance. I have knocked back other amendments earlier on the grounds that there is merit in those amendments but the overwhelming principle is to address the avoidance question. I will take that same view now, but say that we will support this matter being referred to a Senate committee so that we can open up that debate to which you refer. Let's get into it. Let's have a proper debate into tax reform in Australia through a Senate structured inquiry.13:59:001486Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank Senator Cook for at least being inspired by the amendment, if not supporting it. I say again to the government that this is an interim measure. It extends the basic family tax rebate to all families deemed to have additional dependent children as a result of the youth allowance. It is a fair measure and it gives the government an opportunity to prove that they really do care about families, as the minister stated. I look forward to the government perhaps showing its support for families by supporting the amendment.Progress reported.Ministerial Arrangements14861486Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator Chris Ellison, Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, will be absent from the Senate for question time today, and also this Wednesday. Senator Ellison is in Melbourne attending an opening of the UNESCO International Conference on education for the 21st century in the Asia-Pacific region. On Wednesday he will deliver the closing address at the conference. In his absence Senator Herron will take questions relating to the portfolio of employment, education, training and youth affairs and Senator Kemp will take questions relating to the public service.Questions Without Notice148614861486Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin. I refer to press reports that indicate that the government has established what it calls a Telstra response team, which is to coordinate the government's campaign to suppress community concern over the proposed sell-off of Telstra. Can the minister confirm that the government's Telstra response team is being coordinated through the government members' secretariat? Is the government members' secretariat funded with taxpayers' funds and, if so, is it appropriate that a government unit funded with taxpayers' money be used to coordinate a party political campaign? 1487Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I saw similar press reports. Of course, it is very sensible for the government to be clearly and strongly advocating the reasons why its policy is that the remaining shares in Telstra should be sold. It is a very good, profound and sensible policy which is the responsibility of my colleague, Senator Alston, to whom you should direct questions relating to that policy.As to the government members' secretariat, we have had some very tiresome and long-winded questions from your side about that unit over many estimates committees. Responsibility for the government members' secretariat rests with the Chief Government Whip for the operational activities of that unit.I will take your question and examine whether there is anything that the government members' secretariat is doing in relation to this matter which would cause any concern. But, as I understand it and as we have said before, that government members' secretariat is there to service and support government members in the performance of their duties, and obviously government policy is one of those duties. It is the responsibility of all government members to be out there selling government policy and to be supported appropriately in so doing.This is an operational matter. While the government members' secretariat staff are allocated to my staff, their operational direction is under that of the Chief Government Whip. If there is any further information I can add, I will bring it to your attention.1487Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is extraordinary to suggest that questions ought to be directed to the Government Whip. As I understand it, the staff are under your direction and payroll. The central question which you have not answered is: do you think it appropriate that these political activities be funded with taxpayers' funds? Surely that is not a proper use of taxpayers' money?1487Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I did not say that questions on the matter should be directed to the Chief Government Whip. I made it clear that operational responsibility for the members of the government members' secretariat is held by the Chief Government Whip, but that their members are allocated on to my staff. Of course I am prepared to answer questions on that matter. I have already indicated that, if there is any further information that should be provided to you, I will do so.It is perfectly proper for government members to be advocating government policy and government policy is quite properly and sensibly to be advocating and proposing the sale of the remaining two-thirds of the shares in Telstra. We are about to bring in a bill to put that sale into effect. Obviously, the responsibility of the government members' secretariat is to support government members in the performance of their duties, which they do with considerable skill.Distinguished Visitors148710000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of the members of Commonwealth Parliamentary Association study group from Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Samoa. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and trust that your visit to this country will be both informative and enjoyable.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice148714871487O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, and I ask: does the government have an integrated plan to ensure that Telstra's customer service obligations are maintained and indeed improved as plans are put in place to transfer Telstra to full private ownership? If so, how is that plan progressing and how does it compare with suggestions which have been put forward from other quarters?1487Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am indebted to Senator O'Chee for that very important question, particularly given that there are a number of people in rural and remote areas who very much want to hear the full facts on this issue.We are committed to enabling the Australian people to have access to further share holding in one of Australia's greatest companies, so that they can get direct benefits from any growth in this sector of economy, and that is a long overdue approach. As we know, Cuba, Albania and the African National Congress went down this path years ago. There is only one crowd that is still holding out for all the wrong reasons and, of course, that is the Australian Labor Party.Combined with that commitment to enable Australians to buy more shares in Telstra comes a commitment that we will enshrine in legislation to ensure that the customer service guarantee, which we introduced to take effect on 1 January this year, is actually upgraded in terms of penalties, so that the carriers are required—under pain of breach of licence condition attracting a penalty of up to $10 million—to ensure that they install, repair and maintain the telephone services in the bush in the same way that services are expected in metropolitan areas. That is a long overdue approach.It is simply beyond belief that you could have the Labor Party out there pretending that somehow you cannot have these sorts of arrangements when you have privately owned telecommunications carriers, as of course they have done in the United States forever and a day, where the industry has been fully privately owned and yet the universal service obligation and the industry funded levy have been in place for yonks.It was particularly breathtaking in terms of hypocrisy to find Mr Bunter—I mean Mr Beazley—out there over the weekend talking about the fact that he says you cannot put in place such arrangements. What did he say? Let me see if I can find it. He said:Technological advances in telecommunications make it impossible for the federal government to guarantee rural Australians they would not suffer under the full sale of Telstra.This from the reigning gold medallist in terms of privatisations, the bloke who privatised everything that moved when he was in government. The only difference, of course, was that he said before the election that he would not and afterwards he did precisely the opposite. He privatised ANL, AIDC, Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, but he gets only a silver medal for Telstra because back in 1991, when he was the minister for communications, he actually promised that if Mr Blount came out to Australia to preside over it they would privatise it as well. So he has got an appalling track record.The real killer in this is that, when he was the minister all those years ago—more than five years, as he suggests—he was the one that made Telstra fully competitive. He was the one that introduced private sector competition; he was the one that required Telstra to operate commercially. Indeed, under pain of law the directors are required to operate commercially. Did Mr Beazley suggest at that time that it was not possible to impose consumer safeguards? Of course he did not, because he was the very minister who introduced the universal service obligation, untimed local calls, the telecommunications industry ombudsman and a range of other consumer responsibilities for the then regulator, Austel. It is actually breathtaking in its hypocrisy to think that Mr Beazley can expect the Australian public to believe that, as the new shadow minister for yuppies has said so eloquently, this mob somehow would not privatise if they were in government. Of course they would, but it is even worse to pretend that somehow you cannot have legislative safeguards in place. Labor put them in place, they remain in place and we are committed to them. If you want to repeal them, get up and tell us about it, because we certainly do not. (Time expired)14881488Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Minister, are you aware that the Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Fahey, was highly critical on Face to Face yesterday of the way in which you have discharged your Telstra responsibilities? Are you aware that, according to Mr Fahey, the government is not happy with the level of service Telstra is providing in rural and remote areas. Can you confirm that this is the case, and how do you respond to your colleague's dissatisfaction with the way Telstra provides services to the bush? 1489Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—There you go. I think it is about the third or fourth question we have had from the putative spokesman for communications. He starts off by saying that Mr Fahey is critical of my performance and he ends up saying why was Mr Fahey critical of Telstra's performance. You cannot have it both ways. Just get it right. When you ask the question, get it right. This is the bloke who puts out a newsletter, the only parliamentarian I have ever come across who names his newsletter after his chances of success at the next election. Do you know what that newsletter is called? The Long Shot . Really and truly, your chances of becoming the minister are not just a long shot, they are infinitesimal. You would need to be 27 feet tall to have a chance of getting that responsibility in government. The fact is that if you had not been soundly asleep this morning you would have been aware that Minister Fahey and I held a joint press conference at which we made it plain that we were unhappy—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—He bagged you yesterday.LD4Senator ALSTON—No, he did not, and I did not see that reported anywhere. I am sure your newsletter will come out and assert this propaganda line, but the fact is that it is entirely wishful thinking on your part. What we did was to make it clear that we were not satisfied with the quality of service that is available in rural areas.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Tell the truth; you can't deliver to the bush.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, it is your question. You should listen to the answer.LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not know who writes the Long Shot , but all I can tell you is you should get a better script writer, son, because it is not working so far. Even those disgruntled unionists are falling off the tram, all four of them who are left.John Fahey and I have made it abundantly clear that we are determined to ensure that legislation requires all carriers providing service, whether it is in metropolitan or rural areas, to strictly adhere to the customer service guarantee—another historic first which we introduced. Of course, you opposed everything in sight. The $250 million for the bush, you opposed it, didn't you? Despite the fact that half the side was prepared to go down to Hobart and get the power to sell off another 16 per cent, they were not allowed to, were they, because the long shots of this world thought there were more politics in opposing it. Mr Bunter knows that that is unbelievable and it should not be allowed to stand, but we are determined to ensure that people in rural areas get the same quality of service. If the carriers are tempted to simply pay the penalty that attaches, they will find that it is a very high penalty indeed.So we are very confident that the carriers will ensure that installation, maintenance and repairs are carried out in accordance with the time lines that we have prescribed in legislation and that they have looking over their shoulders very significant penalties, which you have never suggested. You have been happy to ignore the bush. You have not worried about any complaints about quality of service. No, it is the same old story: if there are a few problems out there, that is great, isn't it, because that will rub off on the other side and we will pick it up as a beneficiary. Let me tell you that time is running out. When we get down to the wire for the election, people will be wanting to know what the alternative is. They sure know there is not one at the present time, and the way you are shaping there never is going to be one.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I would ask you to withdraw the reference to the Leader of the Opposition other than by his correct name.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I withdraw.1489Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question to the minister.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The doormat.4J4Senator SCHACHT—Now he is even Mr Fahey's doormat. Minister, given that you have been unable to ensure that Telstra maintains its services to the bush while two-thirds of Telstra has been in public ownership, how on earth will you do better with a fully privatised Telstra?1490Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—There is this sort of simplistic nonsense that somehow if there are problems in quality of service it must be because of ownership arrangements. That is simply not the case. There may be a whole range of reasons why quality of service can deteriorate—even ranging from bushfires to floods, lightning and all those other things which of course you would not be aware of because you are located in a metropolitan area. You would not know what a bush looked like if you fell over one. We are concerned to ensure that the quality of service is as good as it should be in both rural and metropolitan areas.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—As good as it should be! Will it be equal to the city?LD4Senator ALSTON—Yes, it will be strictly in accordance with the customer service guarantee. That is something we put in place. You do not have the slightest interest in these issues. Quality of service just goes over your head. Unless you can see some sort of obvious political point to make, you are not interested. We know the detail is beyond you, but get out there and work out ways in which you can effectively deliver. Change your mind on the RTIF, come out and say that you are in favour of $250 million for the bush and we will start to take you seriously.14901490McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Could the minister outline the detail of Westpac's announcement this morning that they are dropping their overdraft rate for small business by over 1.5 per cent? What are the implications of this move for Australia's small business? What changes to the economic environment have led to this change, as well as to the lowest bank home loan interest rates since the 1960s?1490Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator McGauran for that important question. It is very good news for small business—very good news, indeed. Westpac have announced that their new base rate of 7.2 per cent represents a cut of 1.55 per cent. Westpac have stated that the cut in the effective interest rate charged to small business, which they de scribe as the base rate plus the margin, is even greater at 2.40 per cent. We are advised by Westpac that this new overdraft rate is virtually the same as the interest rate charged in the highly competitive housing loan market, despite the higher risk associated with small business lending. I understand Westpac advise that some 40 per cent of all small and medium businesses have an overdraft.The interest rate available to small business prior to Westpac's announcement had already fallen to its lowest level since 1976. As a result, the interest bill on a $100,000 variable business loan is around $208 less per month compared with mid-1996 figures. On a $500,000 loan, the monthly interest savings would be over $1,000. A Westpac small business customer with an overdraft of $100,000 will now be a further $200 better off per month, which represents a massive $408 since mid-1996. This is extremely good news for small business.Lower business costs mean more jobs. It is now a competitive market, which this government always encourages, and we encourage the other banks in the market to try to match this very encouraging move by Westpac and pass on the benefits of our low interest rate environment to their small business customers. Let us not forget that the benefits of this low interest rate environment which I have described are a direct result of the coalition's economic policies—policies which have already led to bank mortgage interest rates being at their lowest levels since the 1960s. The lending rate for standard variable housing loans offered by the banks is currently 6.7 per cent, down 3.8 percentage points since mid-1996. If you contrast this magnificent performance with the appalling performance of the previous government, where at one time interest rates on home loans were soaring over 17 per cent—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Like Howard in 1983.WW4Senator KEMP—Seventeen per cent, Senator Ray. I know it is embarrassing, but the Labor Party is a high interest rate party. The record shows that the Labor Party has a record of high interest rates. The reason for that is that it spends, spends, taxes, taxes and runs up a massive deficit. Underlying inflation is currently at its lowest level on record, and this is cementing Australia as a low inflation economy. The economy is expected to grow by 3¾ per cent in 1997-98, as was announced in the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook, unchanged from the 1997-98 budget. (Time expired)1491McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister, for that unchallengeable good news. You started to tell us what might be the impact on Australian families and small business should interest rates rise again. Are there any threats possible that could cause this to happen?1491Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again, thank you, Senator McGauran, for that very perceptive question. Of course there are threats. The threats are over there on the other side of the chamber. The Labor Party is the major threat to the extremely good news that we are now receiving in relation to inflation, industrial disputes and of course interest rates. The Labor Party poses the major threat. Just to recall: when Labor left office, Australia faced substantial fiscal and economic problems. No-one would argue with that. Frankly, we have seen that in the past the Labor Party has had a policy of taxing, spending and spending more and rising deficits.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—God, you're boring, Rod!WW4Senator KEMP—I know you might find this boring, Senator Forshaw. But home owners who are paying the very high interest rates which your government presided over are very concerned about that. What we are seeing now is the same old Labor. (Time expired)14911491Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Minister, I refer to an interview given by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, on the Sunday program yesterday in which he seemed to make a range of commitments relating to telecommunications services. Minister, what technology was Mr Fischer referring to when he said that he was `determined to see that the technology in the country is not equal but in some areas better than the suburbs'? What will be the cost to Telstra of meeting Mr Fischer's commitments? Will these costs be met under the universal service obligation?1491Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—What an extraordinary proposition—asking me what someone else had in mind! With due respect to Mr Fischer and perhaps to a few of my other colleagues, I have to confess I was in the office yesterday morning, so I did not have a chance to watch those programs. It is a fairly basic proposition in logic to ask someone what they think someone else had in mind. If you want me to find out what Mr Fischer had in mind, I am more than happy to do it. I imagine Mr Fischer was wanting to ensure that the bush gets not only an equality of treatment—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What was the technology?LD4Senator ALSTON—Look, we are the ones who have introduced ISDN. We had Telstra at 93.4 per cent by 1 July last year; it will be 96 per cent by the end of this calendar year. We are getting close to getting the full mode of operation, the digitisation of exchanges, effectively completed.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Is that what he was talking about, was it?LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not know what he was talking about. I have told you I did not watch it. I am delighted to hear that you did. If I were you, I would have been spending a bit more time trying to cultivate the troops in a desperate last minute attempt to get myself back into this place because it is a hell of lot better than having to get out there and find a real job. You will find enormous conversion costs involved. You just will not be able to cope if you have to get out there in the real world. I would not be sitting up there taking notes on what some people might say on television; I would be out there doing the rounds.I know the branch meetings must be pretty small these days, and I imagine you could probably arrange for a quorum to be reduced to, say, three or four. It would not take you all that much effort to go around to their homes on a Sunday morning. You could do yourself a lot of good by going out and seeing these people instead of sitting there watching a bit of television and trying to come up with some silly little questions which have absolutely no meaning on their own. If you want me to find out what Mr Fischer had in mind, I am more than happy to do so.1492Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the government be meeting the conditions which the Queensland central council of the National Party has imposed on the Telstra sale proposals: namely, that rural areas will be guaranteed full digital mobile phone services within 10 years, high-speed Internet services, access to digital television and local call costs to the nearest town?1492Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—High-speed access to the Internet is what ISDN is all about. I am sorry you missed it—it is probably going too fast for you—but it is there and it is happening. In relation to digital television, we made a bit of an announcement last week. I am sorry you missed it.If you want to know how it will affect the bush, I am more than happy to help. We have said the bush is a special case because additional costs will be involved in transmitters and translators. If you want to know about mobile phones and why the bush has a bit of angst, you ought to ask them about that. They will tell you they cannot understand how you lot not only agreed to phase out a perfectly good technology but signed binding legal agreements that put the Commonwealth at risk for billions of dollars because of the phase-out—a preposterous thing! We would never have done it in a fit, and they still want to know why you did it. I know you were not directly responsible but you have adopted it. If one of your predecessors had a fit or the moon was in the wrong phase, that is his fault but you are also responsible because you have adopted it. Perhaps you could spend your time explaining to the bush why you went down that path. We do not know. (Time expired)14921492Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is also directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts and follows on from other questions today. Minister, I refer to statements that you have made in this chamber today in question time regarding Telstra and also a number of statements of ministers over the weekend claiming that community service obligations like untimed local calls as well as foreign ownership restrictions can and will be retained and strengthened after privatisation. While this may be true in theory, isn't it false in practice? Weren't the same arguments trotted out in the case of a fully privatised Qantas and also Optus, both of whom later successfully lobbied government to relax foreign ownership restrictions? Given that Telstra would become Australia's biggest listed company and would have an obligation to shareholders to maximise profits, won't your government and future governments have little chance of withstanding pressure to roll back any restrictions that undermine profits? Therefore, isn't the National Party partly justified in belatedly joining the Australian Democrats in expressing concern about the inevitable downside of privatisation, particularly in rural and regional areas?1492Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—This is an important question because it raises all the old shibboleths, half-truths and rural myths that are floating around in this debate—I would say primarily put on the table by that arch-hypocrite Mr Beazley, but, nonetheless, I am sorry that Senator Lees seems to have fallen for this line as well.As I thought I made very clear, not only did Mr Beazley, as the minister for communications back in 1991, put in place a regime that provided for community service obligations to be built into legislation—and I take it you are not about to water them down; we are not, although that mob might do anything in government—but also at that time he ensured that Telstra was required to operate commercially and fully competitively. We have this proposition that somehow if Telstra are fully privatised they will have to start making profits. That has been the law since 1991. They have always been required to operate commercially. If the board went out there and said, `It might not be the sensible way to go but we feel a bit sorry for a certain group. We will give them a special deal,' that would not be in accordance with their obligations under the Corporations Act.The fact is that Telstra has been required to operate fully commercially and fully competitively since Labor introduced competition in 1991. All that happens is that you superimpose legislative safeguards. You say that that is fine in theory, but not in practice. Let me tell you that it has been in the US forever. APEC regards universal service obligations as very important. Every country in the APEC group—I think there are 18 of them—recognised that you have to go down the path of letting people buy shares in the company but at the same time have those safeguards in place. That regime works perfectly well.The carriers accept that regime. There has never been any suggestion otherwise in the US, where the carriers have always been privately owned. They do not say, `Look, we're in business. This is preposterous. We don't want to be forced to subsidise the bush.' They know they have to subsidise the bush. But there is a simple, transparent mechanism for doing it, which is an industry levy. In other words, you pay in accordance with your market share in terms of revenue. So Telstra would be contributing the bulk but the other carriers would have to contribute as well.Fourteen new licences have been granted since 1 July. To the extent that those carriers start making money, they will have to contribute to the universal service fund. So it will work in practice, not just in theory, as it has worked in every other country in the Western world, because the carriers know it is very much in their own interests. Why would they want to get out there and say, `To hell with the bush; we don't really care if people get services or not'? They would be skewered, and quite rightly so. They do not want to do that, and I have never suggested it here or in other countries where carriers have always been privately owned.I could go on and on, and I am sure Senator Lees will go on and on. But you really ought to face up to the facts. I do not think you are beyond redemption in terms of following the arguments. At least you ought to be able to understand by looking at international practice that there is no inconsistency with having a fully competitive and privately owned telecommunications system but at the same time having consumer safeguards very firmly in place. Whether they are untimed local calls, price capped or community service obligations, they are all there—they all stay there. If you want to change them or if they want to change them, we are not supporting it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, would you withdraw the reference to Mr Beazley that you made earlier in the answer.LD4Senator ALSTON—What did I say? I do not recall saying anything.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I will check the Hansard , but I believe you used an unparliamentary expression.1493Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, is it not the case that did you not oppose a move by Telstra to remove itself from public scrutiny by not going to Senate estimates committees anymore? Indeed, it left the decision to the committee itself. Is it not also true that you signed a declaration in December last year to abandon foreign ownership limits for both Optus and Vodafone? If small companies like that can pressure governments to change their mind, what hope do we have against a company that is going to be twice as big as BHP?1493Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I do not think I signed anything in relation to Optus and Vodafone. I may well have been consulted by the Treasurer. You may be right. Maybe I signed it. I thought it was the Treasurer who did it under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. There are powers there relating to the media but they are discretionary. That is the fundamental difference, because this is enshrined in legislation. Just as the first third was enshrined in legislation, so will any further sell-down have to be in accordance with legislation.So again I ask you: are you proposing to change it? Are they proposing to change it? We are not. Do you think they would get the numbers in the Senate on this? They would only get there with your help. We are not asking for it. You would not give it to us anyway. So what is the problem? It is in legislation. There can be no basis on which foreigners could acquire any more than the 35 per cent that is fixed by law. I do not see why there would be pressure to change that because carriers around the world understand that. The African National Congress only allowed 49 per cent, I think. (Time expired)14941494Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Does the government share the view of Senators Knowles and Eggleston, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, that church funded nursing home operators should not be asking for extra funding from the government for their nursing home operations while they are sitting on billions of dollars in assets? Does the government believe churches should sell their assets in order to fund nursing home upgrades?1494Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Hogg for the question. I do not believe everything I read in the Sydney Morning Herald , Senator Hogg, and I suggest you do not either. In fact, I find it is a bit of a rag in many respects. Senator Hogg, I would not base any question on something you read in that paper.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, I would ask you to direct your remarks through the Chair and ignore interjections. There are too many speaking on my left.VW4Senator HERRON—I was more interested in the report today of Mr Mark Latham's comments about what he would do regarding policy in relation to unemployment benefits. He espoused the very thing that Senator Hogg suggested in his question—that people should pay when they are receiving benefits and there should be something in the longer term in relation to—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I draw your attention to the question, Senator.VW4Senator HERRON—Yes, Madam President. I have a very high regard for Senator Eggleston and Senator Knowles, in her absence. I am not aware of the full report. I can understand comments that they made in relation to that. I will seek advice from Senator Eggleston and Senator Knowles as to what they intended with that remark. I can understand that there are various mechanisms put forward for overcoming these problems. I will ask them both for their views and let you know.1494Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I understand the comments were reported in Hansard and, as such, I believe that I am entitled to a response, and I understand that you are going to seek a response. Also, is it not true that your government has ripped $500 million from nursing homes? Is it not this which has precipitated the current crisis in the nursing home sector?1494Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—No, it is not true. The reason we have to do something about nursing homes is that, after 13 years of Labor, nursing homes are in a terrible state. More than 40 per cent of people in nursing homes are in beds where there are four people to a room and the capital structure of nursing homes was run down by the Labor government when they were in power. We have been left with that problem.I draw Senator Hogg's notice to the responses that I have given previously in this regard in so far as there are enormous problems that we are trying to sort out. Part of that is the strategy that we have undertaken to overcome those problems so that we can be proud of our nursing homes and not be left with a legacy, as we were by the previous government. We are doing something about it. We are basing it on the principle that the wealthier people can pay for that, on top of the subsidy that has already been paid. (Time expired)14941494Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Minister, can you confirm that Telstra's message bank facility is available free of charge to all capital cities in Australia except Hobart? Is it a fact that all Tasmanian users, including Hobart users, have to pay at STD rates to Melbourne in order to leave a message or to retrieve a message? If the facility is available free of charge to those users in the other capital cities, why is it not available to users in Hobart? Why is it not available free of charge right throughout Australia?1495Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—It is obviously a commercial service that Telstra operates.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I see, so everything that Telstra does should be made available to everyone? Is that what you are arguing? This is the ultimate in socialisation, isn't it? This is not only having the shares in the company but your approach would be that you have the capacity to go in and tell them everything you want them to do—you would tell them how to run the business and which services ought to be made available across the board.If I could get back to the main game, Senator Harradine. Message bank, as I understand it, is a commercial enhanced service—in other words, it is not one that Telstra would take the view ought to be made available across the nation at the same time. It will be progressively rolled out depending upon the demand.It is true to say that it was certainly introduced into Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane initially. It was extended to Adelaide and Perth. It is not yet in Canberra or Darwin. To the extent that it is introduced into Hobart or other parts or regional capitals, I assume that will depend upon the rate of take-up, the rate of demand for the service.I will certainly make inquiries to see what Telstra's intentions are in that regard. I would certainly hope that if the traffic is sufficient they would be very much looking at extending it to those cities and towns where it is likely to be able to operate commercially. But that is a very different proposition to saying that they ought to be forced to provide it wherever you think it ought to be introduced. I will see if there is anything further I can ascertain on the current state of play and get back to Senator Harradine.14951495Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, are you aware that the Auditor-General's report No. 38 severely criticised the process for the Commonwealth sale of Brisbane, Perth and Melbourne airports? Isn't it true that the Auditor questioned: firstly, the changes to the tender assessment process which resulted in bidders other than the highest being successful; secondly, the highly geared nature of successful bids, with debt to equity ratios of up to 93:7; and, thirdly, the government bearing most of the business risk despite high fees paid to advisers, including over $17 million to BZW? Given that the Office of Asset Sales has only given qualified agreement to virtually all recommendations, what alternative mechanisms does the government propose to put in place to ensure that a repeat of this sale performance does not occur again?1495Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—To Senator Collins, regarding the audit office's audit of phase one of the airport sales, I do have a brief here from the Minister for Finance and Administration. The brief indicates that the ANAO report clearly endorses all significant aspects of both the process and the outcomes of the sale. The main outcome is a highly successful $3.3 billion sale that exceeded all records and expectations. Contrary to some media reports, each of the airport leases was sold to the highest price conforming bidder once net receipts to the Commonwealth were properly considered. There was no change or uncertainty about how the bids were to be evaluated. They were evaluated against clear predetermined selection criteria. The ANAO report recognises this.Nowhere does the ANAO find, as suggested in one article, that the Commonwealth continues to bear most of the business risk in the sale. No costs of the contracts blew out by 3.5 times. In pursuit of the bidding competition, timetable and quality that helped achieve the value obtained, expenditure on some activities was increased on a cost-effective basis beyond original estimates. The Airports Act criteria for assessing financial strength was not ignored, as claimed in some media reports. The Airports Act does not contain any financial strength criteria. Financial strength was not assessed as part of the evaluation of the bids and included an assessment by the commercial advisers for the sale of the long-term variability of the bidders' financial structures.The government was concerned to ensure that the impacts of any non-neutral tax effects were taken into account in the evaluation of the bids for the sale of the airports. Bidders were advised early in the bidding process that the government would be taking account of the effects of non-neutral tax effects in evaluating the bids. The methodology for assessing the impact of infrastructure bonds on the phase one bids was endorsed by Treasury. In this respect, I understand the audit office advised that it would be accepted practice to rely on the advice of the Department of the Treasury on this aspect of the sale given its functional responsibilities.1496Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, it was changes to the tender assessment process that were the concern. Isn't it the case that all of the matters which were of concern to the Auditor-General were fully the responsibility of this government and put in place since March 1996? In the light of media speculation that unsuccessful bidders in this sale are likely to begin legal action, what assurance can the Australian community have that this sale has been undertaken in an open, transparent and reasonable way?1496Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I could run through the answer I just gave, which answered your question. I guess if people in the private sector are unhappy with what has happened they will take their own advice. I cannot comment on that. I recall that privatisation of airports was another Labor Party policy. I do not know whether you are backing away from that policy as you tend to back away from so many other policies. But, as Senator Alston said in his answer to a question, the Labor Party and Mr Beazley hold the gold medal for privatisations. This might be of some particu lar embarrassment to you but I provided an answer to your question. I just wish you would listen the first time around.14961496Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. The Howard government, as promised prior to the last election, introduced a two-year waiting period before migrants could access social security, a waiting period which came in on 27 February 1997. What important message does this waiting period send to potential migrants? Have there been any proposals since last year to amend or appeal the migrant waiting periods?1496Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I thank Senator Watson for his concern about this important issue on which there has been misinformation, of course, put about in typical fashion in some quarters. Yes, this government did introduce, as we promised before the election, a two-year waiting period before migrants could access social security. We did it because it is a fair measure. It is still more generous than that in most countries overseas. We provide Medicare on arrival in Australia. We provide family payment for those with children. There is the maternity allowance. There is the child disability allowance. But this legislation sends an important message to migrants considering coming to Australia—that is, when you arrive here, do you have the means to support yourself? Migrants should not be calling on the taxpayer for support any more than an Australian resident calls on the taxpayer for support before they have supported themselves to the maximum they possibly can.They are alerted to the facts of the cost of living and the job opportunities here. We believe that migrants have to be prepared when they come to this country to provide for themselves for at least two years either through a job, family support, friends or their own savings. If they have planned to do that but their situation changes we will step in and help so there is a safety net and all migrants can access employment services through Centrelink and the major employment placement agencies.What is the Labor Party's position? I wish I knew. I do not think too many people do know. When we first proposed the waiting period Labor tried to gut it here in the Senate. When we put it up for a second time they supported it, very reluctantly. On the weekend Mr Beazley said the opposition would not reverse the waiting period. So that's it—Labor's policy is `Labor keeps the migrant benefits freeze'. But, hang on. If Labor policy is that the waiting period stays, why was it that the Labor Party in this chamber earlier this month voted against the waiting period? On 12 March, in a division at 16 minutes past 12, the Labor Party voted to sabotage the waiting period. They voted to put an iceberg-sized hole in it by giving migrants access to social security payments called `special benefit'.So Mr Beazley is out there in the public arena saying the waiting period stays and Senator Neal is in here saying that the waiting period effectively goes. Isn't that typical of the Labor Party? You would not know where they were. Mark Latham says we need tax reform; Mr Beazley says no. Mark Latham says we need welfare reform; Mr Beazley says no. Senator Neal says that we gut the waiting period; Mr Beazley says no. It just goes to remind everybody that behind all that smooth rhetoric the Leader of the Opposition is simply Mr No. You do not know what your policies are; you still do not listen to mainstream Australia; you didn't when you were in government and you are no better now. The Australian people should not even consider putting you back onto the government benches when you do not have a policy to your name.14971497Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer the minister to the decision by the Attorney-General to try to modify or overturn the decision of the High Court in the Dietrich case and to do so at the next meeting of state and Commonwealth attorneys-general. Minister, what was your government's response to the criticism of this announcement by the President of the Law Council of Australia, Mr Brett Walker SC, who said that it should be—. . . inconceivable that the first law officer would seek to downgrade the right to a fair trial.He went on to say:. . . the Attorney's actions are inconsistent with Australia's international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Also, Minister, what is your government's response to the Secretary of the Judicial Conference of Australia, Professor Stephen Parker, who said:To deny the right to a fair trial for someone charged with a serious offence would be a major departure from the common law.1497Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Bolkus for the question. It is almost an honour to take a question from the only non-minister who has ever been censured in this place for misleading the Senate as to his involvement in leaking Federal Court documents. Talk about coming with form. I therefore do not put a lot of weight on what Senator Bolkus says about Mr Walker's comments and other people's comments. I will take the opportunity to check the record before I bother to respond in the sense of responding to Senator Bolkus's inferences about what people said. Nonetheless, I do have some remarks from the Attorney with respect to the comments he has made. The Attorney said that not enough has been done to ensure that criminal trials are disposed of as expeditiously as possible.That concern is shared around Australia, but obviously not by Senator Bolkus, who seems to think it is amusing that criminal trials are not disposed of as expeditiously as possible. But every other informed commentator that I am aware of does seem to have the view that we should be looking to more expeditious disposal of criminal trials. That should not be seen as a threat at all to the principle of a fair trial. Let us not confuse the two, which I expect is what Senator Bolkus would want to do.The Attorney's concern is with valuable court and judicial time being consumed unnecessarily and legal costs becoming excessive. Where legal aid is involved, a disproportionate allocation of funds occurs because one excessively long case diverts those funds from a number of other matters which might otherwise attract funding.The Commonwealth has reformed legal aid funding for expensive criminal trials in matters arising under Commonwealth law within the context of revised funding arrangements for legal aid commissions. It is well understood that the Dietrich case has enormous implications for legal aid in criminal justice systems, and that