1998-03-313816SENATE158501998-03-31The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice158515851585Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. At least 15 submissions written and oral to the Senate legislation inquiry into the Child Care Payments Bill drew attention to the administrative difficulties the government was forcing on the industry. Why did the government ignore those views and go ahead with its changes to the system of payments of child-care assistance? Why did the government cause chaos in the child-care industry and cause chaos for parents by pushing through changes which it has now reversed and which it has now decided it can delay for a further 30 months?1585Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Neal for the question. Here we go again, Madam President, beating up an issue that is false—RF4COOKSenator Cook—She nailed you.VW4Senator HERRON—She has not nailed me at all, Senator Cook; she has nailed herself. I accept that interjection and point out to Senator Cook that Senator Neal has nailed herself because she has come up with an untrue premise. There have been submissions to the Senate inquiry—even recent media articles covering submissions to the Senate inquiry—that suggested only that dramatic increases in child-care fees and community centres are forcing parents, especially women, to change their work patterns. The Labor Party created an unsustainable child-care system whilst in government, and that is why I say Senator Neal has nailed herself because the system that the Labor Party brought into existence was unsustainable. Irresponsibly, it allowed centres to set up where they liked with no regard to need, creating an oversupply and problems of undersupply as well.The Howard government has allocated more money to child care than any previous government. There has been an 18 per cent increase in this year alone from the last year of the Labor government. This government is about targeting assistance to low and middle income families, in particular the battlers, not those like Senator Neal—and I can understand why she is concerned—but those who need it most, in providing equity and choice in child care. Before the removal of the operational subsidy to community based centres who provide child care for approximately 1.5 per cent of Australian children, some 70,000 families received the benefit of around $20 a week no matter what their income, while 210,000 families around Australia in private centres did not. Why should someone on $75,000—as Senator Neal—or $100,000 income receive the same assistance from government as someone who is on, say, $28,000?To demonstrate the government's commitment to helping families in the work force, child-care assistance will now be provided to families using outside school hours care services from 27 April. Fifty-one thousand low and middle income families will receive financial assistance for the first time, and 19,000 families will receive improved assistance. The government has provided substantial assistance, over $8 million, to community based centres to assist them restructure. Child-care fees are set by service providers. Those community based centres choosing to increase their fees do so in consultation with families and management. Many are choosing not to keep their fees at reasonable levels.Private sector fees are now on average $10 a week less than community sector fees—$152 a week compared to $162 a week. Accreditation standards are identical in both sectors. Ninety per cent of private centres and ninety-two per cent of community based centres achieved accreditation. Finally, assertions that parents are withdrawing from the labour force due to fee increases are not supported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics' data.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—They are!VW4Senator HERRON—They are not supported by the data, but do not let the facts intrude on your own argument where you are trying to boost something up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics' data on women with dependent children show that their participation rates have remained stable, at around 59 per cent over the last two years. They are incontrovertible facts. As I said, facts do not worry the Labor Party. If they want to beat up an issue, they will do so regardless of the facts.1586Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Herron, I do not think you even listened to the question. You read out a brief that your department had prepared in anticipation of a question about Catherine Cusack which did not come. What I asked you is why you changed the system of payment of child-care assistance last November with the Child Care Payments Bill when you are now reversing this with your Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill causing chaos in the industry. In the estimates hearing you said that you were changing your mind because of what parents and child-care centres had told you. Why did you not listen before you introduced the new system, not afterwards when you created chaos?1586Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—We always listen to everybody who puts forward submissions to the government, unlike the ideologues on the other side who have their own philosophical basis which does not allow them to listen to people. We went out and sought advice from child-care providers, from parents and from the industry itself, and we have acted on that. That upsets the Labor Party because we have actually done something. We fixed the problems that they created. We listened to the people who put forward submissions, and we have adjusted them as we are supposed to do. That is what good government does. We will always do that when we listen to the constituents and do what is best for the constituency, not those high fliers who are on high incomes like Senator Neal, who finds it incompatible with her own position.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That is outrageous.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Cook might not like that, but they are the facts of the matter. We listen to the battlers.15861586Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. In the last week as a result of the Howard government's responsible economic management we have seen further positive indications on employment growth; improved business expectations for sales, employment and investment; a surge in export growth in our non-traditional markets; and, yesterday, a massive cut to interest rates for small business. How is the environment on low interest rates, low inflation, reduced debt and strong business investment assisting small business and families?1586Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—All Australians are benefiting from the sound economic management of the Howard government. The small business interest rate decision of Westpac yesterday was truly historic. Reducing the base rate to 7.2 per cent—down to rates that have not existed since the early 1970s—is a tremendous boost to small business in this country. Small business have been looking for this for so long. But, of course, 13 years of Labor gave them nothing but misery. Labor never understood small business. We will never forget—and small business will never forget—that under Mr Keating interest rates were forced up to something like 20 per cent for small business, obviously resulting in so many going to the wall. That was Labor's achievement of 1989-90—20 per cent interest rates for small business.RF4COOKSenator Cook—1989-90! Come off it!BH4Senator HILL—And when we came to office, Senator Cook, it was 11.25 per cent for small business. Only two years later interest rates are down to 7.25 per cent, a four per cent improvement for all small business in this country. That is something of which we are very proud. And we give credit to Westpac for taking the lead. We would now like to see other banks in Australia pick up the challenge and provide competition to Westpac in this instance. We give credit in exactly the same way that we gave credit to the National Australia Bank when it led in the reduction of housing interest rates. Housing interest rates in this country are down to a 30-year low as well. All Australians benefit when the housing interest rate is at a 30-year low. We achieved that in housing; we achieved that for Australian families and we are now achieving it for Australian business as well.It has been estimated that Westpac's move will cut between $150 million and $400 million off the annual borrowing costs of small business around Australia—a tremendous boost. Huge money is being saved by small business: for an ordinary small business with a $100,000 overdraft the estimate is a saving of $275 a month. This did not come about by accident. It came about because we had a government in this country that had the courage to take the hard decisions on public expenditure—rein in public expenditure—get inflation down and allow it to flow through with lower interest rates to the benefit of all small business. Compare the figures—housing interest rates were at their high under Labor.Senator Bolkus interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—They were 17 per cent, Senator Bolkus. Now under this government they are 6.9 per cent. As I said, small business: a high under Labor of 20 per cent; under the coalition, 7.2 per cent. Credit card interest rates: a high under Labor of 25 per cent; now down to 16.2 per cent and still falling. And, of course, this translates into more jobs for Australians. This is part of the reason that an extra 220,000 jobs have been created since the Howard government came to office. And if the Labor Party had not blocked the reforms to the unfair dismissal laws last week, according to the Small Business Association another 50,000 Australians could have been employed. So there is no comparison in Australian politics at the moment on the issue of sound economic management. There is no comparison in the alternative that will benefit small business and give small business the opportunity to grow and expand and, most importantly, to employ. This good news is for the benefit of all Australians. (Time expired)1587Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Madam President, as a result of Senator Hill's comprehensive and exciting answer, I have a supplementary question. How will desperately needed reform of Australia's taxation system also assist small business? Is the minister aware of recent support for the government's proactive approach to taxation reform?1587Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Tax reform is one of the three great areas of reform in which we can help contribute to more Australian jobs. We have done it with the economy by addressing the $10.3 billion deficit we inherited and achieving these low interest rates. We have done it with IR—industrial relations—reform and it produced the lowest level of days lost in one year in 70 years. And we will do it in tax reform as well. We know that it is an area in which we can reduce the costs to small business again. But you asked me to compare it with others. Where does the Labor Party stand on tax reform? On 21 May last year Mr Evans said, `It is only a second or third order issue.' What did Senator Cook say in this place? He said, `There is a case for tax reform but not the overblown case that the government has made out.' At last the Labor Party is starting to come clean. Mr Latham has spilt the beans; he says, `Taxation reform is critically urgent,' and he is right. (Time expired)Senator Cook interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Cook! If you had not been shouting so much, the minister would have heard me call him to order because the time for answering the question had expired.15871587Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Herron representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. The Returned Services League of Australia, in a submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into public dental services, has called for the reinstatement of an accessible public dental health program for those who find basic dental care beyond their means. Do you, Minister, support the call by the RSL veterans and other needy Australians for access to basic dental care?1587Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am keen to answer this question because I want to nail Senator Campbell on this, as a matter of fact. The Commonwealth dental health program was a desperate bid for votes in the ALP's 1993 election campaign. The ALP made no com mitment whatsoever to further funding of the program in the last budget of their administration in 1995-96, and Senator Campbell might not be aware of that. That is why they sold him the dump on this question: he was not aware of the history of the thing. Nor is Senator Campbell aware that there was no commitment made by the Labor Party in their 1996 election campaign—not one commitment, Senator Campbell. In fact, the program achieved the aim set by the former minister, Dr Lawrence, of treating 1.5 million people by December 1996 and the program then ceased—under the Labor Party, Madam President—six months before it was due to expire.Despite the posturing of state authorities on this issue, the indications were that the Commonwealth dental health program was always going to cease at the conclusion of the agreements with the states in June 1997. The Commonwealth dental health program was a Commonwealth intervention in what is traditionally a state responsibility, as I said to Senator Crowley yesterday. Its aim was to assist the states in alleviating a backlog of service demand and to set the states up for longer term reforms. In the light of overall priorities, the government decided that continuing Commonwealth—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—On a point of order, Madam President: Senator Herron was asked a specific question: did he agree with the comments made by the RSL? Senator Herron has spent the last 2½ minutes giving a rather distorted history of the Commonwealth dental health program. Could you ask him to actually answer the question he was asked that he either agrees or disagrees with the RSL?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.VW4Senator HERRON—I am one of the few members of this chamber who has been a member of the armed forces and I am happy to relate that.B36NEALSenator Neal—Answer the question.VW4Senator HERRON—How many of you have on that side? Are there any?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron! You should stick to the question.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, I was making the point—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The level of noise is too high. I ask senators to abide by the standing orders.VW4Senator HERRON—I was making the point that it was a state responsibility, as was recognised by the Labor government when they were in power. The aim of the program was to assist the states in alleviating the backlog of service demand to set the states up for longer term reforms. It is correct there are certain representations made by different bodies. As you know, Madam President, we have put more funding into Veterans' Affairs which covers those issues that Senator Forshaw is already mentioning.In the light of overall priorities, the government decided that continued Commonwealth supplementary funding was not warranted. Of course, states always welcome additional Commonwealth funding to meet their responsibilities, but in this case we took a decision in the light of budgetary circumstances and the need to focus on prime Commonwealth roles in the health sector. States gained efficiencies in the delivery of their dental services during the period of Commonwealth funding. They should now be in a good position to continue to deliver appropriate services. So I suggest to those people who made those applications that they approach the respective state governments, whose responsibility it is to provide dental services.As I have said already, we have put extra funding into services for repatriation benefits as well, so it is a state responsibility. We inherited a $10½ billion deficit when we came into government and no responsible government would have taken any other direction but to try to balance the budget. It was in that context that there was that promise of the Labor Party—they stopped providing funds and we did not continue them. So we have produced a situation now where we expect to have a balanced budget, unlike the $10½ billion deficit that was produced by the Labor Party, so they have no credentials in this regard at all.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Don't read the questions they give you, George.1589Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—When you become a minister, Kay, I will ask the questions of you. I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are you aware that, in evidence given to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into dental services, it was said that waiting lists for basic dental care have now blown out to an average of two years? Are you aware that public hospitals are being required to treat more patients for emergency dental procedures due to the lack of a public dental care program such as the Commonwealth dental health program? Given the pressures on public hospitals due to your failed health policies, will you reinstate the CHDP?1589Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I was aware that some evidence was given—to answer Senator Campbell's question—but I am pleased to say that some states have taken up their responsibility. In particular, I am advised that my own state of Queensland has provided an additional $19.8 million, and this included $352,000 to attract and retain dentists in rural Queensland—unlike the Labor government. When they were in power, they did not take any of those initiatives, nor is the New South Wales government currently doing anything about it. So, Senator Campbell, your question was incorrect in the sense that it is not all states. As I am proud to say, my own state of Queensland has provided extra funding and Senator Boswell would be pleased to know that it has been weighted to the rural communities. My own colleague Senator Ian Macdonald is aware that they have weighted it to rural communities so as to overcome the backlogs. But, Senator Campbell, you should be aware that it is a state responsibility after all.15891589Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I refer the minister to Mr Mark Latham's comments on A Current Affair last night where he said:We will never see those high marginal tax rates in Australia ever again. We will never see them up to around 60 per cent because Australia needs an internationally competitive tax system to attract investment and jobs. Minister, do you agree with Mr Latham? Do you believe that the need for a competitive tax system to attract investment and jobs justifies the government's policy to reform the current tax system? Is there anybody left anywhere who truly believes that there is no need to reform the current tax system?1589Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Ferris, for that very important question. I must say in reference to Mr Latham that it is very good to see a member of the Labor Party attempting to make a constructive contribution to the tax reform debate.Senator George Campbell interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—I am coming to you in a minute, Senator George Campbell, so just hold on. I do agree with Mr Latham that Australia needs an internationally competitive tax system which encourages investment and jobs. I also agree with that part of his book—to be launched, I understand, by the Leader of the Opposition—which says this:Whereas the top marginal rates in Australia in the 1950s cut in at 19 times the level of average weekly earnings, the ratio has now fallen to 1.5.As the Treasurer, Mr Costello, has indicated, this statement bears a striking resemblance to one in another book called The Australian Taxation System: In Need of Reform . I think many members of the public are obtaining copies of this. I would certainly like to welcome the fact that Mr Latham is making a contribution to the tax reform debate. What a change it is for the Labor Party to have someone who is making a contribution. He has recognised, as many on the other side have not recognised, the shortfalls of the system. In that context we welcome the contribution.I do not think it would be drawing too long a bow, Senator Cook, to suggest from his statements that we have a second-class tax system. I know Senator Cook has difficulties with that, but I think it would not be drawing too long a bow. Despite the fact that there are many members of the frontbench, including Mr Beazley, including former senator Gary Evans, the shadow Treasurer, who are opposed to any concept of tax reform, there are other members of the Labor Party who have made a contribution. Lindsay Tanner was one who said this. Everyone is laughing now at a shadow minister, Lindsay Tanner.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—He is one of the young Turks.WW4Senator KEMP—He is one of the young Turks; you are quite right. He said:Faced with the threat of the income tax system unravelling and inequity escalating as this unravelling accelerates, Labor must examine genuine alternative foundation stones for our tax system.I think it is also clear that Mr Tanner believes we have a second-rate tax system.Another Labor thinker on tax reform is Senator George Campbell. Out of deference to Senator Campbell, I do not wish to embarrass him today and refer to his comments made in the Financial Review last year in relation to an expenditure tax. Of course, we have had the shadow Treasurer, Mr Gary Evans, talking about death duties and talking about abolishing negative gearing. We have two classes in the Labor Party: we have the smaller class of people who believe we must have tax reform, people like George Campbell, people like Tanner, people like Mark Latham; and we have another group of people who are utterly opposed to any sense of tax reform.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Tell us what your reform proposals are.WW4Senator KEMP—We seem to have someone on that side who comes down hard on both sides of the fence on tax reform, and that person happens to be Senator Cook. If there is a supplementary, I will explain why. (Time expired)1590Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, I have a supplementary question to Senator Kemp. Can he further explain the benefits of tax reform and comment on those who support that view?1590Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for that follow-up question, Senator Ferris. Senator Cook, as I said, has come down hard on both sides of the fence on the tax debate recently. This is which Senator Cook said yesterday:I have not said, and repeat this, that we have a first-rate tax system in Australia.That is what Senator Cook said. So he started off all right, but then he went on to say this:What I have said, for the record, is to reject the Treasurer's assertion that Australia has a second-class tax system.So you do not say we have a first-class system and you do not accept what the Treasurer says, that we have a second-class system. Do we have a third-class system, Senator Cook, or what are you talking about?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Read the whole quote.WW4Senator KEMP—That is the very problem of the Labor Party—they do not know where they stand on tax reform. No wonder Senator Faulkner is embarrassed.15901590Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, Senator Herron. Do you recall telling me on 25 November, in relation to a question about a survey by the New South Wales Council of Social Service and a previous survey done by the National Council of Community Based Children's Services, all of which showed grave problems in the child-care area, that they need not be taken seriously? In light of the survey published in February by the Queensland Child Care Coalition, which represents both private and community based centres, showing that 65 per cent of respondents had increased their fees in the last six months by an average of $11 a week per child, and that at the same time child-care assistance had reduced by $9.70 a week per child, do you now acknowledge that there is a problem?1590Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—No, I do not. Senator Neal will have to do a lot better than this if she is going to beat Jim Lloyd when she stands in the other place. I do not know why people want to get out of this place.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the question.VW4Senator HERRON—I answered it right at the beginning, Madam President. I said no, I do not agree. I cannot be more explicit than that. I said that I do not agree and now I want to elaborate and fill out the answer so I can get a little more detail to it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I bet you can't take up the four minutes.VW4Senator HERRON—I will take you on. The fact of the matter is that preliminary 1997 child-care census data collected in August last year shows that the average weekly fee for families using full-time care in community centres is about $162, an increase of 9.5 per cent over 1996, and the fee in private centres is $152, an increase of one per cent over 1996.Senator Neal asked whether I recall giving an answer about that. Yes, I do recall, and I stand by that. It is all very well, Senator Neal, to pull out percentages. Eight out of 10 you would say is 80 per cent. That is what most of those surveys—B36NEALSenator Neal—You do not make any sense.VW4Senator HERRON—She is struggling with that. She cannot quite grasp that. When you talk about percentages you are talking about numbers out of 100, Senator Neal. I just thought I would tell you that because you do not seem to have grasped that. I remember pointing out in November last year this survey worked out to be 0.02 or 0.04 per cent of the numbers that were surveyed. It was a survey done by the New South Wales government where they asked people who were dissatisfied to ring in. So it was not only selective but also an attempt to discredit the government's position.I am not aware of the third survey that Senator Neal referred to. Perhaps she will come back to me in a supplementary and elaborate on that so that I can be made aware of it. The overall average weekly fee in full-time care and long day care centres is $155. The 1997 increase in fees in community centres is above the trend over the last six years but has seen increases of around six per cent—or between $6 to $10 per year for families using full-time care. The increase in fees in private centres is below this trend.So the government provided financial assistance—$8.3 million over two years—to assist community centres adjust to the loss of operational subsidy. Only 48 per cent of centres have claimed this assistance to date. I think that gives the answer in full to the question. Only 48 per cent have claimed this assistance. 5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Is that 48 out of 100?VW4Senator HERRON—Yes, Senator Faulkner, out of 100. Fee structures are set by service providers, not by government. Child-care fees are influenced by several factors—movements in award wages; service charging practices; changes to state regulations; or increases in overheads such as rates, insurance, utilities, hours of opening, number of children attending, et cetera. But that might be too much for Senator Neal to comprehend. They are the factors that influence all this.The government is concerned that fees continue to rise and has announced a review of service charging practices in consultation with service providers over the next year. The government is still committed to maintaining quality of child care. There is no crisis. This is another attempt to beat up a crisis, which is what Senator Neal, going for a seat in the lower house, is doing. Why she does this, I do not know. Perhaps she is being outshone by the other members on the other side. But for whatever reason—(Time expired)1591Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I must say that I am a bit astonished that you are unaware of a survey that was done in your own state by the Queensland Child Care Coalition. But one of those surveyed—and it is a privately run centre—said:The cost to parents on maximum Child Care Assistance increased as follows: One child from $25.40 per week to $44.50 per week, two children from $30.40 to $72 per week. As we had a large number of single parent families the increase could not be borne with children being removed from care. Some parents ceased employment.Do you still say, Minister, despite all the evidence, there is no problem?1591Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—There is no crisis. There are problems, no doubt, for individual people. I would like to see the Queensland Child Care Coalition survey. I will not comment on that because I have not seen it. I am always very careful of surveys done by coalitions under the aegis of the Labor Party—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Don't touch the coalition with a 40-foot barge pole!VW4Senator HERRON—Because it is usually a Labor Party front. I do not know this. I will inquire into that and provide Senator Neal with a breakdown of the statistics. I fear she does not understand statistics. So I will provide a breakdown of those figures for her to see whether there is validity to that statement. But, of course, there will be outlays at every end of the spectrum in any situation when government services are being provided. You can always drag out a person, or two people, or three or a number of others who are going to be adversely affected. (Time expired)15921592Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, I want to test the Prime Minister's boast that the sale of Telstra will help make Australia the largest shareholding democracy in the world. Isn't it the case that between November last year and March this year the percentage of shares owned by the top 10 shareholders in Telstra has almost trebled, rising from 10½ per cent to 28½ per cent in just four months? Haven't nearly 300,000 so-called `mums and dads' already sold out of Telstra—adding to the 11 million `mums and dads' who did not invest in the first place? Isn't it the case that the overwhelming majority of `mums and dads' have simply not shared in the Telstra magic pudding? Haven't they, given the $8 billion undervaluation by your government, simply lost money as the value is transferred to a reducing number of professional, local and foreign investors?1592Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We make no apology for the one-third sale of Telstra. That was an election promise which became the central issue of the last election and which we won with a record majority. We have delivered that promise in full, despite the efforts of the Democrats and the Labor Party to attempt to make us break that promise.Senator Woodley interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, Senator. The one-third sale of Telstra has been widely welcomed. Many Australians have taken the chance to become shareholders in Telstra and many Australians, through their superannuation funds, have also got an indirect share of Telstra. This has been a float which has been extremely widely welcomed. It was a promise which we made to the Australian people and which we have delivered in full with major benefits for all Australians. Despite the very clear acceptance by Australians of this Telstra sale, it is a great pity that the Democrats still are prepared to oppose this important initiative.The position of the employees of Telstra really worried the Labor Party. We can all remember that they wanted to get the trade union bosses to fight the sale of Telstra. As distinct from the trade union bosses, the trade union members bought up very handsomely in Telstra. I think at least over 90 per cent of employees of Telstra bought shares. Many Australians have become shareholders in Telstra, and when we follow through the recent announcement that the Prime Minister made on the sale of Telstra, undoubtedly many more Australians will take up the opportunity to become shareholders in this truly great enterprise. Senator, if you adopted a more constructive policy in this area, it is even possible your polls might rise from two per cent nationwide. So I would urge you to rethink your policies and get behind this very important initiative that Mr Howard has announced.1592Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I will try again to get an answer, Minister. What we are looking for are the real winners. As we look at what happened the first time, I have to ask you, Minister: was it the foreign—Government senators—No, no!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right at the end of the chamber will refrain from interjecting.8U4Senator LEES—Minister, we are looking for the real winners. Were they the foreign investors who cashed out their shares for a $420 million profit within the first few days of buying them? Were they the stockbrokers and merchant bankers who won $280 million in fees and are lining up for some $900 million this time? Or was it the 85 per cent of Australians who never owned Telstra shares but who will have to fund the budget shortfall caused by your selling the first third at $8 billion less than it was really worth?1593Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me tell you who the real winners are: the real winners with the sale of Telstra are the Australian people. In relation to the sale, you will be aware that the Commonwealth will be able to retire a very substantial amount of debt run up by the Labor government. Of course, this will be a very substantial saving for all taxpayers. In conclusion, Senator, I would urge you to recognise that your polls are not travelling well and that people are thinking your policies are old-fashioned. As I said in my earlier response, I urge you to get behind this extremely important initiative that the Prime Minister has announced.15931593Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. I refer to the current health crisis, a crisis that has been devastating to my home state of Tasmania, and ask: given that the Tasmanian health minister, Peter McKay, has described your Tasmanian liberal colleagues as `parrots', when will the government acknowledge that the mindless repetition of the party line is no substitute for action on the crisis facing health in this country?1593Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Mackay for the question because it is a very good question, unlike a lot of the other questions that have been given to me. I have to confess to my backbench here that I succumbed to the temptation to look up Senator Crowley's speeches, and I apologise to them in advance because this is relevant in answering Senator Mackay's question. Senator Murphy, sitting on the backbench on 9 November 1994, asked:My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services and Health. The minister will be aware of an article in today's Australian entitled `Hospital sends bills to feds' which alleges illegal cost shifting by the Victorian state government in the area of health. Can the minister inform the Senate what the government is doing to bring an end to this practice of cheating the system and ensure that states accept their health responsibilities? `Ensure the states accept their health responsibilities'—which is the question that Senator Mackay has just asked me, just in case anybody jumps up and wants to talk about relevance. That is the question I was just asked. Senator Crowley answered:I hope everybody has noticed the articles. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to highlight the important points in those articles. There has been a constant bleating from the opposition that there is a funding crisis in the public health system.A constant bleating! Senator Patterson said:Find a new word. You use that one all the time.Senator Crowley said:Carping, complaining; whatever those opposite are on about, they are constantly telling us there is a crisis of funding in our public health system. But if we read the articles in the Melbourne Age and the Australian , we see very clearly what the trouble in the public health system is based on—if there is any.Senator Crowley said this in 1994. I am giving you the same response, Senator Mackay. Senator Crowley went on and said:Mr Kennett is actually wreaking financial havoc on hospitals and community services. The cost shifting practices going on in the states are costing taxpayers several hundred million dollars.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It still is.VW4Senator HERRON—Wait for it, Senator Ray. I have more. I have better than that for you. Senator Crowley said:While they are engaged in this process of cost shifting, at the very same time Mr Kennett and his minister, Marie Tehan, have actually cut $370 million from hospitals and community services. So they are cutting it out. As soon as we give it to them, they are cutting it back. At the same time they are engaged in a very sophisticated cost shifting exercise, particularly from outpatient services.Senator Crowley said:The other states are not so blatant as Victoria, but it would not be too wrong to say they are examining, indeed doing, the same thing. New South Wales is at the head of the queue.The Labor state government now is doing the same as the state government before.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—But we were doing the right thing.VW4Senator HERRON—No, they are doing the same thing. So the answer to Senator Mackay's question is, `What do you expect?' In Senator Crowley's own words, you are carping. Senator Mackay is carping and complaining about this. There is no crisis. What do you expect the states to do? If Senator Mackay asks me a supplementary question, I will be happy to read more material from another speech of Senator Crowley's.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will come to order.1594Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that the people of Tasmania will be very interested in this. We will be distributing the response very widely. I ask the minister, and the Tasmanian Liberal senators, the parrots: when will the government and the Tasmanian Liberal mouthpieces—which is what the media is saying, including the Examiner , Senator Newman—stop the politicking and family brawling—UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Ooh!9L6Senator MACKAY—you may think it is funny—and do something constructive about what is an absolutely desperate situation with regard to the health system in Tasmania?5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Don't laugh, Sue.9L6Senator MACKAY—I am not laughing.1594Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I admire Senator Mackay's persistence. Perhaps I will leave the quote. I might get a question from my own side and refer to the other one then. I will keep it over there waiting, because I cannot read that in one minute. The point I was making to Senator Mackay is that it is all the states. They walked out like the petulant little flowers that they were. They walked out on the federal government. We are quite prepared. There is no crisis. The funding will continue. Even if they do not sign the agreement, as you well know, the funding will go on.BH4HILLSenator Hill—More funding.VW4Senator HERRON—More funding; thank you, Senator Hill. More funding will go through. So there is no crisis. You are trying to manufacture one for your own political purposes. The reality is that the funding is there. The Tasmanian people will be well looked after by the Commonwealth government, as we will look after the people in the other states as well.15941594Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I remind the minister that just over a year ago his government accepted an opposition amendment to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Periods and Other Measures) Bill which made that highly controversial piece of legislation fully subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. Can the minister explain why the government accepted an overriding RDA amendment to this social security bill affecting thousands of individuals; yet, when it came to the Native Title Amendment Bill, he refused to allow the bill the basic protection of the RDA? Does the minister believe that native title claimants are not deserving of the same protection that has been rightly given to social security recipients?1594Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The government's views on the question of whether the Native Title Amendment Bill or the Native Title Act as amended should be subject to the RDA are well known. They were debated at length in the Senate last November-December for some 55 hours. If we are going to debate them again for another 50 hours, that is fine by me. We will put the arguments again and again.I remind you that, in relation to this whole issue of the Racial Discrimination Act, the former Keating Labor government considered this question specifically and specifically rejected it. We have senators sitting opposite us who were on a Senate committee that examined this Native Title Bill, as it then was. They considered specifically the question of whether it should be subject to the RDA and specifically rejected the proposition on the grounds that it would produce unacceptable legal uncertainty and chaos. The Keating Labor government accepted that proposition and put into the act wording which explained the relationship between the RDA and the Native Title Act—wording which we have accepted and retained in our Native Title Amendment Bill.There are two other elements to this, apart from the Labor Party's own rejection of this proposition in 1993. We also have Father Frank Brennan—someone who would know probably a lot more about Aboriginal matters than most people on the other side of the fence, and who has never been a great friend of ours on this issue—who has publicly said that you cannot subject the Native Title Act to the Racial Discrimination Act without causing unbelievable legal uncertainty and chaos. He has, for his sins, been subjected to the most extraordinary campaign by Peter Yu and the national indigenous working group, who are trying to shut him up because they do not want him to say what they know to be the truth.On the weekend another person from the Labor side of politics who probably knows more about Aboriginal matters than just about anybody on the other side was revealed. It was former Senator Bob Collins. What did he have to say? He agrees with Frank Brennan—that you cannot subject the Native Title Act to the Racial Discrimination Act. So let us end this hypocrisy. If you wish to put propositions in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I wonder whether you could direct the minister to answer the question as to why his government chose not to take the same action on the Native Title Amendment Bill in relation to the RDA as it did in the social security amendment bill. That was the question I asked him about this government's position, not everybody else's.