matter is on the SCAG agenda—that is, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Victoria amended its Crimes Act in light of the Dietrich decision, and South Australia is presently considering the introduction of similar legislation. The Commonwealth believes that there is the need for an ongoing effort to address the problems caused by increasingly long trials, and a possible legislative response to the Dietrich decision is one of a number of reforms that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General will be looking at.The challenge for the criminal justice system, which Senator Bolkus fails to recognise, is to streamline its court proceedings and practices and to restore public confidence in our legal system. The Commonwealth's focus in legal aid continues to be reasonable access to justice for the disadvantaged. Reasonable access should not include assistance to extend cases beyond a stage where many Australian taxpayers would not continue to risk their own funds.Defendants in some complex fraud trials are very well resourced. They are able to engage a high level of legal expertise without regard for the expense. The more the courts become involved in the process of determining how legal aid should be provided, the more they need to understand the economic consequences of their decisions. That concludes the remarks that the Attorney wishes to make at this stage on this matter. If there is anything else Senator Bolkus wants to ask me, I will refer it to the Attorney.1498Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. There is a core issue that still remains. Minister, why is it that your government is using your unprincipled cuts to legal aid to justify reducing the right of Australians to a fair trial? When will you accept what most people now know: basically it is the government that is the biggest impediment to an efficient and just legal system? When will the government return to legal aid the money it has plundered from the system? When will you add the resources to the legal aid system to make our justice system work?1498Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—It is typical of Senator Bolkus to come up with such misleading assertions. He said that it has been an unprincipled withdrawal of funds from legal aid. In fact, the Attorney has taken a very principled stand and said to the states, `Stop your cost shifting and you fund the legal aid for state criminal matters, and we'll continue to fund the Commonwealth ones.' Yet Senator Bolkus, in his usual misleading, deceptive and sneaky way—he has been caught red-handed in the past and he will keep being caught red-handed—comes in here and says, `It is an unprincipled withdrawal of funds' when he knows very well the principles standing behind it. It is the principle of federalism. He then asserts that it is a denial of the right of Australians to a fair trial. There is no such attack by the Attorney. That is not the proposition at all. Frankly, his question does not deserve anything more than I have given him.14981498Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney-General. On Saturday, the Weekend Australian reported on the sorry state of the Port Phillip private prison in Victoria. Minister, are any prisoners convicted of crimes under federal legislation incarcerated in private prisons, or are there likely to be any? Minister, are you concerned about the delays of up to 30 minutes to get ambulances into prisons; the seven deaths in the last seven months—representing 70 per cent of all deaths in custody in Victoria since the gaol opened—and the 41 self-mutilation attempts and the 11 suicide attempts? Minister, if you are concerned, what is your government doing and what are you undertaking to resolve these particular problems? Further, how far will the government go in allowing the punishments administered by the state to be handed out by the private sector?1499Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for her question. I cannot tell you off the top of my head whether there are any Commonwealth prisoners in those sorts of facilities around Australia. I will make inquiries and respond to the extent that I can get that information fairly rapidly. As you know, there are no Commonwealth prisons, and Commonwealth prisoners are stored—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Stored?7E4Senator VANSTONE—held or remanded in state facilities. We look to the states to keep those facilities in appropriate condition. If there are any conditions that are unsatisfactory that you can draw to my attention, other than those I can see by going back to this article that you refer to, I will be happy for you to draw them to our attention and I will come back to you if there is anything I can add in respect of that. I have not looked at the article, so I cannot add anything more at the moment.1499Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that undertaking. Minister, I again stress: do you acknowledge that there is a federal implication given that some prisoners are convicted under federal law who then go into state prisons? As an example, can you tell us whether this federal government condones paying prisoners to go to bed?1499Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Senator, perhaps I misunderstood your question. Did you say, `paying prisoners to go to bed'? Senator, I am unfamiliar with this practice of paying people to go to bed. I wish someone would pay me to go to bed and give me more time to do it—a lot more time to do it. We need a lot more sleep. Any hardworking senator would welcome a lot more sleep and would be very happy to be paid for a few hours extra dozing at night. I will make some inquiries for you, Senator, and come back to you.14991499Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Minister, do you recall the personal guarantee by Prime Minister Howard in February 1996 when he stated:I give you my personal guarantee that under my government pensions and other social security and veterans payments and entitlements will not be cut.Is the minister aware that submissions from state and territory governments to the Senate's public dental services inquiry indicate that services to rural and remote parts of Australia are suffering the most from your government's decision to abolish the Commonwealth dental health program? Will you now concede that, particularly for Australians in rural and remote areas, the Prime Minister's personal guarantee is and always was completely worthless?1499Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I do not think Senator Crowley has had enough sleep when she comes up with a question like that. But I am aware of guarantees given to the rural sector, and I am pleased to say that we are fulfilling those. The provision of health services in the rural community has been a policy of this government that we have pursued.Today the health minister has received a report on the provision of health services into rural areas which commends the government for its strategy in relation to the provision of services. That was pursued by Dr Wooldridge, and he established a committee to look at the provision of health services throughout the rural areas.In relation to the dental program, as you know, that is a program that is primarily the responsibility of the states. Where they have done a lot of cost shifting, of course, they have shifted from the provision of those services. But on the specific question that was asked about the state of play in relation to the provision of health services, I will take this up with the minister and come back to Senator Crowley with an answer.1499Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator, unlike Senator Vanstone who is soliciting for herself, I would like to solicitor on behalf of the people of Australia. In the light of the Prime Minister's betrayal of Australians in rural and remote areas—Senator Margetts interjecting—ZF4Senator CROWLEY—Never mind, Senator Margetts; just sit down, calm down. In the light of the Prime Minister's betrayal of Australians in rural and remote areas with the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program, why should people in rural and remote Australia expect that the Prime Minister will deliver on his promises in the bush for Telstra?1500Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The question of Telstra has already been answered. He has given guarantees in that regard—and of course he will deliver. Of course he will also deliver in relation to the provision of health services in remote areas—far more than the Labor government did in their 13 years in power.The facts of the matter are there has been not only a run-down in rural health services right across the board under the Labor government but also inequity of distribution of doctors from rural and remote areas to the cities. That was as a result of deliberate actions taken by the Labor government when they were in power. It is all very well for Senator Crowley to shake her head and disagree with my statements, but that is what has occurred.I would also ask: what is the Labor Party's policy in relation to this; what is their policy? We have not heard. To quote the words of Senator Crowley when she was in government, it is `carping criticism' to bring these matters up. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on a point of order: my memory has been refreshed to the extent that I apparently—well, I did; I recall it quite vividly now—referred to Mr Beazley as `an arch hypocrite'. Given that I think his behaviour speaks more eloquently than I can, I withdraw that particular description. Miscellaneous1500150015:04:001500Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) to questions without notice asked today, relating to the proposed privatisation of Telstra.In moving this motion, I want to further refresh the minister's memory on the answer he gave today to Senator Lees's question, in relation to signing a declaration in December of last year, when he said:I do not think I signed anything in relation to Optus and Vodafone. I may well have been consulted by the Treasurer. You may be right. Maybe I signed it. I thought it was the Treasurer—He went on to say, `But you may be right, maybe I did.' I can assure the minister that he did sign the document on 9 December to allow Optus and Vodafone to go to 100 per cent.So, again, this minister—who just blithely makes comments off the cuff, off the top of his head on an important issue—could not remember signing a document, a declaration, on 9 December, which significantly was to allow Optus and Vodafone to become fully 100 per cent foreign owned. Again, this is just more testimony to the confused state of this minister in areas of policy dealing with Telstra.Today we raised questions about what other ministerial colleagues of his were saying. I raised one question about what Mr Fahey said yesterday. I quote Mr Fahey from an interview he had yesterday morning on the Seven Network. He said:I think it's fair to say the Government isn't happy with that level of service, and we'll be doing something about that with the legislation that will go into Parliament this week.That is clear; that is unequivocal. The Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey) has said that the government is not happy with the level of service that Telstra is presently providing. Senator Alston gets up here today and says, `I don't know what Mr Fahey is talking about; it's nothing to do with me.' Yet the Minister for Finance, a senior cabinet minister, makes it clear that he is not satisfied with the level of service that Telstra is providing.What has this minister—the minister who has the power to direct—been doing in the last two years to get the services in the bush up to equal standard with those in the city? Mr Fahey clearly does not agree with the performance of Senator Alston.Then we have the remarks yesterday of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Tim Fischer). Senator Alston was completely dismissive of Mr Fischer, who is No. 2 in the Australian government, the Leader of the National Party. Senator Alston just completely ignored Mr Fischer's comments. I again refresh the Senator Alston. Mr Fischer said:Within 90 days I am determined to see that the technology in the country is not equal, but in some areas better than the suburbs, after all the disadvantage we've had over the years . . . I just asked for a simple explanation: can the minister tells us what technology the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia was talking about?Mr Fischer makes a whole range of comments about services in the bush. He also raises the prospect that we are going to bring in the low earth orbiting satellite system. Has the minister got a policy on that? Has the government got a policy on that? Is that Telstra investing in satellites?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Have you? Have you got one?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—You are the government, Minister. Your Deputy Prime Minister is saying this. We have no answer from the government, except that Mr Fischer seems to babble on whenever he gets onto television.We have another quote from Mr Fischer yesterday. He said:Because we're in a competitive circumstance and there is the authorities which overarch the compliance of an Optus, of a Telstra, to a legal benchmarking. There's also an ombudsman which . . . an ombudsman with teeth. But we'll do something else. We'll actually pay dollars . . . The confused statement that Mr Fischer made about regulation does not give confidence that this government really knows what regula tions it has put into place and about how it is going to ensure that ordinary Australians in rural and regional Australia get the same level of service.Senator Boswell, the Leader of the National Party in the Senate and, I have to say, the most consistent critic of this government's privatisation policy on Telstra, out of his loyalty to the coalition does not always say on the public record what he thinks, but he did today. He said in an interview:And we'll also want the latest technology guarantees for people in the bush, too.Well, Minister, what we want to put to you is: how will you put the latest technology guarantees for the people in the bush into the legislation? We certainly accept, under the community service obligation, the standard telephoner's guarantee. Are you going to put in the CSO guarantees for on-line services, broadband services, the Internet and the latest technology that Senator Boswell is raising in his interview today? These are questions this minister and this government cannot answer when they are trying to privatise Telstra. (Time expired)15:09:001501Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—A tragic attempt to make up for the comprehensive bungling of a question. What Senator Schacht just read out was Mr Fahey saying the government was not happy with Telstra's quality of service. That is a statement with which I would agree and that is why we held a press conference this morning.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What have you done about it? You've had two years as minister.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You asked me to agree with a proposition that Mr Fahey had been critical of me. Mr Fahey was critical of Telstra.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You're the minister in charge of the service.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, you cannot use words in the way you would like them to come out. If people use them in a particular way and say that they are not happy with Telstra you do not have the right to get up there and say that they are saying they are unhappy with someone else.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Slippery Richard again.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Rabbit on as much as you like. I was not dismissive of Mr Fischer. Indeed, Mr Fischer is doing an absolutely sensational job. Mr Fischer was simply concerned to ensure that the bush does not go backwards as it did for 13 long Labor years. You can understand them wanting to know what would happen if a Labor government ever got re-elected because they have had absolutely no assurances at all.I am asked what is our policy on LEOS and I say: do you have a policy? The answer is, `You're the government.' What do I take from that—that you do not have a policy? Is that what I read into that?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What is your policy?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—We are all in favour of them. What about you? Are you in favour of them? He does not even know whether he is in favour of low earth orbiting satellites. What about MEOS—middle earth orbiting satellites; are you in favour of them?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I accept the fact that you are asking me not to interject but I would want to point out that, throughout the whole of the minister's remarks so far, he has been directing questions to me all the time and I am responding to them. At least I am trying to do that through the chair.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, interjections are not parliamentary language. Minister, if you would like to address the chair and not anybody else in the opposition you might find you get fewer interjections, which is the name of the game.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I am sure you were as fascinated as I was to hear Senator Schacht not even being prepared to indicate whether he is in favour of low earth orbiting satellites. It is the most preposterous proposition and when we ask—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We want to know what your policy is.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—We are in favour of them. You do not even know whether you are in favour of them. The fact is that the bush, for the first time in a long while, is actually getting access to the latest technologies, not just access to digital.This bloke, in estimates a few weeks ago, was there saying we were only going to get one bidder for the spectrum auction. How many did we get? We got nine.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I raise a further point of order. I am not trying to make your job more difficult, Madam Deputy President, but every time the minister points across the table and makes a comment directly to me I am more than happy to respond. I think that that makes your job difficult but if he continues to do it I am going to continue to respond.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You are making my job difficult if you continue to interject. I would ask you to cease and desist and I would ask the minister to address the chair.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The fact is that we have done an enormous amount for rural and regional Australia to make up for those 13 long years. We have not only introduced ISDN, which gives them high speed Internet access, but we have introduced a $250 million fund which is of enormous significance to them. We have also facilitated the entry of new satellite services for deregulation. In other words, we are very much going down the track that Labor could have gone down for years and simply chose not to.I presume Senator Schacht is, one day, going to come in here and tell us what policies they have. He thought that we would be lucky to get a single bidder for PCS services. What did we get? We got nine. So we are now looking at the realistic prospect of CDMA technology being out there to supplement both GSM and AMPS. The bush is going to have the benefit of all these technologies and Senator Schacht seems to have absolutely no comprehension of how the changes in the law are benefiting the bush very significantly.I do not think I need to say much more. We are not happy with Telstra's quality of ser vice. That is why we are upgrading the customer service guarantee which, again, we introduced. He does not want to acknowledge that. It was a historic first because it ensures that standards are set. We now have to make sure those standards are effective under a penalty of very draconian payments. I would have thought that any fair-minded observer would say that it is only this government that offers the bush any prospects of access to decent telecommunications services. The tragedy is that there is only one major party in this country that is prepared to adopt that approach.15:14:001503Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I also wish to take note of the answer to questions by Senator Alston. The minister, Senator Alston, just said that the government is not happy with the service being provided by Telstra. A lot of Australians are not necessarily too happy about it either. In fact, a lot of rural and regional Australians are most unhappy about it and the minister, who is just walking out of the chamber, does not seem to care too much about that and likewise is not prepared to actually do anything about it. He said, during one of his answers, `What is the alternative?' The alternative is that you keep Telstra in public hands and you make sure that it can provide a service that all Australians deserve.Senator Harradine asked Senator Alston about message bank services being provided free to all Australians and the fact that they are not available free in Hobart or Launceston. It is quite ridiculous. It seems that he is quite happy for some Australians to be treated less equally than others with regard to some Telstra services, and I am quite sure that that must be cause for concern to a lot of people in regional Australia. After the first partial sale of Telstra, we saw the establishment of a telecommunications infrastructure fund of some $250 million. What has happened to it? It was going to be the panacea for Tasmania, in terms of the $58 million that was supposed to be spent in my state, providing a whole host of things.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Do you go around Tasmania with your eyes shut?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I am pleased you are interjecting, Senator Calvert, as a fellow Senator from Tasmania. You ought to get on to your minister and find out what has happened to the $7.6 million worth of commitments that you gave as part of the $250 million infrastructure fund—$58 million of which was supposed to be spent in our state over the next five years. I will tell you what has happened: not much. You have parted with $750,000, to date.Mr Warwick Smith, the member for Bass, who at the time was calling himself the acting minister for telecommunications and the arts, announced a $1.5 million per year fund which was to go to the setting up of a Tasmanian electronic commerce centre. I am sure that the people of Bass, who elected him back into office, are certainly now asking, `Where's Warwick?' What has happened? He said that they expected that $4.5 million would be spent over a three year period. What has happened? We are two years into the three years and not even $750,000 has been spent. The benefits were supposed to flow to all sorts of industries to introduce them to and provide them with advice on telecommunications services. What has happened? Nothing.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Come down to Hobart and I'll show you.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—You made all these promises to various state bodies. If you go around the state, what have you done? Nothing. It is no wonder that almost 60 per cent of Australians do not support a sale of any more of Telstra. They know that the government cannot be trusted, and they know that once you have sold such an important piece of public infrastructure there is no capacity in the future to guarantee, and you cannot guarantee. A clear demonstration of that was in the response to Senator Harradine's question about the message bank service not being provided equally around this country free of charge.The minister said that the finance minister was critical of Telstra's service standard, not critical of him. He is the minister; why doesn't he do something about it? The government has control over Telstra. It ought to get in and do something with Telstra if the service is so bad. It should make sure that Telstra acts, and acts equally, in the interests of the public around this country.15:19:001504Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise to speak in this debate because I know that the full privatisation of Telstra is going to be one of those telling moments in history when many Australians will benefit—particularly those in rural and remote Australia. There are a number of reasons why I say that and why I say it with confidence. The first point I want to make is that the government does not have to own Telstra to deliver community service obligations. That was spelled out very clearly by the minister in the answers which he gave today. If you don't believe me, just have a little trip around America and do a bit of examination.One cannot emphasise that enough. But we on this side of the chamber want to know whether, having put those community service obligations in place, you on that side of the chamber are going to support and continue to support those community service obligations and make a commitment to the bush, the same as we are. That is the telling question, and it is also the question that the Democrats and the Greens have to answer.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What does the National Party say?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—The honourable senator mentions the National Party. I raised the issues as well, as did a number of my colleagues, and we got satisfactory answers from our ministers and are proceeding on that basis. The National Party will speak for itself.There is another aspect about this that is very important in terms of community service obligations. Fortunately, our city cousins understand what is being done. They know that every telephone hookup, every fax machine and every form of communications—and the more efficient the better—is a potential business point. They support the continuation and the enhancing—and I emphasise the word `enhancing'—which we are doing in terms of community service obligations.You people can talk all you like. You had 13 years in government to do something, if all these community service obligations were so bad. There are a number of examples where Telstra has not done as well as it might have done. But there are also examples of some very good work done by Telstra. For instance, as a result of the Jerdacuttup bushfires in Western Australia this year—this is something you people would not care about—people were burnt out and were not left with even a blade of grass on their properties. Telstra got out there and did a magnificent job in getting phone services back on. So when you talk about Telstra, it ain't all bad; in fact, it is a very successful operation.Let me make another point about Telstra. We need to overcome another of the problems created by your Labor administration, and that is the legacy of debt you left us after your period in government—Commonwealth debt of $96 billion, at a cost of $8 billion per year in interest. The reduction of interest paid on public sector debt alone will have an enormous impact not only directly but indirectly on people who live in rural and remote Australia—and all Australians.The worst economic enemies that came out of your government were high interest rates, high inflation and an overvalued dollar through the misuse of monetary policy. We are addressing that by the reduction of that particular debt from this particular sale and keeping in place, as I have already said, the community service obligations. One can run through a number of these points, and I shall do that quickly in the time I have.The law says that all Australians must have access to standard telephones. Consumer protection laws will remain strong. Untimed local calls will also remain. Phone companies cannot force a residential phone user to pay timed local calls. Australians in regional and remote areas will continue to receive special help with their phone services in recognition of their special problems caused by distance. Madam Deputy President, I put to you and to this chamber that a modernised, competitive Telstra is far and away the most effective way to go into the future to deliver the services that are required—not only for the bush, but for all Australians.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The most convenient way to shaft the bush.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—When it is convenient, those on the other side can carp all they like. But we remember the Commonwealth Bank and we remember Qantas—we remember the track that you people went down. The fundamental difference between us and you in terms of these sales is that we will retire debt; you spent it. (Time expired)15:24:001505Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—The key issue here this afternoon is that the credibility of the government is on the line, and I will come to that in a few moments. It is clear from even the Courier-Mail , which is noted for its conservative approach, that this government has not understood what the issue is about. I hope that Senator McGauran will stand up for the National Party in a few moments and defend their rights. It was reported in the Courier-Mail that Mr Fischer said the following on yesterday's Sunday program:"It is true there has been a decline in Telstra service over the years separate from the question of ownership. Some of that reflects technology change," . . . So, on the admission of Mr Fischer—the Deputy Prime Minister of this country—there has been a decline in Telstra service. The next paragraph is interesting. He says:"I'm not satisfied, especially in recent flood times in north Queensland, that the service is where it should be and more effort must be made in that regard and it will be."That is very fine; that is very nice, but there is a clear recognition that this government needs to do something about the bush where it has failed to do so in the past. But, as I said, this is really an issue about credibility. If one looks at the editorial in the Toowoomba Chronicle of 18 March, one will see that the editor calls into question the credibility of this government. The editor said:Is it any wonder that people are mistrusting of politicians! On the page opposite we highlight what then Opposition Leader, now Prime Minister, John Howard said in relation to Telstra in the election campaign of 1996.It is unequivocal.They are the words used by the editor. He goes on to say that the then Leader of the Opposition said:"I'm being honest and up-front. We intend to sell a third and no more, a limit on the foreign ownership, only 12%, and we are going to keep the cross-subsidies."The editor goes on to say:However, Australians were given the clearest indication at the time as to what he thought in relation to selling more of Telstra—"no more".I think this really sums up where the government is at on this issue. The editor then goes on to say:Those assurances aside,—And there were some assurances that the editor acknowledged—he did make it crystal clear in 1996 exactly what he wanted in relation to Telstra.Now that has been muddied by another crystal-clear statement as part of the next election's platform.What we clearly have with this government is that they once again cannot define the difference between core and non-core; what starts out as a core promise ends up being a non-core promise and being ditched. That is the problem that we have got with this government. That is the thing that the people in the bush fear. The people in the bush are not convinced in any way whatsoever by what your side of politics is saying.15:27:001505McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—It is probably worth noting that there has been a definite change in atmosphere from last week to this week. Members will remember that question time last week was dominated by the so-called `heavyweights' of the Labor Party: Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray. But, when you delete the muck-raking and the personal attacks, as there were against Senator Parer last week and get onto a level one policy issue, the second row comes in and Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner are conspicuous by their absence.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—What are you? Nothing!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I just make that observation, Senator Hogg, that they are definitely conspicuous by their absence. Nevertheless, it was good to see Senator Schacht have a really good work-out; his first good work-out in question time since he has taken up that ministry. We have looked forward to seeing that very shy minister ask many more questions in question time. I think it is more than he has asked since he has become shadow minister. But I have to tell you that, as a head-to-head combat battle, policy issue for policy issue against the minister, Senator Alston, it was a massacre.The first thing that has to be said about our government's approach and the opposition's approach to the sale of Telstra is that on each occasion—the one-third sale of Telstra and now the two-thirds sale of Telstra following our announcement—we have sought a mandate from the people of Australia at an election: the ultimate mandate that a party can receive as they go to an election. That is the big difference. Just as we went to the last election with the one-third sale of Telstra—and a great success it was, where the Australian shareholders doubled their money and some 500,000 new shareholders who have never entered the share market before took up shares in the one-third sale of Telstra—and sought the approval of the Australian people there, we will do the same for the two-thirds sale of Telstra.In contrast, the Labor opposition cannot be trusted. Their record shows that they cannot be trusted when it comes to the matter of privatisation. Of course, that has been endorsed. Senator Crane mentioned the best example of all and that was the Commonwealth Bank. The Labor Party embraced privatisation over their 13 years of government by selling all manner of things like Qantas, the Williamstown dockyards, the Garden Island dockyard, the Moomba-Sydney gas line and so on. But for ever and a day the sale of the Commonwealth Bank will be the best example of not only how the Labor Party embraced privatisation and frittered away the funds of that particular privatisation, but also how they misled the Australian people and worst of all the shareholder of the Commonwealth Bank.I will run through the history of that particular sale. On two occasions the Labor Party went to the people not telling them that they would sell the Commonwealth Bank. After they had sold a third, the then Treasurer, Senator Willis, wrote to the existing shareholders—the mums and dads—saying, `We will not sell the second third of the Commonwealth Bank', but they did.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Senator Willis?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Mr Willis. The point is that you not only fraudulently misled the shareholders of the Commonwealth Bank, the mums and dads, but also you misled the electorate at the time. Is it any wonder that your star recruit, the former Senator Kernot from the Democrats, said this about Labor in the Age on 22 February 1996:I think Labor in opposition won't sell Telstra, but I am more worried about Labor in government.Why wouldn't we be worried about Labor in government with the record you have in regard to the Commonwealth Bank?There is a misconception being peddled by the other side about the National Party's objection in regard to the sale of Telstra. It has been well and truly confirmed by the minister that the assurances and underwriting within the legislation of services to rural and regional Australia will not only be kept, but will be enhanced. Time does not allow me to read the full list of the services that are legislated for in rural and regional areas, but I just refer the House to a joint press release. (Time expired)15:32:001506Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I wish to take note of the most extraordinary answer that Senator Alston gave to my question today. I quote his answer:I do not think I signed anything in relation to Optus and Vodafone.I have before me here and seek leave to retable three documents with the minister's signature on them that sign away all foreign ownership controls on Australia's second and third largest carriers.If the minister cannot even remember doing this, how can we trust this government to look after all consumers once Telstra is sold, if it is sold? How do we get the guarantees from this government that actually mean anything, if the minister can actually forget signing these documents? If these get through this Senate chamber untouched, our second and third largest carriers will be completely foreign owned.I do have to ask this government—with all the promises it is making at the moment—how serious it really is. When reading from this document signed by Senator Alston, it says very clearly:The Honourable Peter Costello announced that the government had decided to remove with immediate effect the foreign ownership restrictions that were specific to Optus and Vodafone. These documents relate to Optus Network, Vodafone Pty Limited and Optus Mobile Pty Limited.In case the minister has completely forgotten to the point of needing to be reminded, I seek leave to retable these documents.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Usually people do you the courtesy of letting you have a look over the documents before you do so. We are happy to have a look at them.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I am not seeking to have them incorporated. I am simply seeking to retable them. They have already been tabled by the minister back in 1997. I cannot read the date.Leave granted.Question resolved in the affirmative.150710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:150722793I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned requests that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this country are treated justly and fairly. It is in the interest of all to build this nation in a spirit of reconciliation and cooperation with Australians of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.We call on you to ensure that regional agreements with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are pursued in good faith, so as to determine their rights to their land in a spirit of reconciliation.The co-existence of Native Title and Pastoral Leases on Crown Land is supported by legal principle and historic fact, upheld by the High Court. The people and Governments of Australia have a moral responsibility to give this fact real and just effect.We call on members of the Senate to ensure that legislation regarding Native Title(i) complies with internationally recognised principles of non-discrimination; and (ii) promoted Reconciliation with Australia's first peoples.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 2,279 citizens)15071261X4West 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 126 citizens)Petitions received.Notices150715071507Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I give notice that, on 12 April 1998, I shall move:No. 1—That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Optus Mobile Pty Ltd) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No.1 of 1997), made under the Telecommunications Act 1997, be disallowed.No. 2—That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Optus Networks Pty Ltd) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No.1 of 1997), made under the Telecommunications Act 1997, be disallowed.No.3—That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Vodaphone Pty Limited) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No.1 of 1997), made under the Telecommunications Act 1997, be disallowed.15071507Ray, 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 20 days since the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) defied his own guidelines.15081508Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table, by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), by no later than 2 April 1998, the report by independent auditors Arthur Anderson, chartered accountants and management consultants, on the submission by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on the costs of funding the national broadcaster's digital transition, entitled the `Evaluation of the ABC's Digitisation Strategy', dated March 1998.15081508Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) in the Courier Mail of 5 November 1990, in explanation of why the Parer family company, Gashbah, had failed to supply Eastcourt Ltd with $250 000 which was on call, a family spokesperson said, `Senator Parer had relinquished his involvement because of his increased parliamentary duties';(b) despite his increased parliamentary duties, Senator Parer's company, Investment Management Pty Ltd, was awarded fully-franked dividends, by Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd, (QCMM) as follows: 25 February 1993 $210 372 10 September 1993 $112 000 11 March 1994 $79 556 14 October 1994 $159 177.49 10 March 1995 $84 524 11 August 1995 $99 116 for a total of $744 745.49; (c) in the year 1996, two dividends were paid to Investment Management Pty Ltd, totalling $290 000;(d) in the year 1997, and for the first half of 1998, the dividend paid each 6 months to Investment Management Pty Ltd was between $100 000 and $150 000;(e) from 1993 to the first half of 1998, fully-franked dividends totalling between $1.3 million and $1.6 million were paid by QCMM Pty Ltd to Investment Management Pty Ltd, on the basis of 16 C-class shares, which were issued for $1 each; and(f) the dividends represent odds at a minimum of 83 420 to 1 per $1 investment, and odds as a maximum of 102 172 to 1 per $1 investment.15081508Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) on 10 December 1997 the Grafton Meatworks, owned and operated by companies in the Gilbertson Group, closed down, resulting in 300 workers losing their jobs just prior to Christmas 1997, (ii) the workers employed at the meatworks were owed approximately $3 million in annual leave, long service leave, redundancy payments and other entitlements, (iii) since the closure, the New South Wales State Member for Clarence and the New South Wales Minister for Regional Development and Rural Affairs, Mr Woods, has worked tirelessly to have the meatworks re-opened with a new buyer, (iv) in the week beginning 22 March 1998, the meatworks was purchased by Ramsey Meats, and (v) Mr Stuart Ramsey of Ramsey Meats has publicly acknowledged the support and assistance given by Mr Woods and the New South Wales Government in enabling him to purchase and re-open the meatworks, thus providing employment to many of the workers who had lost their jobs; and(b) congratulates: (i) Mr Ramsey for his decision to purchase the meatworks, thus demonstrating his faith in, and commitment to, the people of the Grafton district, and (ii) Mr Woods and the New South Wales Government for their efforts and assistance in ensuring the sale and continued operation of the meatworks which is of vital importance to the people of the region and to Australia's meat export industry.15091509Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Collection) Bill 1998Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Imposition) Bill 1998Commonwealth Places (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Bill 1998National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Bill 1998National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Bill 1998.I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during this sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statements read as follows—COMMONWEALTH PLACES (MIRROR TAXES) BILL 1998COMMONWEALTH PLACES WINDFALL TAX (COLLECTION) BILL 1998COMMONWEALTH PLACES WINDFALL TAX (IMPOSITION) BILL 1998COMMONWEALTH PLACES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998Purpose of the proposed Bills:To implement the Commonwealth's legislative response to the High Court's decision in Allders International Pty Ltd v Commissioner for State Revenue (Vic) (Allders). Reasons for urgency:In endorsing the Inter-jurisdictional Taxation Agreement (IJTA), the Commonwealth agreed to protect State revenues, past and future, in light of the Allders decision. The introduction and passage of the above Bills in the 1998 Autumn sittings of Parliament is crucial if State revenues are to be protected. If the legislation is not passed before the end of 1997-98 there will be a significant impact on State Budgets.Result if Bills not dealt with in these sittings:The Commonwealth will not have fulfilled its commitment under the IJTA and it is likely to be strongly criticised by State Governments.(Circulated by authority of the Treasurer)INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL 1998In response to financial instability which emerged in the middle of 1997 in three regional economies—Thailand, Indonesia and Korea—these countries adopted substantial adjustment programs with the support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. In each case, the IMF asked Australia and selected other countries to provide additional support. Australia agreed to contribute financially in support of all three IMF programs in recognition of the economic and political importance of the countries and the region to Australia. In two of the programs, those for Indonesia and Korea, financial support is to be provided on a supplementary basis if required. These funds have yet to be activated.There is currently no practical legislative framework for allowing appropriate financial support to be offered on a government to government basis. This is not conducive to responsible public policy given that there may be occasions where an urgent provision of funds on a government to government basis is required.The international Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 (the Bill) seeks to address this deficiency by providing a standing appropriation for the Commonwealth to provide loans or currency swaps to countries undertaking IMF programs in accordance with specified conditions.It is necessary for the Bill to be introduced and passed in the Autumn sittings to provide an appropriation through which Australia can meet its commitment, along with a number of other major countries, to partially activate its financial support to Korea. It is also possible that our contribution to Indonesia may be called at short notice.The proposed Bill will provide a more transparent Parliamentary and budgetary framework for record ing these commitments consistent with the principles of the Charter of Budget Honesty.(Circulated by authority of the Treasurer)HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (HEALTH CARE AGREEMENTS) BILL 1998The Bill seeks to replace provisions in the Health Insurance Act 1973 authorising the Commonwealth to enter into hospital funding agreements with the States for the period ending 30 June 1998 with provisions authorising agreements for the period ending 30 June 2003.The Bill needs to be passed in the Autumn sittings to allow the new agreements to be drafted and signed before coming into effect on 1 July 1998.If the Bill is not passed in the Autumn sittings there would be insufficient time to obtain agreement from the States before the current Agreements expire.It was not possible to introduce the Bill in the Spring sittings as preliminary discussions with the States on the general outline of the new agreements were not sufficiently clear at the time.