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot direct him in relation to how he answers the question. He is dealing with one part of the question. He can go to the other if he wishes. There is no point of order.JX4Senator MINCHIN—If Senator Margetts wishes to ask questions of the Minister for Social Security, she should feel free to do so. I am here to answer questions on the Native Title Act and to explain to the Senate why the proposition being put by the Labor Party, the Independents and the Greens is absolutely unacceptable. It would make the Native Title Act even more unworkable than it is. The Labor Party, when in government, said so, as have Father Frank Brennan and former Senator Bob Collins. How much more evidence do we need that this is an outrageous amendment? All it does is reveal that the Labor Party presumably has a hidden agenda to make this bill unworkable, unacceptable, and force a double dissolution. It is the revelation of the hidden agenda on Labor's part.1595Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government received legal advice that the RDA amendment passed last year by the Senate would serve little more than an interpretive function in the bill? If so, why does the government continue to maintain the charade that the government believes this amendment will bring legal uncertainty?1595Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Any government worth its salt has lawyers involved in everything it does in relation to a bill as complex as this. Of course we have our own in-house legal advice on subjecting the NTA to the RDA. Of course that legal advice is that it would produce the result which Labor said in government—in the form of Senator McKiernan and Senator Cooney, sitting over there, who signed the report saying that you could not do it because it would produce unacceptable legal uncertainty and chaos.15951595Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I address my question to the Minister for the Environment. Minister, do you recall telling a Senate estimates committee in relation to the recommendations of the state assessment panels of projects for funding under the Natural Heritage Trust that `overwhelmingly, we accepted their recommendations'? What precisely did you mean, given that we now know that you disregarded the independent expert opinion of the regional and state assessment panels in almost four out of 10 cases, or 279 out of 717 cases? Do you deny this level of intervention, or do you continue to maintain that you accepted the panels' advice in the overwhelming majority of cases?1595Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—My recollection is that I accepted it in the overwhelming number of cases. One of the interesting things was that, although the Labor Party sought to attack us and suggest that because the money went overwhelmingly to rural and regional areas it was being directed that way simply for the benefit of coalition members, that reflects the fact that 40 rural seats are held by the coalition and only three by Labor. When we in fact looked at the figures for Victoria as compared with the former program of the Labor Party—a small program but nevertheless, one could say, built upon the same principles—we found that exactly the same percentage went to exactly the same areas, which demonstrated that the money went where it should be going.What was the Labor Party's response to that? Senator Faulkner said, `How dare you look at our records'—they do not want to know the truth in this matter—`How dare you compare the record of the previous Labor government to your grants.' In other words, how dare we undermine their political attack. We make no apology for the fact that the money went to the areas where it was needed—that is, in rural and regional Australia—to try to overcome some of the serious degradation problems that have occurred in our soils, in our waterways and in our other natural resources.I also do not apologise that as a result of examining the state assessment panels' view—of course assessment panels tended to have a very strong state agency influence—less money went to state agencies and more money went to community groups. I do not apologise for that. It is exactly what we said we would do. Secondly, I do not apologise for the fact that more money went to on-ground projects and less money went to research and planning projects.This is what the people of Australia have been telling us they want from a program of this type: money that is carefully targeted to the areas of greatest need or the areas that have the potential to avoid the problems of the past, with less work on the bureaucracy, surveys and studies, more work going into on the ground remedial action, less money being spent by state agencies on their programs and more money being spent in support of the community in providing an answer to these problems whereby the community becomes the solution rather than the problem.1596Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you explain or define what you meant by `overwhelmingly, we accepted their recommendations'? What is the value of an arms-length independent process of selection if you come in over the top at the end of the process and impose your own recommendations?1596Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I am afraid the honourable senator, who has come late to this debate, does not understand the process. The process was that there would be an assessment at a regional level in which local communities and so forth could evaluate projects as compared with each other at that level. Then the results of those panels would go to a state assessment panel, which would assess regions against regions and at that time would bring in the state agency programs. Of course, that body was appointed by the states. It would make recommendations to a state government, which then would make recommendations to the Commonwealth.We indicated from the start the sorts of matters that we would be taking into account when we evaluated a state's recommendation. It was that more money would go to projects on the ground, less money would go into research and evaluation, more money would go into supporting community groups and less money would go into state agencies—and that is exactly what we did. (Time expired)15961596Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Minister, I understand the Prime Minister and the Premier of Victoria, Mr Jeff Kennett, signed a regional forest agreement last Friday for the central highlands area of Victoria. This follows similar agreements in East Gippsland and Tasmania, in stark contrast to Labor, who failed dismally on forests and did not sign a single agreement between 1992 and 1996. Would the minister advise the Senate of the benefits of the agreement for jobs and the environment? 1597Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I would like to thank Senator Synon for that question. I am pleased to advise the Senate that the Prime Minister and the Premier of Victoria signed a regional forest agreement for the central highlands of Victoria last Friday. This is the third forest region that is now covered by such an agreement following the signing of RFAs in East Gippsland and for all of Tasmania last year.This is in stark contrast to the record of the previous Labor government. Between 1992 and 1996 Labor failed to secure a single regional forest agreement. In fact, Labor's forest policy was a complete joke. I am sure we will all recall the great blockade of Parliament House, as well as the public brawl between Minister Beddall and Senator Faulkner.We remember that the former Prime Minister told us that 509 forest coupes would be protected because of their high conservation value. The list was provided by Senator Faulkner. Unfortunately, he put high conservation value on flora that did not even exist. They were phantoms. The list also included areas that has been clear-felled, as well as pine and eucalypt plantations.The Howard government has now finalised three agreements. By the end of 1999, all forest agreements that produce export woodchips will be covered by RFAs—all in three years; nothing done in four years by the previous Labor government.The central highlands RFA is a win for both jobs and the environment. It is a win for jobs in the communities of the central highlands because this 20-year agreement will provide the security that industry needs to expand and invest in value-adding operations.The agreement opens the way for the creation of over 300 new jobs between now and 2006. We have agreed to set up a $28 million hardwood timber industry development restructuring program for Victoria which will cover all the RFA regions in the state.The agreement is also a win for the environment. One hundred and sixteen thousand hectares have been added to the central highlands reserve system. This represents a 64 per cent increase in the reserve system and it means that almost half of the public land in the region is now protected in reserves.Through the agreement, the Commonwealth and Victoria have fully met their national reserve criteria for the regional forest agreement process. The three regional forest agreements that have been signed by the Howard government have laid the basis for over 1,700 jobs in regional Australia and have conserved over half a million hectares of forest.Madam President, the central highlands regional forest agreement will create jobs, protect the environment and I commend it to the Senate.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Documents1597159715:02:001597Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In accordance with the order of the Senate of 9 March 1998, I table today two documents relating to the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The first is a draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) as at 13 February 1998. The second is Australia's latest revised schedule of preliminary reservations dated October 1997. I also seek leave to incorporate a short statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENTI table today two documents relating to the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). The first is the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), as at 13 February 1998. The second is Australia's latest Revised Schedule of Preliminary Reservations, dated October 1997.It should be emphasised that the two documents are very much in draft form. The negotiations on the MAI are far from complete as is evidenced by the significant number of square bracketed provisions and alternative formulations in the draft. Many significant issues are yet to be settled, including the nature of the dispute resolution mechanism, the extent of any so-called "carve outs", the treatment of regional economic integration organisations and the nature of and processes for exceptions. Accordingly, negotiations are not likely to conclude for some time. The OECD Ministerial Council Meeting (MCM) in late April 1998 will need to decide the future of the negotiations on the MAI, including whether to extend the deadline for negotiations, for example to next year's MCM.Given the nature of the MAI negotiations, countries' lists of exceptions, or reservations, will form an integral part of the agreement. Australia's draft reservations should therefore be included in any assessment of the draft agreement. I stress that Australia's draft reservations are likely to be significantly revised and refined as the negotiations proceed, reflecting:. further development of the provisions of the MAI, possibly involving significant changes;. the outcome of ongoing consultations with Commonwealth and State agencies as regards the application of MAI provisions and policies that may impose more stringent requirements on foreign investors than on domestic investors, for which we will need to take reservations; and. the outcome of negotiations on the form that country specific reservations should take and the types of reservations that will apply, including with respect to the question of applying standstill to particular reservations.The Government believes that an appropriately worded MAI could provide benefits to Australia. For example, Australians who invest overseas would benefit from a more transparent and certain global investment framework and Australian offshore investments will be more secure because of the protection offered by the MAI. Australia would also benefit from the higher global investment promoted by an MAI. Strong global investment is critical to generating high levels of economic growth over the longer-term, and brings benefits from the creation of jobs, from higher income and from new technology.The Government will not sign the agreement unless it is satisfied that it is in Australia's national interest to do so. In protecting Australia's national interest, the Government has stated that it will ensure that any agreement on the MAI will not override, or weaken, Australia's existing policies on foreign investment. Australia will lodge all exceptions required to protect current policies. For example, exceptions would be taken out in the areas of foreign investment, immigration and indigenous people. Australia is negotiating on the basis that general exceptions would apply to such things as tax measures, national security, public order and health and quarantine measures. Foreign investors operating in Australia would continue to be required to adhere to Australia's domestic laws and regulations, including our environmental and labour standards. In conducting the negotiations, the Government is actively consulting with interested parties, including the States and Territories, business groups, the union movement and other non-government organisations.The draft MAI has been referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for examination. The Committee has called for submissions and will undertake public hearings in most capital cities. For those who have expressed concerns regarding the MAI, the Committee process provides an opportunity to comment on the draft agreement and Australia's draft exceptions. The Government will carefully consider all issues raised by interested parties and the general public in participating in the ongoing negotiation of the MAI. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties aims to produce an interim report on the draft agreement by 25 May 1998.The Government will not take binding action on the MAI until it has been subjected to the new treaty-making processes established by this Government in 1996. These processes require treaties to be tabled in Parliament along with a National Interest Analysis (and thus subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny) before the Government takes binding action. This process also requires that the views of the States and Territories be taken into account before Australia agrees to become a party to, or indicate its acceptance of, the treaty.Miscellaneous1598159815:02:001598Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday Senator Crowley asked me a question in relation to health services in rural areas and I seek leave to incorporate to answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—SENATOR CROWLEY: My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Minister, do you recall me 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 entitlement will not be cut.Is the minister aware that submissions from state and territory governments to the Senate's public dental services inquiry indicated 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?Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. . . 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?Minister Wooldridge has provided me with the following answer. As the Prime Minister has pointed out in answers to questions in the House of Representatives, it is completely erroneous to—suggest that the Government's commitment to pensions and entitlements must mean that every Commonwealth and State program should be maintained. He also drew attention to the fact that the level of benchmarking of pensions by the Government has been more extensive and more generous beyond the commitment made at the last election.It is rather rich for State Governments to blame the Commonwealth at a Senate Committee for not providing adequate dental services to rural and remote areas. Provision of public dental services has long been a responsibility of the States and Territories.As the Senator will recall, the Commonwealth Dental Health Program was a desperate bid for votes as part of the ALP's 1993 election platform. The ALP made no commitment to further funding of the program in the last Budget of their administration in 1995/96, nor was a commitment made in the 1996 election campaign to keep the program.In fact, the Program achieved the aims set by the former Minister, Dr Lawrence, of treating 1.5 million people, by December 1996. The Program was then ceased six months before it was due to expire.Despite the posturing of state authorities on this issue, the indications were that the Commonwealth Dental Health Program was always going to cease at the conclusion of the agreements with the States in June 1997.159915:03:001599Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Hogg asked me a question yesterday in relation to nursing homes and statements purportedly made by Senators Knowles and Eggleston. I seek leave to incorporate that answer in Hansard as well.Leave not granted.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You can read that answer.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I am very happy to read the answer, because as I said it was alleged. As confirmed in Hansard , Senators Knowles and Eggleston did not express the view that churches should sell their assets in order to fund nursing home upgrades and clearly this is not the government view.Senators Knowles and Eggleston were asking about the churches' broader asset base, but more particularly about their liquid assets, for example, the $114 million in cash and other liquid assets held by the Uniting Church in New South Wales alone. The senators were simply asking the church-based providers as to whether, in their view, they should be fully expending the taxpayers' funds given to them to provide and improve aged care services, together with the contributions from their residents for the purpose for which their were given, before seeking further assistance from taxpayers.I thank Senator Cook for that. That is called an own goal in soccer terms, because it refutes the allegations made yesterday. I am happy to have that now in Hansard.159915:05:001599Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Yesterday during question time I was asked a question by Senator Chris Evans relating to the government members' secretariat and I wanted to add to the answer I provided yesterday. It is recorded in Hansard that I said:While the government members' secretariat staff are allocated to my staff, their operational direction is under that of the Chief Government Whip.In fact, just recently the staff of the GMS were transferred also to the office of the Chief Government Whip.Questions Without Notice1599159915:06:001599Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) to a question without notice asked by Senator Neal today, relating to child care.This government has certainly created chaos in the child care arena. Despite the fact that Senator Herron seems to be incapable of appreciating that this is the case, certainly the rest of the community, families and women who have to take advantage of child care are very well aware of it.You might have noted that this government has a history of refusing to acknowledge that they have problems. You might recall what occurred with nursing homes and what is happening now in the health system. This government believes that, if they consistently deny that there are any difficulties, that in fact there are none. But the community is a lot smarter than you. What Senator Herron and the government are saying is completely contrary to every piece of evidence that is available.Three surveys have been done. On each occasion the minister has said that they are not to be taken seriously. He said that with the National Council of Community Based Children's Services, when they did a survey. He said that the New South Wales Council of Social Service survey should not be taken seriously. He said the Queensland Child Care Coalition survey should not be taken seriously. But these surveys all say very much the same thing, and when a number of surveys and people in the community are saying the same thing, that child care is in chaos, then I really think it would be worthwhile for this government to start listening. What they are saying is all the same; they are saying that child-care costs are going up all around Australia—they are going up between $11 and $25 a week per child.The surveys are also saying that parents can no longer afford child care. The parents are being forced to either leave the work force or, alternatively, risk their children by putting them in unlicensed care. They are also saying that parents are being forced to expect a lower level of service because of the cuts the child-care centres are having to impose. They are having to reduce the number of trained staff; they are having to reduce the equipment that is available to them.All round, child-care centres are doing it tough. The refusal of this government and Senator Herron to recognise that is not going to make the problem go away because, on the twentieth of this month, the inquiry being conducted by the Senate community affairs committee indicated that the concern about the chaos in child care is not limited to three surveys. We have now received 850 submissions from child-care centres, from parents and from community groups that, once again, say the same thing: the changes that have taken place as a result of this government's policy are a disaster; they are causing chaos all around Australia for parents and their families. In this day and age, it is pretty difficult to raise a family. With the increased costs being introduced by this government, it is not just pretty difficult, but if you are also trying to meet the cost of child care then, for many people, it really is impossible.I have to say that I was quite surprised to receive, as one of the submissions received by the community affairs committee, a submission by Catherine Cusack. Catherine Cusack I have known for many years and she is a very thoughtful and considered person. But I suppose it also interesting that Catherine Cusack is an adviser to Peter Collins, the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales. Catherine Cusack was very forthright about what she thought about the policies of this government in child care and the damage that is being done by the policies of this government to parents and their families. I would just like to read a small part of her submission, but I am sure most of the people in the Senate would like to hear much more of it. It is available and I hope that you will take the opportunity. She says:During the period from 7 April to 1 July 1997, the costs of my child care for two children increased by $93.55.(Time expired)15:11:001600Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—This is typical of Labor: fear mongering, scaring, saying there are crises when there are not crises. This is all they are capable of doing—no policies, no ideas. Under Labor, child care growth was unchecked and unsustainable, and that was one of the other things that contributed to the $10 billion deficit that we were left. They were spending more money than they actually were getting in revenue. Living on the never-never, that was typical of Labor.They had no formal planning system for child care, resulting in some areas having an oversupply of places and others being totally undersupplied. They focused the majority of their assistance on the community based sector, which supplied only about 30 per cent of child care places. That resulted in an uneven playing field for the industry.They left us with a legacy of mess, total lack of planning, total lack of facilities spread across where they were needed, oversupply in one area and undersupply in another area. The child-care industry was in disarray under Labor's poor management. From 1991, private child care centres were established in various locations. They were established with no directional support from government to indicate areas of greatest need and there was haphazard growth all over the country. There were, as I said, too many centres existing in one area, where there were no centres in another area—total undersupply.This poorly planned access to child care created uncertainty in the child-care industry about their future viability due to too many centres in some areas, and it meant a lack of choice for other families in undersupplied areas.Under Labor the low rate of child-care assistance provided to families outside school hours meant there was totally inadequate supply of places for children requiring care between the end of school and when their parents came home from work. That was totally inadequate to meet the needs of low- and middle-income families. So they effectively prevented about 51,000 Australian families using outside school hours care from receiving any child care assistance at all. That was neglected. But do not worry about that, they left us a system which was totally in disarray and which also neglected a whole range of families that needed after school care.In one of the questions, Senator Mackay went on about surveys. Let me tell you about one of the surveys done in South Australia last week. They claimed there were huge fee increases and that the centres were closing down, and women were having to leave work because they could not get child care. This survey was done by the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, so I do not think that was an unbiased group of people doing the survey. I think it showed that the fees went up about $4 above those of the private centres. Also, when you look at what has happened in South Australia, overall, the restructuring there has been a net loss of two centres.Money was given by the government to centres which did not see themselves as being viable—ones which, because of Labor's poor planning, were totally inappropriately placed. They were given assistance for restructuring. If they could not restructure, they were given assistance for combining some of those services together.The industry now is getting the measure of this Labor Party. The Australian Confederation of Child Care has issued a press release, which states:Australian Child Care Centres are the best in the world, and are as economical as $5.00 per day to families, according to the Australian Confederation of Child Care which represents over 1000 private child care centres.I would rather listen to them than to some survey done by the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union because the confederation is actually in the business—it represents 1,000 centres. The press release also quotes the president of the confederation, Martin Kemp, as saying:Studies of overseas child care centres recently undertaken by members of the Confederation have confirmed that Australia has the world's best standards and facilities.We want to completely refute recent comments about Child Care which appear to be politically motivated—Appear to be? I would say they are politically motivated—which suggest there have been substantial fee increases. This politically motivated campaign only serves to do long term damage to the Child Care industry as a whole. This campaign is trying to blame the current Federal Government for reduc tions in attendance at Child Care Centres. Nothing could be further from the truth.The confederation goes on to praise the current minister, saying that he has shown more understanding and leadership in child care than have ministers in previous times. This is damnation for all the previous child-care ministers on the other side, including Senator Crowley, who reigned over this raid that occurred in child care under Labor. This is just a furphy. The Labor Party has no policies on this issue. If Labor were back in power, we would have child-care centres being spawned in inappropriate places throughout Australia, like they were under Labor. (Time expired)15:16:001602Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I have never heard such a load of nonsense from Senator Patterson. I have a great deal of admiration for Senator Patterson in a number of areas where she has worked most effectively. But, after listening to her contribution this afternoon, I really think she needs to do some homework.I want to direct my attention to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. He has tried to discredit the Queensland Child Care Coalition survey by calling it a Labor Party front. I am sure that parents in Queensland will be interested to hear this because parents are concerned about the lack of child care, the costs of child care and the disturbing trends under this government. They are not concerned about Liberal, Labor, the National Party and the Democrats; they want quality child care.Senator Patterson has acknowledged that Australia has had, and still has, the framework for a very effective child-care system. I would agree. Who delivered that system? It was Labor when it came into government in 1983. What concerns so many of us, Senator Paterson, is how your government is whittling away at what is a very good and recognised system.When Senator Herron, who in this place acts for the minister responsible, says, `Look, only one or two are affected, and you always have people affected,' I ask: when did he last visit a child-care centre? He acknowledged that he had not read this report. I am sorry that he has left the chamber because this report is about his state of Queensland, and the survey was by both the community based and private child-care providers that Senator Patterson referred to earlier in regard to the survey report.The Queensland child-care survey, released in February this year, found a disturbing downturn in quality child-care availability. This is one of the highlights: 3,255 Queensland children are estimated to be missing out on quality child care. That is why we are concerned. That is why parents are concerned. That is why child-care providers are concerned. Who is caring for those estimated 3,255 children who are missing out on quality child care?The second point is that, because of child-care funding cuts, parents have been forced to reduce the hours of care by as much as 12,000 hours. This is what we know from just this particular survey: 12,000 quality child-care hours have gone missing because of the funding arrangements and changes that the government has introduced.What about enrolments? Enrolments had decreased by 35 per cent in the first half of 1997 and by 50 per cent in the second half. I wonder what the figures are going to be for the first half of 1998 and the second half of 1998. The fee increase reported in the first half of 1997 was between 50c to $30 per week per child. That is alarming for families. No wonder they are withdrawing their children from child care. They cannot cope with that kind of increase in fees. The average fee increase for the second half of 1997 was $11 per week per child. Again, who can say what it will be for 1998 and, if this continues, the second half of 1998?A community centre in Ipswich stated:Mainly with fee increases, families have found it difficult as their wage had no rise to combat the rise in fees. Some parents were commenting about their security of employment. We are finding that the overall spirit of families is suffering as parents battle to meet costs not only with child care but elsewhere as well. Families are convinced that the government is determined to keep parents, particularly the mother, at home.(Time expired)15:21:001603Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Senator Reynolds has just made the statement that the government is forcing increased fees on child-care centres. That is absolute nonsense. The government does not set child-care fees. In the community sector, child-care fees and other management decisions are made by committees made up of the parents and the staff in the centres. The government gave community child-care centres over 12 months notice that the system was going to change and provided substantial support—$8.3 million over two years—to assist them to adjust to operating without untargeted subsidies. In addition, supplementary funding of $4.1 million annually is being provided to services in disadvantaged areas.So, far from forcing fee increases, the charges now in place have nothing to do with the government; they are set by the committees that are running these centres. Far from what Senator Reynolds would have us believe about the Labor government's record in terms of child-care centres, the truth of the matter is that the child-care program was out of control under the Labor government, with an oversupply in some areas, while families elsewhere had little access to the kind of child care they needed.The Howard government has made vast improvements to the child-care program. In fact, it is providing more equitable access to child-care places for families all over Australia. We have addressed the concerns about child care that have been raised by Australian families and the child-care industry in extensive consultations, and we have addressed the unregulated growth in the industry over the last six years. In fact, the Howard government has introduced a child-care system which is fair to all parents. One might sum it up by saying—B36NEALSenator Neal—Yes, it makes them all pay more.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—a fair go to all families is being given by the Howard government child-care program.There are six principles underlying the Howard government's child-care program—and I think I will run through those six principles for the benefit of senators on the other side, who I am sure will be enlightened by them.The first principle is that the government believes it should assist low and middle income families to meet the cost of child care. Currently, around 77 per cent of families using long day child care receive child-care assistance. Of these, 42 per cent receive the maximum level of assistance. That is a very good thing, and it is something of which the Howard government is very proud.The government believes, secondly, that families in like circumstances should be treated in the same way. This commitment is seen in the recent decision to increase the amount of financial assistance again to low and middle income families using outside school hours care. Thirdly, the government believes that extra resources should be provided to help children with additional needs. Extra funding is available to provide child-care services with the support needed to care for children with high needs.Fourthly—and this is something which I consider very important—the government believes that it should provide additional support for services in geographically disadvantaged areas, such as remote and rural communities. Why should the people who live in isolated regional towns in Australia not receive good child care? Why should this all go to the kind of inner-city metropolitan electorates which the Labor Party funded? This is now being done. The Howard government is very proud of the fact that it is subsidising child-care centres and helping them to operate in remote rural communities.Fifthly, the government believes that priority for new places should be given to neighbourhoods and communities with insufficient places to meet demand. The sixth point and principle under which the government operates is that parents should be confident that a high standard of child care is being provided. The government has gone out of its way to ensure that standards are not only maintained but improved.So, overall, it can be said that the Howard government has a very, very proud and outstanding record of achievement in the field of child care—and the Labor government has a lot to feel ashamed of in this area. (Time expired)15:26:001604Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—What we have just had from the other side is the greatest load of rubbish I have ever heard in my life. First off, we had Senator Herron trying desperately to answer questions about a situation he had absolutely no grasp of. Then we had Senator Patterson saying that the ALP was responsible for inadequate child-care facilities.Senator Patterson interjecting—6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—Let me tell you, Senator Patterson, when I was a young mother, I lived for many, many years under a coalition government. There were very, very few child-care centres and, because of that, women like myself who came from working class areas and who had very little transport could not go out to work. But, if we did go out to work, it had to be part time and we had to work around child-care centres' hours, or stay at home. There was no choice. There were very, very few facilities. In fact, women like myself and millions of others in this country had to rely on their mothers, their mother-in-laws, the lady next door, or whatever. So do not tell me about child-care centres and adequate facilities.The ALP government brought in an extremely successful child-care program. Under your government, since you were elected in March 1996, you have turned this area into an absolute and utter disaster. Over the past two budgets, your government has decimated the child-care sector by removing $820 million. So how can you possibly say that you are providing a decent service?These are some of the changes that you have brought about: you have abolished income allowed for additional dependent children when assessing eligibility for child-care assistance; you have removed operational subsidies worth $100 million over four years from community based child-care centres; you have reduced child-care assistance or put in place cut-offs for second and subsequent children; you have extended the range of fringe benefits for child-care assistance income testing; and you have removed operational subsidies to outside school hours care, putting in doubt the long-term viability of this flexible program—and let us talk about this particular aspect. Because of this, I do not think your government knows or understands how—B36NEALSenator Neal—It does not want to know.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—Exactly, Senator Neal. You do not understand how the after hours school care operates. It operates on part-time, casual and volunteer labour. Because of your IR legislation you have forced people, particularly part-time and casual people, into a situation where they have to work when their boss tells them to work. They cannot operate their own part-time working hours. They have to work when they are told to work; otherwise they risk losing their job. How does this benefit those parents and those children when their parents have to work—Senator Eggleston interjecting—6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—Senator Eggleston, it is a fact of life that in today's society both parents have to work to provide their children with an adequate and decent life. Most people in this country, if they are lucky enough to have work, need both parents working. With this particular outside school hours cut, we are going to go back to the situation of the latchkey kids, or these children will be at school unsupervised for hours and hours. Who wants to go back to the good old days of the latchkey kids?You also froze child-care assistance and child-care cash rebate ceilings for two years, which has meant no indexation for the past two years. These changes have created total confusion and uncertainty in the sector, particularly for parents and for service providers. Senator Reynolds touched on the Queensland Child Care Coalition survey in our home state of Queensland which revealed that 3,255 children have been removed from 244 services in Queensland in the last year as a result of the fee increases—(Time expired)15:32:001604Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—What really puzzles me about this debate is that Senators Neal and Gibbs, who are normally well-intentioned people, seem to be incapable of really looking at the causation of the so-called problems in child care. There is a recent article in the Daily Telegraph where commentator Miranda Devine examines in some detail the reasons for the much touted crisis in child care, which I certainly do not accept exists at all. It is very interesting because she quotes Lyn Farrell, the Director of Lady Gowrie Child Care Centre in Erskineville, who goes so far as to describe the so-called situation in child care as `precipitated by factors from changing work habits to the oversupply of centres.'She goes on to say that if you listen to the New South Wales community services minister, Fay Lo Po—and I would interpolate there, Senator Neal and those on the other side—the fault lies with the federal government which cuts operational subsidies to community based centres. The much touted surveys are referred to. Then Miranda Devine goes on to say—and I wholeheartedly endorse this—that the truth is much more complex. She says that there is a glut of child-care centres for two- to five-year-olds and refers to the pretty obvious fact that when the Labor federal government expanded child-care fee relief in 1991 it triggered an unplanned and unchecked explosion of child-care centres so that there was actually an oversupply of child-care centres when this government took office.It meant that all sorts of entrepreneurial types—solicitors, merchant bankers and financial planners—said, `Get into child care; that is a good thing. There are plenty of subsidies for child care. It is a sure-fire money spinner.' In almost every area in Sydney, apart from the CBD and some isolated areas in the western suburbs, there is an oversupply of two- to five-year-old places. It is not just me saying so. Elizabeth Evans, a policy officer in the Department of Community Services, also says that. Before we get too excited about this, let us look at the causes of the problems in child care when we came to government. The private child-care centres had been established in locations with no direction, with no planning and with absolutely no support for looking at where child care was actually needed, that is, where the areas of greatest need were. The total chaos created was that created by Labor.You need to look at what we are trying to achieve with our reforms. We are trying to put child care in locations where it is really needed. Secondly, we want to make it available for those children that need care where otherwise care was not available. Our child-care reforms are all about ensuring both fair and reasonable access to funded child care for more families rather than fewer families, to improved targeting for assistance to those families most in need—those in low income families that otherwise have no access to child care, those with children with disabilities that have no access to child care, and those children under two where there was almost no child care under Labor.We now have a planning system to ensure that child-care services are established where families actually need them. Child care is now on a sustainable footing, which will help ensure that services grow at a rate to meet expected demand. We certainly have a commitment to build on the system of quality improvement across all service types. Our objective has been—and remains—to assist families with dependent children to participate in the work force and community by supporting the provision of affordable quality child care. What is most interesting of all is that the latest figures show that labour force participation by women with dependent children has remained constant since January 1996. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.160510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:1605135TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;2. actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor; 3. work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;4. repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and5. stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 135 citizens)1606308TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) Western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 308 citizens)16061757TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations3. Not sign the MAI unless substantial amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be heldSenator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 1,757 citizens)160695125K4Faulkner Sen JohnTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned wish to draw to the attention of the Senate the proposed closure of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme to new employees from 1 July, 1998.Your petitioners believe the closure is unfair to new employees who will have fewer and less beneficial options for superannuation the closure will undermine the medium and long term viability of both the PSS and CSS for current employees the closure is a clear breach of government policy to maintain separate superannuation arrangements for the public sector and of the Prime Minister's commitment not to cut superannuation for prospective public sector employees.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: reject proposals to close the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) to new employees and continue to ensure that both current and future employees of the Commonwealth maintain access to the current scheme.Senator Faulkner5K4Senator Faulkner(from 9,512 citizens)16061151X4West 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 115 citizens)Petitions received.Notices160616061606Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Act 1914, and for related purposes. Crimes Amendment (Enforcement of Fines) Bill 1998.16071607Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—At the request of Senator Woodley, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in October 1998:(1) The extent to which international human rights instruments should constrain the legislative power of the Commonwealth.(2) The effect of international instruments on state and territory laws.(3) The nature of cases against Australia that have been taken to the Human Rights Committee in Geneva and the Australian Government's submissions and responses to those cases.(4) The steps and measures taken by the Government to promote human rights within Australia and abroad, with particular reference to the treatment of indigenous populations.16071607Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) alleged on 3 March 1998 that: (a) the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) grant awarded to Woodhouse Pastoral Company (the company) was for the private benefit of the Baillieu family and was a `rort', (b) Richard Percy Clive Baillieu is the current secretary of the company, and that he and Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu are involved in this `rort', and (c) John Madden Baillieu was Chairman of EL & C Baillieu when the company was awarded the NHT grant, (ii) the NHT grant to the company is to protect the largest area of remnant grey box and bull oak forest in Victoria, (iii) a condition of the NHT grant is that the company provides $29 500 from its own funds to augment the NHT contribution, (iv) the Trust for Nature in Victoria, an independent statutory authority set up to protect remnant native bush on private land, stated that the NHT grant was a `fantastic deal' for Australia, (v) Richard Percy Clive Baillieu died in 1941, (vi) Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu died in 1961, (vii) John Madden Baillieu resigned as Chairman of EL & C Baillieu nearly 3 years ago, before the NHT was established, and (viii) on 31 March 1998 it will be 29 days since Senator Faulkner made these incorrect statements; and(b) calls on Senator Faulkner to apologise immediately and unreservedly to the Baillieu family for the hurt and damage to the family caused by his incorrect statements.16071607Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:(1) That the provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 be referred to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 1998, with particular reference to the following matters: (a) whether the proposed accountability regime in the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 is adequate to protect the public interest; (b) the impact on public sector finance of the full privatisation of Telstra; (c) the effect on delivery and quality of services for rural, regional and remote areas and for smaller States and Territories; (d) whether the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 provide effective and adequate consumer protection safeguards, including: (i) access to untimed local calls, (ii) free directory assistance, (iii) public telephone facilities, (iv) customer service guarantees, and (v) price caps; (e) the effectiveness of the standard telephone service, as guaranteed under the Universal Service Obligation, in ensuring that rural and regional customers have access to modern telecommunications services and whether the standard telephone service definition needs to be expanded to take account of rapidly changing communications technology; (f) the impact of privatisation on employment and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia; (g) the impact of the privatisation of Telstra on industry development issues, including research, development and manufacture in the Australian telecommunications equipment and services industry; and (h) whether the privatisation of Telstra confers an unfair competitive advantage to it, in detriment to open competition and the involvement of other telecommunications companies and the implications of foreign ownership on these matters.(2) That the committee advertise for submissions in the media and conduct public hearings as and where it deems appropriate.16081608Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that 1 April 1998 marks the national day of action for public funding of higher education as endorsed by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) and the National Union of Students (NUS);(b) commends to the Federal Government the common goals of the NTEU and the NUS to maintain an appropriately financed higher education sector which: (i) provides equitable access to university education for students of all backgrounds, (ii) ensures high quality teaching, research and management in a diverse range of institutions, and (iii) meets a diverse range of economic, social and cultural needs;(c) condemns the Government's funding cuts to university operating grants of 6 per cent over 5 years, which have seriously undermined these goals; and(d) supports the NTEU and NUS April Fools' Day national day of action.16081608Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate supports the 1 April 1998 national day of action by students and staff of universities and technical and further education campuses across Australia protesting against the impacts of continuing Government funding cuts to education.16081608Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—At the request of Senator Ferguson, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 3 April 1998, from 9 am to 3 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997.16081608Ray, 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 21 days since the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) defied his own guidelines.16081608Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That, in this age of rationalisation, the Senate— (a) congratulates the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) on winning the coveted 1998 award for the Minister Most Adept at Getting Rid of His Own Portfolio;(b) notes the Minister's outstanding winning entry, which included: (i) solving the problem of native forest and rainforest logging by turning the lot into woodchips and shipping it to Japan, (ii) moving rapidly towards a uranium-free Australia, (iii) showing how $1 billion can be spent with no impact on the environment whatsoever, and (iv) making an exceptional effort towards getting rid of all the earth's environmental problems by turning up the heat;(c) admires the stiff competition provided by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) in his progress towards transferring all responsibility for the unemployed to themselves, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) who greatly diminished migration and his responsibility for those who do get to Australia, for at least 2 years, and by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) for his paperwork; and(d) acknowledges the Shadow Minister for the Environment (Mr Kerr) who has provided singular evidence that shadows are without substance.Business16091609Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1014 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to cloning technology, be postponed till five sitting days after today.1609Motion (by Senator Forshaw) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1047 standing in the name of Senator Forshaw for today, relating to the Grafton Meatworks, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees160916091609Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by the end of the second sitting week in 1999:(1) Examination of developments in contemporary Japan, with particular reference to: (a) contemporary economic conditions, including: (i) the impact of low and expected continuing low growth, (ii) the effect of the Asian currency crisis, (iii) blockages to economic efficiency and areas of reform in the domestic economy, and (iv) trading patterns and the significance of Japan's growing trade surplus in its relations with its leading trading partners; (b) contemporary political changes, including: (i) the changes in the major political parties, the emergence of new parties and the electoral and structural changes that are occurring, (ii) the political significance and power of land-holders and farmers in influencing social and economic progress, and (iii) Japan's view of itself in the world and its role in the Asian region; and (c) significant contemporary changes in Japanese society.(2) Examination of the implications of the above matter for Australia.Miscellaneous16091609Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I ask that government business notice of motion No. 1 be taken as formal.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?15:48:001609Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I understood that the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 and the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 were going to be treated separately, because we have an objection to those. I ask the minister to facilitate matters for the Senate by taking those two from this motion and bringing them forward separately as I do not want to block formality on the rest of the motion.15:49:001610Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—In answer to Senator Brown's question, the government could facilitate a vote on these bills separately.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, are you asking that those two be voted on separately from the rest?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes, I am.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is it the wish of the Senate that I divide the question? It is. Formality has been given. Senator Campbell, will you move your motion, as amended?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I seek leave to amend the motion by deleting the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 . That will bring it down to just the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 , which Senator Brown is interested in.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I 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 1998National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Bill 1998National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Bill 1998National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Bill 199810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion in respect of all bills except the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question now is that the motion in respect of the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 be agreed to.15:51:001610Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am happy for my name and that of Senator Margetts, if she so assents, to be recorded as being opposed to this motion if that will expedite matters for the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous1610Motion (by Senator Murray) proposed:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) draft frameworks of ethical principles for members and senators, and ministers and presiding officers, developed by the Working Group to Develop a Code of Conduct for Senators and Members, were tabled in the Senate on 21 June 1995, and (ii) since debate on an Australian Democrat motion to adopt the framework of ethical principles for senators and members, with amendments, was adjourned on 16 November 1995, no action has been taken to advance this matter; and(b) calls on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to convene a new working party, consisting of members and senators from all parties and groups represented in both Houses of the Parliament, to prepare a report for tabling by 30 June 1998, on the following: (i) the status and adequacy of existing guidelines or codes of conduct for ministers, parliamentary secretaries, senators and members of the House of Representatives, (ii) the appropriateness and desirability of establishing new bodies to supervise the operation of parliamentary and ethical standards or codes of conduct, including: (A) an independent commission or commissioner, and (B) committees of each House of the Parliament or a joint committee, and (iii) the appropriate functions and powers, including enforcement powers, of the bodies mentioned in subparagraph (ii). Question put.15:56:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.49Abetz, E. Bishop, M.Boswell, R. L. D. Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.*Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. 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. 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. Vanstone, A. E.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous1611Motion (by Senator Bourne) proposed: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. 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I put the question that motion 1045 moved by Senator Bourne be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, against, no. As a division is required, ring the bells.The bells being rung—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—This division will be cancelled. There is some confusion as to which motion we are voting on. There will be a full division of the Senate and all senators will need to attend. The bells will be rung for four minutes. The question is that motion No. 1045 relating to an order for the production of documents moved by Senator Bourne be agreed to. Question put.16:07:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H. *Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. 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.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Bolkus, N. Brownhill, D. G. C.Denman, K. J. Hill, R. M.Lundy, K. Knowles, S. C.Quirke, J. A. Parer, W. R.* denotes teller(Senator Watson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous1612Motion (by Senator Margetts and Senator Bourne) not agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes the growing international concern about the operation and content of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), including a resolution by the European Parliament critical of significant aspects of the MAI;(b) recognises the need for Australia to continue to regulate foreign investment according to internationally-accepted human rights obligations, environmental and labour protection and principles of corporate responsibilities, consistent with the national interest and democratic principles;(c) believes the Australian Government should not become a signatory to any agreement which seeks to sacrifice Australia's ability to develop any policy or law designed to: (i) protect the economy, the environment or human rights, (ii) enforce mechanisms for corporate responsibilities, (iii) regulate specific foreign investments and the take-over and control of Australian businesses, and (iv) develop effective industry policy and regulation, or policies or laws which generally protect Australia's national interest and democratic principles; and(d) calls on the Government to discontinue negotiations on the MAI until such time as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agrees to include in the MAI: (i) binding international labour, environmental and human rights standards, (ii) a binding charter of corporate responsibilities, and (iii) dispute resolution processes, equivalent to those proposed for investors, by which such standards and responsibilities are enforceable.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam President, in order to save the Senate's time by avoiding the time taken in division, may I ask that the yes votes of myself and my colleague, Senator Brown, and the votes of the Australian Democrats be recorded as yes on this motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That will be done.Miscellaneous1612Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed:That the Senate—(a) notes the Federal Court decision of 24 March 1998 to dismiss an appeal by four La Trobe University student editors attempting to overturn a censorship ban on an article on shoplifting published in 1995; and(b) expresses its concern that the current classification laws are limiting legitimate freedom of expression and political dissent. Question put.16:16:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. 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.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Cook, P. F. S. Hill, R. M.Lundy, K. Knowles, S. C.Quirke, J. A. Brownhill, D. G. C.Ray, R. F. Parer, W. R.* denotes teller(Senator Watson did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the negative.Question so resolved in the negative.Committees161316131613Motion (by Senator Ferguson) agreed to: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 1998.1613161316:20:001613Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I present the government's response to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the CJD settlement offer. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Recommendation 1. That the decision not to proceed with an epidemiological study be reconsidered. However, any future study should not be limited only to the Allars recommendation that it be undertaken in the context of monitoring past and possible cases of CJD in the recipient community.ResponseThe Government accepts this recommendation. The National Pituitary Hormones Advisory Council (NPHAC) will be asked to review its earlier decision and seek independent expert advice on the possible benefits of conducting a longitudinal study of hormone recipients.ContextAn epidemiological study of the pituitary hormone recipients was not conducted as recommended by Professor Allars following advice from the National Pituitary Hormone Advisory Council that there was no value to be gained from such a study. The Senate Community Affairs References Committee is proposing a wider study following an NHMRC report on the long-term effects on women of assisted conception.Recommendation 2. That the following areas of concern relating to the implementation of the Allars recommendations be addressed:(a) Counselling—Ensure that the revised arrangements introduced in October 1996 to assist all recipients and their families who need counselling, are understood and are able to be accessed by all recipients. In particular, that these arrangements are quite distinct from, and alleviate the difficulties associated with those that have previously operated. In addition, that counsellors who may have been providing a service to the satisfaction of particular recipients are not precluded from assistance under the revised arrangements;ResponseThe Government accepts this recommendation. The next edition of the HPH newsletter will outline the counselling services currently available; the changes that have occurred from the previous arrangements and the process by which recipients or members of their family can seek counselling.ContextCounselling services are available to all hormone recipients and their families to assist them to manage the risk of CJD in their lives. Counsellors require accreditation by an independent expert panel and each counselled person can receive only 15 sessions after which a review is conducted of their needs. The counselling services have changed several times since the scheme's inception in 1990. (b) Epidemiological study—That the decision not to conduct an epidemiological study be reconsidered, though any future study should proceed with broader objectives. (This is the subject of a separate recommendation);See Recommendation 1 above.(c) Tracing recipients—That renewed efforts be made to identify and trace remaining approved and unapproved recipients, with due sensitivity in recognition of the time which has elapsed since the Program concluded (This is also the subject of separate recommendations);ResponseThe Government accepts this recommendation and notes that the Department of Health and Family Services is currently pursuing avenues to identify unapproved hormone recipients and to trace the remaining recipients.ContextApproximately 90.2% of approved recipients (i.e. 1784 of 1976) and 56% (i.e. 98 of 175) of the known unapproved recipients have been traced. The Department is investigating further strategies to identify and trace the remaining recipients.(d) Access to information—That treatment records and other information requested by recipients be provided directly to them without adopting a restrictive interpretation of s.135A of the National Health Act;ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation. A protocol will be prepared by the Department of Health and Family Services, in consultation with the NPHAC and the Privacy Commissioner which sets out the procedure for a recipient to access information about their treatment.ContextWhen recipients make initial contact with the Department, they receive information about their treatment through a General Practitioner nominated by the recipient, to ensure that the recipient is correctly identified and that there is support immediately available to the recipient when they are informed of the increased risk of CJD and any related issues.(e) Index to Allars Report—That an index to the Allars Report be prepared and made readily accessible for all recipients and other interested parties;ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation and that an index to the Allars Report was prepared following the release of the Allars Report. The next edition of the HPH newsletter will include a statement that this index is available and indicate how copies can be obtained. (f) NPHAC—Ensure that NPHAC's processes and procedures are sufficiently open and flexible to enable it to receive views and opinions from all members of the recipient community on issues under consideration by the Council; and that all recipients are kept informed of decisions taken by NPHAC and their outcome.ResponseThe Government accepts this recommendation. The next edition of the HPH newsletter will include a re-statement of the role of the NPHAC and of the mechanisms available to the hormone recipient community to have input in to the Council's activities.ContextThe NPHAC was established following the Allars Inquiry, to provide advice to the Minister on issues of national significance to the hormone recipient community. The procedures available for recipients to bring issues to the attention of the NPHAC were set out in two editions of the HPH newsletter . Recipients can raise issues with their CJD Support Group Co-ordinator, the National Co-ordinator of the CJD Support Group Network Inc., or to write directly to the NPHAC. Information about the discussions and decisions of the NPHAC is contained in the HPH newsletter following a meeting of the NPHAC.(g) Statement on Human Experimentation—That the review of the Statement on Human Experimentation which is not due to be finalised until late 1998 be expedited. To ensure that this review is not delayed, the Committee urges the Minister to finalise the appointment of members of the AHEC as soon as possible;ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation. The Chair of the NHMRC has advised the Department of Health and Family Services of progress with this Review.ContextThe Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC) is a principal committee of the NHMRC. The first round of consultation on the review of the Statement on Human Experimentation is complete and submissions will be considered at the next meeting of AHEC.(h) Amendment of s.135A of the National Health Act—That s.135A of the National Health Act be amended to ensure that personal information can be disclosed directly to the people about whom the information relates (such as in the case of people who received hormone treatment) and that the Attorney-General's Department broader review of existing secrecy provisions, which includes s135A, be expedited; andResponseThe Government notes that the Attorney-General's Department is undertaking a broad review of existing secrecy provisions, which includes consideration of s.135A of the National Health Act 1953 . The Government will consider the question of amendment of s.135A in light of the outcome of this review.ContextSection 135A of the National Health Act 1953 requires that personal information cannot be released to a third party without the consent of the individual, or where the delegate of the Minister deems it to be in the public interest. The Department must be satisfied as to the identity of the person seeking personal information. An ongoing review of such provisions is taking place within the Attorney-General's Department.(i) Amendment of s.100 of the National Health Act—That the ALRC review which includes consideration of the Allars recommendation to repeal and replace s.100 by a provision which specifies clearly the circumstances where by reason of physical and similar factors associated with the distribution of a pharmaceutical benefit `special arrangements' are appropriate, be expedited.ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation. A review of previous applications of section 100 will be conducted to ensure such use has been consistent with the purpose of that provision. The Government will consider the need for amendment to section 100 in light of this review.ContextSection 100 of the National Health Act 1953 allows for special arrangements for providing pharmaceutical benefits to people living in isolated areas or who are receiving medical treatment such that pharmaceutical benefits cannot be conveniently or efficiently supplied in accordance with the general provisions of the pharmaceutical benefit scheme.Recommendation 3. That should legal action proceed, the documentation requested from the Commonwealth through a discovery or further and better discovery process be complied with in a more expeditious manner than has been the case to date. In complying with such discovery processes the Commonwealth should refrain from adopting a restrictive interpretation of s135A of the National Health Act.ResponseThe Government accepts that discovery in litigation should be undertaken by the Commonwealth expeditiously and without taking an unduly restrictive approach to secrecy provisions. The Government notes that arrangements have been agreed between the solicitors acting for the parties as to how the further discovery would proceed. These agreed arrangements have been followed by the Commonwealth.The Government notes the Committee's recommendation regarding the interpretation of s.135A of the National Health Act 1953 but does not agree that the Commonwealth in ensuring that s.135A has been complied with, has adopted a restrictive interpretation of the section. The Commonwealth's interpretation and application of s.135A permitted hormone recipients to have access to their own medical information once the identity of the hormone recipient had been verified. The Commonwealth did not rely on s.135A as a means of preventing disclosure of relevant material in discovery.The Government also notes that the Attorney-General's Department is currently undertaking a review of secrecy provisions, including s.135A.Recommendation 4. That the process whereby a Department, being a defendant in a legal action taken against the Commonwealth, is placed in the situation of advising on the release (or refusal) of documents to a plaintiff—yet having full access to all documents themselves—is reviewed, so that procedures may be implemented to ensure that the process is transparent and that any conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise, is avoided.ResponseIn the Government's view, the requirements of litigation, which apply to all litigants, render it impossible to avoid the situation to which this recommendation relates. However, the Government accepts that in special circumstances, and where practicable, it may be appropriate to take steps to reduce concerns regarding transparency or objectivity.ContextDiscovery is a process whereby parties to court proceedings identify and disclose to each other all their own documents which are relevant to the issues in the proceedings. This of its very nature requires a party to have full access to that party's own documents to determine whether a document is discoverable.Once documents have been identified as relevant, a party may resist disclosure of the contents of a document on several grounds. These grounds include a statutory secrecy provision, public interest immunity (privilege) or legal professional privilege. Once again, it is necessary for a party to have full access to documents in order to determine whether a ground to resist production exists. Even where the party is legally represented, the party needs to have a knowledge of the material relating to the case, in order to be able to provide proper instructions to the legal representative.Even if disclosure of relevant documentation is resisted, the existence of such documentation must be disclosed on discovery. Therefore, the discovery process prevents concealment of the existence of relevant documentation by a party in reliance on a secrecy provision. Overall, in relation to discovery, the Commonwealth is in no better position than a non-Commonwealth party to proceedings.The Government acknowledges that adoption of normal practice may result in perceptions of unfairness in special circumstances, such as where relevant documents held by a department include the results of a public inquiry involving both parties to the litigation. In order to avoid that perception, for the purposes of the CJD litigation, within the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) the discovery of the documents of the Allars Inquiry was handled separately from the defence of the action. The discovery work was performed by a separate legal team ('the AGS Discovery team'). In deciding whether or not to recommend that documents be discovered in the Victorian proceedings, the AGS Discovery Team did not consult with AGS staff handling the defence of the litigation ('the AGS Litigation Team'). The AGS Discovery Team engaged separate counsel to advise on discovery issues relating to the documents of the Inquiry. The AGS Discovery Team did not at any stage work on the preparation of the defence of the litigation. Whenever Allars Inquiry documents were released to Rennick Briggs, the solicitors acting for the plaintiffs in the Victorian proceedings, copies were provided to the AGS litigation team, but not before. In the NSW proceedings Macedone Christie Willis, the solicitors acting for the plaintiffs, have agreed that the AGS Litigation and Discovery teams may confer about the relevance of documents for the purpose of discovery.In summary, the discovery process of its very nature requires a party to have full access to all that party's documents. Generally, a Commonwealth Department which is required to also comply with a secrecy provision such as s.135A should be placed in no different position to a non-Commonwealth litigant reviewing its documents to determine whether documents are relevant to the proceedings and, if so, whether disclosure should be resisted.Recommendation 5. That the settlement offer should not preclude a plaintiff making any future claim in relation to:(a) other physical illnesses contracted by recipients which may be related to long term side effects of HPH treatment; and(b) liability should the transmission of CJD, or other illnesses relating to HPH treatment, to immediate family be proven.ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation and also that the settlement offer does not preclude a plaintiff making any future claim in relation to physical illnesses contracted by recipients which may be related to long term side effects of pituitary hormone treatment. The settlement offer does not preclude a plaintiff making a future claim that they have contracted CJD, or other illnesses relating to pituitary hormone treatment, as a result of being an immediate family member of a hormone recipient.Recommendation 6. That, without conceding the likelihood or otherwise of a legal action on psychiatric stress succeeding, in addition to the current settlement offer, the Commonwealth:(a) make an allocation of funds to the existing Trust Account and that its purpose be widened. The amount of additional funding should, as a minimum, be equivalent to the cost of the potential litigation;(b) widen the purpose of the Trust Account to permit one-off payments to be made to recipients who provide evidence that they have suffered psychiatric injury as a result of treatment under the AHPHP. This payment be made on a sliding scale relating to the level of psychiatric injury suffered by the recipient. This payment would be regarded as a form of ex-gratia payment and would not constitute any precedent for similar action;(c) consider extending this offer of payment to include recipients who have suffered psychological stress or significant life disturbance; and(d) appoint an independent governing Board to authorise payments from the Trust to replace authorisation by the delegate of the Minister. The Board would be responsible for receiving and assessing applications for recompense.ResponseAn amount of up to a further three million dollars will be allocated to the Pituitary Hormones Trust Account to allow for payments to be made to recipients who can demonstrate that, prior to 1 January 1998, they have, or have suffered, a recognised psychiatric injury due to the recipient having been informed that they are at a greater risk of contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.These funds will be made available in two separate instalments. The first instalment of $1.5 million will be provided in 1998-99, with a second instalment of up to $1.5 million in 1999-2000 after consideration has been given to the position of the Pituitary Hormones Trust Account and any new litigation costs, particularly the costs to the Commonwealth of having to defend such litigation, as a result of hormone recipients having chosen to litigate rather than pursue payments from the Pituitary Hormones Trust Account.In making payments, priority will be given to those hormone recipients who have the most serious psychiatric injury. The Pituitary Hormones Trust Account Management and Administration Guidelines will be amended to provide a framework within which such payments can be made.The Government has also considered extending payments from the Pituitary Hormone Trust Account to recipients who have suffered psychological stress or significant life disturbance, and has decided not to extend payments in this way.The Government will appoint an independent Board to authorise payments from the Pituitary Hormones Trust Account. Payments will only be made to those hormone recipients who can demonstrate they have a recognised psychiatric injury due to the recipient having been informed that they are at a greater risk of contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.Recommendation 7. That recipients who have already accepted the settlement offer would also be eligible for the additional offer as outlined in Recommendation 6, providing they have evidence of psychiatric injury, psychological stress or significant life disturbance.See Recommendation 6.Recommendation 8. That unapproved recipients, who are formally identified and accepted through the process outlined in Recommendations 2 & 14, be eligible for the additional settlement arrangements already offered to recipients as well as those outlined in Recommendations 6 & 15.ResponseThe Government agrees to adopt this recommendation.Recommendation 9. The Commonwealth formally acknowledge:(a) the deficiencies in the operation and oversight of the AHPHP;(b) the experimental nature of aspects of the treatment under the Program; and(c) the anxiety and stress that has been caused to hormone recipients.Response(a) The previous Government received a report from Professor Allars in June 1994. In the Report of the Inquiry into the use of Pituitary Derived Hormones in Australia and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Associate Professor Allars reported a number of concerns about the operation of the AHPHP and the decisions taken by various advisory committees and departmental officers at the time.The Commonwealth formally acknowledges that there were some deficiencies in the operation and oversight of the Australian Human Pituitary Hormone Program.In order to ensure the highest standard in future programs the Commonwealth has adopted most of the recommendations made by Professor Allars.The Commonwealth acknowledges that it is a great tragedy that some of the people who were treated under the AHPHP have now died as a result of CJD and that a group of Australians now live with the uncertainty of being at risk of contracting CJD. It is deeply regrettable that this tragedy has occurred.(b) The Government does not acknowledge that treatment administered under the AHPHP was experimental. When hormone products were first issued in 1967 for the treatment of patients approved under the AHPHP, hormone treatment had been in operation overseas since 1958 and in Australia since 1963.It is acknowledged that a small number of recipients received hormone in a small number of research studies which were undertaken under the AHPHP, some of which were referred to by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee.(c) The Government acknowledges that a number of recipients have suffered distress and anxiety and it expresses its sympathy to those recipients who have been affected.ContextIn her Report of the Inquiry into the use of Pituitary Derived Hormones in Australia and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, Associate Professor Allars reported a number of concerns about the operation of the AHPHP and the decisions taken by various advisory committees and departmental officers at the time.Recommendation 10. That the current eligibility guidelines for the provision of legal aid be revised to ensure that cases, particularly test cases, involving issues of public interest such as those raised in APQ's case be eligible to receive legal aid assistance in the future.ResponseThe Government does not accept this recommendation.ContextThe principle which underpins the legal aid system in Australia is one of matching priorities to available funds. Legal aid in Australia is not an entitlement based system. Accordingly, each case must be considered not only from the perspective of its merits but also in relation to whether funds are available.Recommendation 11. That, in future, the determination of legal aid applications should be made in accordance with the guidelines operating at the time the application was submitted. Thus, any variations to eligibility criteria would only apply to applications submitted after such variations had been introduced.ResponseThe Government does not accept this recommendation.ContextAssistance under the guidelines for legal aid must be considered in light of available funds at any particular point in time.Recommendation 12. That the Department review all possible tracing methods in an attempt to identify the remaining 190 or so untraced approved recipients.ResponseSee response to recommendation 2(c) above.Recommendation 13. That the coding system being developed for lists of recipients distributed to Blood Banks and organ and tissue agencies be completed as a matter of priority.ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation and that the list of names of recipients has now been encoded and provided to the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, for a preliminary trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the coded system. This matter is being progressed as a matter of priority.ContextA list of the names of hormone recipients has been provided to blood, organ and tissue donation agencies to ensure that people at an increased risk of CJD (through hormone treatment) are not included in donation programs. Concerns were raised by some recipients that this was an invasion of their privacy. The NPHAC agreed with the need for this list to be made available and that any copies of the list distributed in the future should be in a `coded' form to protect the privacy of recipients as far as possible.Recommendation 14. That the Department allocate resources to tracing unapproved recipients of human-derived pituitary hormones.ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation and that the Department of Health and Family Services is currently investigating strategies to identify unapproved recipients of the hormone and to trace the remaining recipients.ContextInformation about unapproved recipients is only available in the records of doctors who were providing treatment under the AHPHP. The Department will be required to contact each surviving treating doctor requesting their further assistance in identifying unapproved recipients.Recommendation 15. That once it is established that a person did receive hPG or hGH from the AHPHP, the recipient's status should be of no difference to that of approved recipients. In the event of a dispute between the Department and a person who claims to have received human pituitary derived hormone, the matter should be referred to an independent arbiter for resolution.ResponseThe Government accepts this recommendation. No distinction is made between those recipients who were approved and those who were not approved for treatment by HPAC. An independent arbiter for any cases of dispute will be appointed to determine whether or not a recipient has received human pituitary derived hormones.ContextSee recommendation 8.Recommendation 16. That the Department put in place protocols to ensure sympathetic early intervention so that information and assistance is provided to a recipient suspected to have contracted CJD as soon as the recipient's condition becomes known, rather than await official confirmation.ResponseThe Government accepts this recommendation and notes that a procedure for responding to possible further cases of CJD in hormone recipients is in place and was implemented in relation to the recent possible case of CJD.ContextWhen the possible fifth case of CJD in a hormone recipient was recognised in 1995, a protocol was prepared setting out the procedure for responding to future possible cases of CJD in a hormone recipient. This procedure was subsequently refined with the establishment of the Pituitary Hormones Trust Account and the availability of funds for medical and other care costs.Recommendation 17. That the Department inform the recipient community of the steps to be taken to make an application to the Department for assistance, including the persons to be contacted and the information required, in the event that it is suspected of that a person has contracted CJD.Response The Government accepts this recommendation. This information will be included in the next edition of the HPH newsletter .ContextSee Recommendation 16.18. That, in view of the availability of further information (much of which is conflicting in its nature) which may not have been considered by the Allars Inquiry, Professor Margaret Allars be invited to review, with the necessary independent scientific advice, this further information on scientific matters concerning the AHPHP which has become available since the Allars Inquiry reported. If Professor Allars in unavailable, another suitable qualified person be invited to undertake the review.ResponseAssociate Professor Allars has been asked to review the `further information on scientific matters concerning the AHPHP' that was submitted in camera to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Inquiry and determine whether this information was available at the time that she conducted the Inquiry into the Use of Pituitary Derived Hormones in Australia and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease .16:20:001619Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The Senate Community Affairs References Committee conducted its CJD inquiry last July and August. It was a difficult inquiry for all senators from all parties to participate in because of the death of five individuals in recent years who had contracted CJD. The committee was made up of representatives of the Labor Party, government senators, a representative of the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine.The inquiry was conducted in a relatively constructive manner over two days in Canberra. A large number of witnesses came forward to give evidence of their experience and participation in the CJD program from the late 1960s until it was curtailed somewhere around about 1985. Those witnesses were under great stress. They expressed great feeling and great emotion to those senators who participated. Many of the witnesses saw the Senate inquiry as a forum in which they could seek some form of justice for themselves or their families who had contracted the disease and who had suffered some horrible consequences. CJD applies only to infertile females who receive the treatment or to persons of short stature who take the growth hormone.The report by the Community Affairs References Committee was brought down, from memory, last September or October. There were 32 recommendations in total in 18 paragraphs, one or two of which had multiple recommendations. After reviewing the government's response to the recommendations of the Community Affairs References Committee, I am pleased to note that the government has accepted all of the recommendations bar three. So some 28 or 29 of the committee's recommendations have been accepted by the government, as outlined in the document that has been incorporated in Hansard today.The key recommendations can be conveniently subdivided into five areas: firstly, psychiatric injury; secondly, communications guidelines; thirdly, administrative procedures and processes within the relevant department; fourthly, the processes that individuals have to undergo to qualify for legal aid funding; and, fifthly, further review by Professor Allars.The key recommendation may be found in paragraphs 6(a) to (d) of the Senate committee report, and the government has accepted that in total. The government has determined to allocate an additional $3 million in two instalments of $1.5 million each to be paid into the pituitary hormone trust account. Payment will be made on a sliding scale to those persons who are suffering what the government calls recognised psychiatric injury.Another committee recommendation was that the government consider extending psychiatric injury to those persons who suffer psychological stress or significant life disturbance. The committee recognised that the latter two categories were qualitatively different from those persons who suffered from psychiatric injury. I have to acknowledge here that the government, in its response, indeed accepted our recommendation to consider extending the claimants to persons who are suffering from psychological stress or signifi cant life disturbance but in its wisdom, having considered that recommendation, has rejected it.The final worthwhile aspect of (d) is that an independent board will receive applications for recompense and make the appropriate determination to accept or reject. That will no longer be a process conducted by delegated authority from the minister's office.The second most important recommendation from my perspective is recommendation 18, that Professor Allars conduct a further review of the additional scientific information provided to the committee. A lot of that information was, as one would assume, quite technical, some of it narrowly focused, a lot of it open to conflicting interpretations and a lot of it buried in the mists of time. I cannot comment for other senators, but I had difficulty in coming to terms with some of that technical information. In those circumstances, we recommended that Professor Allars, having had some considerable expertise in this area, be requested to further review that material.I am informed by an officer of the minister's department that they have accepted that recommendation and that the additional scientific information that was provided to the committee in camera has been forwarded to Dr Allars, who is on some sort of temporary relocation in the United Kingdom, and she is in the process of reviewing that additional information. I look forward to receiving her report in due course to test whether the allegations that were raised in the committee process as to the damage that was done and the cause thereof have any substance.In summary, it was quite a difficult inquiry. All senators who participated did so in a most constructive manner and, as a consequence, a unanimous set of recommendations went to the government last September or October. The government has, in its wisdom, accepted nearly all of those recommendations and rejected two or three that go to policy matters regarding legal aid funding. While we do not agree with the government's decision, we understand its reasoning. But I should stress that the government has accepted the key recommendations. I am particularly pleased to note that an additional $3 million has been allocated to the relevant trust account for those persons who suffer psychiatric damage to draw upon in due course. I note, finally, that the government has accepted and is in the process of implementing changes to administrative guidelines within the relevant department and communications guidelines for those persons who suffer from CJD and their families.16:28:001620Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I support Senator Bishop's remarks about the difficulty experienced in coming to terms with this particularly difficult subject. The Senate Community Affairs References Committee raised in its report on the CJD settlement offer a number of issues in relation to the Australian human pituitary hormone program, the response to the cessation of this program, the litigation and the settlement offer made by the Commonwealth.The government agrees wholeheartedly with the committee's general view that this is a tragic episode for all involved and that support must be given to those affected. The government acknowledges that there were some deficiencies in the operation and oversight of this hormone program and a small number of recipients have suffered distress and anxiety, which is deeply regretted. As a former Chairman of the Community Affairs References Committee, I recall this was something that we grappled with, and former Senator John Coulter had a particular interest in establishing an inquiry.It should be noted that the establishment of this inquiry represented rather a sea change by the opposition. In 1995, when in government, those opposite did not agree to a proposal by the Australian Democrats that there should be a Senate committee inquiry into CJD issues. The principal grounds for this refusal, which we as the then opposition agreed with, were that there had recently been a comprehensive public inquiry by Professor Margaret Allars into the complex matters surrounding the human growth hormone program and that it was very questionable that a Senate committee would throw any new light on these issues.It was also likely that there were some people who would want to selectively revisit past events and use the opportunity afforded by the privilege of the parliament to make unnecessary and unsubstantiated statements about individuals and organisations, most notably CSL in the period when it was a Commonwealth government entity and when the issues relating to unconventional slow viral infections transmitted by hormones from collected pituitary glands were not understood as they are now.I recall that it was Professor Gajdusek who won the Nobel Prize for his work on slow viral transmission of disease that led to the recognition of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. It is worth recalling what the Minister representing the Minister for Health said in this chamber in 1995, when rejecting a parliamentary inquiry:. . . a retrospective judgement is very easy to make but it does not necessarily give us more truth or more accuracy. Particularly when you have diseases with such long lead times as CJD or HIV, I think historical backing up is particularly fraught.We agreed with the government of the day on that when we were in opposition. I agreed with Senator Crowley on that occasion, and I and the government still do.However, the perspective of those opposite has obviously changed since they lost the election two years ago. That said, it is very important to stress—as indeed both the then government and the opposition did in 1995—that CSL, a listed company, meets, as all other pharmaceutical companies are required to do, very high manufacturing standards. CSL holds a licence to manufacture therapeutic goods issued under the regulations of the Therapeutic Goods Act.In its preparation of blood plasma products, vaccines and other biological products CSL is subject to rigorous audit by the Therapeutic Goods Authority and been found since the regulations came into effect in 1991 to comply fully with the TGA code of good manufacturing practice. CSL is an Australian success story. It is also essential that we remember that many Australians have derived enormous benefit over many years from the products manufactured by CSL, which have enabled them to enjoy a better quality of life.Turning to the committee's report, the government accepts the great majority of the recommendations made in it. The government has decided to allocate up to a further $3 million to the human pituitary hormones trust account to provide for one-off payments to be made to any hormone recipients who can show that they have a psychiatric injury caused by their being told they are at a greater risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.All hormone recipients who have received human pituitary derived hormone made by CSL on behalf of the Australian human pituitary hormone program and who have suffered a recognised psychiatric injury, regardless of whether they have sued the Commonwealth or whether their treatment was approved or unapproved by the Australian human pituitary hormone program, are eligible to apply for a one-off payment from these funds.The government will also establish an independent board to authorise payments from the trust account for a recognised psychiatric injury and to consider applications from hormone recipients. In this way the government will ensure that the decisions regarding such payments are made by an independent group of experts.The government decided to allocate up to $3 million in line with the committee's recommendation 6(a) that the amount, as a minimum, be equivalent to the cost of potential litigation. In fact, the estimates received by the government for continuing the litigation were below this amount, but we have decided to make the greater amount available.These funds will be available in two separate instalments. The first instalment of $1½ million will be put into the trust account straight away. The independent trust account board will then make a determination on the payments to recipients who make an application. The second instalment of up to a further $1½ million will be made in the 1999-2000 financial year.These funds will be allocated after consideration has been given to the position of the trust account and of any new litigation costs that are borne by the Commonwealth. This particularly refers to any costs the Commonwealth has to incur in having to defend such litigation where a recipient has chosen to litigate rather than seek funds through the trust account mechanism that is being established. I understand that the recent APQ settlement offer remains open to all the recipients who are still litigating and that, if they accept the settlement, they will still be eligible to seek money from the trust account.The government believes that this process will provide those suffering from a recognised psychiatric injury with additional financial assistance. The government also gave serious consideration to the recommendation that the trust account be extended to include—as the committee recommended in recommendation 6(c)—recipients who have suffered psychological stress or significant life disturbance.After serious consideration of this issue, the government has concluded that the counselling support services that are already operating provide the most appropriate means of support to those who may be suffering in this way. Any recipient or member of a recipient's family can receive counselling in accordance with the guidelines in place from a counsellor approved by the expert counselling panel and the government will pay the bills directly.In relation to the further information which the Senate inquiry identified as possibly not having been seen by Professor Allars during her independent Inquiry, I can inform the Senate that Professor Allars is currently examining these documents and the government is awaiting her report.The government notes that, in addition to the comments made in the report in relation to the Commonwealth's activities following the end of the program, the committee concluded that, firstly, legal aid was not unfairly denied to APQ and, secondly, that the settlement offer was fair and adequate.The government earnestly hopes that this further assistance to recipients will help to bring this difficult and tragic situation to something of a conclusion by providing support and acknowledging the suffering being experienced.I commend the government's response to the report on the CJD settlement offer to the Senate.16:35:001622Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Of all the committee hearings I have been a part of in my time in this chamber I would have to say that this was really the most depressing and in many ways very stressful for all members of the committee.I can imagine what it must be like for those recipients in this program and their families who have battled with this for years, some of them—as Senator Bishop said—since the sixties and seventies, and who now live with that cloud still hanging over them. For us this is over; for them it is certainly not over.I wish to acknowledge in particular the work of my colleague the former Senator John Coulter and his efforts over many years to get what he considered to be justice, and also to Senator Brian Harradine another activist in this area who has worked long and hard with the individual families, particularly those families who have stood up and kept asking that the government listen to them.On my first reading of this response I was rather disappointed, particularly with the refusal to extend payments to those who have suffered psychological stress or significant life disturbance. This was a deliberate decision of the committee. We listened to many stories from individuals about the stresses that they feel, the persecution they have come up against, the historic problems both they and their families have come up against and the problems they have had to face even in the workplace. For them now to have to go through the process of actually acknowledging that they really do have a psychiatric injury is in many cases another very daunting exercise. That is the only way that they are going to be able to tap into the extra money.However, I am pleased that the government has acknowledged in dollar terms that there is still some recompense to go. On going back through all of this response I can see there are certainly quite a few positives in it. I must congratulate the committee as a whole. The fact is that this was a unanimous report of all members who sat on the committee. I guess, in a way, this is the minimal response we could have accepted from the government because all parties, all members of that committee, felt very strongly about these recommendations. There was no dissent. I also must congratulate the staff on the committee for whom also this was a very intense experience and one where, as usual, they worked very hard.Just to look at a couple of the positives: of the many recommendations that have been accepted, in particular I welcome the review of the National Pituitary Hormone Advisory Council's decision not to proceed with the epidemiological study. This will enable the council to obtain independent expert advice on the issue. I am also pleased to see the government has accepted recommendations relating to the rights of hormone recipients and their families to services and, as Senator Herron has gone through, a number of those issues were brought up time and time again during the committee process. It is vital that people affected by CJD be aware of their entitlements—and it was evident that all of them certainly were not.I look forward to receiving further information from government on the progress of the review and the statement on human experimentation currently being undertaken by the Australian Health Ethics Committee. I also welcome the development of a protocol setting out the procedures for a recipient to access information about their treatment. I welcome the clarification in this document that a settlement offer does not preclude a plaintiff from making a future claim in relation to physical illness that might be contracted by recipients and which could be related to the long-term side effects of hormone treatment.The report also states that the settlement offer does not preclude a plaintiff making a future claim that they have contracted CJD or other illnesses relating to program treatment as a result of being an immediate family member of a recipient. On balance, it is a minimal response but a good one and I hope that for the recipients and for their families this is another small step on their path to finding justice and getting an acknowledgment from government that they have a major ongoing and very stressful experience to get through. I will be talking to them in the coming weeks and I hope that they do find this response by government positive.16:40:001623Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I would like to reiterate what has been said in the chamber. This was a cooperative effort and it showed how the Senate can work. The Senate's functions include the protection of a person's individual rights and this was an example whereby experimental action was taken to overcome an infertility or small stature problem without, I believe, the prudence which should have accompanied those decisions. I do congratulate Senator Bishop on the way that he chaired the inquiry and all of those members of the committee, including the previous speaker, Senator Lees. I feel, as she does, that because the recommendations were a unanimous decision of the committee they carried a fair bit of weight.The government's response, however, whilst generally acceptable—and I acknowledge it to be generally acceptable—is in some respects questionable. I will give you a clear example. Recommendation 9 the committee made was that the Commonwealth formally acknowledge (a), (b) and (c), where (b) is `the experimental nature of aspects of the treatment under the Program'. The response by the government does not acknowledge the experimental nature, even though the chief medical officer, Tony Adams, told the committee that it was experimental. We had substantial information that led us to suggest that the Commonwealth should acknowledge the experimental nature of aspects of the treatment under the program.It is disappointing because what we want to emerge out of this is not only justice and compassion for those that suffered this disease as the result of the experimental nature of the program, but also for the Commonwealth department and others to learn the message. Too often in this area of reproductive technology, prudence just goes out the window. In this case, the fact is that the infertile women and persons of small stature had been treated as guinea pigs. That should not occur again.There are a number of other matters to which I wish to advert, but I do not have time to do so now, so in a moment I will seek leave to continue my remarks later. Recommendation 3 states:That should legal action proceed, the documentation requested from the Commonwealth through a discovery or further and better discovery process be complied with in a more expeditious manner than has been the case to date. In complying with such discovery processes the Commonwealth should refrain from adopting a restrictive interpretation of s135A of the National Health Act.The government's response says:The Government accepts that discovery in litigation should be undertaken by the Commonwealth expeditiously and without taking an unduly restrictive approach to secrecy provisions.The Government notes that arrangements have been agreed between the solicitors acting for the parties . . . These agreed arrangements have been followed by the Commonwealth.The Government notes the Committee's recommendation regarding the interpretation of s.135A of the National Health Act 1953 but does not agree that the Commonwealth in ensuring that s.135A has been complied with, has adopted a restrictive interpretation of the section.Frankly, that is a disappointing response to our recommendations. Whether or not CJD litigation continues, it is possible that the Commonwealth will continue with its restrictive interpretation to frustrate discovery and/or procedural processes when litigation has been commenced against it. I believe that the government's rejection of the committee's findings in this respect is particularly strange, given the court's interpretation of the provision and similar secrecy provisions. I hope that this is not the attitude that is going to be adopted by the Commonwealth department of health in respect of this or other matters.There were quite a number of people who were very helpful to the committee. Those people included Frank Peters and Karen Weeks. It is a bit invidious naming just two because there are quite a number of others. I feel it would be more appropriate for me to seek leave to continue my remarks now so that we can return to this matter more fully in due course.Leave granted; debate adjourned.1624162416:48:001624Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I present the report of the Employment, Education and Training References Committee entitled A class act: inquiry into the status of the teaching profession , together with submissions received by the committee and the transcript of evidence.Ordered that the report be printed.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.This report is very important indeed. It is called A class act and reports on the status of the teaching profession. As our report says, it really gives a window into teaching in Australia at the end of the twentieth century. I believe the report will serve the needs of lots of people who have an interest in education, teaching and the state of our schools. Indeed, it follows very well our previous reports, particularly on the private funding of public schools.I note with interest that my colleagues have just finished discussing a government response to a Senate report. I would be very pleased to be able to say that, in the area of education, the government had responded to any of our reports. But it is a sad fact that our committee, since we have been writing reports with the change of government, has not had any government response. We have written a report on early childhood education called Childhood matters; we have written a report on adult education called Beyond Cinderella; and we have written a report on the private funding of public schools. To this point, even though some of those reports have been outstanding for 21 months, contrary to the convention of responding within three months, we have heard not a word from the government on any of those reports. That is very disappointing for so many people who put such an effort into coming forward and making submissions, particularly in the area of education. It is a major concern for the community, and this report only confirms that.I would like to take the opportunity to thank those involved with the preparation of the report, in particular the secretariat principally responsible for the report—Brenton Holmes and Jan Connaughton. They were involved in the committee until very recently; they have now moved to other positions in the Senate. I also thank Jan Willis and in particular Mary Lindsay who at very short notice was asked to come in and assist the committee in preparing this report. Mary had not been present at any of the public hearings, and she had to read her way through all the submissions—well over 308 submissions—and the evidence and transcripts from all the public hearings, which were extensive. So I place on record my appreciation for the work that they have done.One of the things that struck the committee very powerfully was the unanimity of views of all the people who put forward submissions. Everybody is of the view that there is a very significant challenge—from a crisis to major problems confronting the status of teachers and teaching in this country.The second thing that I think is important is the unanimity of view between private and public schools. With regard to complaints against public schools, there was no way in which the private schools making submissions to this committee would be caught up with, or in any way sucked into, that old debate. They made it clear that the best thing for the private schools in this country is a strong and well funded and well appreciated public sector—that is, it is best for education if both travel together, and in no way is there any benefit to education to open the old sectarian debate between public and private schooling.Most importantly, it was agreed by so many witnesses before the committee that the status of teaching and the status of education is not helped by governments blaming teachers for anything and everything connected to schools that may go wrong. It is one thing indeed to challenge teachers about the status of literacy of our school children, even though there has been considerable debate—and I will not canvass it here, except to say that I do not think it was accurately represented by the federal minister, Dr Kemp—but it is another thing altogether to be saying that it is the schools that are responsible for unemployment. Teachers, indeed, began to feel that they were wearing responsibility for just about everything that could go wrong in our society, and that certainly does not make them feel confident or best able to provide optimal education for our children.Neither is education in our country assisted by unseemly brawling between Commonwealth and state ministers about just whose responsibility it is for funding of our schools, and so on. We have seen the same kind of debate happening between the Commonwealth and states on the question of health. We have also seen it earlier on between the Commonwealth and the state ministers regarding funding for education in our schools. Governments brawling over funding for education, education ministers brawling between themselves about who is responsible for the cutbacks in funding for education, governments blaming teachers and teaching all send a very strong message to teachers and our schools that this is not an area that is highly prized; this is not an area that is highly regarded by government.In days past, I thought it was the responsibility of governments in large part certainly to be seen as advocates for their area of responsibility. Of recent times, we seem to have had quite a change. The first thing that ministers do is offload some responsibility in their own areas of responsibility—in this case schools. That does nothing to persuade those teachers or the community that education is an invaluable and excellent contribution.Our report also concludes that there is no way in which you can have a sophisticated, civilised and decent society without you have quality education; and there is no way you can have quality education without you have quality teaching. That is, the status of teachers and teaching is critical to good educational outcomes and the optimal way in which our society views itself and tackles challenges confronting it. If we want the best for our children, if we want the best for our families, then we certainly need to back up a good education system with good teaching.We have heard these complaints before and it is interesting to find them once again being raised before this committee—that is, the downgrading or the challenging of teachers. There are the increasing demands being put on them. For example, there is the crowded curriculum. More and more is being asked of teachers, and very few things drop off that curriculum.We also have heard at length about the social work dimension of teaching. Many families now regard their children's teachers as the first port of call when facing difficulties within their own lives or within their own community. We also have heard of teachers, particularly principals—as highlighted very well in our previous report—who spend some of their professional teaching time in fundraising to assist their school to get the necessary funding to go on providing the salaries and support for teaching in that school.Also, of course, we have heard many a time of the challenge for our schools and our teachers with the introduction of new technology, particularly computers, in our schools. They are just some of the areas that have been highlighted so well in submissions before this inquiry.Our principal recommendation is that it is time to put beyond doubt the fact that teaching is a profession. It is not worth our arguing any more whether or not it is a profession; it is accepted, and it must be accepted, that it is a profession. Our first and principal recommendation therefore requires that, in recognition of that, there be the establishment of a national professional teaching standards and registration body to have the responsibility, authority and resources to develop and maintain standards of professional practice.Listed in our recommendation are a number of critical areas of responsibility: standards of professional practice, certification for entry into the profession, recognition of advanced standards, accreditation of programs for initial teacher training, priority for national professional development programs, complaints about professional incompetence, register of teachers across the nation, and promoting the value of teaching in the general community. Many of the other recommendations highlight and go to the points that I have raised in terms of the challenges to teaching.We have a dissenting report, so this is not a unanimous report. It is disappointing to me in a way that we do have a difference of opinion here. But, if you read the dissenting report, you will find there is very little difference indeed. Indeed, at one hearing, when we were considering the recommendations, there was an understanding that there would be a unanimous recommendation. But the government members have introduced a dissenting report, and they have changed just a word here or there.We have recommended that there be a national professional teaching standards and registration body; in particular, we say it should be built on what each state says. The dissenting report says that teaching belongs in the states, and so that is where the principal focus should come from. But anybody reading this report should look at the dissenting report and see that the recommendations are almost word for word; the difference lies just in who they ask to take responsibility for that.I commend this excellent report to the Senate, and I urge the government to take seriously the convention of responding to Senate reports. We have had no response to any of our reports. Teaching, education in this country deserves that the government do the decent thing and let us know what they think of the recommendations in this report and all the previous reports from our committee.16:59:001626Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I speak to the motion and commend the report of the Senate Employment, Education and Training Committee to the Senate. The central proposition of the committee's inquiry is that high quality teaching stands central to the provision of high quality education systems; and that critical to the success of our educational experience is, of course, high quality teaching experience.This report demonstrates that across this country there is a profound sense of malaise amongst the nation's 250,000 teachers. This malaise is not confined to the public sector; it is also being experienced very widely within the private sector. This is a result of the very complex changes that are occurring within society which are reflected in our schooling systems. It is a product of the changes that are occurring within curriculum development and curriculum delivery in terms of the technology that is available for teaching, and it is a reflection of the broader social changes which are occurring within society at large.These changes are producing radically new expectations of what should be provided in our educational institutions. They are often presented as an overlay against the traditional view of what educational experiences should involve. In a sense there is a demand by society and by a range of authorities that teachers and schools do more and do it differently. At the same time there is a demand that they do it the same and that they produce the outcomes that people have expected over time. These are often contradictory demands which are supposed to be met by our schools and by our teachers at a time when there are fewer resources available and being provided by governments to meet those demands.These are demands that require new levels of skill, of time and of increasing demands on the energy of Australia's teachers who are there to cater for some three million students in this country. This is occurring at a time when I think it is widely acknowledged that governments are retreating from their responsibilities to provide high quality education. You see it in terms of the cutbacks that are occurring at the state level. I see it in my state where some 8,500 teachers have been forced out of the system, where something like 360 schools have closed. The senator from the Northern Territory, Senator Tambling, is in the chamber. I point out that twice the number of schools in the Northern Territory have been closed in the state of Victoria.We are seeing massive reductions in expenditure being provided on a per capita basis. At the Commonwealth level we are seeing the introduction of enrolment benchmark adjustment mechanisms to transfer resources from the private sector to the public sector. You see the removal of funding through the various FAG agreements—the Commonwealth-state agreements—withdrawing some $400 million from the education system of this country. We have seen the abolition of national professional development programs. You see it in the scrapping of disadvantaged schools programs and various other equity measures by this government.You see it in attempts being made by conservative politicians, in particular, to use the rhetoric of reform as the basis for presenting a perception of crisis within our educational systems. It is almost as if, in order to justify these massive attacks upon our education systems, conservative politicians in this country are attempting to create the atmosphere of crisis, the atmosphere of failure to legitimise downsizing and cost cutting. It is easier to get away with these attacks upon our education systems if you are able to first present an atmosphere of crisis, rather than have genuine debate about the nature of education in this country.I noticed, when the senior minister in education was building his empire to remove Senator Vanstone from her place as senior education minister, that some eight weeks after he became the minister for schools he announced in a pre-emptive way that our education systems were failing; that it was a significant proportion of students who were failing to master the basics in literacy. He went on to say that he was going to produce a survey which would demonstrate that there were significant problems in this regard. Is it not surprising, therefore, that when the survey was finally concluded that was exactly what he believed he found. Those remarks were supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who said that the reason we were having difficulties in our schooling system was that of trendy teaching methods. Reminiscent of his views of the good old days, if only we went back into the past, if only we were able to regurgitate the images of the fifties, the problems faced by our education systems could somehow or other be improved.We saw it in regard to the statements made by Minister Vanstone that public education was the cause of our employment problems. We have seen it in a range of measures taken whereby there has been an attempt made to manipulate data, manipulate surveys, manipulate various information in such a way as to create the impression of crisis within our education system. I note that Dr Kemp put out a press release in which he said:The system is failing tens of thousands of children. It is feeding the unemployment queue and denying children basic skills to participate fully in society. This situation has been allowed to drift on for far too long.All of this created the impression that our education system was in crisis. It helped create the environment whereby this government could legitimise its withdrawal of its responsibilities for the public education system in this country. It helped legitimise this government's attacks upon the life experiences of young people in this country as it took from them the real opportunities that can come from a fully integrated quality education program which can only be provided when there is adequate support from governments.This committee has gone through and highlighted the needs for substantive change in our education system. It has emphasised that there is high quality teaching going on in this country. We do have a high quality education system, and it is not good enough to scapegoat teachers for problems in our society at large. We should acknowledge the successes, commend the successes and, at the same time, acknowledge that there are always ways in which things can be improved.The key recommendation that this committee comes forward with is the notion of national registration of teaching. The national registration of teaching to me is that important step forward in protecting and improving the integrity of teaching in this country. It provides a vehicle by which we can enhance the standards of teaching. It can provide real growth in professional development. We now have extraordinarily high levels of ageing within our educational systems—the average age of teachers is about 46 years—and many of our teachers have not had access to professional development for many years.The national registration board can enhance that level of professional development and ensure adequate standards are met by providing a vehicle through which the integrity of our teaching services can be ensured. Given the high levels of mobility that we are facing within this country as a result of population changes it is all the more important for there to be a national approach to these issues, an approach which covers all sections of teaching, from early childhood to government and non-government schools to vocational education and training to TAFE, to ensure that adult and community education is properly accorded its place within the system and that the community can enjoy the benefits of a high quality national approach to the provision of educational services in this country.I commend this report to the Senate. It is a valuable contribution to the education debate. I note with some disappointment that the Liberal senators on this committee have chosen to take the mealy-mouthed approach that they have in the minority report and move away from the commitments given in regard to the national registration of teachers.17:09:001628Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I would like to concur with my colleagues who have already spoken on this report by the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee entitled