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Health and Family Services)NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (CUSTOMS) LEVY BILL 1998NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (EXCISE) LEVY BILL 1998PurposeThe purpose of the National Residue Survey (NRS) Amendment Bills is to correct technical faults in the NRS legislation, validate payments already made by the onion industry and provide a sound financial mechanism for the collection of statutory levies from commodity groups participating in the National Residue Survey under full cost recovery. The Bills will also consolidate the 22 levy imposition Acts into two Acts for ease of access and administrationThe legislation will validate payments already made into the National Residue Trust Account since February 1994 on behalf of the Onion Export Industry and expended on behalf of the Onion Export Industry on its residue monitoring programThe NRS implements residue monitoring programs for all agricultural products under the National Residue Survey Administration Act 1992, which recovers the costs of NRS programs from participating industries. These programs form the basis for documentation that enables the Australian Government to certify that raw food products bound for export and domestic consumption are free from significant chemical contamination.Cost recovery of National Residue Survey residue monitoring programs by statutory mechanism is at industry request.Reasons for UrgencyTechnical drafting faults have been found in the NRS legislation which occurred during drafting in 1992. These faults threaten the funding base of the majority of commodities that have chemical residue monitoring programs funded through a statutory levy under the National Residue Survey Administration Act 1992. Failure to rectify these technical faults could see commodity groups unable to participate in the residue monitoring programs.The Effect of DelayDocumentation based on the results of the residue monitoring programs forms part of the requirement for access to the European Union, United States and Japanese markets for Australian agricultural products. It is also a requirement for access to the Australian domestic markets for all meat products under the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand health standards.Access to markets for product that does not have a residue monitoring program could be denied.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)15101510Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—At the request of Senator George Campbell, I hereby withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name.15101510Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Part-Time Students) Bill 1997 be extended to 29 June 1998.15101510Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) welcomes President Menem of Argentina to Australia; (b) expresses deep concern, however, that there has been no proper accounting for the disappearance of some 10 000 Argentinian and foreign citizens during the 1970s and 1980s in Argentina; and(c) calls on President Menem to act to bring those responsible to justice.15111511Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) on 12 March 1998, the Association for the Blind officially opened a new FM radio station, 3MPH—FM in Mildura, which will cater for people with visual disabilities, including people who have little or no vision, have a physical disability, for example from a stroke or paraplegia, or who have a learning or language disability, (ii) this is the association's first rural station in Australia, reaching out to the estimated 5 000 print handicapped people in the Sunraysia region, and (iii) the association has applied for a broadcasting licence to operate a similar FM station in Bendigo, thus increasing its network of sound communication for people with disabilities;(b) recognises that this initiative will go a long way towards improving communication for and by people with visual disabilities; and(c) congratulates the association for its efforts in supporting visually impaired people in rural Victoria.Miscellaneous1511Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That government business orders of the day no. 4 (Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] and a related bill) and no. 5 (Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 [No. 2]) may be taken together for their remaining stages.Committees151115111511Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Chapman)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for presentation of the report of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities on the provisions of the Company Law Review Bill 1997 and a related bill be extended to 1 April 1998.Business15111511Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1041 standing in the names of Senator Bourne and Senator Margetts for today, relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1511Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Hogg for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees151115111511Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 be extended to 2 April 1998.Business15111511Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 641 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, relating to an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Senator Alston) be postponed till 6 April 1998.1511Motion (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 3 sitting days after today. 1512Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 931 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on certain government accountability matters, be postponed till 6 April 1998.1512Motion (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.1512Motion (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 standards for senators and members, be postponed till the next day of sitting.1512Motion (by Senator Bartlett, 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.Leave of Absence1512Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Knowles from 30 March to 8 April 1998 and Senator McGauran from 1 April to 8 April 1998, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.Miscellaneous1512Motion (by Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the recent launch of the `Reach Out' on-line youth suicide prevention service, designed to provide information and assistance anonymously for young people, their families and friends, and professionals working in the area of youth suicide and congratulates its developer and promoters, and (ii) the vital importance of such a service in communicating with young people in a way that is accessible, relevant and comfortable for them, particularly in light of the alarmingly high level of youth suicide in Australia; and(b) commends the involvement of the Department of Health and Family Services in funding this service, as well as the support of those in the wider community, including Triple J, Microsoft and Corrs Chambers Westgarth.Miscellaneous1512Motion (by Senator Gibbs) not agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that $399 million of the $1 billion Federation Fund has already been allocated to projects in Australia;(b) recognises that, of this amount, $5.4 million will be distributed to federal electorates within Queensland to comply with the commitment made in March 1998 by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to grant each electorate $200 000;(c) notes that the Prime Minister has outlined that a further $70 million, in addition to the $399 million already allocated, will be set aside for medium-sized cultural and heritage projects costing up to $5 million;(d) condemns the Howard Government for neglecting Queensland's project proposals in grants already promised;(e) recognises that the Prime Minister has stated the Federation Fund will be committed to projects which will generate large numbers of jobs;(f) condemns the Howard Government for neglecting unemployed Queenslanders by not allocating any projects in Queensland at this stage; and(g) calls on the Howard Government to ensure Queensland receives a significant amount of the remaining monies available in the Federation Fund.Committees15121512151215:50:001512Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—At the request of Sentor Conroy, I move:That the time for the presentation of 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.I seek leave to make a short statement on this matter.Leave granted.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I recognise, too, that the minister at the table, the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), may wish to follow me by seeking leave as well. I indicate now that I will of course support that request.This is a motion to require the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to report on an inquiry into the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 by 13 May 1998. The reason why this is moved is that it is very important that the Senate examine the detail of this legislation. The background to it is that the bill was referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on Friday of last week for a hearing and that that committee is to report by 2 April—that is Thursday of this week. It is our contention that there is insufficient time for the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to deal with the matters this bill covers properly and report to this chamber the details of the legislation.Notwithstanding that, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee held a meeting, I understand, at 9.30 this morning for the purpose of taking submissions. It called for submissions on Friday. It took submissions at 9.30 this morning. That meant that no party was able to prepare a formal written submission for the edification of the committee. All the submissions were oral.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—That's not true.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—My advice is that they were oral but, if Senator Ferguson says there were written submissions, I applaud the endeavour of those who were able to make written submissions. That is a point leading to what I think is the most significant issue here—that this is an omnibus bill. It covers several areas amending the tax act. Those areas go to the savings rebate, to changes to dividend streaming and imputation credits, to sections 108 and 109 of the tax act and to the choice of superannuation funds. I acknowledge that the Senate committee has conducted an inquiry into the choice of superan nuation funds. That does not in any way detract from the fact that the other areas of the bill are quite significant and important as well, and that due process ought to be engaged for those matters to be properly canvassed.The issue is that it is a tall order to expect all affected parties to gather themselves to be present at a hearing on the Monday morning following the Friday it was announced. I do not think anyone in their right mind can say that this Senate committee has had an opportunity to be sure that it has canvassed all of the opinions of those parties affected by this legislation; given them a proper chance to formulate their argument; had the chance to hear them as witnesses, and to come to conclusions and to make a report in writing to the Senate before the closing time. That is the normal problem with this committee. On that ground alone there is sufficient argument, I would submit, for consideration of this matter to be extended to the time set out in this motion.What complicates it and makes it even worse is that the government has done two things. Firstly, while it has introduced this bill into the House of Representatives, I am now advised it has not yet brought this bill on for debate. So we have not had a bill carried by the House being referred to the Senate, irrespective of the fact that the government has the opportunity to do that. Secondly, the government has now twice amended its bill. It gave notice of amendments earlier and on Friday gave notice, by way of press release from the minister in this chamber, Senator Kemp, of 49 additional amendments.I ask the Senate to pause and think: here is a bill that covers several complex areas of tax law change; there has been insufficient notice for the parties affected by that to get themselves together to present their argument; and on the eve of their doing so, in any case, the government comes down with 49 new changes to the legislation, which complicates the matter further. If the Senate committee is to have a bone fide inquiry into this legislation, it ought to do so by letting the parties affected by this legislation know the character and nature of those amendments and have an inquiry into what is being proposed.It is very likely or possible that, if the schedule imposed by the government were adhered to, the respondents to a Senate inquiry would be misdirected and make submissions about matters that the government had already decided it would change and they would not have an opportunity to address the matters that would be in the true nature of the eventual bill that this chamber would be asked to consider. That may, in the complexities of these matters, disadvantage many of those submitters.It is not as if we want to be obstructionists in relation to this bill. We do not. We want a reasonable chance for the community to react to this legislation. We do want a reasonable opportunity for this chamber to debate it. At the moment we have before the chair in this chamber the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5). That bill, hopefully, will be disposed of today and we will then turn our attention to the productivity bill. We will then have Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6), and then we will have the Public Service Bill and the fair trading bill.We know that before the House of Representatives—we got the message a moment ago—are the Managed Investments Bill and the corporate law reform bill. We propose to expedite these in a reasonable and appropriate way. That is not to say they go through without consideration. They do not. They would go through with proper and appropriate consideration as expeditiously as this chamber can manage, given the reasonable workload that it has to face and is expected to produce, and in a way in which we balance that demand against the rights of proper inquiry and scrutiny of legislation.I understand—I conclude on this point—that those who did appear before the inquiry this morning did so on the basis of the bill that was presented and they did not include in their submissions any discussion of the new amendments that have been lodged.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—That's not true.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am advised that that is the case. I acknowledge Senator Ferguson is the chair of the committee, so his interjection does carry weight. But my advice, equally, is from an extremely informed source. I do not know what the truth of the matter is.Senator Ferguson interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No; I respect your interjection and I am not going to argue the point. I am just saying this is my advice as you are interjecting that my advice is wrong.Irrespective of that fact, some people who had prior knowledge of the amendments may know their content. I must admit I have not had a chance to come to grips with them. If justice is at all seen to be done, there ought to be at least a process by which those reasonably affected by this legislation know what the amendments are and have a chance to put submissions forward. It is for those reasons that I have moved the motion circulated in Senator Conroy's name.15:59:001514Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I seek leave to make a short statement and to move an amendment to the motion before the chamber.Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—This is an important motion because Senator Cook's motion, if carried, would delay the implementation of a very important aspect of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No.7) and cause serious problems in the implementation of other aspects of this bill. People are wanting certainty. Senator Cook gave us a very strong lecture this morning on the problems of delaying tax bills but, within hours, he stands up and seeks to move a motion which would delay this very important bill further.The government's position on this is quite clear. The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee has had plenty of opportunity to refer this bill to a legislation committee, and on at least two occasions this matter was deferred. Just as this bill is coming up for debate in this chamber, suddenly the Labor Party decides that it has to be referred and debate on this bill has to be delayed until 13 May.This is a classic filibuster. It is a misuse of this committee, in my view. If the Labor Party felt that this bill was so important—we believe it is a very important bill—and was concerned about this bill, it had plenty of time to refer this bill to a legislation committee. Twice, as my colleague Senator Campbell reminds me, it chose not to do it. Now that this bill is coming forward for debate, the Labor Party decides that the moment is nigh and it has to be referred to a committee.This bill contains major budget initiatives, including the savings rebate and choice of fund measures. If the Senate committees are going to be used in this manner to filibuster, delay and hold up, we are seeing a serious misuse of the Senate committee system. I am surprised that Senator Cook and Senator Conroy would allow the committees to be used in this manner.We will be opposing Senator Cook's motion and the date referred to by Senator Cook of 13 May. We believe that that would be a most unnecessary delay. However, we have listened to other concerns in the chamber. I will be moving an amendment to the motion proposed by Senator Cook to leave out `13 May 1998' and insert `6 April 1998'. The reason for that is that, to the extent that there is any merit in the argument that Senator Cook has raised—and I believe there is no merit—if people now wish to come forward and present evidence to the committee, there will be time for that to occur and time for the committee to report and it would allow this bill to be debated the following week. I move:Omit "13 May 1998", substitute "6 April 1998".16:02:001515Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I wish to take issue with the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp). I think it was entirely proper for the Labor Party to refer the bill. I have not seen any filibuster yet—I think you used that term in the broader sense—because the matter has not been before the Senate, so it has not been debated in that sense.The Australian Democrats thought that it was foolish for the committee to have originally been given an unreasonable time to report. I think it was referred on a Thursday to report on a Monday, and that was plainly impossible. That certainly got our hackles up. We thought it was marginally less foolish that it should report this Thursday.However, it is frequent that bills should be reviewed and discussed and a report brought down within a week. That is quite common in my experience of the Senate Economics Committee's operation and, indeed, other committees on which I sit. There is great merit in Senator Cook's argument because of the scope of the bill. However, a substantial slab of the bill—namely, the superannuation slab—has already been referred to a committee and has been reported on. That leaves two areas—the savings rebates area and the other provisions in the bill on dividend distributions and capital gains tax based changes.To use some of Senator Cook's own language, I am sympathetic to your intention, but what concerns me is the fear of an early election and the 1 July deadline on some of this tax legislation. I think that the Labor Party will be able to address many of the substantive issues in the debate. I personally am not convinced that the government will be able to bring on the matter next week if it tries to deal with all the 35 bills that are before us this week.Having said those things, Senator Cook, on the balance of the issues before me, I think I am obliged to support the government in its intention to report early next week and therefore to bring the debate on for next week. That indicates our position. We will be extremely irritable if, having made this fuss, the government does not bring on the legislation next week. I think there will then be grounds to raise the matter again.Amendment agreed to.Motion, as amended, agreed to.Miscellaneous1515Motion (by Senator Gibbs) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that the recent electricity blackouts throughout Queensland caused chaos and confusion for householders and businesses;(b) recognises the reported recent comments by senior industry officials that there is potential for Queenslanders to experience further electricity shortages during the coming winter period;(c) expresses its concern at the further damage this could do to suffering householders and businesses; and (d) condemns: (i) the Queensland Government for its inept handling of the crisis and for misleading Queenslanders about the potential risk for future shortages; and (ii) the Queensland Deputy Premier and Treasurer (Mrs Sheldon) for her union-bashing conspiracy theory in blaming the electricity unions for the disruption to the power supply.Miscellaneous1516Motion (by Senator McKiernan) agreed to: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. Bills1516r388Billsr3991516Bills received from the House of Representatives.1516Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.151616:10:001516Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the ANL Sale Bill 1998 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—ANL SALE BILL 1998The ANL Sale Bill contains provisions to facilitate the sale of ANL Limited. In summary, the bill includes provisions with respect to the transfer of employees, employee entitlements, a vesting power, a Ministerial power to direct ANL and removal of access to any tax benefit relating to ANL's accumulated losses. These provisions provide additional flexibility for the sale of ANL and are generally similar to provisions that are contained in other sale legislation.The bill includes provisions that:. preserve the pre-sale rights of ANL employees who have long service leave and maternity leave entitlements and certain retirement benefits under Commonwealth legislation while they remain ANL employees;. clarify that ANL employees' access to Public service mobility rights ceases on sale day; . ensures that the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 continues to apply after the sale in respect of injuries sustained by ANL Group employees covered by the act prior to the sale;. amends the ANL Act 1956 to remove provisions that would not appropriately apply in the case of a private company, such as the specific statutory protection of trading names;. preserves the post sale operation, in respect of events occurring prior to the sale, of a number of acts such as the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 and the Judiciary Act 1903;. removes ANL from the operation of a number of acts which apply to Commonwealth-controlled entities, such as the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the National Crime Authority Act 1984, and the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment Act 1991;. ends ANL's future liability under the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act 1987;. provides powers to vest specified ANL assets, contractual rights and obligations and liabilities in specified persons;. allows the transfer by the Commonwealth or Commonwealth subsidiaries of assets, contractual rights and obligations and liabilities that have been vested in the Commonwealth to specified persons;. allows for the provision of ANL assistance to the Commonwealth;allows for the use and disclosure of information by ANL or the Commonwealth;. amends the ANL Act 1956 to provide a Ministerial power of direction to ANL;. removes the availability of ANL tax losses and other benefits from a buyer of ANL; and. incorporates provisions relating to the transfer of ANL staff to another employer body.I commend the bill to the Senate.SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1997Madam President, this bill amends the superannuation legislation to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the superannuation supervisory framework.Superannuation plays a significant role in the Government's commitment to increase national saving and in the Government's retirement income policy. It is therefore vital that an effective regulatory regime is in place and maintained to enhance the security of members' benefits and to ensure that superannuation entities operate for genuine retirement income purposes.The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (the SIS Act) provides for the prudential regulation of the superannuation industry by the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. An important aspect of prudential regulation is the monitoring and investigation powers of the Commissioner.This bill will improve the Commissioner's monitoring and investigation powers by increasing the flexibility of the existing powers, expanding the parties to whom they apply and increasing penalties for non-compliance. It is vital to the prudential regulation of superannuation moneys in Australia that the Commissioner have effective monitoring and investigation powers.Another important aspect of the regulatory framework is the existence of a complaints handling body to deal with members' superannuation complaints. The Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (the SRC Act) established the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to resolve fund member complaints about trustee decisions in a manner that is fair, informal and quick. This bill will enable the efficiency and productivity of the Tribunal to be improved, including by allowing single member review panels. This will enhance the Tribunal's role in promoting public confidence in the superannuation regime.The bill also contains a number of measures which will finetune and clarify the operation of the supervisory framework which will assist trustees in discharging their obligations to fund members.In conclusion, this bill implements miscellaneous amendments to maintain and strengthen the superannuation supervisory framework. The amendments will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory regime and improve confidence in the superannuation system more generally.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Miscellaneous15171517Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997 and the amendment moved by Senator Stott Despoja on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.16:15:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Colston, M. A. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.47Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. *Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Heffernan, W. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.1518Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Bills1518r104Billsr1061518PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION BILL 1996Consideration resumed from 3 December 1997.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We are up to Democrat amendment No. 4 on sheet 684 revised-2.16:22:001518Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(4) Division 2 of Part 4, page 14 (line 2) to page 17 (line 11), omit the Division, substitute:Division 2—Competitive neutrality complaints21 Complaints to the Commission (1) A person may complain to the Commission that: (a) a particular Commonwealth Government business or business activity, or a business or business activity competing with a Commonwealth Government business or business activity, is not conducted in accordance with competitive neutrality arrangements that apply to it; or (b) a particular Commonwealth government or business activity, or a business or business activity competing with a Commonwealth government business or business activity, should be required to be conducted in accordance with competitive neutrality arrangements. (2) The complaint must be in writing. (3) The Commission is to give particular regard to ensuring the interests of users of the service are considered in relation to the complaint and may invite submissions from interested parties. (4) In addition to the obligations imposed on the functions of the Commission in section 8, the Commission must give particular consideration to the public interest requirements in clause 1 of the Competition Principles Agreement signed by the Commonwealth Government on April 11 1995. (5) Competitive neutrality arrangements are the arrangements referred to by that name in the Commonwealth Government Competitive Neutrality Statement of June 1996 (the aim of which is to ensure that significant business activities do not enjoy net competitive advantages or disadvantages in comparison with their competitors by virtue of their public sector ownership).22 Discretion not to investigate complaints (1) The Commission may decide not to investigate a complaint, if in the opinion of the Commission: (a) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith; or (b) the complainant does not have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint; or (c) an investigation is not warranted having regard to all the relevant circumstances. (2) If the Commission decides not to investigate a complaint it must inform the complainant of the decision.This important amendment refers to competitive neutrality complaints. It seeks to broaden and to clarify the role of the commission in dealing with competitive neutrality complaints. Proposed section 21 will not just allow private sector competitors with government businesses to complain about the operation of competitive neutrality arrangements; rather, it will also allow government enterprises to complain that they are suffering a disadvantage because of the operation of the policy. This adds a symmetry to the provision which we think is important.Subclause 21(3) says:The Commission is to give particular regard to ensuring the interests of users of the service are considered in relation to the complaint and may invite submissions from interested parties.That makes it clear that the users of this service should be the paramount consideration. This obviously needs to be read in conjunction with public interest requirements, referred to in subclause 21(4), found in the competition principles agreement. These include policies on ecologically sustainable development, social welfare consideration, occupational health and safety, access and equity, regional development, interests of consumers and the efficient allocation of resources. That makes it clear that the public benefit and public policy considerations are particularly relevant in considering competitive neutrality complaints. Clause 22 concerns the discretion not to investigate complaints. It replicates clause 26 of the original bill and gives the commission power not to deal with some categories of complaints.The Democrats decided to bring these compromise amendments forward because we believe it is necessary that parliament give some clear direction about what is the public interest in dealing with competitive neutrality complaints. We previously have clearly outlined our fears concerning competitive neutrality, but competitive neutrality is a fact. It has been established by the previous government with the support of the coalition, and they are continuing it.The bill, as originally presented, was unsatisfactory. The function of competitive neutrality complaints was maintained but there was no other guidance as to how this should occur. It was also pointed out that a complaints mechanism could even be built into the Industry Commission Act by ministerial reference. So, while we are not happy with the general approach of both the coalition and Labor to competitive neutrality issues and policy, the Democrats decided that, if there must be a complaints mechanism, we should have a clear statement of what is the public interest in respect of such complaints. That is what we have sought to do with this amendment.Amendment agreed to.16:25:001519Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(5) Clause 27, page 18 (line 12), at the end of paragraph (2)(b), add: ; or (c) the lack of a member who meets the requirements of subsection 30(2A), (2B) or (2C) for a period of not more than 4 months.This amendment was drawn up after discussion with the government following its acceptance of Senate amendments to include commissioners experienced in environmental, industry or social service matters. You will recall clearly that the Senate was pleased that the government was prepared to accept those amendments, believing that it properly broad ened the ability and skills that the commissioners would bring to their task. This amendment seeks to ensure that the commission can continue to function during short periods while these positions might be unfulfilled. We think four months is a reasonable time to fill such positions. I would appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer (Senator Ian Campbell) indicating whether that is a reasonable period in which we will be seeing these positions unoccupied.16:27:001520Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Murray, you have had experience in the commercial world, as have I, and I am sure that four months would seem reasonable based on that experience. But I am just beginning to have some experience in government, and sometimes things take a little bit longer—as Humphrey Appleby used to say—due to administrative and other matters. The government would prefer it to be six months because it would give us a bit more flexibility. It could well be done in four months, but six months would mean that we are not too constricted. It is something that we would certainly not die in the ditch about.16:28:001520Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We are opposed to the Productivity Commission Bill 1996 , so if it takes six months to get it up, that suits us fine.Amendment agreed to.16:28:001520Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:Subclause 28(2), omit ", inlcuding employment in industry development, environmental or social equity matters".(7) Clause 30, page 18 (after line 24), after subclause (2) insert: (2A) At least one member must have extensive skills and experience in matters relating to the principles of ecologically sustainable development and environmental conservation. (2B) At least one member must have extensive skills and experience in matters relating to the social effects of economic adjustment and social welfare service delivery. (2C) At least one member must have extensive skills and experience acquired in working in Australian industry.I begin by remarking that, with the absence of Senator Kemp, this debate is going along quite quickly. I am beginning to wonder whether we can sheet home the blame for the delays to him. I note, Senator Cook, that you have been taking a bit of a pounding from him for delaying things.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—I am not sure whether that is a matter of relevance. 3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—No, it is not; it was just an aside. Democrats amendments 6 and 7 seek to delete an earlier amendment which was pointed out to us to be unnecessary, given the prescription of the mandatory commission memberships, which we modified again in amendment 7, which is a technical amendment that cleans up the appointment issue. I have moved it with amendment 6, on the advice of the commission, to ensure that our mandatory commission memberships are in the proper place. I commend these amendments to the committee.16:30:001520Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We will support these amendments, even though they disturb amendments that we have moved. The fact of the matter is that here, in a way, the government has brought this on itself. By amalgamating three bodies that cover a wide scope of public policy making, it invites an amendment of this nature in order to provide that the relevant body has within it the scope of expertise and speciality that is necessary to cover the wide field. We support the amendments.Amendments agreed to.16:31:001520Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:Subclause 49(1), omit ", after engaging in an open and transparent competitive tendering process where the estimated value of the consultancy exceeds an amount to be prescribed".(9) Clause 49, page 30 (after line 13), after subclause (1), insert: (1AA) In selecting consultants and in its annual reporting on the engagement of consultants, the Commission must follow the Commonwealth's best practice standards.(10) Omit subclause 49(1A), substitute: (1A) The Chair must ensure that the Commonwealth's best practice standards are used in selecting consultants and in public reporting on their engagement. (1B) If the estimated value of a consultancy exceeds the amount prescribed by the regulations, the Chair must ensure that an open, competitive tendering process is used in selecting the consultant or consultants.Amendments 8 to 10 amend the previously agreed Senate amendment dealing with engagement of consultants. These amendments have followed on from advice we have taken from both the commission and the government. The only real change is that the chair will be required to follow the Commonwealth's best practice standards on engagement of consultants. The amendments retain, in addition, the former Senate approved amendment of seeking an open tendering process for consultancies above the required amount. As such, the amendment goes a little further than the previous Senate amendment, depending of course on how tough the government's best practice standards prove to be.Amendments agreed to.16:32:001521Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(11) Clause 49, page 30 (line 16), omit "The Chair", substitute "Subject to any commitments under any award or employment agreement, the Chair".This amendment seeks to ensure that the chair, in engaging any staff or consultants, abides by the relevant award or employment agreement. I think that is pretty self-explanatory.Amendment agreed to.16:33:001521Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:(1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 2 to 5), omit the definition of industry , substitute: industry means industry of any kind (including any business or activity relating to goods or services), and a reference to industry is a refer ence to a particular industry or part of an industry or a group or groups of particular interests.This amendment proposes to adjust the definition of `industry' in clause 3 of the bill, consistent with the ALP preferred model of making the Productivity Commission a specific reference body rather than a more general reference body. The amendment contracts the definition of `industry' from one which includes Australian industry in general to particular industries or parts of industries.This will allow the commission to focus on specific issues within industries which should allow greater emphasis on practical considerations, as opposed to an overtly theoretical approach which could arise from a more generalist reference. Therefore, this is an outstanding amendment. I commend it to the committee.16:33:001521Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—This amendment seeks to confine the reference to industry to only refer to a particular industry rather than industry in general—which I find might be a bit semantic. I know that industry spokesperson Simon Crean, who is very capable in the area, regularly talks about industry in a generic rather than a specific sense. We will not be supporting this amendment.Amendment not agreed to.16:34:001521Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—by leave—I move:Omit paragraphs 8(1)(f) and (g), substitute: (f) to increase employment, with particular emphasis on regional areas; and (g) to promote regional development, particularly in those regions affected by geographic isolation, transport barriers (such as Bass Strait) or other special factors; and(2) Clause 10, page 6 (after line 20), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) In the report, the Commission must also report on the productivity performance of regional economies.These amendments are self-explanatory. I suppose this argument has taken place over a period of time. I think it is generally agreed around the place that we should really recognise the impact of economic factors affecting employment in regional areas; that the com mission should recognise those impacts; and that we should provide the states and territories with some involvement in the inquiry process. I foreshadow that that is the basis for all my amendments.But so far as amendments 1 and 2 are concerned, it is clear that this is an attempt, and it is one that I hope will be supported around the chamber, to include reference to special factors affecting isolated regional economies—such as Tasmania, for example, with the Bass Strait—in general policy guidelines. That is why I am proposing that there be a new paragraph 8(1)(f), that the commission should have regard to the need:to increase employment, with particular emphasis on regional areas . . . and a new paragraph 8(1)(g):to promote regional development, particularly in those regions affected by geographic isolation, transport barriers (such as Bass Strait) or other special factors . . . Then I am proposing amendment No. 2 to clause 10, page 6, after line 20, after subclause (3), to insert:(2A) In the report, the Commission must also report on the productivity performance of regional economies.I think that is very, very important since both the government and the opposition are—indeed, the parliament as a whole is—very well aware of the existence of regional economies. This debate will be going to and fro, I guess, in the next month or two particularly. I would just like to commend to the committee my amendments; I hope that they may be successful.16:37:001522Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I note the running sheet says, `NB Harradine (1) conflicts with opp (2) below'. I do not think it does. We would want to support the Harradine amendments but, assuming those amendments are carried—and I have a sort of prescient sense that they may be—we would like to add them to the list of—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—You may still move your amendment afterwards.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—We will support the Harradine amendments.16:38:001522Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I would like to make a couple of comments. I do not think Senator Harradine's amendments in any way conflict with the general policy guidelines that are already in the government's bill as amended. They do, as Senator Harradine has made clear, in parts (g), (f) and other parts, refer to employment and to regional economies. We believe that, in some respects, Senator Harradine's amendments may even limit what the commission could do.We think that the way the bill is termed at the moment encompasses everything that Senator Harradine has in his mind and certainly everything he has in his amendments. But we think the use of the words `such as Bass Strait' in respect of paragraph (g) of clause 8(1) is getting far too specific. I guess as Western Australians Senator Cook and I would probably, along that line, support an amendment that said `and the Nullarbor Plain'. If you were a Queenslander perhaps you would talk about the great distances in Queensland. The government's bill, as it is drafted, looks at regional development and looks at employment, including in regional areas. It encompasses all of these things without getting so specific. Therefore the government will not be accepting the amendment, although I do not think there is any difference between Senator Harradine and the government in terms of the emphasis.Amendments not agreed to.16:40:001522Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:(2) Clause 8, omit the clause, substitute:8 General policy guidelines for Commission (1) In the performance of its functions, the Commission must give priority to: (a) encouraging the development and growth of Australian industries that are efficient in their use of resources, enterprising, innovative and internationally competitive; and (b) facilitating adjustment to structural changes in the economy and avoidance of social and economic hardships arising from those changes; and (c) recognition of the interests of industries, employees, consumers and the community, likely to be affected by measures proposed by the Commission; and (d) growth in employment, including in regional areas; and (e) promotion of regional development; and (f) Australia's international obligations; and (g) progress made by Australia's trading partners in reducing both tariff and non-tariff barriers. (2) In the performance of its functions, the Commission must also have regard to any other matters notified to it in writing by the Minister. (3) Where a matter is referred to the Commission for inquiry and report, the Commission must: (a) report on the basis of methodologies, assessments and recommendations adopted by the Commission; and (b) inquire into and report on social, economic and environmental consequences of any recommendations it makes, including the consequences for the distribution of employment, income, resources and services between individuals and groups in the community.This amendment seeks to rewrite clause 8 of the bill, which involves the general policy guidelines to be followed by the commission. It is one of the great weaknesses of the bill, I think, that this is not spelt out more fully. The government has completely neglected some very significant policy guidelines, which this amendment will insert. For example, the amendment will ensure that the commission must give priority to, among other things, encouraging the development and growth of Australian industry; the avoidance of social and economic hardships arising from structural adjustment; recognising the interests of industries, employees and consumers; the promotion of regional development—the point that Senator Harradine was referring to; the progress made by Australia's trading partners in reducing both tariff and non-tariff barriers; and Australia's international obligations.The amendment will assist in ensuring that the material factors actually facing Australia will be taken into account by the commission when undertaking its analysis. That must be central to any advice provided and it should not be an afterthought. This amendment is also a further attempt to ensure that the advice from the commission is practical in its outlook and not overly theoretically based. If the National Party senators do not support this amendment they will be voting against their own interests and against regional development, especially regional employment.Being well aware of the significance of these particular points in encouraging the development of Australian industry seems open-ended enough but, nonetheless, with the experience that we have had over the years of the Industry Commission, which is the prime mover in this three-way amalgamation, that ought to be spelt out. The other things about tariff and non-tariff barriers, and Australia's international obligations should also be spelt out.16:42:001523Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The amendment moved by the Labor Party broadens out some of the considerations that should be followed by the Industry Commission. It is no secret that the Greens (WA) do not support the establishment of the Productivity Commission and that we are fundamentally opposed to the existence of such bodies as the Productivity Commission, which is a publicly funded, rationalist think-tank used to pump out the same old recommendations on those things like accelerating your regulation; cutting tariffs, concessions and subsidies; lowering labour costs; and promoting user pays. It is a finely honed vehicle to further entrench a single, narrow economic fundamentalist perspective. It ensures that narrow dollar sign concepts such as productivity are entrenched benchmarks according to which everything is judged. Genuine concerns of unemployment, poverty, including the increasing number of poor, social justice, distribution of wealth, sustainable development and standard of living are becoming increasingly marginalised and only token consideration is given, if any. We will nevertheless support the ALP amendment to slightly broaden the policy guidelines. We are hoping that it can improve during the course of this reconsideration.16:44:001524Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Before I make my remarks on this amendment I should indicate to Senator Harradine that I did not give him the courtesy of a response to his previous amendment because I was consulting with my adviser. We do believe that the commission, under the amended act, now has to have regard to the need to increase employment and to promote regional development. We thought that Senator Harradine's amendment, focusing on types of regions rather than regional development generally, did not advance matters particularly.With regard to Senator Cook's amendment, we had an extensive debate on clause 8 and the general policy guidelines of the commission the first time this bill was considered. As I recall, the government accepted pretty much all of the amendments sought then. The second part of the amendment seeks to require the social, economic and environmental consequences of any recommendations to be included in their report. This is unnecessary, given the changes we have made to the guidelines and to the commission's membership, which will take effect when a report is to be approved. In other words, they must report on social, economic and environmental consequences. Consequently, whilst we have great sympathy with the amendment, we regret that we will not be able to support it.