A class act—inquiry into the status of the teaching profession . It is the outcome of a very significant inquiry by the committee. As a teacher, I took great interest in this inquiry and in the hearings and I was able to closely relate to much of the evidence that was presented.The first and probably the easiest recommendation to implement and the one which had the most widespread report—from teachers, unions, academics and principals right across the board—was the establishment of a national registration body which could develop and maintain standards of professional practice. There was overwhelming support for taking this step and a complete absence of any evidence as to why this should not be done. For this reason it is very disappointing that the government members have not seen fit to support that recommendation. They are saying that they support it after a fashion but that it should be up to the states.It is interesting that we hear that the states have to decide on this particular issue when in other areas, also referred to in the inquiry, we have seen the most interventionist minister for schools possibly in history. It appears that the federal government can introduce national benchmarking and nationwide testing regimes and threaten to remove literacy funding from the states if they do not comply, but the government members do not think we can take that simple step to guarantee the quality of teachers in this country. I hope that the government members will be able to change their minds on this because it is one way in which this committee's work can make a real difference to the status of teachers.The second recommendation is perhaps the most important of the committee's recommendations and it is that:. . . governments fund public schools at a level sufficient to deliver the appropriate standard of education within the Eight Key Learning Areas, and commensurate with the National Goals of Schooling.It says that we need a joint Commonwealth-state education costs committee to examine the real costs of delivering education. Hopefully, this will go some way towards raising the level of resources to schools and to overcome the very debilitating squabbles and buck-passing that we currently see in this area.As we all know, spending on education has been in decline in real terms for some decades now. As the committee's last report, Not a level playground, showed, more and more parents, teachers and outside organisations are having to provide money for even the most basic educational needs. This is also an important issue for teachers, who are expected not just to teach but to be heavily involved in fundraising for the operation of their schools.I would like to refer to an excerpt from the report from the Australian Education Union:It is our view—and it would be recognised by many within the industry as well—that, at the moment, there is not a sufficient proportion of GDP expended on education. It is our view that both the public and private sectors need to be properly resourced so that the kinds of expectations put on schools and on teachers can be fulfilled in a proper way.We say in our submission that the status of teachers is inextricably linked to the restoration of a properly resourced, high quality system of public education.They go on to note that in Victoria the budget surplus is around $800 million and yet Victoria spends less per head of population than any other state.There was a lot of discussion during the inquiry about the enrolment benchmark adjustment and the abandonment of the new schools policy. Witnesses from both the public and the private sectors talked of the divisiveness and the unfair nature of the EBA. For instance, Professor Barry McGraw from the Australian Council of Educational Research commented on the EBA. He said:My concern is that this is a change of policy that on the face of it looks minor—we shift a bit of money when each student moves. But in aggregate it could be substantial to an extent that people just don't anticipate.. . . From the point of view of individual choice, lowered barriers to entry and easier movement to private provision has few attractions. From the point of view of quality of Government schooling, there is a serious risk of residualisation.Parents with a serious commitment to education will be under increased pressure to choose private provision. Those remaining in the public sector are likely to be those with fewer resources and those without the networks and capacities to work for the improvement of the public sector.The Tasmanian Primary Principals' Association said:The public v private debate is highly relevant to the matter of teacher status, and particularly the status of that large majority of teachers in the public school system. The debate places their schools and therefore their quality under fire and is a major vehicle for attacks on their professionalism, integrity and performance. It is also a major source of their concerns about the security of their careers. Finally, it threatens, in their eyes, the interests of children.Many submissions to the inquiry expressed regret at what was called the politicisation of education and the way that teachers were persistently attacked by politicians. Of course, teachers have very few avenues for comeback and so this inquiry was an important opportunity for them to express their anger and their hurt at those attacks. They felt that politicians had a responsibility to show leadership and to defend and support the work that they do, and that politicians were responsible in large measure for the poor standing of teachers in the community. The report says:. . . the nature of political involvement in education, at least with regard to its impact at the school level, can be narrowly focussed, ill informed, short term and sometimes very damaging in its consequences.The Mount Lawley High School teachers said:Our experience has been that the politicisation is present at state level, it is present at federal level and it is present on both sides of politics and that the old educational priorities that were to do with a liberal humanist model, where there was a holistic education of the individual and a whole lot of things that were very commonly accepted, are not even spoken about now.The Tasmanian Principals Association said:Perhaps the greatest effect on teacher morale arises from the continuing politicisation of education. The present drive for education to serve the needs of the economy strikes at the very heart of the professional teacher's ideals and the view of education and children's interests which stems from those ideals.As might be expected, literacy was also a very big issue in this inquiry and it came up time and time again in that context of politicisation. The Senate will recall Dr Kemp saying our literacy and numeracy levels in Australia were a `national disgrace' and he blamed it on teachers' failure to devote sufficient time to teaching basics and on their lack of skills and training. I might add that this is the same minister who removed funding from the professional development program for teachers in the last budget. Our Prime Minister blamed the results on `faddish' teaching methods.Those of us who visit schools regularly and talk to teachers know that this is really a load of nonsense. There is little doubt that teachers need to continually upgrade their skills, particularly in the fields of literacy at the primary level. Such professional development should be an ongoing part of our education system, and I think we all understand that. It is in many schools but others just do not have the resources to make that possible.The report also calls for the reinstatement of the disadvantaged schools program. That, of course, would go some way to address this need. The report identifies weaknesses in teacher training and induction and it makes recommendations about the way forward, including reinstatement of the successful national schools network. The report calls for a reversal of the trend to put teachers on short-term contracts. In Victoria schools are expected to get 40 per cent of their staff on contract, and the message through this to teachers is very clear: we do not value you and your experience; you are expendable. Whilst this may save money—I understand it is not unknown for teachers to be employed on a term-by-term basis and therefore not get their annual leave—it is also very damaging for teacher morale and is simply exploitative. If we want teachers to be professional, we must be very careful in the way that we treat them and, in my view, putting them on contracts is not one way to do that.I would like to conclude by thanking the secretariat for producing this fine document. I commend it to the Senate. It is a very good read. It is the result of a great deal of effort on the part of the committee, the secretariat and, of course, all of those people who made submissions and took the trouble to come along and talk to the inquiry.Debate (on motion by Senator Troeth) adjourned.Notices163016301630Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 be referred to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 1998. Documents163116311631Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I table a statement by the Minister for the Environment relating to the review of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992. I seek leave to incorporate the statement into Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, I am required to commission an independent review of the operations of the Act and the extent to which its objectives have been met within S years of the commencement of the Act and at 5 yearly intervals thereafter (s 168).In late 1997, I appointed Dr Keith Boardman AO, former Chief Executive of CSIRO to undertake an independent review of the operations of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (the Act). Dr Boardman finalised his review and produced a report on his findings in late December 1997.Under the requirements of the Act, I am required to table a copy of this report in each House of Parliament within 1 S sitting days of its receipt. The final date for tabling to meet these requirements would be 1 April 1998.I would like to table Dr Boardman's report, along with a preliminary response from the Government as I consider this would be a more useful process and would provide the Parliament with a context for considering Dr Boardman' s conclusions and recommendations. Unfortunately, there has been insufficient time to prepare this preliminary response within the 15 sitting days allowed under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992.I would therefore like to inform Parliament that it is my intention to table the report of the independent review of the operations of the Act along with a preliminary response to the issues raised during the sitting week commencing 6 April 1998.17:20:001631Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—by leave—I believe there is no reason to delay the release of this report. We do not need to have the government's response, however preliminary it may be. This report should be tabled tomorrow, as is required under the Endangered Species Protection Act. It is a very important report, which assesses the degree to which the objectives of that act have been met, and we see no reason why the government should be able to keep it under wraps for another week or so when it can be put on the table right now.Our fear is that the government simply wants to find ways in which to diminish the findings of this report which, we must assume, are not complimentary to the government's attempts to protect endangered species thus far. The government has already had it for two weeks and, again, I argue that there is no reason why this should not be tabled. The minister is in breach of the statute by not tabling the report. I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table, by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), by not later than 7.20 pm on 1 April 1998, the report of the review of the operation of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 , pursuant to section 168 of that Act.Committees16311631163117:23:001631Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following reports: No. 358 entitled Review of Auditor-General's Reports 1996-97, Third Quarter ; and report No. 359 entitled Review of Auditor-General's Reports 1996-97, Fourth Quarter . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports.Leave granted.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the reports.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard and to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Madam President, the main purpose of these reports is to inform Parliament that hearings have been held by the Committee to examine various reports of the Auditor-General. I propose to highlight those aspects of the audit reports examined about which the Committee has the most concern.I turn first to Report 358, Review of the Auditor-General's Reports 1996-97, Third Quarter . A public hearing was held on 7 May 1997 to take evidence on four reports of the Auditor-General selected by the Committee for closer scrutiny. Audit Reports No. 22 and No. 25 concerned client service in the Tax Office and the Department of Social Security. The Committee canvassed a number of issues at its public hearing on these reports including:. the development of the Taxpayers' Charter;the effectiveness of new complaints procedures in the Tax Office;. the effect of the Tax Pack on self lodgement by taxpayers;. customer service policies in the Commonwealth Service Delivery Agency;agencies' awareness of the need to develop services for indigenous Australians; and. agencies' efforts to improve staff training and standards of service to the public.The Committee acknowledges the positive and constructive attitude displayed in this audit by the Tax Office, the Department of Social Security and the Audit Office. In particular, the Committee welcomes the development of the Taxpayers' Charter. The Charter was first advocated by the JCPAA in 1993 in Report 326 on the Committee's review of the Tax Office.The Committee recommends that a detailed report be provided in the half-yearly portfolio statements on the progress of the development of client/customer oriented services in the Tax Office and the Department of Social Security.Audit report No. 23, on the recovery of the proceeds of crime, was selected for audit by the Audit Office because recoveries appeared low, relative to the estimate of the total proceeds of crime.Recoveries from the proceeds of crime are indeed significantly less than was expected when the Commonwealth proceeds of crime legislation was enacted. However, the Committee considers it risky to speculate about the proportion of the total proceeds of crime which fall within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction, when the figures for the total proceeds of crime are themselves only estimates.An issue that drew the attention of the Committee was that the National Crime Authority and the Australian Federal Police were unable to provide the Committee with accurate details on the amounts recovered by their agencies.The Committee recommends that agencies associated with the recovery of the proceeds of crime jointly develop procedures to ensure that all proceeds recovered are clearly identified and attributed to the appropriate agency.Audit Report No. 27, Army Presence in the North , assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of Army's management of the move of 1st Brigade to Darwin as part of the APIN Project. The findings of the audit report, concerning Army's failure to adequately estimate operating costs and to clearly track expenditure throughout the project, convince the Committee that much remains to be done by Defence to reform its financial management systems.Misjudgments over training arrangements in the north require the unforeseen return, on an annual basis, of a squadron of Leopard tanks from Darwin to Puckapunyal. The Committee considers that this, in addition to the effect of the climate extremes on tank crews and equipment, poses a risk to operational readiness.The Committee recommends that Defence provide details on the progress of the development of appropriate training facilities in the Northern Territory and the installation of air-conditioning in the Leopard tanks.Madam President, I now turn to the Committee's Report No. 359.Two reports of the Auditor-General were the focus of the fourth quarterly public hearing for 1996-97 held on 25 July 1997. These were Audit Report No 34, Australian Defence Force Health Services and Audit Report No 36, Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment Programs . Report 359 focuses on the main issues raised during the public hearings.Following its examination of Audit Report No. 34, Australian Defence Force Health Services , the Committee makes five recommendations.The Committee recommends that Defence:. take prompt action to implement the accounting and financial management reforms proposed in the report of the Defence Efficiency Review;. undertake an assessment of the merits and implications of a member contribution for health services additional to those required for the maintenance of individual readiness or outside Defence's duty of care to its employees;. undertake a detailed costing of all Defence hospitals and medical centres, and rationalise the provision of beds where their cost exceeds the cost of beds in equivalent civilian facilities, and where their retention cannot be justified on preparedness and operational grounds;. take steps towards sourcing its requirement for dentists from outside the full-time Defence Force; and. urgently develop and implement short term strategies aimed at reducing the current level of injuries to Forces personnel.The second audit report looked at by the Committee in Report 359 was Audit Report No. 34, Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment Programs .Madam President, it is clear from this audit report on land and conservation programs that work needs to be done to ensure the efficient and effective expenditure of Natural Heritage Trust funds.The Committee raised a number of issues in Report 359 which have implications for the Natural Heritage Trust including:. setting realistic and concise operational objectives for programs;. establishing appropriate and uniform performance indicators for programs;. strengthening the needs assessment process to ensure that Natural Heritage Trust funds are well targeted; and. ensuring that reporting requirements for community grants meet accountability requirements without alienating those whose efforts are needed to achieve program objectives.The Committee recommends that the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and Environment Australia liaise with the States to ensure that appropriate and uniform performance indicators for the Natural Heritage Trust programs are developed and effectively applied.May I conclude, Madam President, by thanking on behalf of the Committee those people who contributed their time and expertise to the JCPA's review hearings, upon which these two reports are based. The JCPA has been appreciative of the cooperation it has received from the agencies involved.I am also indebted to my colleagues on the Committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well. I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiries, Dr Margot Kerley, the JCPAA secretary, Ms Jennifer Hughson and Ms Tiana Gray.Madam President, I commend the Reports to the Senate.Debate adjournedBills1633r329Billsr3831633Bills received from the House of Representatives.17:24:001633Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.163317:24:001633Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998This bill amends provisions in the Health Insurance Act 1973, Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, the National Health Act 1953 and the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Act 1995.The bill amends the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, to remove doubts about whether hedging contracts made incidental to the borrowings or investments of the Health Insurance Commission require ministerial approval. When section 36AA was inserted into the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, it was not intended that such contracts would require ministerial approval.The bill also amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 (the act). The most significant changes will:. allow the claiming and payment of Medicare benefits by means of electronic transmission. This will substantially improve access to Medicare services especially for many people in rural and remote areas. Doctors will be able to electronically lodge claims for all Medicare services instead of only bulk billed claims;. eliminate unnecessary consideration by a Specialist Recognition Advisory Committee of questions relating to the continued recognition of a specialist or consultant physician, where recognition was intended to be short term for the purposes of a locum tenans or the specialist or consultant physician applies to have that status ended. This amendment is consistent with the government's policy to reduce the extent to which regulatory provisions intrude on the conduct of business and the professions;. allow optometrists to charge in excess of the Schedule fee in circumstances to be specified in the Optometrical Undertaking. A revised undertaking will make exceptions in respect of domiciliary visits (as is currently the case) and those occasions where an optometrist attends a patient on the first occasion and the client had attended another optometrist in the previous 2 years;. extend the application of subsection 10 (1) to a professional service rendered during a `domestic journey'. A domestic journey will include all forms of domestic travel whether prior to or at the end of an international flight. The provision would enable a person who leaves Australia for an international destination but who, before arrival, is required to return to Australia due to ill health to claim Medicare benefits for any professional services;. inform the direction and management by the Commonwealth, states and territories of the immunisation programs by releasing de-identified data for research purposes from the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register. The Privacy Commission has confirmed that the release of information from the Register is not in conflict with privacy principles;. insert a new clause 128C providing a penalty for charging public patients for the provision of public hospital services in prescribed circumstance. It will be an offence for a medical practitioner where a patient is known to be a public patient to raise a charge or receive any payment for a public hospital service in the circumstances as set out in regulations made under this section and provides a penalty of 50 penalty units; and. insert a new subsection 130(4A) which corrects anomalies in the existing secrecy provision (section 130), which make the necessary transmission of confidential information in specific circumstances. It will allow the return of information relating to a Medicare claim to the claimant or practitioner who provided information associated with the claim, without the permission of other persons whose information is associated with the claim.This bill also makes some minor but important amendments to the National Health Act 1953 governing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).Firstly, it introduces a system which will enable a private hospital or residential care facility to be reimbursed for the administration of some pharma ceutical benefits to its patients or residents from the institution's own stocks, in order to obviate the need for a prescription for the pharmaceutical benefits. The system will apply to pharmaceutical benefits determined by the minister to be appropriate for these arrangements and will come into operation on 1 May 1998.Secondly, it provides for the appointment of an additional member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to represent the interests of consumers.Thirdly, it amends the secrecy provisions, to complement similar amendments being made to the Health Insurance Act 1973, to correct an anomaly which inhibits the necessary transmission of confidential information in certain circumstances.The bill also makes a number of minor technical amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 and to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Act 1995.TAXATION LAWS (TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1997Self assessment measuresThe bill makes a number of minor changes to the self-assessment system of taxation.Assessment of section 102AAM interestThe bill amends section 102AAM of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the 1936 act) which imposes an interest charge on any distribution received by a beneficiary of a non-resident trust estate where the income of the trust has not been taxed at a comparable rate in a foreign country. The amendment will enable interest payable on distributions received by an instalment taxpayer to be self-assessed in the same manner as income of an instalment taxpayer.ElectionsThe bill amends a number of election provisions in the 1936 act to remove the requirement for elections to be in writing and given to the Commissioner. This will make these provisions consistent with self-assessment.Some elections involving two or more persons are now referred to as agreements. A technical correction will be made to the anti-avoidance provisions in Part IVA to exclude any such agreements from the scope of tax avoidance schemes.RulingsThe bill amends the 1936 act to extend the time for amending an assessment to give effect to a private ruling. This change to the amendment rules will apply to those cases where a taxpayer requests a ruling within the four year time limit but the Commissioner does not provide the ruling until the period for amending the assessment has expired. This change will apply to any ruling request made after 30 June 1992, when the private binding rulings system commenced.The bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to clarify the definition of year of income for private ruling purposes.The amendments will apply from the date of Royal Assent.Company current year loss rules—film lossesThe bill amends a technical defect in the company current year loss rules in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (the 1997 act) which relates to the calculation of the film component of a company's tax loss for an income year. A provision will be inserted to provide that for companies the film component of a tax loss has to be calculated separately for each period in an income year.The amendment will apply for the 1997-98 and later income years.Amendments to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 and related amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936The bill makes minor amendments to the existing provisions in the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 relating to the retention of statutory evidentiary documents.Corrections will also be made to provisions in the 1936 act that set out the rules for calculating the amount of the deduction for car parking expenses incurred by self-employed persons. These amendments will apply to expenses incurred on and from 12 December 1995.SuperannuationThe bill amends the 1936 act to ensure that an invalidity benefit rolled over to purchase an annuity or superannuation pension retains its tax-free status.The Taxation Administration Act 1953 is also amended to ensure that decisions made by the Commissioner of Taxation are reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where regulations provide that a person can object.Bankrupt estates—treatment of registered trustee in bankruptcyThe bill amends the trust provisions of the 1936 act to ensure that the taxation of bankrupt estates administered by a registered trustee will be given the same tax treatment as estates administered by the Official Receiver.The amendment applies to assessments for the 1996-97 year of income and later years of income.Public trading trusts—eligible investment business; meaning of securityThis bill amends the definition of `eligible investment business' in the provisions dealing with the taxation of income of public trading trusts the 1936 act to ensure that the definition specifically includes secured loans.The amendment will apply from 16 December 1985, the effective date of those provisions.Demutualisation of insurance companiesThe bill amends the wording of the provisions in the 1936 act which cancel the franking account balance of life and general insurance companies when they demutualise. The change will clarify the meaning of the provision and it is necessary that it applies to mutual insurance companies and mutual affiliate insurance companies that existed at 7.30 pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 9 May 1995.Spouse rebateThe bill amends the spouse rebate provision in the 1936 act so that benefits paid to a non-dependent spouse are taken into account in calculating his or her entitlement to the rebate.The amendment applies for the first whole year of income that begins after the date of commencement of the amending act and later years of income.Foreign source income measuresThe bill makes two minor amendments to the foreign source income measures in the 1936 act. The first amendment will correct a drafting error in the definition of "associate". The second amendment will correct a deficiency in the existing law which does not allow a foreign tax credit for Australian tax paid by a foreign investment fund where the calculation method is used to calculate the income accrued from the interest in the fund.The first amendment applies from the date of Royal Assent. The second amendment is to ensure that taxpayers are not subject to double taxation and will apply from 1 January 1993, the date the foreign investment fund measures commenced.Franking rebates for life assurance companies, superannuation funds, registered organisations and pooled superannuation trusts.The bill amends the provisions in the 1936 act which relate to the calculation of franking rebates for life assurance companies, superannuation funds, registered organisations and pooled superannuation trusts so that, where these entities are in receipt of trust or partnership income, their franking rebate entitlements are the same as they would be if the income was received directly.The amendment applies in relation to dividends paid on or after 1 July 1988.Capital gains tax small business roll-over reliefThe bill amends the capital gains tax provisions in the 1936 act to provide that where a beneficiary of a discretionary trust has an interest in a public entity and the trust deed provides that the entity is a potential beneficiary of the trust, then the entity will not be deemed to control the trust for the purposes of the $5 million threshold test. This will ensure that the assets of the public entity will not be taken into account in determining whether the trust satisfies the $5 million threshold test.The amendment will apply to disposals of assets from 1 July 1997.Reportable payments systemThe bill amends the 1936 act to remove any doubt that the reportable payments system extends to payments made by a person who factors a debt which, if not factored, would have been a reportable payment.Provisional taxThe bill amends the provisional tax rules in the 1936 act so that a refund of provisional tax credit that is due to a taxpayer from a credit assessment can be applied only against provisional tax due and payable. Currently, where a credit amendment is made to an assessment, the credit is applied against provisional tax notified even though it is not yet due and payable. This is inconsistent with the treatment for normal assessments. The amendment will correct the anomaly.The amendment commences on 1 July 1998.Minor technical correctionsThis bill also makes a number of minor technical corrections to the 1936 act, the 1997 act and other tax related legislation.Revenue and compliance cost impactThe above measures will have either no effect or only a negligible effect on revenue. The effect on compliance costs will be minimal.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Conroy) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills1636r4571636Message received from the House of Representatives forwarding the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 for concurrence.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills1636r446Billsr447Billsr4481636Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Troeth) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.163617:26:001636Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998The purpose of this bill, and the accompanying bills, is to consolidate 22 levy imposition acts into two acts for ease of administration and to correct technical faults in the National Residue Survey legislation. These amendments will not involve any new impositions on industry.The National Residue Survey implements residue monitoring programs for agricultural products under the National Residue Survey Administration Act 1992, which also provides for recovery of the costs of National Residue Survey programs from participating industries.These programs form the basis for documentation enabling the Australian Government to certify that food is not contaminated by chemical residues.This documentation is a requirement for access to the European Union, United States and Japanese markets, and is also a requirement for access to Australian domestic markets for all meat products under the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand health standards. It is therefore very important that the National Residue Survey programs operate smoothly and that their funding base is secure.The Government has been advised that the legislation supporting the National Residue Survey programs has technical faults that have the effect that liability to pay a National Residue Survey levy is dependent upon liability to pay another primary industry levy.This was not the original intention of this legislation. It was intended that, in order to reduce collection costs, National Residue Survey levies would be collected at the same point in the process as other primary industry levies, but not that one would be dependent upon the other.The current situation means that some industries wishing to participate in National Residue Survey monitoring programs will not be able to do so; that is, those industries not already paying another primary industry levy.The legislation is also being amended to ensure that the National Residue Survey levy on onions is valid. Because National Residue Survey levies are now seen to be dependent on the payment of other primary industry levies, there is a problem where that other levy rate is set at zero.This is the case for onions. There is some question as to whether a zero rate can trigger the liability for payment of a National Residue Survey levy. To clarify this, the act is being amended to ensure that levy payments made on onions in the past have been validly collected.The amendments are designed to ensure that the National Residue Survey levies can now operate on a stand alone basis. There will be no change at all to the amounts being paid or the basis for calculating levies for any commodity.However, in the case of horticultural commodities, a maximum levy rate of 2 per cent of the Gross Value of Production is being inserted in the primary legislation to accommodate the possible inclusion of new horticultural commodities at a later date. This provision will have no effect on the operative rate of levy for any commodity. Levies will still be set at the current rate for each commodity group.There are negotiations underway at the moment with a number of horticultural commodity groups that could lead to their inclusion in the National Residue Survey monitoring programs. This approach will speed the process of bringing these new commodities onto the program when the need arises.The bill also repeals the 22 National Residue Survey levy imposition acts, the contents of which are consolidated into the two other bills in this package—the National Residue Survey Levy (Customs) Bill 1998 and the National Residue Survey Levy (Excise) Bill 1998. This move is being undertaken as part of a streamlining of portfolio legislation and should provide improved access to portfolio legislation by members of the public and make its administration simpler.I commend the bill to honourable senators.NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (CUSTOMS) LEVY BILL 1998This bill is part of a package of three bills. The purpose of this bill is to consolidate into one act the five National Residue Survey levy imposition acts that impose duties of customs. Consolidation will make the legislation more accessible to the public and provide for greater ease of administration.The bill imposes levies that are duties of customs on five commodity groups to replace the relevant imposition acts repealed by the National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Bill 1998.I commend the bill to Honourable Senators.NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY (EXCISE) LEVY BILL 1998This bill is part of a package of three bills. The purpose of this bill is to consolidate into one act the seventeen National Residue Survey levy imposition acts that impose duties of excise. Consolidation will make the legislation more accessible to the public and provide for greater ease of administration.The bill imposes levies that are duties of excise on sixteen commodity groups to replace the relevant imposition acts repealed by the National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Bill 1998.I commend the bill to Honourable Senators.Debate (on motion by Senator Conroy) adjourned.Bills1637r3461637Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it had agreed to the requested amendments to the bill.1637Bill (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a third time.Miscellaneous163817:27:001638Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move:That the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 401 and made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, be disallowed.The specific amendment to the regulations that we are moving disallowance of was made on 18 December 1997. That amendment would make it illegal to represent any therapeutic product as drug free. It would make it illegal for any therapeutic product, such as vitamin pills or various other forms of alternative or complementary medicine, to be labelled with the words `drug free'. Further, it would make it an offence if such products were labelled drug free, involving a fine of $5,000 for corporations and $1,000 for individuals. The amendment is a total and blanket prohibition on the use of the words `drug free', irrespective of the nature of the products in question and irrespective of the common understanding of the public.I am sure honourable senators have received, over the course of the last couple of weeks, volumes of correspondence from persons involved in the alternative or complementary medicine industry—if I can use that term—as well as persons who are users of these products. Certainly, there has been a demonstration of public outrage at the process adopted here, which is a very heavy-handed bureaucratic approach, to use the regulations power to impose such a prohibition on the use of the words `drug free'.It is important to outline a bit of history as to why this matter is being dealt with today. Back in the middle of 1996, a situation arose where the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, objected to the use of the words `drug free' on a herbal remedy called Arthri-eze. That was the brand name of this product, which was a herbal remedy. It consisted of fish oil and celery—and I do not mind eating a bit of celery; I am not all that fussed about fish oil—which I know are substances the general public would regard as safe and would not, by any stretch of the imagination, regard as drugs.The TGA objected to the use of the words `drug free' which appeared in an advertisement for this product. The advertisement for the product had in fact been approved by the Australian Publishers Bureau which, at the time of approving the advertisement, took the view that the general public in reading such advertisements do not regard such substances as drugs.The TGA appealed to the Advertising Standards Council. They sought to prevent the use of `drug free' on this product. The Advertising Standards Council rejected the complaint from the TGA and noted in their findings that, in their view, this was:. . . a case of the system getting in the way of the community's general understanding of drugs, both legal and elicit types.Apparently, the Therapeutic Goods Administration takes the view that, by definition—and they would have it by way of legislation—all therapeutic goods are drugs whether they be pharmaceutical drugs produced by the pharmaceutical drug industry, whether they be herbal remedies, whether they be vitamins that you can buy on the shelf at your local Woolworths or Franklins supermarket, whether they be fish oil and celery, eucalyptus or some form of lemon drink that maybe has vitamin C added to it. In their view, all of these things should come within the category of drugs and not be able to be described as drug free. One could even conclude that, taken to its logical conclusion, water would be unable to be advertised as drug free under this type of bureaucratic approach.It seems that this situation has arisen because of a view adopted by the TGA that the bureaucracy should be able to impose its heavy hand right down to the situation where products that are widely used in the community, that are safe and that may or may not work for people seeking relief from particular problems or illnesses and say, `You cannot label these products "drug free",' even though the community clearly understands the distinction between what is a drug and what is not a drug in the health industry.The government here is taking the most narrow definitive approach. In our view, it is an overly legalistic interpretation and it ignores the public understanding and the public interest involved. The public sees and clearly understands drugs as products, medicines and so on generally produced by the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, there are requirements for the labelling of such products. Indeed, we have a regulatory system which ensures that particular drugs or pharmaceutical products can only be dispensed by way of prescription. So there is a very good regulatory system that regulates this entire area.We also have a whole range of products which certainly do not come within the category of pharmaceutical drugs, but this government wants nevertheless to catch them in the net and prevent their being described as drug free. I said the general public clearly understands the distinction, and there is evidence for that. A news poll was conducted on 14 and 15 March where the public was asked to classify a number of products as either a drug or drug free. The study revealed that the majority of the adult population displays a clear understanding of what constitutes a drug versus what would be understood to be a drug-free product. For instance, 88 per cent of people classified vitamin C as drug free. That is commonsense. Our knowledge of the public's understanding of this matter would back that up. Eighty two per cent of people regarded celery and fish oil capsules as drug free, and 90 per cent of the population regarded garlic tablets as drug free. In contrast, when asked about Panadol—something that is also bought over the counter or in supermarkets; paracetamol is a generic ingredient—and Prozac, 86 per cent of people clearly understood that Panadol is a drug and 69 per cent of people understood that Prozac is a drug.This is how the public understands the distinction and has long understood the distinction. The position is that, really, there is no evidence at all to suggest that the public does not continue to understand the distinction and that individuals cannot determine, when they look at products—whether they be in a pharmacy or, in terms of alternative or complementary medicine, in supermarkets and places like that—what they are buying. This is a very safe, reliable and responsible industry. Over half the population of this country—I understand it is in the order of 60 per cent—use these products—herbal remedies, garlic tablets and so on—as either alternatives to, or supplements to, more traditional remedies, which would be pharmaceuticals.It is also interesting to note that the government's own explanation for the regulation that they want to impose actually differentiates between the complementary medicines and pharmaceutical drugs. The government's explanatory statement for amendment No. 401 states:Therapeutic goods that are regulated under the act include natural remedies that rely on herbs and other naturally occurring substances for their effect rather than relying on synthetic substances made by pharmaceutical companies.In that explanation there is a clear recognition by the government, and presumably by the TGA, that there is a distinction between substances made by pharmaceutical companies—generally called drugs—and natural remedies, which are classed as therapeutic goods. The government is therefore not seeking here to somehow regulate on the basis of safety, because that distinction they themselves have acknowledged is one, as I have said, that is understood by the population at large. It is our submission that what the government is really seeking to do here is to prevent false and misleading advertising, and it is taking a very strict and legalistic approach in that regard.It comes down to this: that everything ultimately can be classed as a drug of some form or other, and therefore the government will legislate to ensure that no product can ever be labelled drug free, notwithstanding that that is what the population would understand many of these remedies to be. In any event, that is a power that is simply not necessary to be prescribed in these regulations. If it is the major concern, as we say it is, of the TGA and the government to ensure that people are not misled by false advertising—for instance, if something like Panadol were put onto the market and labelled drug free when it is very clear that it contains paracetamol, a drug—then they can ensure that under the existing legislation such practices will not occur.Both the Trade Practices Act and the Therapeutic Goods Act have provisions in them which prevent false and misleading advertising. So, as I said earlier, there is no safety basis to this regulation, because the public clearly understand and appreciate the distinction. There is no public interest requirement here on the grounds of preventing false or misleading advertising, because the power to do that already exists under the regulations. It is our view that regulation 401 is unnecessary and indeed, as I said, is overly bureaucratic to the point of absurdity.I want to make one further comment in conclusion. It is that another regulation we are not opposing, regulation 400, has been gazetted. That regulation establishes the therapeutic goods advertising code and the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code Council. It is a major change to the regulations in this respect. Those bodies will have the authority with respect to the approval of advertisements and review mechanisms and a complaints handling mechanism.Under regulation 400 and the changes that have been implemented there, which we do not oppose, there is ample scope to deal with any issues that may arise with regard to arguments about whether a particular product—a natural herbal remedy, for instance—can or cannot be labelled drug free. We believe there is substantial scope already within the system, including that new regulation, to deal with any problems that might arise. Therefore we have moved that regulation 401 be disallowed.17:47:001640Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I think most senators in this place have noticed an increase in their mail largely due to this issue over the last couple of months. It certainly has led to a lot of work on the part of my office, and I want to acknowledge those that are still fighting through the e-mails and the faxes. We have had an opportunity to discuss this issue with a wide range of groups—with consumers, with manufacturers and with retailers and lobbyists. Out of all of that, one of the very disturbing trends, which has created a great deal of interest, is that in many cases people do not understand this particular amendment, how it works, what it is doing and its implications, as well as other issues in this area that the government is currently dealing with.There appears to be quite a bit of confusion about the regulatory environment for complementary medicines and the requirements in the various parts of the legislation. That is why I called for the development of a plain English guide to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and the accompanying regulations to provide information on the laws and regulations governing the manufacture and supply of therapeutic goods in an accessible form so that people can find their way through them—particularly some of the smaller manufacturers, and consumers.I am very pleased to say that the government has supported this recommendation and has asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration to focus on this as a matter of priority. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services, Trish Worth, for her efforts in this area and for all the work she has done, not only on the particular motion we have before us today but also on the other issues and legislation we have dealt with previously.In relation to this amendment, the use of the term `drug free' in advertising is relevant only to the marketing of these products and not to their availability. I have received many letters from consumers concerned about availability, which has been one of the confusing elements for many people. I worry that there are people out there spreading misleading and indeed quite confusing advice. I really have to wonder about some of their motives, particularly when you have a bulk mail campaign that is based on an enormous amount of misinformation. When so many people receive so much misinformation, you really begin to wonder.I understand that people have a perception of what the term `drugs' means in relation to therapeutic goods and that this meaning would not include many complementary medicines such as those already outlined—vitamins, herbal products et cetera. I also understand that there are many products that fall into the grey area between drugs and natural products, and that in many cases people's lack of knowledge of the origins of a product could lead them to inappropriately categorise something as being drug free. For example, most people probably would not realise that most vitamins and vitamin supplements are completely synthetic, whereas many pharmaceutical drugs, such as codeine, are derived from natural sources. Whether or not these products would be considered to be drug free is a matter of considerable debate.While I appreciate the term `drug' can have a different meaning in different contexts, I believe that we have to consider, as we are debating this today, the definition of `drug' used by the relevant legislation when looking at the issue of advertising products as being drug free. I thought it would be appropriate if I read it out so that those senators listening to this could realise what a complex issue this is. Drugs are defined in the regulations to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 as:(a) therapeutic goods that are represented to achieve, or are likely to achieve, their principal intended action by pharmacological, chemical, immunological or metabolic means in or on the body of a person or an animal; and(b) any other therapeutic goods declared by the Secretary, by notice published in the Gazette , not to be therapeutic devices.If we try to put that into plain English, by definition any product marketed as a therapeutic good which is not a device is legally considered to be a drug. This means, if we move on in logic, that products marked drug free will be considered to be drugs under the act.This inconsistency is what leads us to the problem we have today. It is of concern, but I do not believe an outright ban on the use of the term is the most sensible response to the concern. It is not immediately clear to me that the legal definition of `drug' is necessarily the most relevant one for the purposes of advertising. Where a product has been marketed to lay people, I believe that the common meaning attached to the term `drug' should also be considered as relevant.I appreciate the government's concern that products labelled drug free could send out inappropriate messages to consumers that a product is safe and, indeed, could lead to some people taking considerable amounts of the product, possibly leading to overdoses or harmful results. I am aware that there are some natural products that certainly can be harmful when used inappropriately. I also appreciate the government's concern that the use of the term `drug free' has the potential to mislead some consumers. This concern is shared by some consumer representatives—we have had correspondence on this from them—who feel the term `drug free' does not provide useful information about a product. They believe the use of the term could lead consumers to make inappropriate judgments about the safety of products. They feel consumers may interpret the term `drug free' as meaning safe in any quantity and therefore take more than they should. I am concerned about the potential for consumers to put themselves at risk through the inappropriate use of any therapeutic good. However, I am not convinced that in this case the concerns about safety are so great as to warrant this blanket prohibition. If there are general safety concerns about products or the use of `drug free' in relation to specific products, there may be more appropriate ways in which they can be addressed. Consumers should also, I believe, be credited with some level of responsibility in reading what is on the label and adhering to the instructions and advice about recommended dosage levels on the product's packaging.Due to the complex nature of this issue, the Australian Democrats support the government's moves to form a committee to examine the appropriateness of the use of this term in the presentation of therapeutic goods and also to consider the alternatives. Prohibiting the use of `drug free' through a regulation without a formal consultation process and without talking to industry and other stakeholders does not allow for all the options to be explored. I believe that the government, that is the department, needs to sit down with the stakeholders, with consumers groups, with interested parties, with the complementary medicine practitioners, and examine a range of possibilities. Today I am going to list just three possibilities.As we have already heard, the other regulation passing this chamber now, regulation 400, sets up the therapeutic goods advertising code. The use of other advertising terms are governed through this code, which is developed by a council comprising representatives of the major stakeholders. So, firstly, this code could be set up to ban the use of `drug free' or to specify conditions for its use. For example, in the case of the term `natural', the code specifies that a representation cannot claim a product is more efficacious or safer because it occurs naturally. We could have a similar restriction on the term `drug free'.Secondly, the use of this term could be restricted through the development of an industry wide code of practice. The government could request that industry and stakeholders develop a code of practice for the use of the term `drug free'. Codes of practice exist now, for example, for the use of terms such `low salt' in the advertising of food. The code of practice could be adopted into legislation if the government thought they wanted to take that extra step.Thirdly, the regulation of this term could be left to the Trade Practices Act, if the minister so required. What is believed to be false or misleading advertising could simply be referred to the government. If the government thought a case was illegal under the TPA, it would be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That certainly is not my preferred option. I am just giving the government some alternatives as to how to look at this issue.This is a very complex issue. There is a high level of consumer concern, as I said earlier. Even though some of it has not been very well informed, the genuineness of the concern about alternative therapies, particularly their availability, is certainly very real and something hopefully this government is concerned about.Given all of that and also the industry concern about how this will work, it would seem appropriate that all possibilities are fully considered before we totally prohibit the use of this term, as is now proposed. So I think we first need to let the review process go ahead. Indeed, the preferred option for the Democrats today was that this regulation be withdrawn until such time as the review could take place and the committee had made its recommendations. As it was not withdrawn, we do not believe we have any option but to support the motion for disallowance in order for the review to go ahead.I say in conclusion this is far from over. By moving to support the motion of disallowance today, we are not saying by any stretch of the imagination that this is fixed. This is just another step down the road to sorting out this issue and other issues related to the Therapeutic Goods Act and the associated problems.17:58:001642Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—On behalf of the government I will reply to, firstly, Senator Lees's statement. I welcome Senator Lees's statement that, given that the government has established a committee of key stakeholders to examine the issue, she will keep her mind open in the sense that perhaps she will allow the regulation to go through in the appropriate time. I believe in the fullness of time that will be the evidence that will come forward.There has already been a lot of consultation throughout the industry, but perhaps it may be that more information is required. The committee will report to Ms Trish Worth by 8 May, and its findings will be tabled in parliament along with the government's response to the recommendations. So there is not that much time to be taken up.I can assure Senator Lees that a lot of consultation has already occurred. For example, the supporters of the changes to the therapeutic goods regulations include: the Proprietary Medicines Association of Australia; the chairman of the Therapeutic Advisory Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; the AMA; the National Health and Medical Research Council; the Australian Committee of Natural Therapists; the executive director of the Consumers Health Forum; the senior policy officer of the Australian Consumers Association; Professor Stephen Leeder of Community Medicine, Westmead Hospital; the president of the Public Health Association of Australia; and the chair of the National Health Advisory Committee. It is not as if there has not been a considerable consultative process.Years ago I learnt an important political point from the doyen of the press gallery, Alan Reid, now deceased. He said, `If you ever have a choice between a conspiracy and a muck-up, pick the muck-up every time.' I can only assume that that is what happened to Senator Forshaw. I thought at the time it might be a conspiracy in that he was trying to delay the passage of legislation, but I appreciate now that he really does not understand what his disallowance motion means.Regulation 401 prohibits the use of the term `drug free' in any advertising of therapeutic goods. The point that we are making with this regulation is that the public have a right to know what is in the material they are taking. He, for example, said that the public accepts that vitamins are not dangerous—that they are acceptable. I can give him a whole list of vitamins that in excess can cause a whole lot of diseases. Vitamin D, for example, produces bone demineralisation, renal calculus, high calcium, metastatic calcification and hypertension if taken in excess. Vitamin A produces bone tenderness, chronic liver disease, hair loss, diarrhoea and vomiting. Vitamin K produces haemolytic anaemia and neonatal jaundice. Vitamin B6 produces peripheral sensory neuropathy. Niacin produces skin flushing, hypotension and arrhythmias. Vitamin E produces increased action of warfarin and vitamin C produces gastrointestinal symptoms and oxalate stones. I could go on.Senator Forshaw is probably not aware that even water causes problems. Regretfully, Brisbane has no fluoride in its water. It is the only capital city that does not have it. Water is a process of delivering drugs, and fluoride is a classic example. Some months ago—perhaps a year ago—the Medical Journal of Australia reported somebody in Western Australia eating seaweed, thinking that it was perfectly safe, and ended up with mercury poisoning. Even fish oil and celery may produce problems in certain circumstances.The point that I am trying to make to Senator Forshaw is that the public has a right to know what is in the things that they are taking, even though they may believe them to be completely harmless. So fish oil and celery, depending on the source of their material, may contain toxic substances of one kind or another. It is not enough just to say that these things are simple matters that may contain no deleterious substances.The point that we are making with regulation 401 is, first of all, that the public has a right to know what is in therapeutic goods. I quote for example, the president of the AMA. He said:It is argued that it is not an issue of public safety; it is an issue of freedom of choice.Dr Woollard would argue that it is an issue of ensuring that consumers can make an informed choice. They need to know what they are taking. Trish Worth, for example, said:Health consumers have a right to timely and accurate information about the products they purchase. They also have a right to expect that the Government is protecting their interests in relation to access to information and safety of products.This regulation is not a mechanism for restricting consumers' and practitioners' access to complementary medicines, as Senator Lees has said, such as herbal, vitamin and mineral preparations, but it is a mechanism for making sure that they are informed as to what they are consuming. Interestingly enough, as the opposition would know, under the therapeutic goods legislation introduced in 1989 while they were in government, therapeutic goods—that is, products which claim a therapeutic effect—fall into two categories, drugs and medical services. As the then minister responsible for the Therapeutic Goods Act, Peter Staples, clearly stated in October 1989:Therapeutic goods are those goods for use for the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of diseases and other bodily conditions or which can be taken to be for such a use through advertising and other means.I thought Senator Forshaw was a bit specious, saying that the Australian Publishers Bureau was approached and then it was referred to the Advertising Standards Council and they decided that it was allowed. I point out to Senator Forshaw that the Advertising Standards Council and the Australian Publishers Bureau would hardly be organisations that I would ask to decide on the therapeutic effi cacy of materials that are advertised. Certainly they are professionals in the right to advertise, but they have no expertise in determining what is in the products—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I just related the history that the TGA lodged the complaint.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I see. Thank you. I do not doubt Senator Forshaw's information. Here we have a Labor minister making it quite clear that products which make a claim about their therapeutic benefit are therapeutic goods or drugs. The fact that we are here today debating this fact is quite farcical. As I said before, I thought it was a conspiracy rather than a muck-up but I now accept that it is a muck-up rather than a conspiracy.It was always thought that the law meant that you could not make a therapeutic claim about a product and then claim it was drug free. This was intended to ensure that consumers were not mislead about the nature or safety of therapeutic goods. I make the point that the government has a responsibility for the safety of therapeutic goods. When a producer sought to make such a claim, the government sought legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. Advice revealed that the legislation introduced by the former government was not completely clear on this issue, so there was a case to be made for it.In order to fix that mistake left by the previous government and to clarify the existing law, the government introduced this regulation. This clarification will ensure that health consumers continue to have the right to accurate information about the products they purchase. Ensuring honesty and accuracy in the labelling and presentation of therapeutic goods is an important role for a government, and I would have thought for an opposition, but apparently not, gathering from their movement of this disallowance motion.All this regulation does is ensure that the government continues to play this role. Why the opposition would choose to oppose a regulation change in line with its original legislation is beyond the government. I do not understand that, and Senator Forshaw has not addressed that situation.Why the opposition would choose to pursue a line on this issue which is in such stark contrast to the views of consumer organisations, one of the two industry organisations and a range of health experts is also bewildering. You either accept the advice of the leading advisers in health in this country or you do not. If that is the place of the opposition, if that is their standard, I feel for the Australian public if they unfortunately ever got back into government. Professor Terry Campbell, Chairman of the Therapeutic Advisory Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, said:To suggest that some substances for which therapeutic claims are made are not drugs purely by virtue of their being natural is a nonsense. Until relatively recent history, virtually all `drugs' were natural products after all. To further claim that a natural origin somehow confers safety is an even greater nonsense.For example, a digitalis leaf, of course, is natural. It is a plant yet in excess or given inappropriately it can kill people. He continued:Many of the most dangerous substances known are perfectly `natural'—botulinum toxin, snake and spider venom and strychnine being examples.They are perfectly natural but very dangerous. I have gone out of the context by adlibbing, but I get back to the quote:I would strongly support the right and the duty of a Government to regulate all substances for which therapeutic claims are being made as "drugs".Also, Professor Stephen Leader, Professor of Community Medicine and President of the Public Health Association, said:It is important that advertising of alternative medicines be as clear as possible. Consumers should be aware that these preparations contain substances that interact with body processes such as standard prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical compounds do. By convention these groups of chemicals have been referred to as drugs. It does not help the public understand the nature of alternative medicines to refer to them as `drug free'. This is simply not true if we take the word `drug' to `mean' medicine.The government has recognised that there are some members of the complementary medicines industry and some consumers who oppose this drug free issue, and we have listened. As I say, there has been enormous consultation with the community and with community organisations, consumer associations, medical associations and the National Health and Medical Research Council.We have, as I have stated and Senator Less acknowledged, established a committee to look at the appropriateness of the term `drug free' and the advertising of certain medicinal products, and also to look at what alternatives might be used to appropriately promote such products. As the opposition knows, this committee is due to report by 8 May and the report will be tabled in parliament while this regulation is still sitting before the parliament for consideration.I am mystified as to why the opposition should persist with the debate on this disallowance motion without waiting for the outcomes of the committee made up of key stakeholders on this issue. We will be opposing the motion by Senator Forshaw that the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 401, be disallowed.18:11:001645Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I will just make a couple of comments in response. Firstly, let me say in regard to the comments from Senator Lees: we note the position they have put and actually see some merit in the comments that you made about the need for a more wide-ranging look at some of the issues here. Indeed, that was implicit in the remarks that I made that this was taking an overly bureaucratic approach by way of regulation to prevent what is clearly understood as an advertising or marketing issue. If there are issues—as Senator Herron would argue and Senator Lees has also raised this—either existing or potential with regard to definitions in this area, then it is appropriate they be looked at by way of committee or an inquiry.With respect to the minister's comments that the parliamentary secretary has established a committee to examine the use of the term `drug free', we are aware of that, but there are a couple of problems. Firstly, the minister has stated that it is due to report on 8 May. The time period for consideration of this issue actually expires, as I understand it, on or about 8 May. It is, therefore, a very hurried inquiry and the report may not be tabled before the time period expires for consideration of this matter.Secondly, we are aware of some concerns about the structure of that committee in that some of the key stakeholders have indicated that they were not able to be represented. In any event, we believe that the appropriate approach is to move and carry disallowance of this regulation. If the disallowance motion is carried, we still have the status quo position, as it exists under therapeutic goods regulations at this time. Indeed, it is still then open for the propositions advanced by Senator Lees to be acted upon, as indeed it is open for the government to address the issues in a more broad ranging and constructive way. I think they are really all the matters that I need to respond to.18:14:001645Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I thank the Senate and you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for granting me leave to make a few remarks. I also support the disallowance motion. I will not reiterate the reasons which already have been given in support of the motion. As a doctor in the past, I am very keenly aware of the fact that there are not one-tenth as many people admitted to hospital as a result of the use of herbal or natural remedies as there are as a result of the use of prescription drugs. I am saying that in some ways we have to accept that fewer people come to harm because of the availability of natural remedies than would come to harm if they had recourse only to allopathic or traditional medicine.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—More people have their lives saved by normal medicines.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Herron, that is a statement that you cannot substantiate. Conventional medicine does save a lot of lives. There is no doubt about that.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—I am saying more.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Surveys show that a quarter to up to half the people who go into hospitals are there as a result of the treatment they are given in conventional medicine. It is very difficult to say that, if you took away prescription drugs, you would end up in a situation where on balance the recourse to herbal medicine would not be doing the community equal good. There is not a proper assessment of that.Certainly, both forms of medicine need to be available because that is what community choice is about. Senator Herron, one thing I do not think you can deny is that, while allopathic medicine might do more good, it does a heck of a lot more harm than natural remedies do. There is a lot of money behind medical treatments. I am very concerned that we do not restrict the field, that we do not take away consumer options. Natural medicine has a very important role in the health of our community. Question put: That the motion (Senator Forshaw's ) be agreed to.18:22:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator J. Hogg)32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.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.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E.Lundy, K. Hill, R. M.Murphy, S. M. Ellison, C.O'Brien, K. W. K. Watson, J. O. W.Sherry, N. Alston, R. K. R.West, S. M. Reid, M. E.* 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.Business16461646Motion (by Senator Herron) agreed to:That the following government business orders be considered from 7.30 p.m. today:No. 2—Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , second reading.International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 , second reading.No. 3—Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] , second reading.Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Bills1646r4361646Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.19:30:001646Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I rise to speak to the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I am pleased to see this bill here today because it fixes up a mess which the government made. But, by the same token, it is only necessary because of this government's misjudgment and the chaos that this government is presently creating. The situation would have been even worse except that the opposition saved the government from some of its excesses. When the Child Care Payments Bill was first debated, I remember being assured by I think the same advisers who are in the advisers' box now that we could put this bill into effect by 1 January this year. I thought they would be over here shaking my hand thanking me for having saved them the necessity of doing that.One of the amendments that went through during the negotiations deferred the bill taking effect until 27 April. That saved them from being in an extraordinarily difficult situation because although a whole new administration for child-care assistance was in place in a legislative sense, the necessary mechanics were not. As I understand it, Centrelink is nowhere near ready to perform the role that was envisaged. That is why we find ourselves here tonight debating the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 .This bill was debated for some eight hours, and the Community Affairs Legislation Committee also took evidence for two days. In all that time the government seemed unable to understand the practical difficulties of putting into effect this new administration of child-care assistance. During the hearing of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, we received a large number of submissions. This was quite surprising, bearing in mind that the hearing was held over only a very short period. In fact, the submissions were made only by invitation. At least 15 of the submissions that we received at that short notice pointed out the impracticality and unfairness of a system that was being established by the Child Care Payments Bill.Despite that, the government persisted with its course of action. At the end of November the bill was passed. It was not very long after that—in fact, 23 January this year—that the minister announced that he had changed his mind; that all of the things they refused to acknowledge and concede during the debate and during the Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing were all true; that it would be impossible for the system to be established to allow Centrelink to pay parents directly. In fact, it was conceded by the minister that he had made the decision to reverse the implementation of the new system because of representation made by parents and by the industry.You have to wonder why the same sorts of representations that were made at length during the debate on the bill were suddenly riveting to a minister who had completely ignored them less than 60 days before. Maybe it was that over the Christmas period Minister Warwick Smith had time to really think. I suppose that suggests that he did not think prior to that time. If we give him the benefit of the doubt, we can say that the minister had some opportunity to reflect and see that the matters that have been raised by the opposition and by the industry were not just rhetoric but a serious, practical proposal about a change in the system.I suppose the minister might also have suddenly realised during his period of contemplation over the Christmas break that the mess they were making of child care was going to rebound on them; that it was going to rebound very strongly during the coming election when many families who rely on child care were going to express at the ballot box their dissatisfaction with the way this coalition government has dealt with child care.I do not believe that the reversal on this piece of legislation—this backflip—will mean that the community will forget what this government has done to child care. They have done a few backflips so far, I suppose the most obvious one of which is nursing homes. The elderly in Australia still have not forgotten the callousness of this government in terms of the fees they wished to impose. The new version of nursing home fees that has been introduced is still seen as being very difficult for families who are looking after their elderly parents. It is seen as very callous by the elderly people themselves.The opposition will be supporting the bill that is now before us because the government basically accepts the argument that we put during the debate on the previous bill—that it would be ridiculous to have two major changes of administration of child-care assistance within a period of some 12 months; that it would not be possible for this to happen in such a time period. What Warwick Smith actually announced was that the new form of administration would be delayed until the introduction of the smart card. He was very vague about exactly when that might be. Note that in the bill it says that the bill may be delayed for a period of up to 30 months. That is 2½ years.That is quite extraordinary when you recall that, through various debates and in the estimates, the minister and her representatives at the time expressed very strongly the view that the smart cards would be introduced about, or shortly after, 1 January 1999. I am now told that the introduction of the smart card is a much more difficult task than this government ever imagined and that when they called for information—I am not sure of the term; I do not know whether that commits them to doing anything—they discovered that there is this huge task that they are unable to perform in order to introduce the smart cards before that date.They are very vague about exactly when those smart cards will be introduced, but you can rest assured of one thing: we will not see smart cards emerge before the election. Despite the protestations of the government and their minions, the main reason they are not introducing the smart card is they realise that in addition to some practical problems involved it is a major political problem for them. What they have done in child care is already rebounding on them and they do not wish to make the situation any worse.Despite the backflip, I do not believe that the electorate is going to forget what has been done in child care. It is not going to forget that over two budgets this government cut $820 million from child care. The electorate is not going to forget that child-care assistance has been reduced by an average of $10 per day per child—that is, $126 million. That largely affects children in family long day care and in vacation care. Fees have risen. The community based and private sector long day care centres say that fees have increased somewhere between $11 and $25 a child per week, depending on the type of service and, obviously, what its competition is.Let me remind the government that those who run child-care centres in the private sector are small businesses. They say that their usage rates, as a result of these price increases, are down somewhere between 20 per cent and 30 per cent and that, as a result, many of them are not viable. They say that though few centres in the private sector have yet closed, they anticipate large numbers of closures in the near future. As we all know, many community based centres have closed already—my office has documented almost 50. The difference in timing between the two sectors is largely a result of the way they operate. Most community child-care centres are run by community management committees and if they are told by their accountant that they are running up a debt—and knowing that they have personal liability for that debt—most community based centres make the immediate decision to close. That is why you are seeing them close much earlier than those in the private sector. Although many centres in the private sector are having great difficulty with their usage rates, and their financial viability is a big problem for them, particularly in Queensland, many of them have tried to hold off, making little profit or in some cases accumulating some debt, in the hope that other centres around them will close and they will again become viable. For many, a return to viability, at least under the policies of this present government, will not occur.I am not given a lot of hope by the response of the minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, Senator Herron. In question time today in this chamber he continued to deny that there is even a problem, despite the evidence of three surveys—not just of the community based sector, as he insists on misunderstanding, but of both the private and the community sector—and despite the evidence of 850 submissions from individuals—mainly parents—and organisations involved in the industry and child-care centres. He refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem. I strongly believe that if this government does not even acknowledge there is a problem then we do not really have a great deal of hope that the matter will be solved.The child-care centres that have been most harshly dealt with as a result of this backflip are those in the outside school hours sector, which is in an extraordinarily difficult position. Their operational subsidy has been taken away, effective as of 27 April. That is a substantial amount of money; in fact, to those centres it is equivalent to about $14 per child. Most of these centres—and I am sure that the minister does not have a real understanding of how they operate—operate in schools and halls after hours. They certainly do not operate out of purpose-built facilities. They operate on the smell of an oily rag. They normally have staff who are casual—they come in for a few hours in the morning and again in the afternoon. Most of them obviously enjoy their job, but you could not say that it was a particularly lucrative job. Any administration that they do is largely done while the children are there or half an hour or so on either side. In most cases the additional work done by carers outside care hours is on an unpaid basis. It is just an extra contribution that they put in.So to take away this operational subsidy for before and after school care is an extraordinary difficult proposition for them. I note that, despite the reversal of the child-care payments bill, I have seen nothing from the minister to indicate that, in fact, their operational subsidies will continue until it actually comes into play. It is a shame that the minister scooted out because I would be very pleased to hear from the minister or his representative—someone else has his brief—whether they will provide an undertaking that the operational subsidy for outside school hours care will continue until the child-care payments bill—I suppose it is an act now—comes into effect because many centres in that situation will have to close.I have had personal contact with an outside hours centre just up the road from me at Currarong on the central coast of New South Wales. What they tell me, having done their sums and been responsible, is that, even with the changes in child-care assistance, they are required—to make ends meet—to increase their fees by 50 per cent. They said that a discussion that they had had with the parents indicates that many of them intend to leave as a result. They anticipate that, shortly after 27 April, they will be closing their doors. I am advised day in and day out by centres that I have contact with, both in person and by phone, that they are not a once-off, that there are many centres in this position.The minister has obviously recognised that there is some sort of problem because he has announced that this sector will be provided with $8 million—according to the minister's press release—to try and put in place a new system of administration of child-care assistance. I will just remind you that this is a sector operating largely on a casual basis and, except for a very small group of people, has never had to operate or administer child-care assistance. They will have to administer child-care assistance for a very short period—we do not know how long because the government cannot tell us when the smart card will come into place, but it will be within 30 months—while at the same time losing an operational subsidy of $14 per child.As I said earlier, the minister announced in his press release that some $8 