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—We now move to opposition amendment No. 3.16:46:001524Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I do not propose to proceed with this amendment, Mr Chairman.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—We will now move to Senator Harradine's amendments Nos 3, 5 and 6.16:46:001524Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am hesitant to move these amendments and therefore I will not speak long on them; I just wanted to get a feel from the committee. They are self-explanatory. I think it is very important to take the states and territories along with us, and perhaps the minister would be able to indicate to me whether or not the government is prepared to support amendment No. 3, which is to require the minister not to refer a matter to the commission for inquiry unless the minister has consulted the relevant state or territory governments. It is not a veto power that I am suggesting. If the government and other members of the committee are not overanxious about this particular amendment, I will not move it.16:47:001524Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—On the face of it, it looks reasonable, but there are matters which this commission would look into that have no relevance to state or territory governments. I think Senator Harradine would concede that. There are matters which are purely for the Commonwealth, particularly if it is a matter of Commonwealth administration of a Commonwealth head of power where the states had no involvement. I know that this government would consult with state and territory governments wherever that was necessary but, in practice, referring to state or territory governments any matter that was going to be inquired into adds a whole new raft of unnecessary paperwork and it does slow processes up. Even where states have to be consulted as a matter of courtesy, it requires work, discussion, responses, advice, transfer of letters and so forth, so I think you would have to say that it is unnecessary, from the government's point of view.16:48:001524Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We are often painted as the great centrists, but I do see some merit in this amendment. The first point is that this body is essentially going to look at fundamental questions of competitiveness, economic efficiency, industry adjustment and things that affect the regions. If it is to have any moral authority and approval to look at these areas, one would have thought that, as a first step, the regions, that is, the state and territory governments, should be consulted in some way about what the government intends to refer to them. Whether or not it is the practice, we have no objection to having such a practice enshrined in the legislation.The second point is that there are things which the Commonwealth would want to see happen—one hopes—that would improve the productivity, competitiveness and industry adjustment regional focus of Australia which conceivably would not necessarily be things supported automatically by the states or territories. I have in mind the recent report that Senator Kemp and I fell out over; that is, the report into competitive bidding between the states. This report showed that the states, in order to attract industry to their area, simply bid up the types of subsidies they offer a particular company, without any real benefit to the nation, and then put the lock on the Commonwealth at premiers conferences to pay more money to meet their inflated bids. That is a matter of national efficiency and it is also a matter of behaviour by the states which needs to be brought under rein. I think the states often find a degree of discomfort in having the spotlight of clarity and transparency fixed on.I do not think the Commonwealth should not proceed in that area. I have in mind—don't quote me on this figure; I think it is indicative rather than accurate—that something like $5 billion worth of useless expenditure was, to use an expression I have heard in question time, `thrown up against the wall' because of states which, like in an auction, bid up the amount of subsidies, grants or tax breaks that they were offering particular companies to locate in their area, without any real benefit to the nation at all. If you were going to embark on a course to rein in this practice, I think you would start by talking to them, trying to involve them and trying to get a basic commitment to looking fairly at this produce and putting an end to it, following upon a report by a commission such as this. That is one matter that comes to mind. There are other matters.I do not think this is a die in the ditch argument. It is just a sensible, reasonable proposition and not one which will necessari ly excite great emotion, but I would support it.16:52:001525Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to ask the minister a question in relation to some of the issues that have just been brought onto the agenda by Senator Cook. As we are dealing with the level of consultation with state and territory governments, I was wondering what the current situation is with respect to the states providing deals such as infrastructure, tax holidays or other things that are encompassed in such things as state agreement acts. Are they going to be reviewed as part of the competition process?16:53:001525Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Margetts, although that matter, as much as Senator Cook has raised it as an example of what the Commonwealth should be required to consult on with the states, comes within discussion of this bill in committee it is not really related to it, but I am happy to get the minister to give you a more specific answer. I think, as Senator Cook said, it is up to the states to make these sorts of decisions. The Commonwealth can look at it and I guess the Productivity Commission could look at it. Clearly, the commission will have to speak to the states in relation to any matter that involves the states and, if it involves the sorts of things that Senator Cook has in mind, then it will do that. But to require the commission and the minister to do so prior to making an inquiry would considerably constrain the minister in making references to the commission where the states and the territories have no interest whatsoever. That would certainly create unnecessary bureaucracy, and the government remains opposed to this amendment.16:55:001525Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to clarify that situation. The minister said that it was up to the states, but surely it is not. Once we have the Productivity Commission legislation and the competition policy legislation, then it will not be up to the states whether those types of practices are reviewed, will it?16:55:001525Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—In the part of the competition legislation to which I think you are referring, the ACCC is the responsible body and, indeed, it will look into those things. There is an interesting example of that in the state of Western Australia, as Senator Margetts would know, where the ACCC came in and actually stopped an agreement to supply gas to a steel mill in Western Australia. Senator Margetts, it is interesting that that agreement could not have been knocked over by the ACCC without the competition legislation that you actually opposed.Amendment (by Senator Harradine) proposed:(3) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 18), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Minister must not refer a matter to the Commission for inquiry unless the Minister has consulted the relevant State or Territory governments.16:56:001526Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I wish to add briefly to the debate. As Senator Margetts pointed out, we have no affection whatsoever for Labor's Industry Commission, and I suspect we will not feel much warmer towards the coalition's Productivity Commission. However, with the amendments the government has accepted on its nature, management and objectives, we believe it is a considerable advancement on the previous Industry Commission. What concerns me about Senator Harradine's amendment is that, if we are concerned about the Commonwealth's policy direction, I can assure you that we would not like to see that multiplied eight times by being concerned about the states' and territories' prescriptive requirement. We do believe that consultation should be carried out but, in some instances, it may be advisable for the Commonwealth to have a free hand, so we will not be supporting this amendment.16:58:001526Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I do not want to delay this but I understand, now that the signals have been exchanged, that this is going to be defeated, and it is a pity because we are confusing process with objective. This is a federation after all. There is no doubt that governing the nation has to be done in concert with the states and the territories. These are matters of national competitiveness, productivity, et cetera. To consult with the states is a matter of how you work towards the objective of reform. If we simply argue it on the basis of, `That's a process that is unnecessary,' we are looking at it in mechanistic terms, not in terms of the goal of making a more competitive Australia. I understand the signals that have been exchanged, but I just want to put on the record that I do not think this is a big deal; it is just what you would do as a responsible government to bring the community behind some kind of reform making process, and I think it will be a terrible pity if it is defeated.Amendment not agreed to.16:59:001526Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have heard what is being said around the chamber and what Senator Murray has said. The government has said that my bowling average is pretty pathetic this afternoon. I think I will retire to the outfield by advising the committee that I will not be moving any further amendments.17:00:001526Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I think my bowling average has been equally abysmal, but I will try and persist.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no more room in the outfield, Senator Cook.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I would put myself a bit further up the order.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Michael Kasprowicz is bigger than you are.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is right, and he is a Queenslander, but we won the shield. I want that clear on the record that Western Australia won the Sheffield Shield on the weekend, and what an outstanding performance it was.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Hear, hear!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I move:(4) Clause 52, page 32 (line 31), omit the penalty, substitute: Penalty: $50. (5) Clause 52, page 32 (line 32) to page 33 (line 5), omit the note, substitute: Note: This penalty is a maximum penalty (section 4D, Crimes Act 1914 ). If a body corporate is convicted of the offence, a court may impose a fine not more than 5 times the maximum fine that the court could impose on an individual for the same offence (subsection 4B(3), Crimes Act 1914 ). Penalty units are defined in section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 .(6) Clause 53, page 33 (line 15), omit the penalty, substitute: Penalty: $50.(7) Clause 53, page 33 (lines 16 to 23), omit the note, substitute: Note: This penalty is a maximum penalty (section 4D, Crimes Act 1914 ). If a body corporate is convicted of the offence, a court may impose a fine not more than 5 times the maximum fine that the court could impose on an individual for the same offence (subsection 4B(3), Crimes Act 1914 ). Penalty units are defined in section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 .(8) Clause 54, page 33 (line 30), omit the penalty, substitute: Penalty: $50.(9) Clause 54, page 33 (line 31) to page 34 (line 5), omit the note, substitute: Note: This penalty is a maximum penalty (section 4D, Crimes Act 1914 ). If a body corporate is convicted of the offence, a court may impose a fine not more than 5 times the maximum fine that the court could impose on an individual for the same offence (subsection 4B(3), Crimes Act 1914 ). Penalty units are defined in section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 .Amendments 4 to 9 cover the penalty provisions contained in clauses 52 to 54. Clause 52, notice to a person to provide information and documents; clause 53, summons to persons to attend a hearing; clause 54, refusal to answer questions or produce documents; and any breach of these provisions provides for a maximum penalty of six months in gaol. The provisions are the same as appear in the Industry Commission Act.The Productivity Commission is a new body, however, with enormously enhanced functions and a much wider and varied scope and reach than the Industry Commission had. It takes in the Bureau of Industry Economics and EPAC, and the Productivity Commission has the power in one organisation that previously existed in three separate organisations.The powers that I have referred to—the notice to a person to provide information and documents, the summons to attend a hearing and the penalties that can be imposed on the refusal to answer questions or produce documents—are very draconian powers for a body that is tasked with the responsibility of recommending on micro-economic reform issues. As such, the Productivity Commission is an information and reporting body and not a judicial and investigative body.The amendments that I am proposing should be supported. I want to emphasise the point that here we have a body which is an inquirer into the nature of competition in the economy—what can be done to make the economy more effective, what efficiency gains are possible, and so forth—and you load it with policing powers reminiscent of what a totalitarian state might provide in its social law.Let me give you an example of why I think this is draconian. At present we have contretemps on the waterfront. We know that the NFF is setting up a rival company. We know that persons unknown—but we suspect who they are—engaged in a military type operation in Dubai. If the Productivity Commission were inquiring into waterfront efficiency under this legislation it could require the Maritime Workers Union to come forward and explain what their particular objectives were and, on pain of their not doing so, gaol them for six months.This amendment proposes a fine of $50, which we think is a more appropriate level of compulsion. For a commission that is basically out to analyse and inquire to have policing and imprisonment powers of this order is well and truly off the planet. I know the Industry Commission did have that, but I would have some reservations about whether even that was appropriate. Even if you hold the view that it was appropriate for the Industry Commission to have those powers, I cannot see why you would hold the view that is appropriate for the Productivity Commis sion, on a much wider scope, with a much broader canvas, to have those powers. I support the amendments.17:04:001528Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to ask a question of Senator Cook to find out whether or not this amendment deals just with individuals or also with individuals involved as companies. You know that the Greens would always support removing prison penalties from bills, but it is also good to make sure that it does not mean that the little person is going to make sure they come along to avoid a $50 fine, but other people, who have a great deal of resources and should potentially be explaining themselves in front of the Productivity Commission, feel quite happy to get their company accountant to send off a $50 fine. I am wondering whether or not we are dealing with corporations potentially being able to thumb their noses, whereas the little person might not be able to do that.17:05:001528Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My amendments deal with a person. You would have to look at what is defined as `a person' for the purposes of the bill. I have not turned up the definitions to check that point. My normal understanding is that of course a company has a personality in the sense of the persons who lead it. I am not sure if that is the reference in this bill. I imagine it would be so—that a corporation is represented by a person who is ultimately responsible, and that person can be dealt with for the purposes of law. I assume—unless someone can enlighten me that I am wrong—that that is what is covered here and, indeed, that is what our intention would be.I see the purpose of Senator Margetts' concern in the articulation of her question and the core of that concern. Maybe laws of this nature would encourage powerful corporations that would otherwise resist being forced to comply. If that is the proposition, I am not sure that it indeed holds.This is a trivial way of explaining it, but even in the most recent movie now playing on the flight to Perth, Rainmaker, it did not stop the powerful corporations employing batteries of high-priced lawyers in order to evade or avoid their obligation at law. That is what you would find and this whole thing would get into a tortuous, long-running legal battle which would not necessarily have the `they lived happily ever after' outcome of the movie.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You have spoilt it for me, Peter. It was a happy ending, was it?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I thought the big faceless corporations got done over and the small individuals who stood up against the system won in that movie, but art does not necessarily imitate life. My worry is that that can happen in filmic fantasy, but whether it happens in real life is another matter. We are moving a long way from the point.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I was planning to watch that movie on the way home on Friday and you just ruined it for me. I know the ending now. I will have to change flights.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am sorry. I thought if you had read any review of it you would have caught the outcome. But we are diverting from the point.In short, it would be used against unions, against individual workers and against people in a position unable to defend themselves so easily at law more likely and more successfully than it would be used against big corporations, and it is for that reason that we oppose it. If big corporations want to thumb their noses at a Productivity Commission then they call into jeopardy all of their arguments about micro-economic reform, their commitment to higher productivity, their commitment to greater competitiveness of the nation, and their arguments about international trade barriers and things of that nature. I think morally that then they do not have a leg to stand on, and that is the best way to deal with them.I have just got an ordinary Aussie's resistance to loading up legislation with penalties and fines and imprisonments where they are not necessary. This is not a criminal matter; this is a matter of civil interest, of social interest. These are inquiries. So, if you are conducting an inquiry, why would you gaol somebody if they said, `Look, I am not prepared to come along'? There are many ways in which you can find out the information. We run away with ourselves a bit from time to time about how many times you can put people in gaol. As I say, this is not criminal matters at all; it is a matter of the nature of the economy. The ultimate farce that these penalties suggest is the old joke about economists: you could put all the economists in the world end on end and you still would not arrive at a conclusion. How many economists can you find that necessarily agree with one another? So compelling them to give evidence is not necessarily something that is necessarily going to enlighten us a lot.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—The difficulty is that they do not lie down.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Let us not have open season on economists, because some of my best friends are economists. I think the amendment should go through so we get rid of this draconian, let's stick them in gaol whenever they lift up their head type of mentality.17:10:001529Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I actually think that one of the great outcomes of the debate on the Productivity Commission will be in attention to these matters of appropriate penalties. It was Labor that put these penalties originally in the Industry Commission Act—exactly the same ones—in sections 15 to 21. I do not blame them for that, because what we have discovered is that governments have been saying, `What is the appropriate penalty?' and the bureaucrats have been saying, `The previous bill was like this, so we will add it in.' I recall that in the very first debate we had on this bill, which was a long time ago, we asked the minister concerned, `What made you put these penalties in?' He looked around helplessly and he looked at the bureaucrats and said, `Was it you?' They looked behind them and said, `No.' What it meant is that they were merely carrying on a precedent.As the Senate might recall but not all senators might recall, as a result of that we pushed for a reference to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, under the very able Senator Cooney, is now reviewing the matter of a consistency in penalties and fines and gaol sentences and everything else across all Commonwealth legislation. We think that, firstly, the relative rules are not clear in that matter and, secondly, as Senator Margetts and Senator Cook have clearly indicated, at times they are very inappropriate. As the Senate knows, matters under consideration by a committee are privileged until tabled, so I cannot really reveal where the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is going to. As you know, I sit on it. But I can indicate that I think its report will advance considerably a better rationale for this kind of area. I am aware that the Senate regards that cross-party, independent and objective committee with a fair deal of regard. Very little politics and much principle come out of that committee, in my view.Accordingly, Senator Cook, I have great regard for what you are trying to do, but I suspect you are jumping the gun and that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee will come back to the Senate and the government will be asked to reconsider a range of penalties and impositions on the community through bills such as this. I am personally uncomfortable, and was at the time, with the penalties within this bill. I understand that under its predecessor—and the advisers can probably advise the parliamentary secretary whether it is so—no-one was previously taken to task for breaching these rules.I respect Senator Cook's fears, but those fears were not previously warranted under the independent Industry Commission and I am not sure that they are justified under what would be an independent Productivity Commission. I cannot see any reason why they would want to exercise these rules if they have not in the past. So my view is that I want to see what the Scrutiny of Bills Committee comes back with. I want to see some kind of standard rule applied in these matters that is available for us as senators to judge. I am not able to judge this in isolation, and accordingly I cannot support these amendments at this time.17:14:001529Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I will be very brief. The signals have been exchanged. The Democrats are going to support the government. We will lose the amendment. I just want to go down fighting.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—No other way.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is right. There is an issue here. If the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is going to look at it, why load the penalties in before it does so?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Because they are your penalties. It just carries on.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Let me come to that point in a second. Why load the penalties in before the Scrutiny of Bills has reported? You will commit the person to a death sentence, then you will decide whether hanging is a suitable way of dealing with those sorts of penalties and commute the sentence afterwards. Why don't we just knock it off now, see what the Scrutiny of Bills Committee says and consider what the right measure might be in the light of that report? That is the first point.The second point relates to the interjection you made that we did it before, which disarms me and leaves me vulnerable to some extent. We did it before for the Industry Commission, but this is the Industry Commission, the Bureau of Industry Economics and the Economic Planning Advisory Committee all rolled into one, and has had added to it wider and more sweeping powers. This ain't the animal that used to have those provisions; this is an entirely different beast. If it were appropriate for that animal—maybe it was; I have some reservations about that, even though we may have done it in government—it does not automatically follow that for an entirely different beast it is, ergo, appropriate. I put those arguments on the record.We have to get out of this mind-set in this country that people ought to go to gaol at every turn. This is a heartfelt sob story from me. Before I came into this place, I spent many years as an industrial advocate appearing before the Arbitration Commission. This is an analogous situation.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—We were worried you were about to say, `Many years in gaol.'RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No. I was there on an occasion when someone called an arbitration commissioner a name which he did not like and this person was charged with contempt of court. This was a matter not of criminality; this was an argument over what is right and what is wrong, with people holding passionate but subjective views about right and wrong, and matters of degree. When you put someone on the bench that has those powers, they exercise them. An issue that could have been settled in the public interest, because it was about arbitrating on a matter of salary and working conditions, got entirely diverted into an argument about whether the individual was right to express this view or whether the bench was appropriate in its response. You got out a great big steam driven hammer to squash a gnat—not a Nat in the sense of those who sit over there.The point about this is that you invite yourself into a very alien territory once you start on matters of social policy threatening to put people in gaol. This does smack of those places in the world where, if you have a different view from the status quo and get up and say it, you risk being in contempt or committing an offence. Then they can say, `But the rule of law requires.' It seems to me that we ought not to have this clause and that my amendment should be carried. I hope that last contribution to this debate has persuaded you. I suspect, reluctantly, given your rather fixed and firm view on this, that it has not. It is a pity for Australia if it has not.17:19:001530Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will make a quick retort to that. When we had the detailed discussion of this point in the previous committee stage some months ago—I do recall standing here with the same people in the advisers box—it was my suggestion that we send this matter off and have it looked at in some detail. I will not fight over whose idea it was, because I am sure it is on the historic record, the Hansard . I am glad that Senator Cooney's committee is doing it. It is a committee that is respected.There are a number of things that the government does that seeks information from people, from corporations and from entities where there are fines involved. I am sure Senator Murray knows more about that now, if he is involved in that inquiry, than I do. I do know that things such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has given me some authority to assist him in administering, do have a lot of penalties. I have not checked as to whether they have gaol as one of those penalties. I suspect they do.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Six months?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am not sure about that. Again, one might say, `If you fail to give some information about how many bed nights you had in your hotel at Margaret River or whatever and you do not send the form back to the ABS within so many months, you go to gaol.' As Senator Cook says, the Aussie with the concept of a fair go would think that is not very fair. I know, as the parliamentary secretary with responsibility for the ABS, that a lot of the people who write me letters do not think that the powers the ABS has got are in tune with the sort of information the government is seeking. I think you could make out a case that, with this commission, that may be so as well. There is a case on the other side. The Australian Bureau of Statistics could say that we would never have good information to make government policy if we did not have all of that information collected broadly. I think the Industry Commission does have a similar case in relation to the sorts of penalties that apply here.As I said in a previous debate, the penalty of gaol for not complying, as far as we can see, has never been applied. The point has already been made by Senator Cook that it was in the Industry Commission Act, which was reviewed as recently as 1990. Senator Cook voted for these penalties then. I am glad to see that he shares my view that it is time to review them. The government believes, as the Democrats do, that we will leave the existing regime in place and have a thorough review of these sorts of penalties so they are in line with what the community would expect in 1998. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Cook's ) be agreed to. 17:26:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)29Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.41Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.Cooney, B. Newman, J. M.Quirke, J. A. Knowles, S. C.* denotes teller(Senator Ellison did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the negative.17:29:001531Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The reason I seek to oppose clause 62, page 37, lines 17 to 20, is that this empowers the Productivity Commission to impose fees for services. I think this is going a bit too far. This body exists to provide public information and to encourage reform in Australia, and this body conducts inquiries for the public good.I know `fees for service' and `users pays' are in vogue phrases, but this body, to have any real force and stature—let alone prestige—in the community, has to disseminate what it does. People need to understand what the strength of its findings are and what the processes are. They are all matters of important public interest. For those reasons, I do not think the provisions should stand. The fee for services provision should be defeated. I conclude by quoting from page 4, part 2, of the Productivity Commission Bill—Establishment and functions of Productivity Commission. Part 2, clause 6, sets out several functions of the commission. Function (f) of the commission is:to promote public understanding of matters relating to industry and productivity.It will, but you have to pay for it. Function (g) is:to perform any other function conferred on it by this Act.So the government refers a matter of public importance, the commission inquires and brings down a report. You can find that out if you are prepared to pay for it. Function (h) is:to do anything incidental to any of the preceding functions—as long as you can pay for it.My basic intention is that the commission sits there as a taxpayer funded body for the purpose of improving the economy. It relies on analysis, study and submissions by industry partners and governments. What its deliberations are and what its conclusions come to be are matters of public importance and should be available to the community on that basis. The analogy that comes into my mind—and since the participants in this debate until now have all been Western Australian senators, albeit from various parties— H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Very productive.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Yes, we get work done a bit quicker, I think. But the analogy that comes to my mind is with the Western Australian government's transport minister, who has a plan for the redevelopment, as I understand it, of the transport arrangements in the Kwinana area. He has it open for public comment, but you have to pay $637 to see it.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I think it was reported to be $20,000.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It was $20,000, was it? The public can comment on it as long as they are prepared to pay an exorbitant amount of money in order to see what it is that the government is proposing. That is a ridiculous situation. It flies in the face of the ability of people to participate democratically in the planning process. And that situation is analogous with the proposal of this new body to charge for matters in the public interest. I conclude by saying that it is a taxpayer funded body and its findings should be available to all, not just those who can afford to pay for it.17:33:001532Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) are certainly prepared to support this amendment. The issue of public understanding often means that the issue of public knowledge is what we are dealing with. The example that Senator Cook gave involved several hundred dollars. We have worse examples of that where people are being asked to pay $1,000, or sometimes even up to $20,000, for information that is available to industry or to government participants within a consultation process. But community groups who are really voluntary—holding raffles and cake stalls to continue operating—are shut out of the process by virtue of the amount of money they have to pay on a user pays basis. That certainly is not conducive to good decision making and is not conducive to any participative democracy process.I would also like to say that, in relation to the vote we have just taken, I was very pleased to see that the Labor Party is prepared to support, on occasions, votes on principle, unlike ways they have acted in relation to same sex couples. Let us hope that in the future the Labor Party will act like that in relation to same sex couples and not just in relation to reducing penalties and prison sentences.17:34:001533Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We are debating the Labor amendment that would delete the Productivity Commission's charging regime. This provision puts into the legislation a practice that was carried out for most of the past 13 years under the previous Labor government. The Industry Commission, for example, undertook a range of studies that had been commissioned by parties that were outside the Industry Commission's work that had been referred by the government or from other places. Examples of this were the studies undertaken by both the New South Wales and South Australian governments into their electricity industries. Clearly, in relation to the New South Wales electricity industry, the recommendations have been accepted by the Premier, if not by his caucus.In those sorts of cases where the previous Industry Commission undertook work, it did so on a fee for service basis, which I do not think anyone could object to. The fact that it is a taxpayer funded body should reinforce the fact that if it does do work for bodies on request—special project type work, which is what is envisaged by this—there should be a fee for service. Otherwise, the Commonwealth taxpayer would be subsidising the benefit that potentially the New South Wales or South Australian governments in these cases would receive from that work. So it gives legislative enablement to a practice that was carried out, as I am informed, for many years under the previous government, and a practice that to the government makes sense. That is why we recommend the bill as it stands.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that clause 62 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION (REPEALS, TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1996Bill agreed to.Productivity Commission Bill 1996 reported as previously amended and with further amendments and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1996 reported without amendment; report adopted.1533Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That these bills be now read a third time.17:38:001533Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I rise to make a brief third reading speech. I want to briefly outline the Australian Democrats' reasoning as to why we have decided to support the third reading of the Productivity Commission Bill.The Democrats do not like the Industry Commission. Under Labor, the Industry Commission became Paul Keating's ideological storm-troopers cloaked in free market economic rationalism, armed with stylised economic modelling on the one hand and an admiring big business, academic and media cheer squad on the other, and they went to war against Australian industry. Tariffs were slashed, bilateral reciprocity was thrown away, industry assistance was ruthlessly attacked and hundreds of thousands of jobs were sacrificed as the Industry Commission's dictates were pretty much slavishly followed by Labor.In more recent years, the Industry Commission did pick up its act with reports on public housing, research and development and private health insurance that actually conceded a positive role for the public sector. So they are not all bad. But, on balance, we found that their work on the Australian economy has been destructive of jobs, of wealth, of our future.We think the damage done by the commission and its staff should simply be brought to an end. That, however, is not an option for us. The option we face is either to keep Labor's Industry Commission, because they continue to support it, or to accept the coalition's Productivity Commission. We fear that new Labor wants to keep the ideological fires of old Labor still burning down at the Industry Commission ready for when the warm and fuzzy election policies are dumped. Then real Labor, hard Right Labor, which Senator Cook is not a member of, will be back with all the hard Labor recommendations of further downsizing pushed by the Industry Commission back at the centre of public policy. I am aware of the tensions within the Labor Party concerning those matters, but we fear that the Right will triumph again.We think that sort of concern of ours is pretty much confirmed by the arguments in Mark Latham's new book. He seems to be the policy pin-up boy of the new Labor Right. I personally hope that the more moderate voices in Labor will triumph.The choice the Democrats have is this: do we support Labor's Industry Commission, which has already cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in Australian industry, or do we support the coalition's Productivity Commission, which we think has been materially improved with the amendments passed by the Senate? Frankly, it may well prove to the advantage of Labor to have got rid of the old Industry Commission because now they can always refer to the Productivity Commission as the coalition's and get the monkey off their back.The government has now accepted, I think, nearly 50 amendments to its Productivity Commission Bill. In contrast to some other bills where it has rejected Senate views, I think that is to be commended. Many of the amendments that the government has accepted were those put by the non-government parties as a whole. The most important of these are the new general policy guidelines with emphasis on the social and environmental consequences of reports; the requirement that the commission use alternative models; the inclusion of social, industry and environmental commissioners in the approval of reports; and the expansion of the competitive neutrality complaints mechanism to allow government authorities also to be able to complain about unfair competition.These provisions do not exist in the Industry Commission Act, which does not have the same emphasis—or, indeed, any emphasis that we can see—on environmental, social and economic effects as does the amended bill before us. The combined effect of these amendments is, we believe, that the Productivity Commission Bill provides a better prospect of balanced reporting on economic matters which take far more than just an economic view than did the Industry Commission Act.We recognise that does depend on how the bill is interpreted by the staff of the commission, but hopefully the change of the commissioners will also result in an infusion of new blood to alter the perspective of the staff somewhat. But that is beyond our control; that is in the hands of government, and it will have its own views on the matter.The bill, as amended, before us is a superior package for controlling the existing bent of the Industry Commission. It is far less prescriptive in many areas than the Industry Commission. It is on that limited basis that the Democrats are prepared to support it at this third reading stage. We hope that in its new guise it will do far more for Australia than it did in its old guise.17:43:001534Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I too wish to speak on the third reading and to indicate to the chamber that Labor will be voting against the Productivity Commission Bill on the third reading. We will be doing that for good reason. I might say that it is with considerable disappointment I have heard the remarks of the honourable senator from Western Australia representing the Australian Democrats, Senator Murray. In those remarks it seems to me that there is a harking back to issues that are not relevant to this debate.The Industry Commission existed as a body to which a government referred particular references. It then conducted an inquiry and came to a conclusion. The conclusion often contained recommendations and the recommendations were for action. I see nothing wrong with that process because, at the end of the day, the government makes a decision on those recommendations.The Industry Commission made no decisions that bound government. Government, of its own motivation, apprised of the views of the Industry Commission, often taking on board views of other significant players, made decisions. If there is a criticism of what happened during the period of Labor government—a criticism to which I would not sign my name I have to say—then it is of the government, not of the Industry Commission. By attacking the Industry Commission in this sense, you are shooting the messenger. We were responsible for the decisions; they were responsible for providing a line of advice.What is different here is that their line of advice is now a monopoly line of advice. When we were in government we had at least three institutions that could provide the checks and balances that you need for debate and inquiry in a democracy. The problem with this bill is that there is now a monopoly, an exclusivity, a singular line of advice; and it is from the newly created body, the Productivity Commission. We had advise from the Industry Commission, sure, but we also got advice from the Economic Planning Advisory Council, EPAC, and the Bureau of Industry Economics. I speak with some passion on this point because, as industry minister for the last two years of the Labor government, I had the Bureau of Industry Economics residing within my portfolio and it provided, I thought, robust, considered, intellectually powerful advice which often conflicted with the advice from the Industry Commission. This enabled governments to take a view, when it had before them all sources of advice, which was a rounded and considered view, looking at all of the implications.That has gone. If this bill passes, that is gone. No longer will we have the checks and balances that a democracy needs. You might say that is a lesser point; I contend it is a superior point. I contend that for this reason: we are talking here about economic change, industry restructure and the competitiveness of this nation. We are talking about the ability of this country to grow its economy to provide a living standard for Australians that they expect and to ensure that those who are unemployed can look forward to a job in the future. That is what we are talking about.When you are talking about a matter as central to every other concern—social, political, economic and personal concern for individuals—a monopoly, a singular, one-stream piece of advice, is not adequate. There ought to be a contention; there ought to be an inquiry that extends beyond one singular monopoly within the government so that all the facts can be put out, the various views can be expressed, and so that you have got a government that is informed, not from one source but from all sides.What this legislation means is that you have got a government informed from one source. Many of my colleagues would say with considerable force that is a source which is biased in terms of its view. It has a pre-digested view as to what is good for this nation and that one singular monopoly source wants to force that view on us. It is an ideological view. It is a view based not on reality, not on real life, not on the heated cut and thrust of what ordinary day Australians have to put up with in the workplace. It is not just monopolistic and singular; it is ideological as well, and many of my colleagues would make that argument with more considerable force than I.This bill is quite significant. The old saying was that he who writes the minutes controls the outcome of the meeting. In this case the minutes will be written by one body. The old saying is that knowledge is power. If you have access to information and you use that to suit your own needs, you manipulate the outcome. Well, this body will be the sole provider of information. Knowledge is power and knowledge that the electorate might need to know may not reach it. Certainly, information from various sources and from premises or philosophies other than the philosophy of the Industry Commission might not reach it. If you do not know what all the options are, how can you make a fair decision? They are some of the reasons why we oppose this bill and why we think the Democrats are wrong.There is another reason, too. That is the reason we debated just a few moments ago and divided upon in this chamber. This bill has attached to it draconian penalties for non-compliance. Not only is the Productivity Commission a body that has wide and sweeping powers of inquiry but, if you do not want to give evidence to a Productivity Commis sion or you do not want to turn up when they ask you to, you can be gaoled for up to six months. I know people associate with the Industry Commission who would be very uncomfortable with that, given the wider powers that they now have.When in this country are we going to stop putting people in gaol over social matters? This is not a criminal concern; no-one has committed a crime against the state. This is a matter of, `What do you think should be the future of the economy,' `How do you think we should get unemployment down,' `Please produce your research on matters associated with how you get GNP growth up,' or `Please reveal information about your intentions on micro-economic reform.' These are social matters and to put a whole swag of penalties in on social matters that can cause people to go to gaol is the first sign of totalitarianism.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Come off the grass.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—It is.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You put it in your bill in 1990, you hypocrite.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! Minister, the use of that word is unparliamentary. Would you please withdraw it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Which word? Is the word `totalitarian' unparliamentary, because these guys in 1990 put exactly the same penalty provisions in their legislation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have taken advice about the word `totalitarian' and that is not in dispute but the word `hypocrite' is.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Okay, Senator Cook was part of a totalitarian government. I will withdraw `hypocrite' unconditionally and I say that Senator Cook was part of a cabinet of a totalitarian government.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am not sure what it is that irritates the parliamentary secretary, but I do wish he would contain himself and conduct himself in a proper manner so that we can complete this debate expeditiously. If we want to have a slanging match, we will get into one. It will just delay the proceedings in this chamber, and there will be no outcome that is sensible or reasonable.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You are a joke!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Let me deal with the interjection because I find it offensive. I do not mind being accused of being totalitarian because that accusation is found on the facts to be damaging to the person who flings it, not to the person who receives it. We were an elected government—let us be frank about that. What I said in my remarks, which I do not resile from, is that, where you impose criminal penalties on matters of social policy, that is the first move towards totalitarianism.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Well, you were in a government that did it as a first step.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The interjection is that we did that. The truth is this is a matter which is a common debate between us. We have heard all afternoon that there were penalties in the previous act, the Industry Commission Act. But this is a new act which, as I was saying, provides a monopoly of advice that broadbrands three bodies: the Industry Commission; the Economic Planning Advisory Council, and there were no penalties in its act; and the Bureau of Industry Economics, which had no penalties in its act. Therefore, it is misleading to say that there is a direct line of continuity here. There is not. Two out of three ain't bad. If you want to get into this argument, we can, but it is a false argument. I reject the allegation that there is any sense of whatever the word was that you were asked to withdraw.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Hypocrisy is what we call it.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You know the standing orders as well as I do. If you want to offend against them, I will just sit down and ask the Acting Deputy President to bring you to order.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Campbell made an unparliamentary accusation. He knows full well that the word is out of order. He was asked to withdraw it just a few minutes ago. His childish behaviour should not be allowed to continue. He should be asked to withdraw.KI4PARERSenator Parer—Madam Deputy President, I speak to the point of order. There is a clear differentiation. Senator Campbell was asked to withdraw the word `hypocrite'.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You would be better off defending your shares.KI4PARERSenator Parer—Tell us about the phone booth; I have the court proceedings, you know. I think Senator Campbell actually said `hypocrisy'. He did not accuse Senator Cook of being a hypocrite.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have taken advice, and there is no point of order on this occasion. I had asked Senator Campbell to withdraw the direct accusation of `hypocrite', but it would be helpful if we could proceed and conclude the debate.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Acting Deputy President, to put the matter to rest, I table a copy of the Industry Commission Act where the Australian Labor Party—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, it is not appropriate at the moment.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I table the legislation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, Senator Campbell, you are out of order at this stage.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I will seek the call.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You can seek the call at a later stage. I am not sure why you are so upset.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Hypocrisy from these people opposite really does upset me, I am afraid.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—We are delaying debate on this bill. I do not care what Senator Campbell calls me.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I didn't call you anything.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You did, but I do not mind. There are standing orders in this place to uphold. As long as you are attacking me, you are leaving someone else alone, and that is fine by me. Let us get the facts clear. If it is your intention to table the old Industry Commission bill, I will not in any way be offended by that. You will see in the bill that what you have characterised as same penalties being transmitted into this bill is not true. Indeed, while there were penalties in the Industry Commission bill, provision also was made in that bill for defences in particular ways which qualified the effect of those penalties. Those provisions are not in this bill. So it is not analogous; it is not a parallel example to make. In any case, that was one of three.These interventions may be an opportunity to throw me off my game, but let me get back on to that game and conclude my remarks. It is the nature of those penalties being imposed on a social matter that I am offended by. It is a reason why this bill should be opposed at the third reading. I have repeated the case that I have given you: on social, non-criminal matters, penalties of this draconian level should not apply. This is a bill with wider and more sweeping powers than anything we have had before.Let me conclude about my disappointment at the position now adopted by the Australian Democrats. The last time this matter was debated was on 3 September 1997, and the outside column of Hansard on page 6125 shows Senator Murray responding to the third reading. He had this to say:I have been handed a note from my party colleagues indicating that they have declined to accept my advice that we should in fact abstain, which to me was the only honourable route that we could take. However, we are placed in an impossible position, and I understand the position we are in. We will therefore be voting `no' to both bills.It is true, as Senator Murray has said, that government has accepted further amendments. It may be that those further amendments provide him comfort so that he can now change his position. But, when one looks at the quality of those further amendments, one will see that, while they are amendments we supported, they are amendments which do not go to a vast material change in the direction of this legislation.Of course, there are amendments that we would support in order to pocket whatever incremental gain we could to improve this legislation. It does not mean to say that when we get to the end of the debate we will look at the overall impact and find that, despite the incremental gains that may have been made by the Democrats, the character and nature of this legislation will have changed sufficiently for us to want to support it. I would contend as well that it is a hard argument to make—although I am sure Senator Murray, whom I respect on these matters, would want to make it—that the quality is sufficient to change the position that he previously had. That is your decision. I am disappointed that you have made the one that you have.We will be voting against this on the third reading. I can see the parliamentary secretary in a frenzy of reading over there in an attempt to refute some of the points we have made. He is welcome to do so; let him have a go. The truth is that he will not be able to defend this legislation in the public arena. What the people think of it is the ultimate test—and that is the only one I am prepared to abide by.18:00:001538Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have a few comments to make in relation to the third reading of the Productivity Commission Bill 1996 . The Greens (WA) are very concerned about creating a vehicle to further entrench the single narrow economic fundamentalist perspective.It is quite well known that the Greens (WA) have consistently pointed out that the Industry Commission that exists now is a narrow and economically ideological body that has unwaveringly supported dry economic politics. It has been a body attempting to entrench economic fundamentalism in Australian politics. It has been responsible for decimating industries; it has been responsible also for over 200,000 job losses. Additionally, the commission would regularly call on the Keating government to go further, making the government's rationalist policies look moderate.The Industry Commission continually delivered the same advice to government: accelerate deregulation; cut tariffs, concessions and subsidies; lower labour costs; and promote user pays. This advice has been consistent, despite evidence suggesting contrary conclusions, because models used were set up with assumptions that would inevitably produce the same conclusions. They were assumptions such as: competition and deregulation will necessarily benefit everyone; labour is a commodity only; employment and standard of living have a zero positive value; needs are mere inelasticities; and costs associated with losing whole industries are not costs.These assumptions lead to consistent conclusions over and over; it may well have been a recording. I do not know why the Industry Commission even wasted taxpayers' money going through the charade of any kind of investigation, when the advice was mostly pre-determined. I can think of some examples in recent times, such as the report in relation to public housing. The irony is that, when reports came from the Industry Commission in relation to such things and dealing with some of the actual costs of not providing public housing, they were ignored by government. However, in relation to the Productivity Commission's narrowing of ideas, we had the reduction of three sources of advice into one under the control of Treasury, which is renowned for being a promoter of economic fundamentalism.The Greens (WA) fundamentally oppose the Productivity Commission on a number of grounds. It entrenches and promotes the narrow view of dry economics, which is the economic fundamentalist perspective. We expect that it will suffer from the same deficiencies that were suffered by the Industry Commission, and we expect that it will continue to interpret the term `productivity' in a constrictive manner that is similar to the Industry Commission's interpretation—and it does reduce the variety of advice given to the government.It is no good putting together a piece of legislation like this and hoping that it will come out for the best. There are some amendments to the legislation. But the Greens (WA) will be looking very carefully to see how well the Productivity Commission, as a result of this legislation, handles those community values that are not just the bottom line dollar. It will be very important if there is some decent attempt to do this.However, we will not rely on chance alone. Hence, the Greens will continue to vote against this bill. Hoping is not enough on issues as important as the ones we are dealing with.18:04:001539Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions. I think Senator Murray made the point about where the Labor Party stands on this bill. It must have been an incredible conundrum for those opposite. There must have been incredible stress within the party, a party that had relied on Industry Commission reports—and that has been, I guess, painted by Senator Margetts in a way I would not agree with, but I am sure a number of people in the Labor Party would.Senator Murray and I both know very well where that piece of paper, that advice, emanated from the last time we had a third reading of this bill. If you look at the current issue of the Australian Women's Weekly and figure out where that person was on that day—at the ACTU conference—you will work out what motivates the Australian Labor Party and Senator Cook at the moment. The ACTU, the trade union movement, does not want this commission.It must be very hard for the Australian Labor Party to do the sorts of contortions it has had to do in this debate, for Senator Cook then to fall down for most of his speech on the third reading and say, `We're really opposed to this because of the penalty provisions,' when they are the same penalty provisions that he voted for in 1990 and then for him to say, `Well, sorry, we're wrong, they're not the same penalty provisions,' because we do not have the same exclusions in this bill. In fact, if you look at the carve-outs and the defences in the Industry Commission bill 1990 relating to self-incrimination, all of those carve-outs, all of those defences are available in the bill that is before the Senate at the moment.From the short research that I have done—your advisers will find them at page 34, Senator Cook, in part 7, section 55—they have been taken out of the Industry Commission bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That's not right.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It is right.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—The question now is that the bill be read a third time. Those of that opinion say aye; against say no. I think the ayes have it.18:06:001539Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, did you call the vote as carried?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes, I did.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I am sorry, I do not think it is, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do not think the ayes did have it. I did not hear you say, `the ayes have it.' I apologise if you did. I did not hear that.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Division required.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Not a single person said no.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Ring the bells. Question put: That these bills be now read a third time.18:11:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)38Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. *Herron, J.Kemp, R. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.24Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. *Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Alston, R. K. R. Forshaw, M. G.Boswell, R. L. D. Quirke, J. A.Hill, R. M. McKiernan, J. P.Knowles, S. C. Faulkner, J. P.Synon, K. M. Campbell, G.* denotes teller(Senator Ellison did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Bills1540r4081540Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Vanstone) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.154018:15:001540Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—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—This bill contains a number of technical amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.This bill contains the majority of provisions introduced into the 37th parliament as the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1995, and which received, in the main, support from all parties. These amendments were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report on the conduct of the 1993 federal election tabled on 16 November 1994.In addition to those amendments, there are further amendments included in this bill which result from recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report entitled Electoral Redistributions which was tabled on 19 December 1995. The government's Response to that report was tabled in the last few days.Further, the bill also contains technical amendments arising from some of the recommendations contained in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' report on the conduct of the 1996 federal election, which was tabled on 16 June 1997. Other recommendations of that report relating to matters of electoral reform are currently being considered.Some of the amendments arising from the 1993 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters include:. enabling the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to delegate to staff its powers to supply and charge for goods and services and provide that such goods and services may be supplementary or an alternative to those already supplied under Joint Roll Arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states;. improving the enrolment objection process by allowing relatives and friends who do not live in the same Subdivision as electors of unsound mind to apply for their removal from the roll on medical advice and without the payment of an objection deposit;. allowing canvassing in and around hospitals that are polling places other than on polling day, and in special hospitals other than during the five days before and including polling day. Currently, canvassing is prohibited from the issue of the writ until the close of polling;. allowing the AEC to use state of the art security printing methods in the printing of ballot papers rather than relying on watermarked ballot paper. This will result in savings estimated at $800,000 in ballot paper storage and production costs as the AEC is currently required to store enough watermarked paper for two electoral events;. extending the two-candidate preferred count, conducted in polling places on polling night, to the fresh scrutiny and declaration vote scrutinies, conducted by the Divisional Returning Officers in the week following polling day;. allowing for the provision of gender information to Members, Senators and registered political parties and for use in approved medical research and public health screening surveys;. providing state and territory electoral administrations access to electoral roll information, including gender, date of birth and occupation information, of all other states and territories. This will assist in the maintenance of the joint electoral rolls as well as improving the service to electors for both state/territory and federal elections.The amendments recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its Electoral Redistributions report are also technical and of a non-controversial nature. These include:. providing for the advertisement calling for suggestions and comments relating to a redistribution to be placed by the Electoral Commissioner, rather than the Redistribution Committee, so as to allow interested parties to prepare suggestions while the appointment of the Redistribution Committee is being arranged;. providing for the determination of state and territory representation entitlements to fall due in the thirteenth month of the first meeting of the House of Representatives rather than the tenth month. The effect of this amendment is to enable the population figures to be one calendar quarter closer to those applying at the time of the next election, than is currently the case;. providing that comments and suggestions relating to redistributions be available for public scrutiny in a manner similar to suggestions;. removing the requirement that persons or organisations must object to a Redistribution Committee proposal to be able to lodge an objection to an Augmented Electoral Commission's proposed redistribution;. bringing the membership of a Redistribution Committee for the Australian Capital Territory into line with the equivalent body for a state; and. allowing for the redistribution mid-point equality of enrolments to be within a range of 3.5 per cent above or below the average, rather than the current 2 per cent. This, together with the amendment requiring Redistribution Committees to give existing boundaries less weight than other criteria such as community of interest, will allow Redistribution Committees greater flexibility in determining boundaries, especially with respect to very large rural Divisions.The bill also contains a number of technical amendments arising from recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' 1996 Federal Election report. These amendments include:. allowing Australians resident overseas for career and employment reasons to remain enrolled, or to enrol and obtain eligible overseas elector status, up to 2 years after departure from Australia under similar criteria as that currently in place for itinerant electors. It will also provide that eligible overseas elector status may be granted for a period of 6 years rather than the current 3 years;. reducing the nomination period by one day, with the declaration of nominations taking place 24 hours after the close of nominations. Very often, there are last minute nominations which, like all others, must be carefully checked. This amendment will allow the AEC more time for checking nominations and to seek any necessary legal advice without having to indefinitely delay the declaration process. This will prevent inconvenience to candidates and the media, who currently are required to wait some hours during a particularly busy period at the beginning of the election campaign for the declaration and ballot paper draw to commence;. increasing the nomination deposits from $250 to $350 in the House of Representatives and from $500 to $750 in the Senate. Currently, nominations fees are too modest to dissuade candidates who can only acquire a handful of votes. Nomination fees have not been altered since 1983 and the increase is well below the rate of inflation since 1983;. increasing the number of signatures required in support of a nomination from a candidate not endorsed by a registered political party from six to fifty. A registered political party nominating a candidate is required to have at least 500 members. Accordingly, potential candidates should be required to demonstrate a modest level of support at the time of nomination;. allowing electors to vote outside, but in close proximity to, a polling place if the Presiding Officer is satisfied that, through illness or disability, the elector is unable to enter the polling place. Scrutineers will be invited to observe the process;. allowing for the declaration of the poll to proceed for a House of Representatives election based on the result of the two candidate preferred count where, on the basis of first preferences, the exclusion of all but two candidates is inevitable. This will allow the official declaration to proceed in some Divisions earlier than is currently the case;. removing the infamous section 329A and related provisions. This is the provision which ultimately led to the gaoling of Albert Langer during the 1996 federal election. The related amendments will remove the provision which effectively provided for optional preferential voting in House of Representatives elections; and. removing the requirement that registered political parties submit returns of electoral expenditure, and including that they may submit audited accounts in a form approved by the AEC in place of annual returns provided that they contain the required level of detail.The bill will greatly assist the AEC's efficiency in conducting the next election by allowing for the conduct of Senate scrutinies by a computer process. The computer process will follow the principles of the manual process. This amendment was recommended in both the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matter's 1993 and 1996 Federal Election reports.The computerised process will allow scrutineers better access to ballot paper preference information which will be stored within the computer system. Information on the number of informal ballot papers, papers that are formal but not in accordance with party tickets, records of ballot papers notionally transferred at each count, and the progress of the count of votes will also be available.The AEC conducted demonstrations of the proposed system for political party representatives in each state and territory, and for the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, during 1995. The AEC estimates that the use of this system will result in savings of approximately $300,000 at each Senate election.However, the greater advantage of the proposed system is that it will reduce the time taken to distribute the preferences of Senate ballot papers.Finally the bill makes a number of other amendments which are directed at improving operational processes with respect to enrolment and voting.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Bills1542r4441542Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Vanstone) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.154218:16:001542Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—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 purpose of this bill is to establish a framework for the provision of financial assistance by Australia to countries that are undertaking economic adjustment programs with the support of the International Monetary Fund.The current financial crisis in Asia has led a number of countries in our region to undertake such programs. The International Monetary Fund generally seeks to supplement the assistance it provides from its own resources to member countries in such circumstances with support from multilateral development banks and from other countries that are prepared to help. This extends the effectiveness of the Fund's assistance. It can also provide additional assurance to financial markets that a country's adjustment program has broad international support.The magnitude and character of the current crisis have required assistance on a very substantial scale. Over recent months, the Fund has requested Australia to participate in support arrangements for Thailand, Indonesia and the Republic of Korea. The Government has agreed to do so, subject to certain conditions, for an amount in each case of up to $US1 billion.The Government's decisions to provide support reflect the importance of economic and political stability in the region for Australia and the Australian economy. It was apparent that a crisis in one country could spread and set off further crises elsewhere. And the more severe the crisis became, the greater the risks to Australia, to Australia's export industries and to Australian jobs.It is important that governments are able to act swiftly in such circumstances to help mobilise international support to deal with a crisis and to provide commitments on our own participation.At present there is no legislative framework for handling these situations, which have in the past been dealt with in an ad hoc manner. In 1995, when Australia was requested to assist a Fund-supported adjustment program in Papua New Guinea, a government-to-government loan was put in place without specific legislation using funds obtained initially from the Minister for Finance's Advance. When the support arrangements for Thailand were agreed last year, the funds were required quickly and went well beyond what was available through the Minister for Finance's Advance. Our assistance was therefore provided by way of a currency swap between the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Bank of Thailand.However, it would be inappropriate to continue to draw on the balance sheet of the Reserve Bank for such arrangements, which are properly matters for governments and should be reflected in the government's accounts. The bill provides a new framework for handling them.Under the bill, the Treasurer may, on behalf of Australia, make agreements for the provision of financial assistance for countries undertaking Fund-supported adjustment programs. Such agreements must meet some important conditions.There must be a request by the International Monetary Fund for Australian assistance and the agreement must allow Australia to require repayment if the Fund program is suspended or prematurely terminated. This is to ensure that Australian assistance is provided only where a Fund program is in place and continues to be adhered to by the recipient country.The Treasurer must also be satisfied that other countries or international organisations will also be providing support to the recipient country as part of the Fund program. This is to ensure that Australia is not alone in providing any assistance under the bill, but that it is part of an international effort.It is normal in international arrangements in support of Fund programs for the participants to coordinate their efforts to ensure broad consistency in the terms of their assistance and in its timing. In particular, it is established practice for such support to be provided at a cost to the recipient country which at least covers the lender's costs of funds and often with a margin to allow for at least part of the risk involved. Such terms need to be negotiated in individual cases and cannot be prescribed in advance in legislation. However, it is the firm intention of the Government to continue to adhere to this practice in any support arrangements that may be undertaken under the bill. This will ensure that these arrangements do not impose direct costs on Australian taxpayers and that there is scope to earn some income to offset risk.It also means that any support provided by Australia under the bill will not be counted as overseas development assistance and will not constitute part of Australia's aid program. The purpose of the transactions involved is to provide balance of payments support to the recipient country, in order to boost market confidence and help stabilise financial flows across the country's exchange markets and reduce volatility in its exchange rate. They are one-off transactions to provide temporary assistance to deal with financial crises; unlike official development assistance, they do not provide continuing transfers of real resources to the recipient country.The bill provides for support to be given either through loans or currency swaps. The Government intends to provide its assistance to Indonesia and Korea by loans, which is the simpler arrangement. Loans may be made in Australian dollars or in another currency. For example, the loan to Korea is expected to be made in United States dollars.Currency swaps are now also widely used as a means of providing emergency support. They involve a temporary exchange of assets on agreed terms. Under a currency swap, Australia would receive currency of the other country to hold in return for the funds provided by Australia. Some countries are providing their support by way of currency swaps and the bill provides flexibility for Australia to use them if this appears warranted in particular circumstances.Detailed terms and conditions for loans or swaps in agreements under the bill will need to be negotiated in the individual circumstances of each case.The bill also makes provision to cover the Government's commitments to Indonesia and Korea if agreements with these countries are reached prior to the commencement of the act.The bill includes an amendment made in the House of Representatives. This provides for the Treasurer to publicly release and table in each House of Parliament a national interest statement relating to an agreement entered into under the bill. Statements will include a description of the nature and terms of an agreement and set out why it is in the national interest having regard, in particular, to foreign policy, trade and economic interests. Some aspects of agreements may not be able to be made public. For example details of interest rates charged could, if made public, have an impact on other loan-raising activities by the borrowing country. However, the bill provides for as much detail as practicable to be included in national interest statements. When tabled, national interest statements will be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for inquiry and report.Last year the Parliament agreed to amendments to the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to ratify Australia's participation in the International Monetary Fund's New Arrangements to Borrow. Those Arrangements have not yet come into effect, as several participants are still to complete their ratifications. When they do, the Fund's access to resources in crisis situations will be substantially enhanced. The increase in Fund quotas agreed to by Fund Governor's last month will also expand the Fund's capital base. Together, these steps will enable the Fund to continue to play its central role in the handling of international financial crises.However, circumstances are likely to continue to arise, from time to time, when Australia will be asked to participate in support arrangements for Fund programs. It is to be hoped that such calls for assistance will be rare, exceptional events. Nevertheless, when they do occur, governments must be in a position to respond quickly. This bill will allow Australia to play its part in international cooperation efforts when necessary to safeguard and promote Australian interests.Financial ImpactThe bill appropriates the funds required by agreements to which it applies. Loans to Indonesia and Korea could amount to up to $US2 billion, but detailed arrangements have yet to be agreed. The extent of other transaction under the bill will depend on what requests may be made of Australia in future years. Details of the budget treatment of transactions under the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate.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.Bills1544r4451544Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.18:16:001544Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Let me say at the outset that if any bill or any process exposes the government's inadequacies, it is this particular one. We on the non-government side of the parliament are extremely disappointed at the manner in which this bill is back before us today. Let us get it clear: this is a non-contentious bill in many respects. In many ways, it is identical to the bill that the Labor government introduced in the previous parliament. Its enactment has been and continues to be a common goal of all in this place.In terms of a brief history, let us go back to the last time we debated this bill in the Senate. If we do, we see that in that debate opposition and other non-government senators made a number of suggestions and a number of constructive amendments were put for ward—all designed to enhance parliamentary scrutiny of the process of making legislative instruments.What we are talking about here, and I think it goes without saying, is the exercise of the legislative power of the Commonwealth. It follows that it must be the parliament, not the executive, that has the ultimate say and control in the making of these instruments. However, what we have here is the government refusing to accept the Senate's amendments on the basis that it—the executive—claims to have the right to determine these matters. Not only does it refuse the Senate's amendments, but it has also refused to involve itself in any constructive process to try to get some compromise in this process.When this government claims the mandate—the right—for itself to determine these matters, let us look at it in the context of this government's operation. This is a government which has reduced accountability of the executive through reductions in legal aid, through its intentions in admin review and through what it has done to offices like the Environmental Defender's Office. It has reduced public scrutiny of government by reductions to public broadcasters like the ABC. This is a government that has form when it comes to making itself immune from the scrutiny of the public and the parliament. I would have thought—given that this bill, as amended, reflected concerns in this place on the excesses of the executive—that it should have involved itself in a constructive process.There is a way through this. We on the non-government side have sought to take a constructive approach to this bill. My office and, I am sure, the offices of many others in the Senate, have been involved in discussions with government officials, and we have raised with them our genuine concerns about the operation of various aspects of the bill. It must also be placed on the record that the government's advisers have, to a greater or lesser extent, recognised that, in respect of a number of factors, advances could have been made over the intervening period. For instance, those advisers regard at least some of the Senate's concerns as being legitimate. They recognise that in some cases, particular ly in relation to the proposal for the sunsetting of legislative instruments, there can be a regime designed which is consistent with the government's policy as well as the concerns of the Senate.But we come here today and, once again, we see that the government has failed to pick up one single amendment moved and agreed upon by the Senate in the last debate. Not one. It is unbelievable that we come here on a bill which, important though it might be for the parliamentary process, is not one that has triggered much excitement in the electorate. But we have here a situation where the government, if this bill were to be amended again, would have a double dissolution trigger. Little Johnnie with the little triggers.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! Senator Bolkus, that is an inappropriate way to refer to the Prime Minister.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—It depends on whom I was referring to.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think the intention of your comments was clear.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Mr Acting Deputy President, if you take it as a reference to the Prime Minister, then I withdraw it. But may I say it is a completely ridiculous situation that we have a possible double dissolution hinging on how we handle this particular bill.The other concern we have on this side is that the Attorney-General seems to be at the core of the problem. He says that he does not understand the concerns that the Senate has about the bill in the current form, but we had hours of debate on this legislation last time. There have been numerous meetings to try to achieve a compromise. You would have thought he would have been listening. My concern is that either he was not listening, or he does not understand what is going on, or that this Attorney-General, as in many other circumstances, is afraid to tackle this issue; he is afraid to go back into cabinet, he is afraid to confront the Costellos and the Howards of the world and he is afraid to say to them, `Let's make some compromises' on what could very well be some minor issues.We are now confronted in the Senate with the question: what do we do? Do we give the government a double dissolution trigger on a bill that the public does not know about? Do we defer this legislation? Do we try to amend it again? My suggestion is—and this will be worked through later in the debate—that we should encourage the government to think about the amendments we put up last time. The best way to encourage them to think constructively about those amendments is to give them a bit more time to do so. In terms of doing that, I will be moving, later in this debate, an adjournment of this bill to next week to give the Attorney-General some time to think about ways through, compromises and outcomes that can be acceptable to all involved in this debate. The Leader of the Government in the Senate approached me just a little while ago and suggested that it might be opportune to defer the vote until tomorrow to give him some time to see if a way through can be developed, to see whether amendments can be put on the table. I suggest to senators that that may be a better way to go: that at the end of the second reading debate we defer consideration of the second reading vote and that I defer until tomorrow my amendment to consider the bill next week, to give the Leader of the Government some time to try to fix up the mess that the Attorney-General seems to be incapable of fixing.As I said, all we need here is a small amount of goodwill from the government. We say to them: if you are interested in talking, we are. I know other non-government senators have been as well. In the absence of any constructive discussions, let me say that we are intending to move again the amendments that we moved last time—I am sure others will also be moving the amendments they moved last time.For instance, the amendment in respect of the use of non-sexist language seems to have attracted a bit of publicity. It is interesting to go through the government's response on that to get an indication of where they are coming from in respect of the bill. When amendments 1320 and 1322 were originally moved by the Australian Democrats—and they still simply require that non-sexist language should be used in the drafting of a legislative instrument unless there is a specific intent to distinguish between people on the basis of their gender—the government indicated that it had no objection to these amendments in principle and noted also that this was a current practice. In particular, the Attorney-General stated:Since the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Clearer Commonwealth Law drafters have been ensuring that gender neutral language is used in all new provisions and any amendments of existing legislation.So we are told it is happening. Then the government goes on to say that, because this is already in practice, an amendment is unnecessary. If amendments of this nature were being complied with in practice, then I can see no reasonable basis for the government refusing to accept them. Rather, these amendments serve as an important reminder of the principle that people should not be unnecessarily discriminated against on the basis of their gender. Language is one of the most powerful means of communicating power relationships within a society. So there are good reasons that this amendment should be maintained.We need to seriously question the government's alleged commitment to obtaining an outcome of gender equity. The failure of the government to accept this amendment can be put down either to their stubborn desire to build up the double dissolution armoury or to the Attorney-General, once again, being set upon by the Prime Minister who does not like the use of gender neutral language, as he does not like the use of the term `multiculturalism'.We will proceed to ensure that the Attorney-General's power to issue a certificate to the effect that an instrument is not legislative in character is subjected to the amendments we moved last time. We will also move amendments to ensure that environmental matters are listed as a matter of concern in the legislative instruments proposal—that is one that I am sure we will be debating in the second reading and committee stages. There are a number of amendments we moved regarding exemption from consultation which we will be proceeding with again this time, as we will in respect of a number of procedural matters, partial disallowances, inter-governmental schemes and sunset clauses. I indicate, at this stage, that we will not be proceeding with the amendment that we moved last time in respect of the Quarantine Act.In a number of these areas, including sunset clauses and inter-governmental schemes, we made it very clear last time in the debate that we were prepared to talk to the government to see if we can achieve a compromise outcome—given the fact that in both of those matters in particular, we, though concerned, did not have the same degree of concern as other non-government senators in this place. But we have not had any response at all to indicate that the government is serious and, as a consequence, as I said earlier, I will be moving a deferral later on in the debate. I could go on and discuss the specifics of all of these amendments, but I think it is probably best to do so in the committee stage of the bill.I must also mention the government's attempt, through amendments here, to try to pre-empt the debate on the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] . The government, as part of its proposals in respect of public sector reform, is also seeking to exclude various legislative instruments relating to public sector terms and conditions from amongst those instruments which are disallowable. Those instruments are currently disallowable; the government wants to make them not so. The government knows that its reforms are not acceptable to the Senate. The Public Service Bill [No. 2] will continue to be debated as a possible dissolution trigger. But, let me say, we are not going to let the government try to do through this bill, in part, what they are seeking to do through the Public Service Bill [No. 2] 1997.We will renew our concern about the provisions the government is putting up. I do say, once again, this is symbolic of the government's lack of capacity to think on its feet. We have put up a number of constructive amendments, a number of proposals. We have been awaiting a government response, which does not seem to be coming. Hopeful ly, this debate will trigger some movement from the government side.In closing, I move:At the end of the motion, add ", and that consideration of the bill in committee of the whole be an order of the day for Tuesday 7 April 1998".I indicate, given the Leader of the Government's request, that I may later in the debate seek to have consideration of the amendment deferred until tomorrow morning.