million would be provided to assist in this changeover, but the industry itself—the before and after school centres—calculate that just to put in place this new system will cost them $12 million, which means that they are all out of pocket to start with, without dealing with the operational subsidy at all.I do not have a great deal of time but I really believe that the government might be assisted in understanding the problems that do exist in the child-care sector by having a look at some of the submissions. I would really recommend that the minister read them if he can. I certainly am going to. I will just read you a few extracts. This is the comment of Robin Monro Miller from the National Out of School Hours Services Association:What we are effectively doing is implementing all these changes at once on services which are primarily parent management and parents are struggling to find out what is happening. Through working with a variety of parent managements, I have heard quite a few incorrect versions of what is about to happen. I think we need that time in order to get everybody in line. Really, it is to give everybody a fair go and know about the changes so that services do not throw their arms up and say, `This is too hard; we will not survive,' and pack up their bags and go home. We will lose services. They—referring to the government—need to take note of the fact that the sector is not highly organised and has not had the back-up support. They did not have the admin. people, they did not necessarily have trained staff and they do not have their own venues.That is just a plea from that particular sector to have regard for their circumstances. I noticed that the government liberally quoted from a particular press release that it had received from Ian Weston of the Australian Confederation of Child Care, but I have to say that the confederation and all its members are not always as positive about the government's changes. I have been unable to obtain a copy of that letter.Brian McFarlane said:There was an announcement made by the minister there would be a national child care advisory council. I am wondering which ought to come first. Should it be the advisory council that can actually talk about the traditional fee structure—(Time expired)19:50:001650Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 will defer the Child Care Payments Bill 1997 because of the government's decision earlier this year to reverse some of the changes that it was designed to introduce. The Democrats support the government's decision today to delay streamlining the payment of child-care assistance and the child-care cash rebate until 1999. It is, of course, too early for us to sign off on the proposal to link this measure with the introduction of a smart card. Although it does sound like it could be a step in the right direction, we always with this government in particular want to see the small print. We also strongly support the government in their decision not to place an increased responsibility on parents in relation to estimating and reporting their use of child-care services and I, for one, am particularly pleased to see that, with these changes, the harsh criminal terms which were contained in the previous bill will no longer be applicable. I have to say that I found those particular measures to be incredibly objectionable. The thought that by some government action all of a sudden we were going to make parents liable for prison terms seemed to me to be quite an appalling proposition.It is heartening to see that at least in this instance the government has been willing to acknowledge that it got it wrong. It is also heartening to see that at least in this instance the government has been willing to reverse policies which would have had a negative impact on families, making life even harder for many who are already suffering the ill-effects of earlier policy decisions. Asking parents to take more responsibility for estimating and reporting their usage of child care would have been a big mistake. It would have been a big mistake simply because it fails to take into account the enormous pressure many families are already under. It fails to recognise that many families already have enormous difficulty just trying to juggle their existing work and family responsibilities. And it fails to recognise that for many families it is a huge challenge just trying to make ends meet and hold their family together.This measure was one of the major issues raised with the Democrats prior to the Senate's consideration of the earlier bill, and it was one of the reasons we suggested that it should be examined by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. That hearing was held and I believe we gathered from that some very significant evidence. We are pleased to see that, as a result of this committee hearing and subsequent representations, the government has finally seen the light. This is a positive outcome for Australian families.The bill we are considering today contains the remaining changes which were originally contained in the earlier bill. These are: the 20-hour cap on child-care assistance for non-work related care; the long overdue planning system for private sector child-care places; and establishing immunisation requirements for child-care assistance eligibility. In the interest of not taking up too much of the Senate's time and recognising the enormous legislative load we have—which I have got to say is not because the Senate has blocked legislation but is because the government has failed to in any way get its legislative program in order, and I would be happy to debate that point at any time—I am not going to go into any great detail on the nature of these changes. We have already debated these and it is on the record what the Democrats' position is. It is there in Hansard to be read, as a result of the debate we had last year.As we did then, the Democrats will be supporting the first of these two measures. As I also did last time, I will also be leaving my colleague Senator Bartlett, for Meg Lees, our leader, to outline the position the Democrats will be taking in relation to the immunisation requirements.Notwithstanding this, however, I want to take a moment to put on record the fact that the Democrats have been critical of the way this government has handled the whole area of child care. As I have said on other occasions, one of the problems is that it is not the Minister for Family Services who ought to be criticised, because I think both the former minister, Judi Moylan, and the current minister have been doing their very best to make the policy work. The problem is with the Treasurer, who has taken so much money out of this area that any policy would be almost bound to fail. The government needs to be condemned for a number of the changes that have already been introduced and the effects that these changes are now having on many families. And I want to put on the record, despite the exchanges in this place this afternoon during question time following a number of questions from the opposition to the government, despite the government's very poor defence of their record, that it is true that for many families things are getting worse.Centres across the board, both private and community based—not simply community based centres, as the minister seemed to be suggesting but also private centres—are now reporting that they are operating at somewhere between 10 per cent and 15 per cent less than their capacity. This is following the previous experience when those same centres all had waiting lists. The problem is that many parents have had to make the very difficult decision to withdraw their children from formal child care. For many two-parent families, this has meant that one of them has had to leave the work force, and in many cases this has seen the mother being forced to return to the home on a full-time basis. For many single parents, this has meant that they have been left with no alternative but to withdraw from the work force or from study altogether, simply because they can no longer afford the cost of having their children cared for. For others, this has meant finding alternative, less formal child-care arrangements, with grandparents and friends being asked more and more to care for children while their parents are at work or studying.Child-care operators are now also really beginning to hurt as a result of dwindling numbers in child-care centres. Many of these centres are the very same centres which, as I said previously, prior to the introduction of the changes contained in the 1996 budget were subject to lengthy waiting lists. Now they have vacancies, and the extent of the vacancies is getting larger. Some centres have already been forced to close, with a number of others predicted to close within the next few months. I have got to say to you that in my own state of Queensland I have had the most desperate phone calls from people in the Sunshine Coast area, where a whole group of centres has got together and begged me to come and talk to them. I said to them that they really needed to talk to the government, but I will not repeat what they said to me when I told them that.This government can no longer afford to ignore the damage which has been done to parents who have been forced to give up work or study simply because they can no longer afford the cost of child care. What this government needs to understand is that these families are really hurting. It is shameful to think that a government which so strongly speaks of its deeply held commitment to families can at the same time come up with policies which are making it increasingly difficult for the very families it claims to represent.The Democrats fought very hard to prevent many of the changes which were announced in the 1996 budget from coming into effect. We voted against the abolition of operational subsidies for community based long day care centres; the capping of child-care assistance at 50 hours per week per child; the abolition of the additional income allowed for additional dependent children when assessing a family's eligibility for child-care assistance; and freezing of child-care assistance and the child-care cash rebate for two years.Unfortunately, the combined vote of the opposition parties was not enough to prevent these changes from coming into effect and these regressive reforms passed the Senate with the support of independent senators. I am sure that the government underestimated the effect these policies would have on Australian families. What is clear now, however, is that these policies are well and truly affecting families. This effect is a very negative one indeed.The Democrats will continue to put pressure on the government to reverse its policy decisions in the area of child care. We can only hope, as with the measures the minister decided to reverse earlier in the year, the government will be willing to admit that in a number of these other areas it also has it wrong. The future of child care in this country depends on that change of heart. I think it will be at the government's peril if it chooses to ignore the plight of Australian families who can no longer access the child-care services they need.20:01:001652Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—In rising to speak to the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill, I am reminded of the pledge given by the coalition prior to the last election. The promise was that all parents would have fair and equitable access to affordable, flexible and high quality child-care options regardless of whether they were participating in the paid or unpaid work force.In listening to government members in the Senate earlier today, including the embarrassing manner in which the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services (Senator Herron) avoided answering questions on this issue, it is quite clear that not only has the government walked away from this commitment but it never really understood what it meant in the first place.No one sector of the community highlights the anti-social agenda of the Howard govern ment more so than the child-care sector. The measures contained in this bill—which include a revamp of the payment arrangements for child-care assistance, payment of child-care assistance in arrears, limiting the number of new long day care places and changes to outside school hours care—all have one dramatic consequence: they all limit the work force options available to Australian women.As a result of the massive $820 million taken out of the child-care sector over the past two coalition budgets, parents are having to reduce their work hours, leave work altogether or rely on neighbours, extended family or backyard operators for their child's care. It is now estimated Australian families are $25 per child per week worse off under the coalition.A recent survey conducted by the Queensland Child Care Coalition revealed that 3,255 children have been removed from 244 services in Queensland in the past year. This is the same survey Minister Herron dismissed in question time today as having no relevance. Other data suggests that somewhere between 200,000 to 300,000 people have been discouraged from seeking employment because they could not find or afford child care. More than two-thirds of these are women.Unfortunately, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) does not understand the dynamics of contemporary child-care policy. He is sadly out of touch with the practicalities of the system. Child-care assistance is a social policy measure which allows women to participate in the work force. Unnecessary and ill-conceived changes to its focus are causing widespread confusion and uncertainty for parents with children in care.The reality of this bill is that it should never have had to be introduced into this parliament. This legislation is a result of a government which is making up its policy initiatives on the run. Following the passing of the Child Care Payments Act 1997, the government was inundated with complaints and representations from the sector about the impact this legislation would have if it started in April 1998 as planned. In January this year the government announced it had decided to defer the implementation of the new payment arrangements until new smartcard technology is available—hence the need for this amendment bill. But this process would not have occurred if the coalition had consulted with the sector prior to announcing the initial changes.As I said in my earlier contribution to the Child Care Payments Bill 1997, the bill introduces a number of new measures which have not been meaningfully considered by stakeholders. The consultation process has been, in a word, deplorable. The bill is a very complex one. While it may make things easier for the government, it certainly does not make things easier for the end users—parents and service providers.Until questions arising out of these myriad of issues are resolved, it is farcical to say that there has been proper consultation as it cannot as yet be determined what the impact of some of these changes really means. Recent developments have proven my earlier comments correct. But, far from taking any satisfaction from the government's admission of error, I am saddened for the heartache and uncertainty the coalition has forced upon this sector.As a result of this government's incompetence, service providers and parents have had to live with a major cloud over their arrangements for the past 18 months. A competent government would have consulted and negotiated with all stakeholders before announcing major administrative changes. But not this government.As we have witnessed in the aged care sector with deferral of the implementation of the extra daily fee on four occasions, the Howard government has an appalling record on consultation. Apart from taking away the work force options of women and highlighting this government's inability to consult, this bill represents a major attack on the out of school hours care program. The Howard government has removed operational subsidies from out of school hours care—like the similar way it removed this assistance from community child-care centres in the 1996 budget. This action will result in the closure of services.Just as galling is this government's obvious lack of knowledge about the role of out of school hours care within the child-care sector. Many out of school hours care centres are operated by part-time and volunteer staff in non-permanent premises such as community and school halls. The administrative work is often completed by parents, and the service provides for the constantly shifting requirements of its users. For instance, a service may have a couple of hundred children on their records for 50 or 60 places. The operational subsidy is vital to coordinate such complex and under-resourced enterprises.Rather than the operational subsidy going to the service, parents will now be paid child-care assistance, but the out of school hours service will have to calculate the amount each family will have to pay weekly. There is simply not the administrative infrastructure capability in these services to undertake such an assessment. As a consequence, many of these providers will give up and force the families who use the service to make other arrangements. Alternatively, providers will be forced to dramatically reduce overheads and increase their fees. This new administrative arrangement underlines the coalition's inability to understand the various needs of stakeholders within this sector. In this case, it is forcing a tight administrative maze on a part-time service which has been renowned for the flexibility it offers to its user groups.But there are other areas of concern in this legislation. It provides a tighter targeting mechanism for eligibility for child-care assistance, which will effectively result in a saving to the government of $33 million in this financial year alone. It involves the cessation of indexing the child-care assistance fee ceiling and the child-care cash rebate ceilings at a saving of $31 million this financial year. The changes to new growth strategies for long day care centres will be a $25 million saving. Reforms in the area of school age care will be a $5 million saving, and paying child-care assistance in arrears will be a saving of $32 million.All these changes are on top of the other massive reforms inflicted upon this sector by the Howard government over the past two years. They include removal of operational subsidies worth $100 million over four years from community based child-care centres, reduction of child-care assistance for cut-offs for second and subsequent children and freezing child-care assistance and child-care cash rebate ceilings for two years, which has meant no indexation for the past two years. With all these massive cuts to the sector, it is hard not to argue that the government simply view child care and fee assistance as a luxury. They do not see how the increased financial demand on families of up to $25 per child per week adds a dangerous balancing act to most family budgets.A recent discussion paper drafted by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association highlights just how delicate this balancing act is for most families. It found that family income earners are finding it difficult to make ends meet in a way that enables their family to enjoy a decent standard of living. It found a large number of working poor families in Australia who, in return for active work force participation, are only marginally better off than if they were on social security. Removal or reductions in child-care assistance and increases in provider fees as a result of the loss of operational subsidies will push some families into the working poor category and not only act as a disincentive for both parents to work but also increase the demand on Australia's social security system.A further example of the situations that can arise as a result of the coalition's cuts to the sector was documented in today's Daily Telegraph Mirror. A mother of two children in child care, who just happens to be a Liberal Party staffer to the New South Wales opposition leader, Mr Collins, has sent a submission to the Senate's inquiry into child-care services detailing how cuts to the sector are costing the government lost tax revenue. Ms Catherine Cusak said she reduced her hours of work from five days per week to three days after her child-care fees rose by $93.55 per week last year. The reduction in her working hours reduced her family's income and saved the government $3,800 per year in child-care subsidies. But, as a result of the change in her work circumstances, Ms Cusak paid $11,000 per year less in income tax and, as no-one has been hired to fill her job for the remaining two days of the week, the government is worse off by $7,200. Regrettably, Ms Cusak and thousands of women like her are also worse off financially and professionally as a consequence of these short-sighted arrangements.With well over 850 submissions already received by the Senate inquiry into child-care services, I am certain the frustration of Ms Cusak's circumstances will be borne out many times over from other working mothers and families. There is probably no more important task facing families and the Australian community than to bring up our children in a balanced and decent environment. The child-care policies of the Howard government are exposing families and children to unnecessary risks as parents are being priced out of the sector.Parents feel as though they can no longer afford quality care. I believe the representations we are getting from parents and providers in our electorate offices and the large number of submissions already received by the Senate inquiry are only the tip of the iceberg. The coalition attempt to make political mileage out of being pro-family. However, the erosion of the child-care sector is evidence that they are not interested in the concerns of hundreds of thousands of Australian families. It also proves they are not interested in women. The government, with these policies, are trying to force women back into the homes. We are going back 50 years in history to where women stay at home, have babies, cook the meals, do the washing, but do not dare think of ever having a career.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Oh, come on, Brenda!6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—No. With these policies the Howard government is forcing them back. I would like to know exactly what the women members on the government side think about this; I really would. You all sit over there, you push these policies and you never support women. But you make a great play of how many women you have in the government. All I can say, Senator Ferris, is shame on you and shame on all of those other women. As a result, I believe the parents of Australia will have the issue of child care upper most in their minds when they vote at the next election. 20:16:001655Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I very strongly endorse the remarks by my colleague Senator Gibbs. Indeed, she has probably just given most of my speech. Firstly, the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 is an embarrassment to this government. This is not a bill to be pleased about. This is a bill that embarrasses the government. It is brought in here to correct an appalling mistake the government were about to make. That is what they admit; `Actually, we're not really ready to do this, so we have to introduce legislation to correct what we were proposing to do.' Rarely do governments sink to that level. You have got it so wrong that you are actually legislating to correct what you have already put in place. You have not spoken to the community. You have not spoken to the child-care operators. You have not spoken to the families using child care. You have not listened at all. The submissions to the Senate inquiry currently under way are a clear indication of the angst and concern out there. This bill is an embarrassment to the government.Secondly, as my colleague has just said, it ought be a terrible embarrassment to the women of the Liberal Party who make such a big song and dance about how many of them are over there—`It just shows we're the party that is concerned about women.' I have congratulated the Liberal Party on the increased number of women they have. Every day I will stand up in this place and argue that all those women in the Liberal Party come into the Senate and the House of Representatives and vote for policies that are wrecking the lives of Australian families and particularly Australian women.What are the women saying to you, Senator Ferris, or to any of your colleagues about child care? I am sure they are not ringing up and saying, `Isn't it exciting. I've had to drop out of the work force. Thank you very much for increasing the cost of child care.' If they are saying that to you, then you are getting some very strange messages. The women of Australia are saying, `What about these Liberal women who are putting up their hands each day with Mr Howard to make child care more expensive, to make it impossible for us to afford the fees, to make it impossible for child-care centres to cope?' Something like 50 community based child-care centres have already closed as a direct result of your policies of removing operational subsidies. In most of those centres on average about 10 women work. You have directly contributed to 500 women being on the unemployment list.But, worse than that, there are thousands of families who use child care. As my colleague Senator Gibbs has spelt out so well, in the survey from Queensland alone, thousands of children are no longer in child care. Thousands of women are giving up their working positions and retreating from the work force altogether or going to reduced hours. Today we heard from the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, Senator Herron, that that is a nonsense, that the ABS data shows there is no retreat of working women from the work force. I do not know whether you should ever doubt statistics, but he certainly has not read the submissions that have come to the Senate inquiry. He certainly has not spoken to the thousands and thousands of people who are writing to us and calling us about it.Also in relation to this mean-spirited, miserable government, under your changes now introduced about assisting people with your privatised CES, if women are not on any benefit, they will have to pay to get assistance to look for further work. `Mean-spirited' is hardly the word for you. The women of Australia are saying clearly day by day in ever-increasing numbers and with louder and louder voices, `Mr Howard's government and all those Liberal women, we thank not one jot but indeed we blame. We judge them as not caring about us. It is a clear, coherent program—but not spelt out, like most things—to remove women from the work force.'This will do a very interesting thing. At least 200,000 women are now discouraged workers out of the work force. But they are not counted in the unemployment benefit figures, because they have a partner or a husband who is working. They are not counted. They are discouraged workers and they are part of your government's policy to get women out of the work force to close down some of the assistance that has been put in place for women, particularly in the child-care area. Let us wait and see what they say at the next election.We do not have to wait as long as that. As Senator Gibbs has urged, we just have to read the submissions coming to the Senate inquiry. I would also like to put on record the points made by Catherine Cusak. This is hardly what you would call a Labor Party stoolie, if I can paraphrase the minister in his answers today. This is a Liberal Party staffer.Ms Cusak, a former young Liberal president who works for Opposition Leader Peter Collins, has told the committee the $800 million savings from the child-care cuts have to be weighed against lost taxation revenue from working mothers. She has two children and, as a result of the increased fees—that is, as a direct result of your government's policies in the child-care area—her child-care fees have risen by $93.55 a week. She has had to sit down and make the relevant calculations. She has done so and has reduced her time at work. She no longer works full time and, as a result of her retreat from full-time work, she is paying $11,000 a year less in income tax. The result is that your government is over $7,000 worse off and her own family income is significantly reduced.What kinds of policies do you think you are implementing if Liberal women want to say this on the public record? I believe Labor women—any sorts of women, for that matter—are telling the same sort of story. But, for the record, this message has a particular potency. This is hardly a Labor Party stoolie.This piece of legislation seeks to implement the decision by deferring implementation of the Child Care Payments Act 1997. It amends the Child Care Act 1972 and the Child Care Rebate Act 1993 to allow the implementation of other decisions taken in the 1997 budget and reflected in the Child Care Payments Act 1997. These are, first of all, a limit on child-care assistance of 20 hours a week for non-work related care; secondly, the introduction of a planning system for long day care places and a limit on the number of new places approved in 1998 and 1999; and, thirdly, the introduction of immunisation as a criterion for eligibility for child-care assistance and the child-care rebate. The bill also facilitates the transfer of the payment of the current child-care assistance program to Centrelink in the interim period pending the commencement of payments under the Child Care Payments Act 1997.To pick up some of those points, I have listened to a lot of twaffle in this place, but I heard today some absolute rhubarb which, in other places, would be called, frankly, dishonest—misinformation of the worst sort. You accused the Labor government of never having a planning system for long day care or any of the new places. It is, I suppose, dull and boring to try to argue these issues on facts, but the facts are that you are completely wrong in that misrepresentation.The previous government had a planning program in place—and one is still in place—and that planning program covered all community based child-care centres, long day care centres, all family day care and all outside school hours care. Well before we went out of office we had published by region across the country areas of high need to assist private child-care operators to set their child-care centre where there was already a measured need for child care.If we are talking about improving planning or trying to bring the private child-care centres more directly into line with that planning, let us say that. But let us not tell gross lies about the failure of a previous Labor government to have any planning system. It had a comprehensive planning system, and that system is indeed to be extended to cover the private centres.It is amazing, to my mind, that private centre operators, most of whom would regard themselves as small businesses and hopefully making good decisions about where they would put their child-care centres, raced to put them in places with no regard to the demand for child care in those areas. That is why there is a gross oversupply of child-care places, mainly private, in south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales: because the centre operators insisted on building them there.On one visit to Queensland I found four child-care centres on each of the four corners of an intersection. It reminded me of the days when we could expect a petrol station on each of the four corners—6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—Or a pub!ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I have never seen four hotels on four corners of an intersection, Senator, but we have certainly seen petrol stations on each of the four corners and we have seen what has happened to them. Over the years there has been a recognition that that is a stupid way to behave, and the petrol stations have seen that they could not all compete.Child-care centres have taken a long time to make good business decisions about where they put their centres. I hope that, by increasing the planning system to include the privates more directly, we will get more coherence in the planning of child care. But please let us not have this nonsense that there was no planning there before. There was. It covered all the community based, the family day care and the outside school hours care places.For that we saw under the previous government there was a significant distribution of child-care places to areas of need. Also true is that the community sector, the public sector, put child care in places that the private operators decided would not be very profitable: in the lower income areas, in rural and remote areas—places where the privates were not prepared to go to. So let us talk about the child-care debate based on facts, not rhubarb.You are planning to introduce this planning system. I will be very interested to hear from the minister in the committee stage of this bill exactly how it will happen. It is still very difficult, even in questioning during estimates, to find out precisely what the process is and how it will be put in place. I do believe that will be very important. I also wonder what the effect of all these changes will be. We are already seeing, as I have said, the closure of 50 long day community based child-care centres, and any number of the private child-care operators are now saying they are feeling the pinch to the point of facing the prospect of closure.The introduction of immunisation as a criterion for eligibility for child-care assistance and the child-care rebate is of concern. First of all, I would like to know how it will be implemented. Who will decide or on what evidence will families be able to confirm that their children have been immunised? Will immunisation require all possible immunisations?I would certainly be appreciative of some detailed explanation of exactly how this will happen. If, for example, a family have not been eligible for maternity assistance and did not have to meet any criteria for evidence of immunisation for that payment and the first time they front the system will be with the prospect of needing child-care assistance, how will this confirmation of immunisation happen? Will they have to take, for example, a stamped or signed book, or something like that, to the director of the child-care centre, or will they indeed have to clear it through Centrelink? If they have passed some immunisation test for the payment of the maternity benefit, will that be sufficient for approval for child-care assistance eligibility?I would also like the minister to provide for me information on exactly what immunisations will be required as part of the eligibility. Does it include measles or merely diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and polio? Does it include any of the hepatitis programs? Does it include mumps? What exactly are you saying are the immunisations that are needed?Up to this point I have had some very concerning evidence brought to my attention. In the Centrelink documentation there has been a failure to provide to families information that says that if they are passionately opposed to immunisation or if they have a medical reason for not being able to proceed with immunisation, they are exempt under the requirements of this act and still eligible for child-care assistance.I am not clear that Centrelink documentation in the area of child care is at fault here by omission, but it is clear—I understand that the minister's office has advised the department to get it right through Centrelink next time—that full information must be provided to families about the requirements of immuni sation. Centrelink's documentation has been incorrect and at fault by leaving that piece of information out. From reading the documentation, there is clearly a sense of there being a compulsion for families to be immunised. We know that that is not the case after considerable debate in this place.Let me make it clear, should anybody want to use these words against me, that I am one of those who supports immunisation. I would like to see families provide the immunisation available for children in this country as much as possible. I am also aware of considerable and serious evidence that there are concerns about immunisation. I am also aware that lots of families worry about it. The legislation we introduced in this place before took account of those concerns. It is a great pity that the Centrelink documentation failed to provide fulsome information in this area. It is almost like coercion by omission—`Let's leave out some of the facts and maybe families won't quite notice it.' That is very disappointing. If you are serious about assisting families, as in the question I raised before about the introduction of planning, let us tell the full truth. Let us assist families by telling them exactly what is the requirement and let us deal with families then, not by some kind of program of obfuscation.The other important point that needs to be made in this legislation is that you have done well. You have done very well because you have alienated absolutely everybody in the child-care area—the families, the providers and every sector of child care. They are all absolutely up in arms about what you are planning to do. First you propose to do things by 1 January and then you defer it to April. You are deleting it for 30 months until the smartcard may be available.The other important thing that you propose to do is to make the payments for child-care assistance directly to families. Surveys from 1994—I cannot be absolutely clear of the year, but prior to the Howard government coming into office—show that over 66 per cent of parents did not want the payments to them. They would prefer those payments went to the child-care centre so that was one thing they did not have to worry about. I urge the government to rethink that proposal that the payments would go to families. They do not want it. It is only going to cause more agitation for them. I do believe it is just another example of how this government has not been listening.There is insecurity, anxiety and confusion in child care now. This is a government that does not listen and does not care. You have your covert agenda to make sure that women are out of the work force and that lots of child-care centres are closed down. You have made sure that an industry that was well established and, indeed had got to the point where you boast what we established—that is, the accreditation program to see quality care in all long day care centres, something we should all be very pleased about—is being wound back in a very sad, unnecessary and destructive way.Let us look at another article from the Daily Telegraph of Monday, 30 March 1998. `Forced to pull out of child care' is the heading of an article by Kate Hannon. Evidence from New South Wales, from the Penrith City Council—one of Australia's largest providers of child-care services—has found that low income families, families earning less than $27,000 a year, are hardest hit by child-care fee rises. The article talks about the impact on families of those increased fees. It found that 181 families had withdrawn their children altogether from the long day care and 183 families had cut the number of days their children attend care.Centres have been forced to skimp on their spending on food and children's equipment, including toys. They have also cut staff by 10 per cent. Many centres had a smaller staff to children ratio, fewer qualified staff and were unable to give children as much individual attention as in the past. They are concerned about a direct reduction in quality care as a result of this government's policies. It is something to be very concerned about. We fought and struggled to get quality care to give parents an assurance. You have taken it away. (Time expired)20:36:001658Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I am only going to speak on one part of this legislation, but it is an important part to many people. All of those who have been listening closely to this debate would know that my Democrat colleague from Queensland, Senator Woodley, covered all other issues relating to the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 comprehensively and admirably.As the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Meg Lees, has stated in the past in relation to the Child Care Payments Act 1997, the Democrats support the general direction taken by the government to offer incentives to encourage parents to give serious consideration to vaccinating their children. We know from research that most parents who fail to vaccinate their children have done so not because they hold strong views against vaccination—although it certainly applies to some—but because they are not aware of the recommended vaccinations for their children or, simply, because they have not yet got around to it. Giving the Australian people an incentive to make sure they do give adequate thought to this issue is an important initiative.Tying child-care payments to immunisation addresses this issue and should result in higher levels of vaccination amongst the vast majority of children whose parents do support immunisation. However, whilst supporting the general thrust of this legislation, the Democrats have been concerned to ensure that those parents who have a strong and genuine opposition to vaccination are not denied access to child-care subsidies because of their beliefs. Senator Lees has raised these concerns in relation to the Child Care Payments Act and the government responded to this concern previously by making provision for conscientious objectors in this act.These provisions are reflected in this bill that we are debating this evening and include the requirement that parents visit a recognised immunisation provider to discuss with them the benefits and the risks of immunisation. While this may be a sensible requirement in many cases, the Democrats do have concerns that in some specific cases this provision may not be appropriate. For example, I have received—and other Democrat senators, and I imagine many other senators from other parties in this place, have received—many representations from Christian Scientists who believe that this requirement goes against their religious beliefs. Christian Scientists feel that, for them, a visit to the doctor to talk about immunisation is not only against their beliefs but also unnecessary and a waste of time and public money.In that circumstance, why should people have to sit around a doctor's surgery to talk about something when they know what they think about it, when it is a matter of faith and belief and not a matter of science or medical opinion? Why should they waste the doctor's time, why should everybody else have to wait longer in the doctor's surgery and why should we drain Medicare funding, et cetera, in that situation with people going through that charade simply to satisfy technical requirements of the act?I have had personal representations on this including from people from my own state of Queensland. A letter I received just a week or so ago was