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:001547Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I rise for the second or third time to address the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] , which has been sent back to us from the House of Representatives. It is with some concern that I see this bill put before us again because the amendments that the Senate came to have a view on were at the end of an exceptionally informed and exceptionally carefully argued debate. I recall Senator Harradine at the time saying that it was one of the better debates of the year. It concerned a bill which all the parties of the Senate were in agreement with; that the bill was a valuable addition to the legislative range that the government had before us.The bill represented a significant improvement in the law making processes of this country, and a number of speakers commended the government for its introduction. It did indeed have a long cross-party history in its development, and the coalition government was regarded well for bringing in the bill. However, there were some critical areas with which the Senate was concerned, and it passed a series of amendments to which the House of Representatives disagreed. But the House of Representatives did not disagree with them on a considered basis; it was a holistic rejection of the views in the Senate.The House of Representatives is sometimes described as the House of the executive. In both houses the government of the day has a minority of votes in the sense that the coalition were elected with 47 per cent of the vote in the House of Representatives and have 65 per cent of the seats. Because they have 65 per cent of the seats, they are able to domi nate by numbers and to determine what goes through that House. In the Senate it is not the same. They have 44 per cent of the vote and 50 per cent of the seats. Here they are forced by the circumstance of near proportional representation to deal with the 56 per cent who did not vote for them.That outcome is nevertheless always twisted in favour of the government. This Senate to date has passed nearly 340 bills since the coalition came to office. Many of those bills have gone through unamended and a number of them have gone through amended. Now and again there is a bit of arm-wrestling with the House of Representatives. It is very rare—indeed, only six or seven bills have been under consideration in recent times on that basis—for the House to reject completely the Senate's considered view.When you are dealing with a bill which goes to the very heart of regulation and government in this country, when you have a bill which deals with legislative instruments in their broadest sense in terms of all the regulations, all the rules, all the machinery of government which governs our lives—in many respects far more precisely and in a far more detailed fashion than do the laws which govern this country—you would expect the House of Representatives to view the consideration of the Senate with some discretion, with some judgment and with some maturity. But, no, this is a bill where the schedule of the amendments made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives disagreed runs to 11 tightly typed pages.It is quite an extraordinary act of executive arrogance. I often think that is affected by the character of the personalities involved, because not everyone in the government exhibits executive arrogance or an inability to maturely contemplate the Senate's approach. But the House of Representatives undoubtedly has this top-down approach whereby people within the cabinet campaign for their bill, the cabinet then agrees to it and imposes their will on the party which, in turn, imposes their will on the House of Representatives as a whole.When it comes to a situation such as we are faced with today, where this bill has been presented to us yet again as a double dissolution trigger, you have to wonder at the motives and intent of the government in the way in which they have dealt with this bill. In the most extraordinary act of inconsistency, they have even rejected amendments made to this bill about, for instance, gender equality which they have accepted in the Acts Interpretation Act. It is a most extraordinary situation.So even in minor and relatively uncontentious areas, they have disagreed with matters which were agreed on other bills by the House of Representatives. What this represents is a style and an arrogance of approach which does not give credit to the very careful way in which these amendments were debated, considered and passed by the Senate. We would hope that none of us would expect the government to accept all the amendments that we put, but to accept none, to reject 11 pages: are they the fount of all wisdom? Are they absolutely impervious to someone else's argument, to a view presented and agreed to by a substantial number of people with an alternative viewpoint? Is there such a black and white issue that all of this should have been rejected?The original debate was on 24 September, six months ago. I clearly heard and I accord with the view of Senator Bolkus, who said, `We said at the time to government that we would be prepared to negotiate over this bill, because at its heart it is a good and welcome bill.' I am paraphrasing what he said. The Australian Democrats have the same view. Yet six months later here we are being pressured to accept this bill. For us all in this place, this is not now a double dissolution trigger; it is irrelevant. The double dissolution trigger was provided earlier by the unfair dismissals legislation. This bill we will consider entirely in terms of principle and in terms of the contribution an amended bill can make to better government in this country.A key component of the rule of law is accessibility to those rules and the consistency in their application, transparency and control. This Legislative Instruments Bill, at its heart and in its detail, promises just such a thing. In September I quoted Senator O'Chee, the National Party Whip, who is a recognised parliamentary authority in the Senate on matters of regulation. I quoted him as saying in his report:The executive can then make laws it likes under that particular provision without parliament even knowing, far less having the opportunity to disallow the instrument.He went on to say:This instrument represents a serious diminution of the rights of parliament.It is for that reason that the Labor Party originated this process of reviewing the way in which regulations were conducted, and the coalition carried it forward. It was for that reason that all parties complimented the government for bringing forward legislation which would represent a significant improvement in the law making processes of the country.But there were areas which provided us with serious concern. One of those areas was the sunsetting provision. On the face of it, it was an awfully attractive provision to wipe out sets of regulations which have accumulated and may have had their use-by date; but in the process were threatened regulations on social justice, human rights, environmental matters, social matters, economic matters, health and safety matters—the list is endless—which contribute to the fact that our society is so highly regarded internationally. We sometimes forget as Australians, but those of us who have not always been Australians do not forget, what a wonderful country this is. The standards, the nature of the way in which things are run, the very essence of the civilised rules and methods that we use to govern our society may be far from perfect but they are far, far better than many other societies have. That is contributed to by the laws and the regulations under which we live.You merely have to travel to other countries, and they do not have to be Third World countries, to see the difference between our society and other societies. That is contributed to by the laws and regulations which Australians have put together in the House of Representatives and the Senate over many years and to which we in this chamber play our small part. Any legislative instruments bill which threatened that in any way would obviously raise alarm bells. So we and the other non-government parties in this place were extremely concerned about such provisions as automatic sunsetting provisions, because they had the downside as well as the upside. They sought to take away things we value.The bill does seek to reform the procedures for making, scrutinising, publishing, amending and repealing subordinate legislation. It subjects such regulations more clearly and comprehensively to parliamentary review and disallowance. It establishes a single register of delegated legislation. It introduces public notice and consultation procedures for changes to delegated legislation affecting business but not wider regulations, and we were concerned about that. It provides for the back-capture of existing subordinate legislation and placement on the register. It provides parliamentary scrutiny of all forms of delegated legislation, with each instrument to be tabled in each house of parliament. There are many credible aspects and many welcome aspects to this bill.As a Senate, speaking for my party, under no circumstances do we wish to attack the heart and intent of this bill. But it is not perfect and there are areas which cause us great concern. Because this is as important to regulations and rules as the Acts Interpretation Act is to our laws, it is an absolutely vital bill to get right. The Senate as a whole, we think, did that job. Nine closely typed pages of amendments were rejected. The last few of the 11 pages contain those which the House of Representatives has further passed. We urge the government to take up the offer made by the Labor Party and by us to further negotiate on those areas of the bill which cause the Senate concern.Senator Colston is another expert in this area of regulation. I think he is a former chair of that committee. He, too, put forward some critical amendments. The Australian Democrats did and the Labor Party did. I think the Greens (WA) did. A number of those amendments Senator Harradine moved were accepted. We think that in the interest of good government, seeing that this bill at its heart is a good bill, a number of those amendments are worthy of acceptance either in the form the Senate put them or in a negotiated form which is acceptable to the parties that put them originally.I find difficulty in understanding quite why there was such a wholesale rejection of the Senate's amendments, quite why there was such obduracy. I do not know whether it goes to the character of those who are dealing with this issue or whether it goes to the character of government. I do not think it goes to the character of the cabinet, because on some bills the cabinet argues forcefully and persuasively for negotiation and compromise and on other bills it is absolutely, arrogantly, aggressively recalcitrant. If that is not the style of the cabinet as a whole, it has to be influenced by those who have passage. I would have thought that in the last six months it should have been possible for those who have passage to reconsider their position and to perhaps approach this matter in a spirit of greater compromise.I conclude by saying that the Australian Democrats believe that this bill in its intent and at its heart will contribute to better government in Australia. We recognise, in a way which other senators from all sides recognise but which probably is not appreciated in the community, that this is one of the most important bills that have been put before the Senate for many a long year because of its stretch, because of its impact, because of its reach into the heart of all that concerns our society. Regulations range from covering the safety features of the wheel nuts on your car, to how smokestacks are scrubbed, to how things are designed, to how our society is run and managed in its minutiae. We are of the opinion that, if the fatal flaws within this bill could be resolved, it would be a great monument to the coalition government's term of office.19:50:001549Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Much of the concern about the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] has already been expressed. If I recall correctly from my last offering in the second reading debate when this bill was presented to the Senate, I, like a number of other people in the Senate, actually quoted the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the concerns expressed by that committee. We would have thought that in the interim the government would have taken those aside, looked at the opinions expressed by the Senate, representing the community in their electorates, looked at the opinions represented by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, taken them to heart and worked a way through.As has been mentioned, this is a very important bill. We have statistics that show that much more legislation now is of the designated legislative type. The opinion of the Greens (WA) is that that means we need to have better systems and better scrutiny, not less. It is easy, if you have only a few a year, to keep an eye on things. But it is not so easy, if you have many hundreds coming out in various forms, to make sure that these are doing what the legislation was supposed to do, that they are abiding by promises of government or that they are not harming people the government said they were not going to harm.We are given more and more legislation that really means the Senate is being asked to take a pig in a poke, basically. We are being told to accept the brief outline of something, whether it is native title or some other really important legislation. We find out later that the real impact on the ground is occurring in the form of regulations rather than being written into legislation in a form where it can be debated by the parliament.To me, it seems that we are getting more and more three-year elected dictatorships. It is very sad that this early into a new government—it is still earlyish—it has already developed a sense of arrogance and takes a sort of `born to rule' approach. That should be corrected and nipped in the bud. This is an opportunity to do so, to tell the community that the government is interested and listening not only to them but also to their representatives in the Senate in terms of the necessity to protect the interests of the wider community, obviously the interests of the environment, the interests of those people who do not normally get the ears of ministers and so on.This is what the parliamentary and democratic process is meant to give, but at the moment we see the potential for that slipping away. This is not a small thing. Please, government, go back and reconsider. Please take the time to make sure that you have listened to the good advice that has been given by this wide range of people in the community and the parliamentary committee that was set up to look at this. One can only wonder whom the government is listening to if it is not listening to that wide range of concerns.Like most people, I will be recommitting amendments to the bill and hoping for Senate support and hoping that we do not get a tantrum from the government in reply. We want mature government. We want sensible consideration of such an important issue.19:54:001550Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] clearly is an important bill, as has been said. It goes very much to the issue of process. Process is what keeping a democracy going is all about. There is a balance to be struck between the three arms of government, and this bill is to be considered in that context.It is clear that parliament, as has been said, can become dictatorial, and a balance must be struck between parliament and the executive. I quote Blackstone, who wrote in 1765:It is highly necessary for preserving the balance of the constitution, that the executive power be a branch, though not the whole of the legislative. The total union of them, we have seen, would be productive of tyranny; the total disjunction of them, for the present, would in the end produce the same effects, by causing that union against which it seems to provide. The legislative would soon become tyrannical, by making continual encroachments, and gradually assuming to itself the rights of the executive power.There is no doubt there is always the potential for that, but the reality is that, since the time that was written by Blackstone over 200 years ago, things have moved very much in favour of the executive, mainly through the party system, which, Mr Acting Deputy President, you, I and most people in this chamber have much to be thankful for. May it long continue, but it has been a vehicle for encroachments by the executive on the legislature.This trend is very well captured by the present Chief Justice of the High Court—one of the greatest chief justices of the High Court—Sir Gerard Brennan. He said in a Blackburn lecture to the Law Society of the ACT on 7 August 1990:Apart from legislative debates, Parliament's continuing contribution to democracy is its holding of the Executive to public accountability. Moreover, it scrutinises proposed appropriations and delegations of power and reviews subordinate legislation . . .That is one of the central roles of parliament: to look at the delegated legislation that is made by or through the executive. The greater control parliament has of instruments whereby that scrutiny can be carried out, the more parliament is able to do that. The less power it has, the less it can do the job it has to do.I use one illustration of that which seems to me to be one of the problems in the Legislative Instruments Bill, which is currently before us, and that is provision 61(7). This was commented upon by that excellent body the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its Alert Digest No. 2 1998, which, I take it, everybody reads as soon as it is produced on Wednesday. I hope it goes straight down to the Attorney-General's Department and goes around the desks down there. I am sure you read it avidly, Senator Gibbs.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—Absolutely!SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I hope Senator Heffernan does, too, because it is an excellent publication. It comments upon 61(7), which deals with subordinate legislation which is common to a number of governments. It is very difficult to go through the process of getting agreement between a couple of governments, or more than a couple of governments, and then, having got that agreement, have it frustrated, as it would be seen, by parliament.I do think that the trend to oust parliamentary jurisdiction in the area of national legislative agreements is a dangerous thing. In my view, 61(7) ought not be allowed to stand. Otherwise, how does parliament carry out its duty? If we are to trust parliament and if parliament is at the top of the system, we really cannot have a situation where it is unable to look at what the executive does. After all, this parliament is the only federal body that is elected. There is no other body that is elected by the people at the federal level. The government is chosen from people who are elected here, and the judiciary is appointed.When we are looking at a piece of legislation such as the Legislative Instruments Bill, we ought to come at it from that point of view. There will be a committee stage on this bill, and I hope some interesting discussion comes out of that. As has been said, the thrust of the Legislative Instruments Bill is the proper thrust. It is the result of a lot of work. I notice people here from the Attorney-General's Department. They deserve a lot of congratulations not only for getting the bill together but for having the patience to turn up here again and again, hear speeches, listen to criticism and then go away and try to get it into some sort of shape. They certainly deserve credit for that. They have done that over the life of governments of different colours.This is not a party political bill. It is a bill that tries to wrestle with this relationship between the legislature and the executive, and it tries to do that in a very responsible way. Quite clearly, it has not quite got there. Hopefully, it will do that in the committee stage.The Legislative Instruments Bill will ultimately become a bill of great significance, as all the speakers before me have said. We ought to debate during the committee stage the issues that have been raised. I am looking forward to that because, hopefully, we will be able to do something. As I said, I do not think it is a bill that needs to be approached on a party political basis. It is a bill that needs to be debated on the basis of what is the proper balance between the legislature and the executive. If the legislature loses much more of its scrutineering effectiveness, the courts will pick it up more and more as they have in the past.This debate is of very significant moment. The issue of process always seems to be boring but it is always the most important. People often say, `What do you mean by process?' It means giving every issue that comes up the proper consideration and the same consideration you give to any other issue. As I said, I now hope to participate in a very interesting committee debate.Debate (on motion by Senator Heffernan) adjourned.Bills1552r451Billsr450Billsr4561552Debate resumed from 12 March, on motions by Senator Newman and Senator West:That these bills be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)20:08:001552Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition is disappointed that the government has seen fit to reject all 52 amendments which the Senate made to these bills on 19 November last year. We are disappointed, too, that the government seems intent on turning this important legislation into a double dissolution trigger. The government, as the Senate would be aware, disagreed with the Senate's amendments on 5 December last year and laid the bills aside.The bills that are now before us were introduced into the House of Representatives on 5 March, they were passed on 11 March and they were introduced into the Senate on 12 March. As Bob McMullan, the shadow minister for industrial relations, indicated in the debate in the House of Representatives, the opposition has already placed on the public record its position on these bills.We regard the government's proposals as going far beyond simplification of a cumbersome 76-year-old piece of legislation. We see these bills as imposing radical changes on the Public Service—changes which will be to its detriment and to the detriment of the services it provides to governments and the public. We believe the bills go too far in enhancing the powers of departmental secretaries and turning public service agencies into independent entities but not far enough in protecting the independence and the professionalism of the Public Service and the conditions of service of public servants.We sought to redress this imbalance by moving a large number of amendments to the bills during the Senate debate in November last year. Many of these were successful. We did not seek to, as Dr Kemp has suggested, `dismantle the bill', nor were we guilty of `short-sighted obstruction'. We made a genuine attempt to preserve and protect those features of the Australian Public Service which have contributed to the high regard in which it is held at home and abroad. With the success of a large number of our amendments, we believe that we succeeded. Consequently, we supported the bill in the form in which it was amended by the Senate.At the conclusion of the Senate debate, we publicly urged the government to resist the predictable knee-jerk reaction of outright rejection and to accept the Senate amendments in the same constructive spirit in which they were made. Of course, we need not have bothered—the knee-jerk reaction won out. As Dr Kemp proudly proclaimed in his second reading speech:The government rejects outright those amendments . . . It really defies belief that the government could find unacceptable every single one of the Senate's 52 amendments. Are we to believe that the government does not see merit in a single amendment that was proposed in the Senate? Of course, that is not the case. The fact is that the government is not interested in considering these amendments.They do not want negotiation or compromise on these bills. They want confrontation. They want a double dissolution. They want to add these bills to their stockpile of triggers. They are putting money on getting the bills in their original form via a joint sitting of parliament following a double dissolution election. They have taken the view that there is no need to settle for a compromised package when there is a chance that they will get the whole package by these means.We have reason to believe that the government, in fact, could actually have lived with all but two of the Senate's amendments. The first is the amendment to clause 33 to retain the existing system of tripartite review committees to determine appeals relating to promotion, redeployment, inefficiency or misconduct. The government has claimed that we are attempting to take appeal rights in the Public Service back to where they were prior to 1988. We are not. It was not and is not our intention to expand the powers of those committees or the scope of current appeal rights. We have made it clear that we will support regulations to preserve the status quo.The second amendment prescribes workplace agreements in the APS. The government appears to have overlooked the fact that this amendment also provides for regulations which may prescribe exemptions in relation to particular categories of APS employees, for example, SES employees. It specifically contemplates AWAs for the SES. The government also appears to have overlooked its original position on AWAs in the Australian Public Service, which was set out by the then minister responsible for the Public Service, Mr Reith, in his November 1996 discussion paper `Towards a Best Practice Australian Public Service'. He said:AWAs are likely to be a particularly favourable option for discrete categories of employment . . . for example . . . Senior Executives.But certified agreements `are likely to continue to be the most prevalent form of agreement for APS agencies'. The Senate's amendment would simply give effect to that intention. The government, in our view, is to be strongly condemned for its confrontationist approach on this legislation, and, of course, it ought to be condemned for using a bill on a matter such as Public Service reform as a double dissolution trigger.The Public Service in Australia serves governments of either political colour. Its structure and administration is as much the concern of the opposition, the alternative government, as it should be of the government. If reforms are to be enduring, they must be acceptable to the opposition. If ever there were a case for a government to negotiate a reform package with an opposition, instead of seeking to impose it, we have it in this legislation.The government will, of course, claim that it was open to compromise and demonstrated that by accepting the recommendations of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. This ignores the fact that the government controls the numbers on that particular committee and that the committee chose not to take up some of the more contentious issues that were raised during the course of its public hearings. Dr Kemp was similarly disingenuous in informing us in his second reading speech that the government amendments—the ones that were reflecting the JCPA's recommendations—were accepted without dissent by the House of Representatives.The opposition made it clear in joining the JCPA consensus on its report and recommendations that we did not believe that those recommendations went far enough in remedying the defects in the government's proposals. We indicated at that time that we would go further in seeking to amend the bills in the Senate—and, go further, we did. While we did not achieve all the changes we sought, in the event we were able to support the bills in the form in which they were amended by the Senate.The government's absolute unwillingness to take account of the views of the Senate, or to accommodate the views of the alternative government, is made crystal clear in the changes that it has introduced by administrative means. These are set out in Dr Kemp's press release of 25 February this year which was entitled `Government to bypass Senate on Public Service Reform'. If that is indeed the case, you really wonder why they are now wasting the Senate's time by bringing the original bill back.One of the changes the government has made by administrative means is the introduction of Public Service values. That is, I accept, an important element of the government's legislative package and one, I think it is important to add, that the opposition has always consistently supported. The values underpin the operation of the Public Service. But when those values—which are set out in clause 10 of the bill—were debated in the Senate in November, the Senate made changes to one of them and included four additional values. Did the government take any account of those changes? Of course they didn't. They went ahead and introduced their original set unchanged. That is very indicative and symptomatic of the approach that they have taken on this bill.The opposition simply does not support the government's view, which is expressed in this legislation and in Dr Kemp's public statements, that the government's IR prescriptions for the private sector are equally appropriate in the public sector. We do not accept it and we do not believe that is the case. In his second reading speech, Dr Kemp appealed to the community to support this contention. He asserted, on what basis we have absolutely no idea:The community also expects that its public service will be subject to the same workplace arrangements as apply to the rest of the workforce.The opposition takes the view, which we believe is probably shared by very many in the community—the same community of course that Dr Kemp cites—that this is a very grossly simplistic notion from Dr Kemp.There are some very basic differences between the private sector and the public sector, which this legislation does not adequately recognise. Put simply, the private sector is motivated by profit and, as a result, has a very ready-made indicator of productivity. The public sector is not motivated by profit, nor does it generally generate profit. Productivity therefore can be extremely difficult to measure in the public sector. That particularly applies to Public Service departments. They cannot and should not be treated like private sector enterprises.If Dr Kemp actually believes that this bill—to quote his words in the second reading speech—`is all about making the Public Service more efficient and effective and delivering better service to both the government and to the public', perhaps he would do well to ponder the words of Dr Michael Keating in his article in the November-December edition of the Australian Quarterly. Dr Keating is very critical of the govern ment's policy that pay for all agencies funded by the budget should be linked to achieved improvements in the productive performance of each agency and of its refusal to supplement any pay increases in the public sector by increased budget funding. He maintains this policy is flawed because of its failure to recognise the fundamental differences between the private and the public sectors.Dr Keating says that the introduction of productivity bargaining in a large part of the public sector risks damaging morale, and consequently performance, rather than enhancing it. He maintains that the policy of refusing to supplement budget funded agencies for pay increases will destroy over time the public sector and will greatly reduce the value of the services they produce. Regrettably, this is where we believe the government is heading with these bills—not towards greater efficiency and better services but towards inefficiency and poorer service. We will not be accomplices in that particular process.We will again be moving those of our amendments which were accepted by the Senate in November last year. If they are moved, we will be supporting the two successful Democrats amendments. We will accept the judgment of the Senate in relation to those amendments which were not successful when we previously debated these bills. If we are again successful with the amendments we put forward, we will accept the bills as amended. If the government again chooses to reject these amendments outright, so be it. It is the government that will have lost an historic opportunity to achieve enduring reforms which preserve the best of our Public Service. I commend the opposition's approach to the Senate.20:26:001554Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Public Service bills we are considering were passed by the Senate some four months ago now with a large number of amendments. They were returned to the House of Representatives, where the bill was laid aside. The bill, unamended, was passed again by the House of Representatives earlier this month and is presented to us again for approval. If the Senate again amends the bill, the government has made it clear that it will be added to its stock of possible double dissolution triggers.I first want to again restate the reasons why the Democrats regard the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] as fundamentally flawed. Then I will return to the government's attempt to use this as a possible election trigger. The Public Service reform bills undermine the integrity and the independence of the Australian Public Service. They attempt to turn the Public Service into a creature of the government under the direct political control of the relevant minister. In our view, such an approach to running the Public Service is not in the national interest. We need a Public Service capable of providing free and frank advice to the government of the day, which assumes and upholds the highest possible ethical and professional standards and which does not become a party to grubby political point scoring.As Professor Peter Hennessy of the University of London put it, the cornerstone of a successful Public Service was the giving of `fearless advice resting on top-class analysis'. He said that in this world of globalisation, `the prizes go to the flexible and the intelligent, and governments can be neither of those things if the outcome of policy making is the precooked, the palatable and the convenient'.The Public Service must uphold and implement decisions of the government of the day—we recognise that—but it must do so in a way which is professional, service orientated and fully accountable to the public it services. This set of bills does not achieve this. Rather, these bills are about bringing all aspects of the Public Service, through its management system, under the direct control of the government. Service wide standards and protections are to be swept away while departments become the personal fiefdoms of the chief executive officer, appointed, dismissed and directed at the whim of the Prime Minister. This is not the sort of direction that Public Service reform ought to be moving in. Tightening political control through a tighter pay related management system will not increase individual commitment or professional services. Indeed, the exact opposite is likely to be the case.The public servants whom I spoke to, as part of the focus work group with the then minister, Peter Reith, made it very clear that they wanted to see the Public Service change to become a better workplace where service quality was paramount. But that is not what the government has delivered. This bill will add to the frustration levels felt by public servants, add to the heavy weight of falling morale and add to the continuing brain drain of well qualified and gifted administrators and policy makers out of the Public Service.In my speech in the second reading debate on 17 November 1997, when we first considered this bill, I outlined the main concerns of the Democrats, and I propose only very briefly to go through those again. We believe that it is inappropriate for Prime Ministers to hire and fire chief executive officers of departments and to fix their remuneration without public scrutiny. We do not believe that the bill adequately protects whistleblowers. We remain concerned that the bill is silent on the question of maintaining standards, accountability and quality in the APS services which are contracted out.We do not support the removal of the right of public servants to appeal to an independent body on a wide range of matters. We do not support the breaking down of service wide employment standards, particularly by use of individual Australian workplace agreements.I foreshadow that, in the committee stage, I will again be moving the amendments I successfully moved on the last occasion to prevent chief executive officers offering AWAs to employees. My amendments do allow disallowable regulations to determine that certain categories of employees are appropriate to become the subject of AWAs, but they ensure that such determinations are reviewable by the parliament.The Democrats want to see public sector reform that focuses on quality of services provided and improving accountability to the public. But this bill does not achieve that. This bill does not enhance accountability to the public—only accountability to the minister and, of course, the politicians. Indeed, this bill is not about quality services but about control. It is a grasp for power and an attempt to free up ministers from the important accountability mechanisms which have been designed to protect the independence of the Public Service and the principle that those appointments should be the most meritorious and not the most politically correct.Since the House has refused to accept the bill as amended by the Senate last year, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, has moved to put large parts of the reform in place by administrative means. This he has largely achieved by use of delegations under the existing Public Service Act, the Financial Management and Accountability Act and the Workplace Relations Act. But the great cumbersome mass of the Public Service Act stays in place. So, what Dr Kemp has actually achieved is the worst of both worlds: all the detailed regulation of the current act and the negative delegations of authorities of the new bill, without any compensating changes to the accountability regime.However, it does raise questions as to why the government is proceeding to establish this bill as a double dissolution trigger. As Mike Taylor noted in Sunday's Canberra Times, commenting on a speech by Dr Kemp just last week:In other words, the Government can achieve virtually everything it wants, including giving agency heads greater flexibility and autonomy in financial management, without having to accept the Opposition and Australian Democrat amendments to the Public Service Bill . . . The Howard Government may choose to use the Public Service Bill as a double dissolution trigger, but the outcome is irrelevant.There is, anyway, a very real doubt about whether this bill can form a double dissolution trigger at this point. The Clerk of the Senate, in two pieces of advice, has argued that the government's decision to lay this bill aside in the House rather than to send it back with its amendments insisted upon did not properly constitute the first limb of a double dissolution trigger.Indeed, the clerk has some pretty good backing for his opinion. The only time the High Court considered the issue of what constitutes a double dissolution trigger was in 1975, and the lead judgment by Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick lent very strong support to the clerk's argument. Sir Garfield's judgment suggests that the determination of when a conflict between the two houses occurs will be determined by reference to the actions of the two houses, having regard to their usual parliamentary procedures and practices. Indeed, the trigger was not formed in his view until `the processes which parliamentary procedure provides have been explored'. He noted that, when the House disagrees with amendments, it is usual practice for those to be returned to the Senate with a message, and he suggests that that is when the conflict commences.The government did not follow the usual practice when it declined to send the bill back with a message in September. So, as a double dissolution trigger, this bill remains under a cloud. If we proceeded to a double dissolution, and then to a joint sitting and passed the bill, there is very considerable doubt about whether this bill would survive constitutional challenge in the High Court. This must be very cold comfort to the five or six coalition senators, including Senators Bill O'Chee and Sandy Macdonald, who would be guaranteed to lose their seats in a double dissolution election.For our part, the Democrats are quite happy to fight an election on this bill, amongst other issues. The government has comprehensively broken all of its election promises in respect of the Public Service. It promised that there would be no slashing of jobs beyond the 2,500 needed to pay election promises; instead, we have seen 27,000 Public Service jobs gone. It promised public servants that their superannuation entitlements were safe; instead, it now proposes to close down that scheme. It promised that the Public Service would remain a source of non-partisan, loyal and objective professional advice to the government; that promise also certainly has not been fulfilled by this bill. Also, it promised to retain a Public Service and Merit Protection Commission; again, that promise has not been delivered. This is hardly a record to go to election on, and this is why the Democrats do not fear an election based on public service issues.In conclusion, the Democrats have not changed their mind on this bill; we still think the bill is unsupportable. We will support the same set of amendments passed by the Senate on the last occasion. And, as we did at the third reading on the last occasion, we will vote against the bill at the final stage—because, even amended, this bill fails to meet what we regard as a minimum standard for fair and proper public service reform.20:37:001557Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—We are dealing again with the Public Service Bill and its associated bills. They are the legislative outcome of the government's agenda to gut the public sector of this country. When you peel away the layers of government rhetoric it is obvious that, basically, when the government says international best practice or international competitiveness it equates these with lower wages and conditions for workers and lower standards in areas such as environment protection, occupational health and safety, and food hygiene.I will not go through all the arguments that I used last time because they still apply. But what we are seeing are more examples of very high wages paid to people at the top in order to achieve fewer jobs and lower conditions for those people who are actually doing the jobs or providing the services. We are seeing particularly bad treatment of those people who have had years of experience in meeting the special needs of the public sector. We have ridiculous situations where, in order to follow along the mantra of privatisation, we have those people who have left the public sector with particular expertise being hired back for many times their previous salary. A great saving that is: we have one person who used to work there before now being employed at the expense of several others who could perhaps have done the legwork to go with that consultative advice.The last time the Senate considered this bill I moved two sets of amendments. These were not supported and I can see the numbers in this chamber are against me. Those amendments were in relation to the tenure of the clerks and to clause 57; that is, the appoint ment of the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.We heard, in the recent Senate estimates hearings, the Clerk of the Senate stating the following in response to a question from Senator Cooney about the impact of the 10-year non-renewable terms for the clerks:That is part of the long-term potential problem that I see. The problem that I identified with the 10-year non-renewable term for the clerks of the houses is that the independence of those positions may be compromised by that provision. To put it bluntly, a person appointed to that position at a young age, at the end of a 10-year term, apart from the fact that they will have developed a great deal of expertise that will then be done away with—that is another issue, and you can argue that it facilitates other people coming along and developing their expertise and so on—is going to be looking for a job. If they accept a government position at the end of that 10-year term, that will lead people to wonder how independent that person has been when in the position of clerk of either house: has their advice over that period been influenced by the prospect of a government job at the end of their 10-year term? That is the problem which I see with the 10-year non-renewable term. That problem would be greatly exacerbated by some of the other proposals that were talked about such as a five-year renewable term or a two-year renewable term, something like that.This is a concern shared by the Greens. It may only be about perceptions but that is, unfortunately, what politics is all about. If we are to have clerks who are truly independent and able to provide frank and fearless advice to all senators without any real or perceived influences we must have them on the same basis at least as a magistrate or similar judicial position—that is, until retirement. Unfortunately the Senate did not support us in this effort the last time.The second amendment related to the transitional provisions for current heads of parliamentary departments. My amendment added a new subclause which limited the type of person who could simultaneously hold the position of secretary of two parliamentary departments for 90 days, after which the position would be declared vacant. That did not get the support of the Senate either. The ALP are only moving those amendments which were supported last time.There are a lot of people in this country who depend on the outcome and the output of the public sector. There are many people who get upset when the accountability is removed from the public sector by the very vast rates of privatisation. This bill gives the government a greater ability to gut that sector. I think the community in general would be very concerned to know the details of this bill. There is no reason why the Greens should change their position, which was to oppose the bill when it was put to us on the previous occasion.20:42:001558Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The words that have been said so far in this debate are all true. The attitude taken by the government in this matter is that the Public Service ought to be more competitive; that, unless you have the feeling that your job is not going to be there, you are not going to be as efficient as you might otherwise be. That approach appears from the second reading speech, and I want to go into that later on. The opposite proposition is that people need security, particularly in a profession such as public servant, to be able to give that independent advice and to be able to be conscientious about the task that they must carry out.The selling of services and the selling of goods in the open market should, of course, be subject to competition. If somebody wants to produce a better lawn mowing service than another, so be it. If someone wants to sell cars at a cheaper price, so be it. If someone wants to do a cheaper job painting, fair enough. But that is not the nature of the Public Service. It is not a situation where competition ought to flourish; it is more akin to judging. Two great principles that we bring into our constitutional thinking are that judges should, firstly, have tenure and should not be able to be removed except in extraordinary circumstances and, secondly, that they should obtain a pension—not a superannuation payment but a pension—to be assured that they do not have to look to their future because the state will provide for them. Similarly, in this situation we have people who have to, in many ways, do the same thing as the judiciary—give fearless and competent decisions. Therefore the whole thinking behind this particular bill is wrong.None of this material is supported by evidence. Clause 10 of the bill deals with APS values—all of which are very admirable. For example, according to clause 10(g):the APS delivers services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public;How that would be produced by competition, I am not sure. In any event, who is the Public Service in competition with? I notice that in the second reading speech, Senator Ellison said:We acted quickly to develop new legislation in three areas crucial to the competitiveness of the APS:Who is the APS going to compete with? Perhaps one indication of that is what has happened with the Australian Government Solicitor. The Australian Government Solicitor is now in competition with firms outside the government, which sounds good except that the only work they are able to compete for is the government's own work. They are not allowed to compete against the big firms that operate in Canberra and throughout Australia for the work that BHP, the banks or any private organisation might want to offer them.When we talk about competitiveness, what is meant by this? We are to make a very significant change; in fact, as somebody said before, we are about to gut the Public Service. We are doing it on a basis that has no support in evidence and is supported simply by allegations. The second reading speech bears that out very clearly, because it consists of a lot of populist rhetoric, polemic and oratory. If you want an illustration of that, just look at it. For example, it says:The opposition amendments do not recognise the increasing need for APS agencies to be freed from central controls and to adopt employment arrangements which meet their particular needs. This bill provides that flexibility.What evidence is there that the Public Service, once it is freed from these central controls, is going to be better under the regime that is to be introduced by this bill if it becomes law? On the first page of his second reading speech, Senator Ellison said:The government will not be deterred—It sounds as if the government will not be moved—from completing its reform of the APS by the short-sighted obstructions of the opposition and minor parties. The effect of this obstruction is simply to frustrate the very many people in the Public Service who are keen to press ahead with a reform agenda in the development of which they have had an important role and which they see clearly is essential for building morale and opportunities for the future.There is no evidence that any of that statement is true and correct, and yet it is on that sort of material that we are asked to change the Public Service.Since I have been in the Senate, which has been for some years now, I have found that the Public Service does work well, it does give the advice that ought to be given and it is solicitous about the work it does. The evidence, from my point of view, is that the Public Service works very well indeed. There is nothing that I have heard in the debates—last year or in the second reading speech on this bill—to show anything to the contrary. What we have is a series of allegations without any indication of the basis on which they are made, and it is left as that.Alan Kohler is quoted as supporting the proposition, but what does Alan Kohler know about the Public Service? What does he know, as distinct from some of the great public servants we have had in the past? In the second reading speech Alan Kohler, writing in the Age last year, is quoted as saying of the bill:. . . the most uncompromising deregulation of the Public Service anywhere in the world. The bill lays down standards for ethical behaviour and impartiality, establishes the first code of conduct for public servants, sets up a process for accountability and scrutiny, and then lets the departmental heads run things as if they were corporate chief executives.We do not want corporate chief executives running the Public Service; we want the mandarins. That is a term that was used, perhaps in a derogatory sense, but it does bear out what we are looking for: learned people who are dedicated to serving the public and serving it well, people who have learning, people who have had experience and have sat at the feet of great public servants before them.We do not want a corporate chief executive who, as Senator Faulkner said, is out there to make a profit and to drive his work force to the point where more and more money is made at the expense of a true service. A corporate chief executive produced the result in Auckland. A corporate chief executive produced the breakdown of electricity in Queensland. A corporate chief executive produced the problem with the sewerage works in South Australia. A corporate chief executive is someone who does not go that little extra to make sure that service is given no matter what the cost. A corporate chief executive is someone who will only give the service in so far as the cost enables him or her or it to make a profit.The whole philosophy behind this bill is a bad philosophy. This is a bill that could be improved. It was improved last year by a lengthy debate. As I remember, the debate went for hours and I thought it was a very good debate. Yet there has been absolutely no sign from the government that there was anything of merit for them in that particular debate. As has been pointed out, what they have done is to produce a trigger for a double dissolution. That produces uncertainty and it is a great illustration of why uncertainty is bad, because the country, the parliament and the government itself does not run well when there is uncertainty as to how long it will have a life for, when the trigger is going to be pulled, what is going to happen or who is going to be in government a year from now.Somehow, uncertainty is seen as being good for competition—that if people are uncertain they will strive more. I think that is a proposition that just defies experience. People function better when they are assured that their efforts will be respected and that they will be able to keep their job on the grounds of merit and not on the say-so of a chief executive officer or someone who has the power under the Australian workplace bill or otherwise, whether in private enterprise or in the Public Service.This bill is a real worry in terms of the basis it is put upon. If you look at the second reading speech, the second dot point at the bottom of page 3 says:Australia needs a public service that can:. benchmark itself against all sectors to determine what it does best, what it can improve, and what is more effectively delivered by the market;What do you mean by that? Are you going to have judges put aside because the market can better deliver a decision? How is the market going to better deliver a reasoned and fearless piece of advice than is the present system?I notice, too, that the rights of the public servants are going to be diminished. On the same page as I have just read from it says that this act is going to remove complex appeals arrangements. The idea of the appeals arrangements was to assure public servants that, if they did not get a job or they lost a job, there was a proper process by which their position could be protected, so that they could go about their job with a lot more confidence than they presently can. If you do not have an appeals process and you are simply hired and fired at the whim of a chief executive officer, then that certainty that you are entitled to—that certainty which is best for the public—disappears.This is a worrying piece of legislation and a very worrying second reading speech. It is a second reading speech that relies in no way on evidence. It relies on a series of oratorical statements and a series of rhetoric which at times becomes quite popularist. There is much to be examined as we move into the committee stage.20:58:001560Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Firstly, in concluding the second reading stage of this debate, I would like to thank honourable senators for their contributions. I have been given the responsibility of taking this bill through the Senate in the absence of my friend and colleague the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, Senator Chris Ellison, who is attending a conference in Melbourne today and again on Wednesday.There had been some discussion before dinner that we would conclude the debate at the conclusion of my second reading summing-up and the vote on this, which was, I understand, at the request of the opposition. I have been told in the last few minutes that the opposition are prepared to go to the committee stage, so I will act on the latest bit of information to move along to the committee stage.The main point that struck me in listening to the contributions of honourable senators opposite was the point that was made about the perception of some sort of intransigence by the government in not accepting any amendment. It sticks in my mind that Senator Murray, for example, said that there were something like 11 pages of tightly typed amendments and Senator Faulkner added the point that he was a bit amazed that the government could not find one amendment that improved the bill.The government did look closely at what the Senate did to the bill. If you want to find the answer as to why the government did not accept the Senate amendments which were, for the most part, Labor Party amendments and some Democrat amendments, I think you need to look at Senator Cooney's comments in the penultimate speech in this second reading debate. His comments were about the philosophical divide between the Senate parties on this bill.When you look at the flavour and the texture of the amendments that were moved, it was not as though it was a smorgasbord from which you could pick and choose. The amendments all had a very similar theme. It was very hard for the government to see how it could seek to further compromise in picking up further Senate amendments. Indeed, if you had listened to the second reading contributions tonight, you would think that the government had sought no compromise, no discussion and no consultation on this bill. That is far from the truth. The government did hold consultations with the relevant trade unions. I think it looked at the report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and accepted all of the amendments proposed by that committee. Senator Faulkner seeks to reduce the importance of that by saying that it is a government controlled committee. However, it is fair to say that there was input, as I am sure Senator Faulkner would recognise, from all parties on that committee.The government put in place something like 30 changes to the legislation as a result of consultations with trade unions. The government has not been intransigent on this issue. Quite the contrary, we have made a lot of changes to the legislation over the time it was introduced to the parliament. There is, though, as Senator Cooney has said, a fundamental philosophical divide. Senator Cooney likes to say that the government wants the public sector to look like the private sector. Perhaps that is the way he perceives it. I am sure that he would not say that unless he did perceive it that way. Again, the reality is far from that.The government—and this bill reflects that fact—sees that there are significant differences, and will continue to be and should be, between the way the private sector operates and the way the Public Service operates and should operate. Where the divide is quite fundamental is that the coalition government believes it is time for reform in the Australian public sector, that through reform we can achieve better performance. That better performance is not through some sort of vague guidelines; it is for performance for the benefit of the nation, for the benefit of all of our citizens and for the improvement in the way in which Australia is governed.We believe this bill, if it is passed, will deliver on those objectives and will do so in a number of ways. I do not seek to go over the ground that has been covered in some detail by Senator Ellison's opening remarks in this debate or by Minister Kemp's his remarks in the other place. We seek to do this: we want to give more power to agency heads through devolution, but we want to put in place a legislative constraint on that through a number of acts, including the Workplace Relations Act, the Public Service Act, the Public Service regulations and directions from the commissioner, as well as the constraints provided by policy decisions and other parameters set by the government. We also match this devolution with increased accountability arrangements which we believe are suited to the environment that we now operate within.The government is committed to this reform. We believe that moving Australia into the next millennium, making Australia more competitive in our region and globally is vital to the chances of Australians, particularly young Australians, gaining employment. It is vital to have reform if we want to improve the living standards of Australia. You cannot just tell the private sector to get its act together, get more competitive, have better workplace relations, have a more efficient waterfront, have better transport systems, have a more efficient financial sector, have more competition between the banks, have more competitive Corporations Law—a whole range of reforms—and then say that the Public Service is quite okay and that the act under which it operates is as good as the day it was written.We believe that reform to the Australian Public Service is as vital as reforms in the private sector economy. The two rely on each other. I do not think Senator Margetts was seeking to make the point for me, but she made a very good point: the Public Service does provide a lot of essential services not only in terms of the service it delivers to people who rely on the Commonwealth government for welfare or other payments but also a whole range of other services, and the policy advice from the central government agencies is all important.It is vital that this still significant sector of the Australian economy is run very efficiently, that it is managed well and that managers can manage that sector of the economy. If you have an inefficient, badly organised and badly managed Australian Public Service, it drags down the rest of the community, it does not serve the citizens properly, it does not serve the citizens of the nation as effectively as it could do. Although there is a fundamental divide between the parties sitting opposite in the Senate on how you achieve that improvement in service, I am sure there is little doubt amongst any senators in this place that we want to maximise the benefits from the Australian public sector to the citizens of Australia.We seek to do it in this way. There is a fundamental divide. We believe the amendments passed by the Senate last time are detrimental to the achievement of the objective. That is why the government is standing firm. It is not because we have not looked very closely at what other parties are seeking to achieve. We have done that. We have rejected the approach that the majority in the Senate decided last time. There is a conflict, there is a stand-off, and that is why we are here some four months after the Senate looked at this matter before. With those closing remarks, I genuinely thank senators who have taken a very close interest in the process of this legislation. As Senator Cooney and many other senators have said, a lot of it is to do with matters that do not—as Senator Amanda Vanstone says from time to time—stop people in supermarkets to listen to the discussion about the structure of the public sector and how it is managed, but it is very important to Australia. I thank the senators who have taken a special interest in this debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.1562PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1997 [No. 2]The bill.21:08:001562Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—What I propose to do is what I foreshadowed earlier, to move all the amendments that stand in the name of the opposition at this stage. I think that might assist the committee in terms of debate on this bill. I understand that that is a course of action that the government is supportive of in terms of the process and that it also finds favour with minor party and independent senators, so I am working on that basis. I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 50.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I move:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 15), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) to define the powers and responsibilities of Agency Heads, the Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner; and(2) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 22), after the definition of locally engaged employee , insert: merit , in relation to the engagement and promotion of employees, means assessment of the relative suitability of candidates for employment or promotion using a competitive selection process, where the assessment is: (a) based on the relationship between a candidate's work-related qualities and the work-related qualities identified by the Agency as required for the job; and (b) the sole consideration in a decision to engage or promote an employee.(3) Clause 10, page 7 (lines 28 and 29), omit "a fair, flexible, safe and rewarding workplace", substitute: its employees with: (i) a fair, flexible, safe, healthy and rewarding workplace free from harassment; and (ii) remuneration rates and conditions of employment commensurate with their responsibilities; and (iii) fair and consistent treatment, free of arbitrary or capricious administrative acts or decisions; and (iv) the right to be represented by unions; and (v) opportunities for appropriate training and development; and (vi) opportunities for appropriate participation in the decision-making processes of the Agency in which they are employed.(4) Clause 10, page 7 (line 31), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (l) the APS promotes equity in employment; (m) the APS provides a reasonable opportunity to all eligible members of the community to apply for APS employment; (n) the APS is a career-based service to enhance the effectiveness and cohesion of Australia's democratic system of government; (o) the APS provides a fair system of review of decisions taken in respect of APS employees.(5) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 1 to 12), omit subclause (2). (6) Clause 11, page 8 (lines 14 to 18), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Commissioner must issue directions in writing in relation to each of the APS Values for the purpose of: (a) ensuring that the APS incorporates and upholds the APS Values; and (b) determining where necessary the scope or application of the APS Values.(7) Clause 14, page 10 (line 9), at the end of the clause, add "and are subject to sanctions for breaches of the Code, to be determined by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Commissioner".(8) Clause 15, page 10 (lines 15 and 16), omit "include the following", substitute "are".(9) Clause 15, page 10 (line 21), at the end of subclause (2), add: ; (f) admonishment.(10) Clause 15, page 10 (lines 24 and 25), omit "The procedures must have due regard to procedural fairness.", substitute "The procedures must be based on minimum standards, determined by the Commissioner, and must have due regard to procedural fairness.".(11) Clause 16, page 11 (after line 7), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the Merit Protection Commissioner or a person authorised for the purposes of this section by the Merit Protection Commissioner; or(12) Clause 17, page 11 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) A breach of subsection (1) is to be treated as a breach of the Code of Conduct.(13) Clause 22, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Subject to this Act and to relevant awards and certified agreements, an Agency Head must engage a person as an APS employee on a permanent basis unless subsection (6) or (7) applies. (6) An Agency Head may engage a person as an APS employee on a fixed term of less than 6 months if, in the Agency Head's opinion, the need for temporary assistance will not adversely affect the maintenance of a career service or a stable workforce. (7) An Agency Head may engage a person as an APS employee on a fixed term of more than 6 months if, in the Agency Head's opinion, the employee is required to perform duties in relation to a project or task that has a fixed duration and: (a) the Agency Head determines that the duties require skills or ability that is not, or cannot be made, available within the Agency; or (b) in the case of a vacancy caused by a permanent officer being placed temporarily in another position or being on long term leave, there is no suitable permanent employee to fill the temporary vacancy.(14) Page 13 (after line 5), after clause 22, insert:22A Engagement and promotion based on merit The engagement or promotion of an APS employee for any period in excess of 3 months must be on the basis of merit.(15) Clause 23, page 13 (line 11), after "time to time", insert "but may not diminish any such provisions".(16) Clause 24, page 13 (lines 24 to 26), omit ". For this purpose, award and certified agreement have the same meanings as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .", substitute ", but may not diminish any such provisions.".(17) Clause 24, page 14 (lines 1 and 2), omit "because of special circumstances", substitute ", provided any such determination does not diminish any provision of an award or certified agreement as in force at a particular time or as in force from time to time".(18) Clause 24, page 14 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (5) For the purposes of this section, award and certified agreement have the same meanings as in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .(19) Clause 25, page 14 (line 7), after "Agency,", insert "consistent with any provision in an award or certified agreement,".(20) Clause 25, page 14 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add: (2) An employee may apply to the Agency Head to decline a proposed transfer within 7 days after the employee receives notice of the transfer. The transfer is not to take effect unless the Agency Head rejects the application.(21) Clause 29, page 15 (lines 2 to 5), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) An Agency Head may at any time following due process, by notice in writing, terminate the employment of an APS employee in the Agency if, in the opinion of the Agency Head, termination is justified on any of the following grounds: (a) unsatisfactory work performance; (b) physical or mental incapacity; (c) loss of essential qualifications; (d) a serious breach of the Code of Conduct; (e) being excess to the requirements of the Agency. Note: The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has rules and entitlements that apply to termination of employment.(22) Clause 29, page 15 (lines 8 and 9), omit subclause (3).(23) Clause 31, page 15 (after line 25), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) If an Agency Head, the Commissioner or the Merit Protection Commissioner receives any non-Commonwealth remuneration for performing duties pertaining to their offices, then the Agency Minister may give a notice in writing to the Agency Head, Commissioner or Merit Protection Commissioner in relation to the whole, or a specified part, of the remuneration. (2B) The amount notified by the Agency Minister: (a) is taken to have been received by the Agency Head, Commissioner or Merit Protection Commissioner, as the case may be, on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) may be recovered by the Commonwealth from the Agency Head, Commissioner or Merit Protection Commissioner as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.(24) Clause 33, page 16 (after line 19), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) An application for review of an APS action (other than action which involves or has resulted in termination of employment) in respect of promotion to determine who is the most meritorious officer, redeployment, inefficiency or misconduct is to be determined by a Review Committee consisting of: (a) an independent convenor nominated by the Merit Protection Commissioner; and (b) a nominee of the relevant Agency Head; and (c) an employee representative nominated in accordance with the regulations or in accordance with the provisions of an award or a certified agreement. Note: The Workplace Relations Act 1996 has rules and entitlements that apply to the termination of employment. (2B) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(c), the provisions of an award or certified agreement prevail over the provisions of the regulations to the extent of any inconsistency. (2C) A determination by a Review Committee is binding on the Agency Head. (2D) The Merit Protection Commissioner is to make recommendations to the relevant Agency Head in respect of an application for review of any APS action, other than an action included in subsection (2A), which has not been satisfactorily resolved at the Agency level.(25) Clause 36, page 17 (line 19), at the end of the clause, add ", including engagement, promotion, redeployment, mobility and termination".(26) Clause 38, page 18 (lines 3 to 5), omit the clause, substitute:38 Termination of employment In the case of termination of the employment of an SES employee, the Commissioner must certify that the termination meets the minimum requirements specified in a direction issued under section 36 and that the termination is in the best interests of the APS.(27) Clause 44, page 22 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The report must be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(28) Clause 46, page 23 (line 10), at the end of the clause, add "on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(29) Clause 49, page 25 (lines 8 and 9), omit "and made available by the Public Service Commissioner".(30) Clause 49, page 25 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add: (3) For the purposes of this Act: (a) the Merit Protection Commissioner and the APS employees assisting the Merit Protection Commissioner together constitute a Statutory Agency; and (b) the Merit Protection Commissioner is the Head of that Statutory Agency.(31) Clause 50, page 25 (lines 10 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:50 Merit Protection Commissioner's functions The Merit Protection Commissioner's functions are: (a) to facilitate and support the proper and efficient operation of Review Committees in accordance with subsection 33(2A); (b) to make recommendations to Agency Heads in respect of applications for review of APS actions in accordance with subsection 33(2D); (c) to consider and report to the Public Service Minister on any matter relating to APS employment (including such a matter referred to the Merit Protection Commissioner by the Public Service Minister); (d) to enquire into reports made to the Merit Protection Commissioner (or to a person authorised by the Merit Protection Commissioner) as mentioned in section 16; (e) any function prescribed by the regulations.(32) Clause 51, page 25 (lines 16 and 17), omit "Public Service Commissioner", substitute "Public Service Minister, for presentation to the Parliament,".(33) Clause 51, page 25 (lines 19 and 20), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The report is to be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(34) Page 25 (after line 20), after clause 51, insert:51A Capacity to report to the Prime Minister and Parliament Where action that is, in the opinion of the Merit Protection Commissioner, adequate and appropriate in the circumstances is not taken with respect to the matters and recommendations included in a report to an Agency or an investigation of a grievance, the Merit Protection Commissioner may in writing inform the Agency Minister, the Prime Minister, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (35) Clause 52, page 26 (line 6), after "Governor-General", insert "on a full-time basis and".(36) Clause 53, page 26 (line 11), at the end of the clause, add "on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(37) Page 27 (after line 17), after clause 55, insert:Division 3—Miscellaneous55A Immunity from suit The Merit Protection Commissioner, a member of a Review Committee established under subsection 33(2A) or a person acting under the direction or authority of the Merit Protection Commissioner is not liable to an action, suit or proceeding for or in relation to an act done or omitted to be done in good faith in exercise or purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by this Act.55B Protection from civil actions (1) Civil proceedings do not lie against a person in respect of loss, damage or injury of any kind suffered by another person by reason of: (a) the making of an application to the Merit Protection Commissioner under this Act; or (b) the making of a statement to, or the furnishing of a document or information to, an officer for the purposes of this Act. (2) In subsection (1), officer means: (a) the Merit Protection Commissioner; or (b) a member of a Review Committee established under subsection 33(2A); or (c) an employee of the Statutory Agency established under subsection 49(3); or (d) a person, not being a person referred to in paragraph (c), to whom the Merit Protection Commissioner has delegated any of his or her powers under section 78.55C Officers to observe secrecy (1) In this section, officer means: (a) the Merit Protection Commissioner; or (b) a member of a Review Committee established under subsection 33(2A); or (c) an employee of the Statutory Agency established under subsection 49(3); or (d) a person, not being a person referred to in paragraph (c), to whom the Merit Protection Commissioner has delegated any of his or her powers under section 78. (2) Subject to this section, an officer shall not, directly or indirectly, and either while he or she is, or after he or she ceases to be, an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information acquired by the officer by reason of his or her being an officer, being information that was disclosed or obtained under the provisions of section 33. Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months or both. (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent an officer: (a) from making a record of, or divulging or communicating to any person, information acquired by the officer in the performance of his or her duties as an officer for purposes connected with the exercise of the powers and with the performance of the functions of the Merit Protection Commissioner under this Act; or (b) from divulging or communicating information to a person: (i) if the information was furnished by an officer of an Agency or Commonwealth authority in the performance of his or her duties as such an employee—with the consent of the principal officer of the Agency or authority or of the responsible Minister; or (ii) if the information was furnished by a person otherwise than as set out in subparagraph (i)—with the consent of the person who furnished the information. (4) Subsection (2) does not prevent the Merit Protection Commissioner or a person to whom the Merit Protection Commissioner has delegated powers or functions under section 78 from disclosing, in a report made under this Act, such matters as, in his or her opinion, ought to be disclosed in the course of setting out the grounds for the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. (5) A person who is or has been an officer is not competent and may not be required, in any proceedings before a court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) or before a person authorised by a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, or by consent of parties, to hear, receive or examine evidence or to disclose any information acquired by the person by reason of his or her being or having been an officer, being information that was disclosed or obtained under the provisions of section 16 or 33. (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8), nothing in this Act is to be taken to preclude the Merit Protection Commissioner from disclosing information, or making a statement, to any person or to the public or a section of the public with respect to the performance of a function of the Merit Protection Commissioner under this Act if, in the opinion of the Merit Protection Commissioner, it is in the interests of any Agency, Commonwealth authority or person, or is otherwise in the public interest, so to disclose that information or to make that statement. (7) The Merit Protection Commissioner must not disclose information or make a statement under subsection (6) with respect to a particular review where the disclosure of that information, or the making of that statement, is likely to interfere with the carrying out of that review or of any other review. (8) The Merit Protection Commissioner must not, in disclosing information or making a statement under subsection (6) with respect to a particular review disclose the name of an applicant or any other matter that would enable an applicant to be identified unless it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.(38) Clause 57, page 28 (lines 13 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:57 Responsibilities of Secretaries (1) The Secretary of a Department, under the Agency Minister, is responsible for the general working, and all the business, of the Department and is to advise the Agency Minister in all matters relating to the Department. (2) The Secretary of a Department has a duty to assist the Agency Minister to fulfil his or her accountability obligations to the Parliament by providing full and accurate information to the Parliament about the factual and technical background to policies and their administration.(39) Clause 59, page 29 (lines 16 and 17), omit subclause (4).(40) Clause 61, page 29 (line 26), at the end of the clause, add "on the advice of the Remu neration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(41) Clause 63, page 30 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The report is to be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(42) Clause 65, page 32 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Executive agencies are accountable to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public in the same way as Departments.(43) Clause 66, page 32 (lines 22 to 24), omit the clause, substitute:66 Responsibilities of Heads of Executive Agencies (1) The Head of an Executive Agency, under the Agency Minister, is responsible for the general working, and all the business, of the Agency. (2) The Head of an Executive Agency has a duty to assist the Agency Minister to fulfil his or her accountability obligations to the Parliament by providing full and accurate information to the Parliament about the factual and technical background to policies and their administration.(44) Clause 67, page 33 (line 2), omit "a relevant Secretary", substitute "the Secretary of the Prime Minister's Department".(45) Clause 67, page 33 (lines 5 to 10), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute: (4) Before terminating the appointment of the Head of an Executive Agency, the Agency Minister must receive a report about the proposed termination from the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Prime Minister's Department.(46) Clause 68, page 33 (line 18), at the end of the clause, add "on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and are to be published in the Gazette ".(47) Clause 70, page 34 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The report is to be prepared in accordance with guidelines approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on behalf of the Parliament.(48) Clause 72, page 36 (lines 3 and 4), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Determinations under this section are to provide that the provisions of any relevant awards or certified agreements continue to apply to affected APS employees until new provisions are agreed to by those employees.(49) Clause 78, page 39 (after line 27), after subclause (5), insert: (5A) The Merit Protection Commissioner may, in writing, delegate to an APS employee any of the Merit Protection Commissioner's powers or functions under this Act (other than this section).(50) Clause 78, page 40 (after line 3), after subclause (6), insert: (6A) An Agency Head may not delegate a power or function under subsection (6) to a person who is not an APS employee or a person appointed to an office under a law of the Commonwealth, by the Governor-General or a Minister, unless the Commissioner approves in writing the proposed delegation.As I indicated earlier, we are going to progress only those amendments that were supported previously by the Senate. Essentially, we believe that the government's proposals go too far in enhancing the powers of departmental secretaries and turning Public Service agencies into independent entities. As I have said, they do not go far enough in protecting the independence and professionalism of the Public Service and the working conditions of public servants.The point of these amendments is to address that imbalance. They deal with a number of key concerns that we have with these bills. I mention some important ones for the benefit of the committee. One is in relation to the power of secretaries. Our amendments here limit the powers of secretaries in a number of ways. There is a clause setting out their responsibilities, including assisting the minister to fulfil his or her accountability obligations to parliament. There is a prohibition on cosy deals on salary and conditions. Salaries are to be set on the advice of the Remuneration Tribunal and published in the Gazette so that they will be open to public scrutiny. Secretaries are to be subject to sanctions for breaches of the code of conduct in the same way as employees.The prevention of patronage and cronyism is another important issue which the Senate spent a great deal of time debating previously. The bill proscribes patronage and favouritism, but we say its provisions will actually encourage those things. You have got political appointments at the top. These are appointees who might well be lured by special deals into the Australian Public Service. You have got an SES that is dependent on patronage for its survival and employees who are heavily dependent on their bosses for their salaries and conditions of service, and also with restricted rights of appeal. So the bill does not actually provide for sanctions against patronage and favouritism, and the amendments that the opposition are moving remedy that situation.We are also proposing in our amendments to ensure that merit is the sole consideration in a decision to engage or promote an employee. The independence of SES employees will be protected by requiring the Public Service Commissioner to certify that termination is in accordance with the published procedures and in the best interests of the APS, and by giving them access to the unfair dismissals provisions of the Workplace Relations Act.The issue of the rights of employees of the Australian Public Service is another one that has been widely canvassed during our previous committee stage debate. It is an important one for the opposition. That is why we have proposed a large number of amendments which are designed to protect the interests of APS employees. That includes: the changes to the values to entrench the right to be represented by unions; appropriate training and development opportunities; the ability to participate in decision making; provisions to ensure greater transparency in management decisions relating to breaches of the code of conduct and termination; the protection of current appeal rights and the independence and powers of the Merit Protection Commissioner; maintenance of conditions of employment as set out in current awards and certified agreements until such time as new conditions are agreed to; and of course the protection of mobility rights for those public servants who currently have them.Another important issue is the Merit Protection Commissioner. I know this is something that has been of very great concern to Senator Cooney, who has canvassed this issue on a number of occasions. The government reluctantly agreed to maintain the Merit Protection Commissioner as an independent statutory authority, but did not include in the legislation or in the draft regulations on review of actions the necessary functions, the necessary powers, the necessary protections for the commissioner to be fully independent and effective. Our amendments seek to restore these powers and protections to the commissioner.It is necessary to point out to the committee during this committee stage debate the opposition's strong belief that the government is taking devolution of powers to individual agencies too far. It does not make sense for agencies to be reinventing the wheel in areas of commonality, such as adherence to the values and code of conduct and procedures for breaches, engagement and termination of SES employees. Our amendments therefore provide for the Public Service Commissioner to provide guidance in the form of directions to all agencies in these areas.We are concerned that executive agencies, which the government wishes to set up under this legislation, will be less accountable than departments. We have proposed an amendment to ensure that they are as accountable as departments to the government, to the parliament and to the public. As I have indicated, I think these are important principles. I have also said that for the convenience of the Senate we do not think it is necessary to have a re-run of the very lengthy committee debate that occurred on the last occasion these matters were before the Senate. Obviously they were thoroughly canvassed previously. It is for that reason that I propose to deal with the amendments in this way.In relation to the amendments to the Public Service Bill, the committee will find that those amendments are identical to those that were proposed by the opposition and passed by the Senate in November last year. When we deal with the Parliamentary Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] , I would like to point out to the committee one small difference that has emerged since that time.21:19:001569Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I also would like to add some general comments with respect to the Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] . It is unfortunate and disappointing that we find ourselves once more facing a piece of government legislation based on an expression of the government's vindictiveness towards Australian workers. The Public Service Bill will, in effect, sever the relationship between the federal government—in its delivery of services and its formulation and preparation of policy to the Australian people—and a strong, independent Public Service operating alongside a healthy private sector. Rather than pursuing the goal of having an independent public sector playing an essential role in the promotion of social and economic policy delivery, the government's plan is indeed to undermine that cohesion and undermine the accountability of the Australian Public Service.Indeed, just through my experience in the estimates committee process over the last two years, I have found the changing nature of the Public Service under this government to be quite significant—to the point where the salaries of the more senior public servants are determined outside of public scrutiny, where more and more often we see the policy processes hidden behind veils of secrecy and the introduction of outsourcing not as a mechanism to improve efficiencies but as a blanket formula for screening parliamentary scrutiny of the way this government expends taxpayers' dollars.Another major feature of this government's attitude towards the public sector is the absolute ignorance they have of what motivates many of the individuals within the Australian Public Service. Contrary to the assumptions of this government, who presume that all Australians are motivated by greed, by money, by their level of remuneration or their career opportunity—I speak on behalf of those thousands upon thousands of public servants who choose to be in the service of the public—they choose to spend their careers working on behalf of all Australians. With this choice brings some sacrifice, but it also used to bring some job security. This was part of the environment people entered if they chose to devote their life to the service of the public.This philosophy is not understood by this government in any respect. They think that everyone has to be motivated by the dollar. It is why outsourcing, they argue, is such a lucrative opportunity for public servants who can transfer their employ from the public to the private sector. They do not mention the very large percentage of people who lose their jobs in the process. They do not mention that a very high proportion of any savings arising from any outsourcing arrive only because of the loss of jobs and the savings in the wages bills that subsequently result.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business talks about efficiencies, competitiveness and autonomy without any regard to what type of service will be delivered. Despite the rhetoric emanating from those opposite, we have yet to hear how this new Public Service will deliver honest and impartial advice without fear or favour. We are seeing a bill and mechanisms that will change the Public Service. They will change its nature. The Public Service is not the whimsical creation of some clever politicians. The Public Service has evolved over many years and was indeed in a state of evolution when this bill came forward.The record of Labor's efforts on restructuring the public sector are well documented. Some features of that process were more worthy than others, but at least at the core was a commitment to a strong public sector and an acceptance of the role that the public sector plays in Australian life. Missing from this government's rhetoric is exactly what type of Public Service we will end up with. Will they achieve compliance by taking away the traditional career path of Australian public servants? Will they achieve compliance by politicising the APS and devaluing the corporate memory of the service?And how do we value that corporate memory? I do not see any quantification in any savings outcomes in the government's calculations in their pursuit of efficiencies. How do we quantify that? How do we quantify years and years of experience in managing public policy? We cannot quantify it. Unless it is factored in, it is a false equation. Unless that corporate knowledge is given some value, it does not matter what this government prepare on paper—it will be a false representation of the value of that service.The government alleges that these reforms will create a dynamic and flexible Public Service. Far from it. This new Public Service will struggle to deliver a political knowledge and expertise given that its cohesion, morale, independence, career opportunities and quality of service are being systematically eroded by this legislation. I remind those opposite that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts concluded that the changes contained in this legislation would not necessarily result in simplification; rather, they will result in increased inequities and inconsistencies across the various organisations and between employees.I do not believe this bill is in the national interest. We do not need or want a Public Service that is beholden to the political whims of whichever government is in office. I think a particularly relevant comment to make is that a government who is so prone to bad decision making cannot indeed afford to compromise the advice they receive.I would like to revisit the point about tenure. Removing the security of tenure and the possibility of permanency will not achieve an independent Public Service either. The fact that the APS is no longer viewed as a career path will seriously undermine its ability to recruit the type of people needed to safeguard its independence. Certainly my experience within the private sector shows that many of the strategies put in place by industry lend themselves to establishing a more comprehensive, more predictable career path. Yet, in the Public Service, this government sees fit to go in the opposite direction. I do not think there is too much wisdom backing this approach.It is ironic, given this government's commitment, so they claim, to the private sector, that this time they choose not to look to the lessons of private industry and see the investment in establishing stable career paths—with varying degrees of success, but you cannot deny that that has been the aim and the goal: to improve recruitment and to retain those with experience who can add value to their particular sector.I would like to conclude by conveying a story about a public servant here in the ACT. It is a story about somebody who had many options in their career. They were quite experienced, had worked in both the public and private sectors and had operated as a consultant, being self-employed.When faced with a choice of a range of positions, this person chose to work in the Public Service because he felt that he could do the most good for his country in that capacity. This individual's choice to work in the public sector was motivated, I believe, by a genuine desire to contribute something to the greater good. The appeal of the private sector or the lure of the big consultancy dollar was not enough to change this person's career choice.However, six months into this position he found out that that particular area in that particular department was going to be abolished. Why? He still does not know why. It was part of that department's downsizing and pursuit of efficiencies. As a result, the public sector has lost a great contributor. His corporate knowledge was not valued; his contribution was not valued. In fact, he was treated most appallingly in the process that led to the winding up of that particular section.The Australian Public Service used to be a proud organisation that valued its contributors. It is now an organisation of low morale and many devastated people who have believed in their contribution over the years and believed in work that they were doing.Whilst I have not been concentrating my remarks on some of the technical clauses of the bill, these issues are not spoken about enough in this place. It is about commitment to the collective, it is about acknowledging the genuine role of the public sector in this country and it is about acknowledging the fact that unless this parliament safeguards everything that the public sector stands for in its independence, pride and ability, no-one else is going to do it. They are in our hands, and this government has forsaken that responsibility in pursuit of a cheap and shallow ideology. Unfortunately, whilst they are in power, the role of the Public Service and what it brings to Australia will be diminished.21:35:001571Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—There is one question I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary. As he has said on many occasions before, this is a philosophical divide. I would like to know how the Public Service is going to enter into competition. I use the example of the Australian Government Solicitor advisedly.If the Public Service competes against, say, contractors or consultants, how is that fair competition when the consultants and the contractors can go to any client or customer to get their work, whereas the particular section in the Public Service can only compete for Public Service work? That is the position of the Australian Government Solicitor. They are in competition with outside solicitors. Those solicitors can spread their business across a whole range of clients, whereas the Australian Government Solicitor is confined to one. How can that be true competition?21:36:001571Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Cooney, the area of the Public Service where it provides a contestable service where the private sector can compete is the area covered under the competitive neutrality principles that were laid down almost entirely by the previous government under the prime ministership of Paul Keating. The competitive interaction that you are talking about is one for those contestable, clearly defined service delivery functions. It is bound up by the competition policy, which I think the previous prime minister would claim as one of the hallmarks of his prime ministership, and I am advised do not come specifically under this area.When we talk in rhetorical terms of a more competitive Public Service, I liked it characterised in the way I did in my summing-up of the second reading debate—that you want a Public Service that is responsive to the needs of the community. I disagree with Senator Lundy's colouring of the coalition's view of the Public Service—that we hate them, that we do not like them, that we put them down or that we rhetorically bash public servants. We do not. That is the sort of rhetoric of a trade union official. I do not say this in a derogatory way at all.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Oh, come on!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I do not.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Well, don't say it then. You are totally off the track.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—A coalition politician can get up to a bunch of business people and make a speech which is quite typical of a coalition politician sticking up for free enterprise and getting stuck into centralist socialist governments. I would not take affront to you saying that that is a typical coalition politician playing to his audience. If you get up and make a speech—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That is a red herring.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, it is not. If you get up and make the sort of speech where you say that the coalition gets some joy out of putting down public servants, that is what I regard as a typical sort of comment coming from a trade union official. Senator Sherry, to his great credit, whenever we talk about people who come from the trade union movement, says he is proud to be a trade unionist. I know he is proud of it, and so he should be. I think it is an entirely commendable occupation to be an organiser for a trade union, as long as the membership of the trade union is free and people have the freedom to decide whether or not they join the trade union.To get back to the point Senator Cooney made and to respond to Senator Lundy's point, the coalition regards the achievement of an effective, efficient and focused community service orientated Public Service as vital for Australia's national interest. We recognise the fact that the Australian Labor Party has an entirely different view of how that is to be achieved. I think that is one of those things in politics that is probably irreconcilable at the core of it.However, you have to recognise that the Australian Labor Party government, particularly when Mr Keating became Prime Minister, did move a long way down the track towards mainstreaming the industrial relations aspects of the Australian Public Service and tried to get as much of the industrial relations side of it under the mainstream—to the extent of, for example, putting the APS into the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission back in 1984, applying enterprise bargaining in 1992, the McLeod report recommendations and a range of other things.So it is just not accurate to say that there cannot be compromise in some areas. There is no doubt that there can. But as to the fundamental differences between us on the role of the public sector, we believe it is there to serve the nation as you do; I guess you see it as an avenue for increasing employment, or something—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Don't guess.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I have to. Senator Lundy says—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Why don't you tell us what you think.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Don't try to paraphrase me.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I know this is a very emotional topic for you. You think you have an efficient Australian Public Service if you employ 20,000 or 30,000 more people. We happen to think that you have to look at the outcomes, the service delivery, the quality of the service, how it is managed and how it is structured. We think that can be achieved better by devolution; you think it can be better achieved by central control—having more power in the hands of a few, by not rewarding performance, by not trying to focus on outcomes. The coalition believes that you look at the quality of service and how you achieve that quality of service. You think that is achieved by centralised control, by having the CPSU dictate how everything happens in the Australian Public Service. We disagree.21:42:001572Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I would just like to follow up Senator Cooney's question. I do not think Senator Ian Campbell quite got to a response in the end. My question relates to how the coalition government manages the relationship between the departments, particu larly services that have subsequently been outsourced.Senator, you made some comments about competitive neutrality. I was hoping you could explain to the committee what the government's position is with respect to competitive neutrality, and benchmarking the standard of services provided in-house against those that the government is contemplating outsourcing. What principle guides your government on that issue of competitive neutrality, benchmarking and achieving efficiencies for the Australian Public Service? Question put: That the amendments (Senator Faulkner's ) be agreed to.21:47:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)36Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. *Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Collins, J. M. A. Boswell, R. L. D.O'Brien, K. W. K. Ellison, C.* denotes teller(Senator Knowles did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the affirmative.Progress reported.Adjournment157310000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.157321:50:001573Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I rise to speak on the adjournment on a serious matter, something on which the government has shown very great and gross hypocrisy; that is, the use by the Howard government in a very partisan way of taxpayers' funds for party political purposes. This is the taxpayer funded propaganda service courtesy of the Department of Finance and Administration, the government members secretariat. I want to focus on some promotional material that has been provided tonight to the opposition from the government members secretariat. This material is presented first in a format with a cover sheet that is headed `Promotional Material'. I will quote quickly from it as follows:Please find the following additional promotional material that has been prepared by the Government Members Secretariat for use in your electorate—This is going to government senators and members. It continues:Please note that your authorisation already appears on each flyer.Its says:The A4 size flyer could be used in newsletters or as handouts at street stalls. The DL size flyer could be inserted in all your correspondence and could also be used in street stalls and these should be photocopied on bright coloured paper.This is under the signature of Mr Reg Chamberlain, the communications officer of the government members' secretariat.This memo from Mr Chamberlain basically instructs members to authorise the material that is attached when members and senators distribute it in their electorates. To make it easier for government members and senators, so they do not breach the Electoral Act, the bromides that members and senators have been provided with actually are supplied with a ready-made authorisation. We have removed the authorisations from the documentation that we have. It is a pretty sensible thing to do when you want to protect your sources in this business, as you would understand.Let me remind the Senate of section 328 of the Electoral Act, which states:(1) A person shall not print, publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, an electoral advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or notice unless:(a) the name and address (not being a post-office box) of the person who authorized the advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or notice appears at the end thereof . . . The issue here is this: the very nature of the material requiring authorisation is that it is an electoral advertisement; it is party political campaign material.Let us have a look at the Liberal propaganda that has been provided by this taxpayer funded unit here in Parliament House. It has an A4 bromide attacking the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley. Mr Chamberlain suggests that this particular document could be used in newsletters or as handouts in street stalls. There are also two DL sized flyers—the ones where an A4 sheet divides into three. Again one attacks Kim Beazley, and the other promotes the coalition's plan to sell Telstra in regional Australia.Mr Chamberlain is a little more direct in the use of these. He says that these should be inserted in all correspondence and that they could also be used in street stalls. Where is the material being produced? It is not by the Liberal Party secretariat, of course. It is not funded from Liberal Party campaign funds—it is what you might expect, but that is not the case. This is being produced by the government members' secretariat here in Parliament House from funds of the Department of Finance and Administration. This technically means that the production of this campaign bromide is, under the Electoral Act, a gift to the Liberal Party because others have paid for them.So, under the act, it would have to be disclosed. I wonder what the cost would be for the commercial production of these bromides, individualised for each of the 130 government members and senators, all to attack the Australian Labor Party and Mr Beazley in particular in the most politically partisan way possible.What did the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, Senator Minchin, who was in charge of this unit, say about the government members' secretariat? He said:The government members' secretariat is there to service and support government members in the performance of their duties. It is the responsibility of all government members to be out there selling government policy and to be supported appropriately in so doing.Mr Martin Bonsey, from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, on page 137 of the Hansard of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee of Wednesday 18 December 1996, outlined in some detail what the government secretariat is supposed to be doing. It certainly never mentioned the production of this sort of material. This material is a bucket job on Kim Beazley. It has nothing to do with government policy whatsoever. It clearly is party political campaign material and should be produced by the Liberal and National parties at their own expense.Senator Minchin now is so embarrassed about the activities of the government members' secretariat that he said in question time today that, while the government members' secretariat staff are allocated to his own staff, the secretariat is the responsibility of the Chief Government Whip; it is under his operational direction. That is not only untrue but also blatant political buck-passing on the part of Senator Minchin.It is worth looking at how this Liberal Party campaign unit abuses taxpayer funds. The coalition government has a 10-member secretariat, paid for by the taxpayer, to train backbenchers in media techniques, plus produce a raft of newsletters and material that are necessarily campaign based. Eight of the staff are based in Canberra—two of them live interstate—and the cost in salaries is in excess of half a million dollars.There are the costs of computer gear and software—including advanced desk top programs such as CORAL, Draw 7, Microsoft Front Page 95 and Alders Pagemaker. That is about $18,000. This whole area at suite MG3 in Parliament House has been refitted at a cost of $39,000, for a change in the offices from open plan to separate offices. The cost of travel for members of that secretariat in 1997-98 was $150,000. The total administration cost was $66,132. It is a total cost of in excess of three quarters of a million dollars for a unit that should, by its nature, be based in, and paid for by, Menzies House.We say that, if any material produced at the member's secretariat needs authorisation—and that is what Mr Chamberlain's memo says—it should be produced with Liberal Party money because it is electoral material, not through that enormous amount in excess of $¾ million of taxpayers' dollars. We say that it is gross hypocrisy on the part of Mr Howard to let a unit like this operate here in Parliament House, funded by the Department of Finance and Administration—and, of course, it was Mr Howard who promised to rein in costs before the election.We have this material. We know what this is about. It is nothing other than a taxpayer funded propaganda unit for the use of the government. The unit should be shut down, if it is going to do this sort of thing. I seek leave to table the documentation.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Madam President, on a point of order: we have not seen the stolen documentation.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You have; it was sent to you. It was not stolen.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Senator Faulkner admits that it is a stolen document. If he would be kind enough to provide us with a copy, we will consider giving leave.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Leave is not granted at the present time.157522:01:001575Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—In contrast to the negative whining, carping, pinpricking, muckraking approach of Labor, as demonstrated by the previous speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner), tonight I want to speak of real Australians doing positive things for their country. I speak of those who are happily working away because they are doing what really matters, what Australians are really concerned about: looking after their environment for themselves and their descendants.A couple of Saturdays ago, at the invitation of Councillor Geraldine Knapp of the Brisbane City Council, I had the pleasure of visiting a project that a number of Brisbane people are involved in: saving and repairing the waterways in the Brisbane City area. Those people belong to a group called SOWN, which stands for Save Our Waterways—Now! The project that I visited has been going for some time; the former councillor for the area, Mr Brian Hallinan, also initiated it in years gone by. I was accompanied in my inspection of this work by a couple of people who are very much committed to the project: a Mr Bob Whiteman, who is President of SOWN; and Mr Brian Sait, who is the coordinator of the project.This project was developed to provide a working model of waterways management, with an emphasis on ongoing maintenance. It is presently being developed in Brisbane's western suburbs in 28 square kilometres of the catchments of the Enoggera, Ithaca and Fish Creek systems, which join together to form Breakfast Creek. The creeks draining this part of the Brisbane area are over 23 kilometres in length. The 46 kilometres of creek banks, plus hundreds of kilometres of usually dry gullies, had been allowed to become totally degraded, caused by citizens dumping garden cuttings of vines and exotics over many years and because of the council's inability to carry out corrective maintenance.This SOWN project is to rectify some longstanding environmental concerns that residents have had about the state of Enoggera and Ithaca Creeks. It is a solid example of the federal government, local governments and the community working together to clean up Australia's waterways. In the last year alone some 20,000 native trees and grasses were planted, with 900 cubic of metres of mulch being spread. The strength of the project has been the work by 700 or so volunteers, who have contributed more than 68,000 volunteer hours since the project's inception three years ago.The federal government, through the Natural Heritage Trust, has committed some $56,800 to return the creeks to their natural state. This funding ensures the future viability of the project for another three years. The project is not only an example of our Natural Heritage Trust working but also of other government programs working together.The SOWN project has had the assistance of a Green Corps team. As parliamentary secretary responsible for the Green Corps, I am proud that the local Green Corps team was able to assist the SOWN project last November. The Green Corps team dedicated time to identifying weeds and removing large amounts of Tecoma stans and Ochna from areas surrounding the creeks.The government's work for the dole scheme has also been of benefit to the project, with teams funded by the scheme and organised by the Moreton Bay Marine Association being allocated to assist on this project. This project is a classic example of Australians working together with their governments to get real outcomes and returns for the environment—and, through that, for their country.I have a few extra minutes, so I will just mention another good news story. That concerns, up my way in North Queensland, a group called the North Queensland Joint Board. It is rather an odd sort of name, but it is a combination—a cooperative getting together of local governments in Far North Queensland. These local governments have got together to become involved in environmental repair work, particularly tree planting, and in the wet tropics vegetation management program.The councils involved include the Atherton Shire, Cairns City, Cardwell Shire, Cook Shire, Douglas Shire, Eacham Shire, Herberton Shire, Hinchinbrook Shire, Johnstone Shire and Mareeba Shire. For 1997-98 the projects being undertaken by the North Queensland Joint Board total some $1,455,166, with the federal government's Natural Heritage Trust again playing a major role in the money allocated for those projects.The projects right across Far North Queensland look at things like fixing up degraded scrub areas, maintenance and repair of creek banks, maintenance of remnant vegetation, a lot of riparian work, a good deal of work being done on the foreshores, and an amount of money being spent in the Cardwell Shire and the Johnstone Shire for wildlife corridors—and that principally is to enable the cassowary, an endangered species, to be able to move with some safety in that Mission Beach area of Far North Queensland.The people doing those wildlife corridors are working in close conjunction with another initiative of this government that Senator Hill was instrumental in setting up, and that was a grant of some $200,000 to establish a foundation to look after the endangered cassowary.In addition to wildlife corridors, there is a lot of very good work going on throughout Far North Queensland under the auspices of the North Queensland Joint Board. This is a classic example of the Commonwealth government working with the local governments in this case and with the general community in getting real and positive things done for our environment, repairing some of the degradation that has happened over the years.It does show that this government can rightly claim to be the greenest government ever to govern in Australia. The previous government used to talk about the environment. They did a lot in a political sense to get the second preferences of so-called green candidates several years ago, but it was all talk. There was never any particular action. I am proud to be part of a government that has put its money where its mouth is, so to speak, and has invested over $1 billion in the environment. All this work will help not only this generation but also generations of Australians to come.These are just two examples of the great things being done around our countryside by Australians in conjunction with their governments. They are good news stories that need to be told.157622:09:001576McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Tonight I want to say a few further words on the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry into sexual discrimination. The report was delivered in this place in December of last year. It is unusual in the sense that it is a report on a private member's bill by a references committee. What is even more unusual is the amount of interest that the report and its contents have generated since its presentation in this place.I have not quite been inundated but I have certainly received an enormous amount of mail on the subject of the content of the report. Although I have not counted them, around 98 per cent of the letters I have received have come from the state of Queensland, despite the fact that I am a representative of Western Australia. I am a Western Australian senator, yet they are writing to me about it.I must apologise to all of the people from Queensland and from other parts of Australia who have written to me because I do not have the time, the staff or the resources to respond to all of them. My resources go into representing the state that I have been elected to represent and very rarely do I respond to letters and correspondence from other states. I just do not have the resources to do it and my staff are too busy serving the electorate of Western Australia. I do appreciate people writing to me but, unfortunately, if they are not from my state I am not in a position to directly respond to them.I trust then that the people who have a deep and inherent interest in the content of the report, so much so that they have written to me, will accept this explanation as an apology for me not getting back to them directly. I do assure all constituents in Western Australia, however, that if they do write to me they will get a response. They might not, on every occasion, like the response that they get but they will get a direct, frank and, very importantly, honest response.I say `honest' because I am afraid what has been happening in the debate on the report and its contents has not been entirely honest. The report is not about bringing about the end of the world in any shape or by any means or methods. It is not about that at all, yet there has been somewhat of a scare campaign run in the community, particularly in the state of Queensland, about the report. One would think, from the fear that has been generated in people's minds, as expressed in bundles of letters such as this, that if the report were implemented it would virtually mean the end of civilisation in that state as we know it. Nothing could be further from the truth.The report is, as I said in the very beginning, a review of a private member's bill that was introduced into this parliament by former Senator Sid Spindler of the Australian Democrats. Senator Spindler was able to convince the majority of the Senate to refer this bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry. That was done on 30 May 1996. The committee held public hearings in practically every capital city of the nation and received a very large number of submissions—some 436 in number, which is more than you would receive on the average bill coming through this place.We deliberated on the bill for an extensive period of time in formulating the report. It is a very considered report—not a unanimous report by any stretch of the imagination, but nevertheless a very considered report—which put forward 33 recommendations for amendment to the bill. It is a private member's bill and it is up to those who move a private member's bill to either accept, reject or modify those recommendations that are put to them by a committee.The committee's work has been done. I thank all of my colleagues on the committee and the secretariat. I believe it was a job well done even though I am, to a certain extent, patting myself on the back as chair of the committee. It is not my intention to do so. I do not need to do so because I think the report speaks for itself.The first thing that happened was that it was alleged in some circles that we were recommending in the report that certain transgender people be able to compete openly in women's sports. I had this to say on that particular element of the report on 2 December:The report makes no recommendations about sport. The evidence did not demonstrate that there was much interest in competitive sport by transgender persons and the Committee considers this issue can be dealt with by the relevant sporting organisations on a case by case basis.I invite anybody to pick up the report and point to the recommendations where the committee said that transgender persons would be allowed to compete openly in womens sport. It cannot be done, because they are not there.A further example of distortion appears in an article in the February 1998 edition of the APC Review, which is the national publication of Australian Parents Council Incorporated. On page seven, an article entitled `Sexuality Discrimination' states that there is no exemption for religious belief. To quote the article:The original Bill provided an exemption from discrimination in employment for religious educational institutions (including schools) acting in accordance with the tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, in good faith and to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.The Senate Committee recommends no such exemption.Indeed, they are correct on that. But we did not need to make a recommendation because the committee had agreed to leave the exemptions that were already in the bill dealing with this particular element. We did not recommend their removal. We did not recommend their strengthening or weakening. We did make one important recommendation in regard to religious organisations—that if they were receiving Commonwealth funding, they could not discriminate in the distribution of that Commonwealth funding on the basis of the sexuality of a person. It had to be an even distribution, as if the funding was distributed by the Commonwealth itself.The top of page 7 contains the continuation of an article on page 6, entitled, `The ALP Education Platform'. Unfortunately, the top of page 7 also displays the Australian Labor Party logo, and I understand that it has gone around this house today as being an ALP publication. It is not an ALP publication. It does not make representations about what is and is not contained in the report. It is, in fact, an excerpt from the February 1998 APC Review.The authors, incidentally, did not seek to make contact with me to check out for themselves whether or not what they were writing was accurate. A lot of people, including some of the more professional journalists around this place, will check out the accuracy of a story before they go to print. This particular organisation did not seek to do that and I think that is a bit disappointing. Following receipt of the transcript of my contribution here tonight, I will send them a copy of what I have had to say and trust that they, in turn, will seek to address and correct the information that they have put out in the publication.I apologise for not making a direct response to those constituents who have written to me. Unfortunately, I have not got the time or the resources to do so. I hold the view that if people go to the trouble of contacting their parliamentarian, they are entitled to a response. But such is the volume—as has been the case with bills such as the euthanasia bill last year, where we got many thousands of letters—that it is just not possible to respond to every one of them. There are 12 senators for the state of Queensland who can adequately respond. I trust that the comments I have made here tonight and in the tabling statement I made on behalf of the committee on 2 December can be relayed to those people and that the fears that have been generated in their minds can be alleviated.157822:19:001578Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—In an earlier speech tonight, Senator Faulkner sought leave to table a document. I wonder whether leave could now be granted?Leave granted.157822:20:001578Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—A chapter in federal and territory politics ended today, as the resignation of Senator Bob Collins became effective. It is typical of the dichotomy of Bob Collins that he neither made nor sought valedictory comment on his resignation. I would certainly hope that his colleagues in the Labor Party will, on a suitable occasion, make some suitable comment with regard to his resignation.Senator Collins has been both a political adversary and an ally to me during the more than 10 years that we served together in this Senate. As we all know, he is a man of quixotic and often very confusing characteristics. He led us in fierce debate. He displayed good humour and, at times, a very keen pursuit of particular intellectual issues. Whilst Senator Collins's term in the ministry was often controversial, his commitment to the Northern Territory was constant, and we were able in many ways to cooperate on a lot of areas of mutual interest for the Northern Territory. He was always a forceful presence here in the Senate and the absence of his lively debating skills will be noted and, frankly, missed.Bob Collins was the first federal minister to come from the Northern Territory. He served as shipping minister and minister assisting the Prime Minister for Northern Australia. He was later appointed transport and communications minister and, subsequently, minister for primary industry. He was well respected in Aboriginal communities throughout the Northern Territory. However, he always showed common sense in support of Aborigi nal development, rejecting the policies of the militant Aboriginal and often Labor activists in so many areas. He was not afraid to offend the left wing of his own party by backing increased mining in Aboriginal communities, including the mining of uranium, as he felt it was the will of his Aboriginal communities. He expressed their reservation when that was necessary, as well.He championed the case of Lindy Chamberlain, which was well known. I know that Bob Collins often cited the eventual quashing of the conviction for the murder of her daughter as the most memorable achievement in his personal career.On the issue of Northern Territory rights, he was fierce. We again saw this dichotomy in the euthanasia debate when he had to deal with the issue of his own personal views, which were very clearly opposed to euthanasia, and those of supporting territory rights and territory issues where he did champion a very principled stand. I was pleased to be his partner in many of those debates.As I said before, he had a very good sense of humour and he was certainly unconventional. You might recall the occasion when he threatened to biff Senator Ron Boswell under the ear in a debate, then apologised saying it was just his `friendly territory nature'.There were parts of Bob Collins's career where he failed to recognise consequences, such as the compounding effects that the airline pilots dispute had on hundreds of small businesses. He stood by while the Commonwealth promised to complete the north-south railway and then made no real progress with that railway whilst he was the transport minister. Of course we all remember the famous occasion when he promised to resign within 12 months if he could not reform the waterfront. Well, some years later—much more than 12 months—he has now resigned, and we still see the problem of union stranglehold in that area. Bob Collins also warned us about the consequences if the Darwin and Alice Springs airports were privatised, but then he did accept his own party's changes on that in a short space of time. We now see those policies effectively being implemented. Of course the pay TV debacle was one debate in this chamber that I am sure many of us remember.Before coming here, Bob Collins served for 10 years in the Northern Territory Parliament, with five years in the position of Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that he must have found that a very taxing and hard point of view. In the next decade, I hope to form a close personal and non-partisan relationship with Bob Collins as I believe that we both share a great love of and commitment to the Northern Territory.The final point I make is that the territory will now miss a second voice in this chamber until Senator Collins's replacement has been found. Territory Labor seems to have got itself into a terrible mess over the preselection of a new senator—to the territory's detriment. It has now been more than seven weeks since Bob Collins announced his intention to resign and, because the ALP has been so indecisive, disorganised and factionally driven, the territory has been left without that second Senate voice to which it is entitled—particularly as the native title debate resumes this week. Senator Bob Collins obviously did not want to be here for that particular debate because he had strong views that were not consistent with what is currently going on in the tribal warfare of the Labor Party on this particular issue. His commonsense views would not have given him the proper `star witness' role that we would have naturally taxed him on in that particular debate. So the ALP are now asking Territorians to stand back and wait another six weeks. That is a total of 13 weeks without representation in a place that is important. Clearly that is unacceptable.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—A quarter of a year.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—It is a quarter of a year. The Labor Party is being extremely inconsistent not only towards its own supporters but also to the electorate in general by leaving Northern Territory voters under-represented in this federal parliament at a very important time. However, tonight, I certainly pay credit to the work and the role of Senator Bob Collins in this place for the last 10 years.22:26:001579Senate adjourned at 10.26 p.m.Documents15801580The following document was tabled by the Clerk: Telecommunications Act—Carrier Licence Conditions (Telstra Corporation Limited) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1998).1580The following document was 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—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.Answers to Questions on Notice1581The following answers to questions were circulated:1581(Question No. 617)6171581Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 29 May 1997:(1) Are all aircrew working in Australia designated as occupationally exposed radiation workers' under the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendation; if there are exceptions: (a) what are they; and (b) why are they allowed as exceptions.(2) Does the Government require companies employing aircrew in Australia to keep records of the ionising radiation exposure levels of each employee; if so: (a) are there any exceptions and what are the reasons for this; and (b) are these records available for each employee and/or his or her union to examine; if not, why not; if the Government does not require companies to keep such records, will the Government ever require companies to keep such records.(3) What current procedures exist for an aircrew employee who is pregnant to formally consult her employer; (a) in order to assess the risks from ionising radiation; and (b) if necessary, to be reassigned tasks during her pregnancy.(4) What studies or other measures is the Government undertaking or funding concerning the impact of ionising radiation on aircrew.(5) What opportunities will there be for aircrew or their unions to be consulted prior to any decision, if any, that may be made about the impact of ionising radiation on aircrew's occupational rights and responsibilities.1581Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The above questions should be properly directed to the Minister for Health and Family Services.1581(Question No. 667)6671581Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 26 June 1997:(1) Does the Commonwealth intend to reach agreements with South Australia and Tasmania on future funding assistance for development of their rail infrastructures; if so, when is it expected such agreements will be in place; if not, why not.(2) Does the Commonwealth Government intend to provide a labour market adjustment program for displaced Australian National (AN) workers; if not, why not.(3) Is it the intention of AN to ensure that all employees who have left since 24 November 1996 as a result of work-related illness or injury will be offered a redundancy payment; if so, when will this occur; if not, why not.(4) Will AN alter the trust deed of the AN principal scheme to allow full vesting of employer contributions to all employees who have left or leave after 24 November 1996 and to ensure that appropriate adjustment payments are made to those who have already left AN's employment; if not, why not.(5) What will the Government do to ensure that employment and training of apprentices at AN will be guaranteed until completion of their contracts.(6) Is the Government considering making this a condition of sale; if not. why not.(7) Will the Government guarantee existing AN passenger services and concession arrangements after AN has been sold; if so: (a) how will this be done; and (b) for how long will this be guaranteed.(8) Will any new operator of the Indian-Pacific be obliged to continue running services through Broken Hill; if so: (a) what will the nature of this obligation be; and (b) for what duration; if not. why not.(9) Has the Government considered making this a sale condition, even if only for a limited period of time.(10) Has the Government considered the impact on the Broken Hill region, in terms of jobs, investment and services, if the Indian-Pacific no longer runs through Broken Hill; if so, can details be provided of any analysis which has been undertaken; if not, why not.(11) Did the Government consider the option of long-term leasing, rather than the outright sale of Tasrail and SA Freight tracks and associated infrastructure. (12) (a) Why was this option not pursued; and (b) why was it pursued with the Federal Airports and not in this instance.(13) (a) Did the Government consider giving the south Australian and Tasmanian State Governments `right of first refusal' for assets that were formerly theirs; and (b) why was this not done.(14) Does the Government remain committed to establishing a company in partnership with the States to own and maintain the interstate rail track network., to facilitate the entry of new operators to interstate rail services in order to promote competition and better service, as stated in Transport for the Next Century, Liberal and National Parties Transport Policy 1996, at page 12.(15) What is the Government currently doing to ensure this company is established.(16) How far is it from being established.(17) What impediments does the Government face in establishing this company.(18) Will it be established by legislation.(19) Will it be based in South Australia.1582Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question.(1) The Commonwealth has sold the South Australian and Tasmanian businesses formerly operated by AN. As such, future capital investment in the rail infrastructure will be the responsibility of the new owners, who have made certain commitments in relation to capital expenditure. However, to assist the development of the rail industry in Tasmania, $5m will be made available for rail infrastructure upgrading in that State.(2) The Rail Reform Transition Program was introduced in 1996-97, with funding of $10m in each of 1996-97 and 1997-98, to help ameliorate the expected employment losses in regional centres resulting from the sale of losses in regional centres resulting from the sale of AN. The Program has been implemented in consultation with the South Australian and Tasmanian Governments, and community-based advisory committees have been established in both States to make recommendations to the Commonwealth on projects to be funded. the key criterion for projects is their capacity to generate sustainable employment in the private sector.(3) The administration of AN's redundancy program was in the hands of AN management. AN has advised that it initially took the view that an employee could not receive both invalidity retirement under workers' compensation and redundancy payments. While AN took compensation and redundancy payments. While AN took that view, em ployees with outstanding claims were not retrenched because to do so could have resulted in a `double dip'. Employees who left AN before 267 February 1997 did so of their own volition.However, AN subsequently received legal advice that an employee may be entitled to both. At a meeting with unions on 26 February 1997, AN indicated that the dual payment would not apply retrospectively ie to employees who had elected to leave AN before that date. However, some employees who left AN after 26 February have received a dual payment.(4) The An Commission has approved the amendment of the Trust Deed governing the AN principal scheme to provide for the vesting of retirement benefits based on a scale of 20% for each year of membership, which yields full vesting after five years service. In addition, ex-Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme members receive payment of 3 and a half times their equity on the last day of membership of that Scheme, plus vesting as per the amended scale for membership in the AN Principal Scheme. For these members, vesting will include years of membership in both the CSS and the AN Principal Superannuation Scheme. This arrangement will apply retrospectively to 24 November 1996 and, I am advised, is satisfactory to the unions involved.(5) and (6) The continued employment of any particular group after the sale is the responsibility of the new owner. However, I am advised that all apprentices at Port Augusta were retained in employment after the sale.(7) Great Southern Railway Ltd (GSR) which has brought AN's passenger business is obliged under the sale agreement to provide five Overland services per week for two years from the date of sale completion, and one Indian Pacific , and one Ghan per week for five years from the date of sale completion. If GSR fails to comply with these requirements, it must pay South Australia a proportion of a `Default Payment Amount" which South Australia has negotiated with GSR. The Commonwealth was not involved in the negotiations and is not aware of the amount. Existing Commonwealth-funded pensioner and Veteran concessions are continuing.(8) and (9) The routing of its trains, including the Indian Pacific , is the responsibility of their owner, GSR. In negotiations leading to the sale, it was recognised that the buyer would require this flexibility and it was never intended to impose such a condition.(10) No, such a review has not been undertaken. The Indian Pacific is still running through Broken Hill and the owner has not indicated to the Government any intention to route it away from Broken Hill. (11) to (13) The land forming the alignment of the track in South Australia and Tasmania has been transferred to those State Governments and leased to the buyers but will revert to the State Governments if not used for railway purposes. However, the track and associated infrastructure has been sold to the new owners.The Government decided to lease Federal Airports because they are, in the main, significant national and in some cases international infrastructure and so it was appropriate that they be regulated by the Commonwealth Government in accordance with its national responsibilities and international obligations. There was no appropriate regulatory framework in place, and leasehold was seen as a means of achieving this, together with the regime in the Airports Act which the Parliament passed in 1996.The Commonwealth has retained control of the interstate track, which relates to interstate trade and so is an area of Commonwealth responsibility. The remaining intrastate routes are appropriately regulated by the State Governments.(14) to (17) The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) was established on 25 February 1998 pursuant to an inter-governmental agreement signed 14 November 1997 between the Commonwealth and Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia.(18) Legislation is not required. The ARTC was established under the Corporations Law.(19) Yes, the company's headquarters will be in Adelaide.1583(Question No. 1066)10661583Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice on 6 February 1998:With Reference to the 1997-98 Budget announcement on a deferred retirement plan:(a) why was 25 hours per week paid employment chosen as the criteria for `work'; (b) given the fact that many part-time workers would be working 3 days a week, what advantages and disadvantages would flow from lowering this level to 24 hours per week; and (c) what would the financial impact be of lowering this level to 24 hours per week.1583Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(a) The requirement of 25 hours of work each week was originally selected to ensure that people deferring their age pension maintained a high level of workforce attachment.(b) An advantage flowing from lowering the required hours of work would be that more people would be eligible to participate in the pension bonus scheme. Because only a minor change in the hours worked requirement would be involved, the workforce attachment of persons participating under the Scheme would remain strong.(c) The financial impact of lowering the required hours of work would be negligible.Following a series of community consultations that occurred after the Budget announcement last year, the Government has decided to reduce the required number of hours that people participating in the scheme would need to work.People who wish to participate in the pension bonus scheme will now have to work an average of 20 hours per week over 48 weeks of each year, or 960 hours for a whole year. Paid leave will generally not count as hours worked while participating in the scheme. The 48 week period takes account of normally accepted leave patterns, and allows workers to take up to 4 weeks leave per year without impacting on the work test. This approach treats different leave arrangements consistently and does not favour one style of employment over another.The 20 hour limit will allow more people to reduce their hours worked in a graduated way as they near retirement; and offers some standardisation with the level required by many States for the issue of State "Seniors" cards.The financial impact of lowering the required hours of work would be negligible.