from Mr Ronald Walker from the Christian Science Committee on Publication for Queensland, a representative of the Christian Science community in Queensland, specifically drawing my attention to this matter, something I had been aware of in a general sense before but certainly not in relation to the specifics of this issue. It has been of some enlightenment to me to become aware in a bit more detail of the beliefs and concerns of Christian Scientists. Certainly, Mr Walker and other Christian Scientists have indicated that they do wish this matter to be considered and wish that not just Christian Scientists but also the significant group of people that this relates to, who do choose to avail themselves of their civil right to refuse immunisation, due to their own personal beliefs, be properly accommodated in this government's legislation and ongoing policy.Recognising the needs of specific groups in the community, whether they be minority groups or otherwise, and trying to ensure that those needs are addressed as part of the broad policy announcements and directions of government that apply to the whole community, is a principle that the Democrats do give a lot of attention to. Christian Scientists operate within a different modality of health based on their religious beliefs. Their representatives, who have written to me and to other Democrat senators and have come to speak to Senator Lees and her staff, who have given a great deal of attention to this issue, have presented a carefully considered position and have done a great deal of research on this topic. In fact, they are probably better informed about immunisation than are most lay people.Their objections stem from their religious beliefs rather than from a specific disagreement with the logic or the scientific validity of the medical research which supports universal immunisation. Therefore, no amount of evidence, scientific facts or discussions with the local GP, hospital intern or whomever, will convince them to immunise their children. In that circumstance, it seems unnecessary at a minimum to force people to go through this charade. They can in no way be considered equivalent to those parents who have not immunised their children due to ignorance, inconvenience, neglect or other reasons such as not having got around to it, and they should not be treated in the same way as those people under this legislation if at all possible. The Democrats believe it is possible and we believe that their needs should be addressed.The Democrats believe that Christian Scientists have the right to have their specific situation acknowledged and to have more appropriate conditions attached to their application for conscientious objector status, rather than individually having to visit doctors to get certificates. The Democrats will not be moving amendments to this bill on this issue that I have raised in my short contribution this evening because we understand the mechanism is available within the bill as it stands.Before we indicate our position on this specific aspect of the legislation, the Democrats do ask the minister, or his representative, in his concluding remarks this evening to give an indication on behalf of the government that they will use the powers vested in them under proposed section 12(h) of this bill to address the concerns that Senator Meg Lees has raised with Minister Wooldridge predominantly, and also with Minister Warwick Smith, the Minister for Family Services, regarding the specific concerns of the Christian Scientists. We believe it is something that can be addressed and we hope the government will give a specific commitment to addressing those concerns in relation to this legislation that have been raised as part of this debate.20:44:001660Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to speak on the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I must say that I agree with Senator Crowley when she says that this bill is an embarrassment to the government. It is incredible that the Minister for Family Services, Mr Warwick Smith, continues to self-delude on the issues of quality, access and range of choice in the area of child care in this country when he states:We are concerned about quality child care for Australian families and access in an affordable way for families to ensure that they have a range of choices from family day care to after school hours care, and also from the community care sector and the private care sector.What does the minister mean by `access in an affordable way' and `a range of choices' when $820 million has been cut by this government from child care? It is understandable that the minister is concerned about child care because the whole area is in a shambles.What the minister means is that most families will pay for access to care regardless, because he knows that the overwhelming number of mums and dads of this country will not, where possible, compromise the care of their child. They will do everything in their power to ensure that their child or children get the best form of care, and they will simply pay the extra.Such families who are able will deal with these cuts in the best way that it is possible for them to do so. They will not be happy with the substantial increase of dollars per week per child for community long day care or outside school ours care, the reduction in the child-care cash rebate for families earning more than $70,000 a year, or the restricted access to child-care assistance for non-work related care, but at least they will be able to continue to choose the level and quality of care. They will be able to exercise the so- called range of choice, but it is now a lot more costly to retain that range of choice.Now we move to another group of parents, for whom the increased cost of child care has made it unaffordable and for whom a mother, in most cases, is left with only two choices. The range of choice has now shrunk markedly to two options: such families take the risk and either opt for a reduction in quality of care or opt out of the work force and care for their child at home. The first choice is a choice for poorer quality of care; the second is not an exercise of choice but rather of necessity.The first option will lead parents to seek those unregulated care providers—be they a friend, a grandparent or a provider who operates outside the system. With regard to the second option—some of my female colleagues have dwelt on this in detail, so I will not—it is a sad scenario to think that this government has caused women in particular, but not solely, to remain at home. For those mothers, or families, to do otherwise would compromise and prejudice the future of their child or children in other ways—the child's future education or, even more drastically, the health of such a child.As the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, Ms Jenny Macklin, recently stated in the other place, women are becoming discouraged workers. It is estimated that about 200,000 women have been discouraged from seeking work because of the new cost regime of child care. As we know, what this bill does is postpone the date of the effect of changed methods of payment, made by a number of 1997 budget measures, to await the introduction of smart card technology. The timing of this postponement is no accident, with an upcoming election.The government debacle regarding child care has not been as great a fiasco as that over aged care. But then it has always been a botched affair from the beginning. We had the initial announcement that parents could expect to be paid child-care assistance by Centrelink. This was to be implemented this year in January. But, subsequently, that was delayed until April this year. In January this year, though, all current arrangements were overturned with the announcement that we need to wait for the introduction of the smartcard, hence this legislation.I know from talking with the child-care industry in Tasmania that there was some scepticism over the announcement that the April changes could be efficiently made without there being a waste of money, particularly with the smartcard system being planned maybe for next year. I recall from discussions that there was also concern about exactly how much the subsidy had been reduced per hour for after school hours care and whether the new reduced rate would apply generally or only to new children coming into care.Now concern reigns about the administration of the smartcard technology and the manner in which parents will be able to access their credits and whether individual carers will have machines or whether there will be a need for a central pay system. This general uncertainty has had a harmful effect on parents, on the public perception of Centrelink and last but not least on child-care providers, especially for a period that is recognised for the level of basic insecurity that has been experienced by members of the public. The whole confusing administrative environment has led to some extraordinary happenings which in turn, I believe it is fair to say, is leading to Centrelink losing its integrity as an organisation because this government lost any integrity it had in the administration of child care long ago when it failed to consult from the outset.20:52:001661Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I feel sorry for anybody who has been listening to this debate, considering the carping criticism that has come from the trio of Labor women on the other side. I want to stand up for the men. We have been given the impression that the only people involved in child care are women. Personally, I am happy to say that my wife and I have more children than the whole trio on the other side put together; we certainly have had more experience than any of the ladies over there. But all we have heard is this carping criticism.It takes two to tango, and it is a matter of fact that men have an equal role to play in the care of their children—and if they do not take that responsibility, they should. I know that is one of the problems that has occurred in our society—that, in many cases, they have not taken that responsibility.We seem to get the impression that child care provided by paid people is the best quality of care. I was distressed to hear Senator Denman say that care at home was poorer quality care. I hope I am not misreporting her, but that is what I heard: that care at home was poorer quality care. I find it unconscionable that such a statement should be made. To regard that quality child care, regardless of age, would be best carried out by professionals disregards the influence of the mother and the father.The agenda put forward by the opposition disregards the desire of many mothers to care for their young children at home, if they can afford to do so—and I am sure that Senator Cooney would agree with me in that regard. Certainly, all the surveys that I have seen show that mothers, of preschool children in particular, would prefer to stay at home, if they could afford to do so. And, of course, there is accumulating evidence that early child care, sometimes independent of quality, is associated with risks of undesirable outcomes.These amendments are designed to make child-care assistance easier for families. Feedback from the industry indicated that the arrangements envisaged under the Child Care Payments Act 1997 would be difficult for families and services during 1998. With this government being responsive to the needs of parents and service providers, the minister announced on 23 January that the commencement of payments under the Child Care Payments Act 1997 would be deferred, pending the introduction of smartcard technology. So, far be it from us having not listened to anybody, having not spoken to anybody and being out of touch, as was stated by Senator Crowley; that is completely untrue.This Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill defers the implementation of the Child Care Payments Act 1997 and maintains the current familiar child-care system. Operators and families are used to this system. While there are a number of changes to the system to be implemented from 27 April 1998, these reflect 1997 budget initiatives, including the 20-hour limit on child-care assistance for non-work related care, the new immunisation requirements and the planning controls for 1998-99. All of these measures were previously part of the Child Care Payments Act 1997 and were passed by the parliament late last year. Nothing of substance has changed.Child care is an integral element of the government's strategy to promote the wellbeing of Australian families. The range of child-care reforms that were introduced in the 1996 and 1997 federal budgets focus on providing fair and reasonable access to funded care and address concerns about families' access to quality care, especially in rural and remote areas. The reforms are the result of extensive family research and consultations with both parents and the child-care industry.The government is committed to providing support to assist parents to fulfil both their work and family responsibilities. The government maintains its commitment to child care. This year we have allocated $1,200,000 million to child care—an increase of 18 per cent since the last year in office of the former Labor government.Much has been said about the impact of the government's change to outside school hours care funding. This change is not contained in this bill but, nevertheless, I would like to respond to some of the statements that have been made about it both in question time this afternoon and this evening.The reforms will better target assistance within stand-alone outside school hours care services. Currently, most of the assistance is provided in the form of operational subsidies which allow the fees to be reduced for everybody, regardless of income. Under the new system, those most in need of government assistance will receive the most help—and surely nothing is more equitable than that.Also, school children attending stand-alone outside school hours care services currently receive lower levels of assistance than do school children receiving after-school care from centre-based long day care services or family day care schemes—and that is not equitable. So that has been approached by reforms which will make subsidies for schoolchildren more equitable, since they will not depend on where the children receive their care.The government has been responsive to concerns raised by outside school hours care services about the administration of a proper child-care assistance system, and it has provided generous assistance to help services through the transition. The new and equitable school age child-care assistance will inject an additional $11 million over four years into school age care.The government has already made $12.2 million restructuring assistance available to services to obtain business and marketing advice, purchase equipment or specialised assistance, and undertake minor capital works. Also, the government is providing another $8 million to assist outside school hours care services to make the transition to the new arrangements. Transitional support offered includes initial training and information sessions for all services and individual service-specific support during the transition period.The department has set up a dedicated outside school hours care child-care assistance telephone help line and an in-person service visit and support system. The department will also provide transitional child-care assistance implementation grants to help services during the changeover to the new system. These grants will be equivalent to two months of operational subsidy and will assist services setting up accounting procedures, attending training and helping parents during the transition. The government is more than fulfilling its obligation to assist services to adjust.Moving back to the bill and the real business of this chamber: care has been taken to ensure that administrative demands on services will be kept to a minimum. For the 20-hour measure, services will ask affected families in receipt of child-care assistance to sign a work test statement indicating that they meet the work study training test.The bill and associated disallowable instruments impose the same limit on care, with the same exemptions, as was approved by this chamber in the Child Care Payments Act 1997. Nothing of substance has changed. This bill introduces the immunisation requirement for both child-care assistance and the child-care rebate. These requirements are identical to those contained in the Child Care Payments Act 1997. All of the same exemptions will apply.Families who want to claim an exemption will need to consult an immunisation provider. This is considered fair and reasonable. This bill introduces a much needed planning framework. It imposes a 7,000 place per year limit on new long day care places for 1998-99. It introduces procedures to be followed in imposing a sanction on an operator and safeguards in the form of appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. All of this produces the same planned environment envisaged by the Child Care Payments Act 1997.In addition, the government has also acknowledged the concerns of Christian Scientists referred to by Senator Bartlett. I would like to give an assurance to the senator and to Christian Scientists that the minister will use the powers vested in him under sections 12H and 39B directing that identified children of Christian Scientists who undertake counselling from a nominated person who is not a medical practitioner be exempted from the requirements to be immunised. This will save Christian Scientists from the requirement to receive information from a medical practitioner while still ensuring that the facts are put before every parent. This is consistent with the principle contained in the immunisation charter signed by the government and 23 medical and community organisations last week respecting people's beliefs and privacy.I reject the statements by those opposite in criticism of the government. You would think that we had not taken into account advice that we have received predominantly from parents and from providers. We have taken that advice. I reject the philosophical base that has been put forward from those on the other side. As I have said in my earlier remarks, I commend the bill to the chamber. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills1664r4441664Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Vanstone:That this bill be now read a second time.21:02:001664Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This is the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 , and the opposition will be supporting this legislation. I note for the record that the shadow Treasurer, Mr Gareth Evans, in the House of Representatives successfully moved an amendment to this bill. The government accepted that amendment. By its acceptance of the proposals we put in the other place, I think there is now significant bilateral support for this legislation.The bill is significant because it clearly arises as a direct result of the Asian economic and financial crisis. In short, if it were not for the Asian economic crisis, we would not be debating the bill here in this chamber tonight. The Asian crisis is already having a profound impact on the Australian economy, and it will almost certainly dominate economic developments, both in Australia and internationally, over at least the next year or two. The wider economic, political and social repercussions of this crisis will be felt for many years, not only in the Asian region in general but also in Australia. The bill provides an opportunity for us to debate some of those implications.The particular purpose of the bill, however, is to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to establish a framework for Australia to provide financial assistance to a country that is undertaking an economic adjustment program with the support of the International Monetary Fund. First, it makes specific—in effect retrospective—provision for appropriations to fulfil Australia's pledges of financial assistance already given to South Korea and Indonesia and made last year. These pledges involve currency swaps or loans of up to $US1 billion for both countries.The bill does not specifically refer to the currency swap, also of $US1 billion, that has already been negotiated through the Reserve Bank of Thailand. The bill is also significant because it provides a framework for future Australian financial assistance in support of IMF programs. Indeed, it not only provides a framework for future assistance but also provides what is, in effect, a standing appropriation to enable the government to supply this assistance from the consolidated revenue fund. While it is expected that such assistance will be required only in rare and exceptional circumstances, this legislation could eventually involve very significant future appropriations.I would like to make it clear at the outset that the Labor opposition supports this bill, just as we supported the announcement by the government of Australia's participation in the IMF programs for Thailand, Korea and Indonesia. The IMF sponsored adjustment programs of this kind are vital to restore confidence and to restore stability in countries experiencing financial crisis. It is important that Australia participates in these packages when they relate to countries in our region or with which we have strong economic links. We support the government's action in ensuring that Australia is the only country besides Japan to have participated in each of the IMF sponsored financial packages for our Asian neighbours. We agree with the proposal in this bill for an explicit framework for Australian participation in future IMF sponsored adjustment programs with, in effect, a standing appropriation, as I have said, to allow the Treasurer to make loans or currency swaps.In this context it is important to note that the bill does not provide for grants but rather for loans that must be repaid in the future. The Treasurer can only agree to provide Australian assistance if at least one other country or international organisation is participating, or has agreed to participate, in the IMF program. In addition, the Treasurer can only agree to provide assistance to a recipient country at the request of the International Monetary Fund itself. The bill also requires that any agreement by the Treasurer on behalf of Australia must allow Australia to demand early repayment in the event of a suspension or premature termination of the fund program. Finally, the bill provides for assistance to the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Indonesia, made under an agreement entered into before the announcement of the act, to be appropriated from the consolidated revenue fund, provided that the conditions of the bill are satisfied.I have to say a deficiency in the original bill that came before the House of Representatives is that it did not impose any explicit disclosure or accountability requirements on the Treasurer. While extremely unlikely in practice, in principle the old bill would have allowed the Treasurer to commit very substantial amounts of public money to an IMF program without making any public statement of that assistance. More seriously, the bill would have allowed the Treasurer to commit substantial sums of taxpayers' money to an IMF program without having to justify his decision. The lack of explicit provisions requiring the Treasurer to publicly announce the size of any own loan or currency swap made under the bill and the reasons why such assistance is in Australia's national interest was indeed a very clear shortcoming.Accordingly, the Labor opposition in the House moved an amendment to the bill which will require the Treasurer to issue a public statement detailing the terms of any currency swaps or loans to be provided in support of an IMF-sponsored program and to provide reasons why this assistance is in Australia's national interest. I am pleased to say that my advice is that that amendment was accepted. The opposition believes it to be an important one in terms of this government's accountability to the taxpayers of Australia as to what it does with their money.There are three important general issues, however, thrown up by this legislation which need to be debated: the nature and course of the Asian economic crisis itself, the role of the International Monetary Fund and the international monetary system in resolving it and the domestic impact in Australia of that crisis. Let me start with the first of those, the Asian economic crisis. There is no doubt that the Asian economic and financial crisis of 1997-98 is an event of profound significance not only for the economic and political development of Asia but also for the evolu tion of the international monetary system. The influential Vice-Minister for International Relations of the Japanese Ministry for Finance, Eisuke Sakakibara, has described the Asian crisis as the first crisis of global capitalism. The Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Dr Alan Greenspan, has said recently of the Asian crisis:The architecture of the international financial system will need to be thoroughly reviewed and altered as necessary to fit the needs of the new global environment.Given Australia's close proximity to Asia and our extensive economic links with the region, Australia has a vital national interest in the Asian economic crisis being resolved as rapidly as possible. Over the last eight months Australia has participated in IMF-sponsored economic assistance packages for, as I have said, Thailand, Korea and Indonesia. Australia's participation in these assistance programs has been very much in our national interest. We have had a vital stake in ensuring that our Asian trading partners have the capacity to stabilise their economies as quickly as possible in the face of a massive loss of international investor support. The IMF-sponsored adjustment packages for Thailand, Korea and Indonesia have been designed to stabilise the financial system in each of the countries and to provide foundations for eventual economic recovery. People do differ as to how long it will take. Most seem to suggest between three to five years.With the benefit of hindsight, elements of the international response to the Asian crisis, including the adjustment packages proposed by the IMF and supported by Australia, will probably be seen to have been flawed in various ways. Indeed, legitimate concerns are already being raised about aspects of the IMF packages and the way in which they have been implemented, particularly with respect to Indonesia. Nevertheless, as Dr Alan Greenspan has pointed out, governments have had to respond to the Asian crisis within the structures and institutions that are in place today. To have delayed action in search of an ideal international response would have been to invite disaster. When the patient is bleeding to death you do not turn the ambulance away in the hope that a better ambulance will show up in a couple of months time.Fortunately, the IMF-sponsored programs have so far generally worked well in stabilising financial conditions in Korea and Thailand, although these economies will continue to experience very difficult economic conditions for some time yet. Developments in Indonesia have, however, been less encouraging. Nevertheless, in the case of Indonesia, participation in the IMF program has provided Australia with some inside leverage to seek appropriate modifications to the economic assistance package to take account of the special circumstances currently prevailing in that country.I would also like to say a few words about the role of the IMF and the international monetary system. The opposition would not like our support for this bill to be seen as indicating that we are not alive to the vigorous international debate that is currently occurring about the modus operandi of the IMF and what Dr Alan Greenspan has dubbed the `architecture of the international monetary system'. While it is still early days yet, ad hoc IMF-sponsored assistance packages of the kind envisaged by this bill may be rendered redundant by new forms of international intervention, possibly through expanded IMF resources based on the new arrangements to borrow.All of this does, of course, remain speculative. In the meantime, a vigorous debate on the IMF and its methods and the structure of the international monetary system is to be encouraged. However, while this debate is resolved it is important to recognise the need to work within the existing international monetary framework, in which the IMF plays a central role. At present, an IMF-sponsored assistance package is simply the best option for a country facing a collapse in international investor confidence. Our Asian neighbours have not been forced to accept IMF packages; they have turned to the IMF for support. And they have welcomed Australia's participation in these packages.The opposition hopes that further loans or currency swaps will not need to be made under the provisions of this bill. However, if the circumstances again arise where Australian participation in an IMF-sponsored economic adjustment program is justified in the national interest, this bill provides a framework for a quick and decisive response. Importantly, the amendments proposed and now adopted will ensure this response occurs within a transparent framework.Australia's participation in the IMF packages for Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea has been important. But it would be a grave mistake to see this participation as justifying a complacent domestic response to the Asian economic crisis. It is true that the precise impact of the Asian economic crisis on the Australian economy cannot be easily estimated in advance. There are, indeed, estimates as to its impact ranging from between ½ per cent being shaved off GDP to up to 1½ per cent being shaved off the growth rate for the Australian economy. When you consider that in the March quarter the market sat breathless in anticipation that the figures for growth for this economy would come in at four per cent or more and was disappointed to find that they came in at 3.6 per cent, the loss of ½ or even one or 1½ per cent in the growth figures for this economy would be disastrous for employment, business and consumer confidence. Indeed, it would also suggest in the current climate a devalued Australian dollar with imports being sucked in at a great rate, pressure on our current account; ergo, pressure on Australian interest rates. So it is not a small matter nor is it a matter from which we should in any way shrink.In fact, it is no longer justifiable to speak of the impact of the Asian economic crisis in a future tense for it is already clear that the Asian economic crisis is starting to hit the Australian economy. We have seen several effects, the strongest of which have been a collapse in tourist numbers from the Asian countries most affected by the crisis and a dramatic decline in live cattle exports to Asia. We have seen, as well, falling world commodity prices in response to the Asian crisis—and, of course, most of the Australian exports are commodity based—and we have seen a reduced demand for an Australian university education by Asian students. Even the car industry has been affected, with Mitsubishi Australia requiring 3,000 of its factory workers in Adelaide to take annual leave for two weeks next month to reduce the production levels of cars destined for the Asian market.No government could ever completely insulate Australia from the Asian economic crisis—that, of course, is true—but we would have been better placed to confront it if economic growth in our own domestic economy were stronger than it is and especially if unemployment were significantly lower than it currently is. The government's rhetoric that it has `fireproofed' the Australian economy from the effects of the Asian crisis betrays a disturbing degree of complacency. This underlying complacency was betrayed by the Treasurer's claim last year that the effect of the Asian crisis on Australia would be `hardly measurable', even as private sector economists were revising their estimates of the impact. The government may claim to have fireproofed the economy but business and consumer confidence in Australia is quite brittle.In recent weeks the leading business surveys, including the NAB and ACCI-Westpac ones, have shown a sharp fall in business confidence. Expectations for future exports have fallen particularly dramatically. This pessimism about the economy has spread to consumers with the Westpac-Melbourne Institute survey showing a dramatic 10 per cent fall in consumer confidence in the last month. With Treasury identifying a loss in confidence as a major threat to its growth forecasts, the downturn in confidence in recent months has profound implications for the Australian economy. Just last month, in a Senate estimates hearing, Treasury Deputy Secretary Borthwick conceded that:. . . for economists, business confidence is always the uncertainty which often trips us up.As I have said, the surveys of business confidence by ACCI-Westpac have shown sharp drops in that business confidence. I hope that these are not severe harbingers of economic misfortune for this economy in the future, but there does need to be a rethinking of government economic strategy to ensure that the levels of business confidence are, in fact, bolstered and that consumer confidence holds up as well.I know that in this chamber during question time we often hear the Assistant Treasurer, who now sits opposite me, boast about Australia's economic performance.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Just the facts.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—`Just the facts,' you say by way of interjection, Assistant Treasurer. Let me say that those facts, in your words, are often very elastic facts.But let me come straight to the point: the Australian economy is not growing at the levels that were forecast by your government in your last budget. They did not grow at the levels forecast by your government in its previous budget either. In two successive years you have undershot the levels of growth that you have forecast. We know that, for unemployment in this nation to fall, the Australian economy has to grow by in excess of four per cent. We know it is growing at 3.6 per cent. We know that you aimed for the economy to grow at 3.75 per cent in this budgetary year. In other words, not only did you not budget for unemployment to be reduced; you, in fact, budgeted for unemployment to increase, and your performance thus far through this budgetary year shows that you have succeeded in your goal because even your best bet is being undershot.Business and consumer confidence is dependent on a buoyant economy and, with external demand falling because of the Asian currency crisis particularly affecting the countries of South-East Asia, one would hope that domestic economic demand would be improving. The tables on business confidence suggest that that is not, in fact, the case and the forecast for the economy is gloomier, therefore, than predicted. I hope I am wrong about those things. I do not want to see the economy struggle. I do not want to see people unemployed. But I do want to see a change in the urgency the government brings to its economic responsibilities in this country and, within the urgency it brings, for it to give a clear focus to tackling the problem of unemployment. Denying young Australians and unemployed Australians opportunities for careers and for a future is not a way to govern the country. The best asset this nation—which is a nation wealthy in physical attributes—has, however, is its people, and providing employment for them is a fundamental obligation of government. By the budgetary settings that you have imposed, you have not aimed to do that. The crisis that this bill refers to undercuts those goals further, and that does require a considerable level of new thinking in the government to start to get the economy moving out of the sluggish levels of performance it is now unfortunately experiencing.I conclude—because the light is on and I have only one minute left—by saying we support this bill because we believe that Australia should be a good neighbour in its region. The countries that this bill provides cover for are important trading partners to us. Their economic health reflects on our economic wellbeing as well and we need to help them in their times of crisis. Ours is a country that lives in this region. When the foreign investors depart and return their funds back to the US or European economies, Australia will still be here and, as a neighbour, will be able to take advantage of the future growth rates that these countries will enjoy. That is the very important reason why this bill is supported. I commend it to the Senate.21:21:001668Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) support the underlying aims of this bill, the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 . The objectives of this bill are to increase transparency, parliamentary scrutiny, and provide a framework for any provision of financial assistance to countries under IMF sponsored economic programs. It is perhaps a good aim a little late. Transparency and consistency are worthy goals and ones which the Greens (WA) have advocated in the past. It is clear that the previous ad hoc non-consultative approach was a poor one. The bill retrospectively provides for Australia's appropriations given to South Korea and Indonesia in 1997. It also provides a framework for financial assistance that Australia may pledge in support of IMF programs in the future. Effectively, the bill provides a standing appropriation to permit the government to provide such assistance from the consolidated revenue fund.The Greens (WA), however, have some major concerns, two in particular. The first relates to the adequacy of the mechanisms to increase transparency and scrutiny. The second relates to the purpose for which the money is lent and the implementation of the purpose by the IMF. The Greens (WA) are concerned that the mechanisms in this bill achieve the goals of transparency and scrutiny much too late. We appreciate that in circumstances of financial crisis it may be necessary to act swiftly. However, there are virtually no checks or criteria before the Treasurer can pledge Australia's financial support to the IMF programs. The only touchstones are, firstly, a request by the IMF, and, secondly, that one other country or organisation is also contributing—a great choice there.If the first benchmark is regarded as any kind of safeguard, it must be assumed that the IMF is a competent body with good judgment. This is a highly questionable assumption. Most recently in relation to the Asian crisis, the competency of the IMF has been seriously challenged. Commentators from all political perspectives have said that the IMF have got it wrong and have failed to understand the local intricacies. Initially, it was criticised for its blinkered `if you've seen one economic crisis, you've seen them all' approach. The IMF assumed that old programs it had used in past monetary crises could be recycled. We know the ones: you get into the country, whether it is going well or not going well. The IMF says, `Cut spending, increase exports, deregulate your economy'—the same reply to every country they go into.The IMF took this approach despite the fact that these old programs had caused untold damage to citizens in developing countries. They took this approach without even considering that the Asian crisis and the countries involved may be unique and require new and creative solutions. The IMF have also been heavily criticised for unilaterally usurping the sovereignty of recipient nations and imposing harsh and unjust social policies which are resulting in enormous pain for everyday people. Of course, they do this at the time when the countries generally have the least power to argue back.The programs and policies advocated by the IMF have gone much further than any mandate the IMF has and diminish the ability of governments to make fundamental decisions about policies in their own nation. The straitjacket of structural reforms and micro management goes way beyond an economic transformation but forces political and social transformation as well. Moreover, as I will elaborate in a moment, the IMF's policies rarely assist the majority of the citizens in recipient countries. If the IMF is blase about the national interest of the recipient country, it would be foolish to assume that the IMF's opinion could be regarded as some kind of safeguard, a sort of `trust us, we're the IMF'.The second benchmark, that another nation or organisation is contributing, contains no assurance of anything. The logic is based on a strange notion that if another country has decided that contributing is in their national interest, it may naturally or somehow be in ours. There are no rational criteria, not even a cursory investigation of whether our national interest is promoted or whether the program is economically, morally and environmentally sound.The Greens (WA) would like to see the government critically assessing these schemes they are signing us up for. We realise it is not always appropriate to go through a rigorous due diligence report of the pros and cons, but there should be some fundamental criteria the government considers before blithely promising Australia's financial assistance. The bill does require that there be a condition on any appropriation that allows Australia to demand accelerated repayment of the loan in the event that the program is suspended or terminated in advance. The Greens (WA) judge this to be an appropriate condition but do not regard it as a substitute for critical assessment prior to the loan.Consequently, the Greens (WA) will be moving an amendment which is in a similar vein to the amendment we moved in relation to the International Monetary Agreement Amendment Bill 1997. The amendment essentially seeks to ensure that the IMF's program that Australia is supporting is consistent with our other international commitments. The amendment seeks to use international instruments and principles to which Australia is committed as benchmarks to judge the program and the appropriation. If you think about it for a minute, here we have Australia signed up to a treaty. It is not unreasonable to suggest, even if it is a country to country treaty or a country to IMF treaty, that the other treaties Australia has signed also are taken into consideration in the way we put this contribution together.The amendment injects benchmarks such as non-discrimination, social justice, democratic rights, sovereignty and environmental sustainability into the process. All of the transparency and assessment mechanisms come after the event—when it is all too late. The reporting in the budget, the reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and the national interest statement suggested by the opposition—all of these are positives for transparency and accountability. But, whatever the result of the scrutiny of the committee or the public, these mechanisms do not enable the money to be retracted or the government to demand accelerated repayment. All I can say is, where was the Labor government last year?RF4COOKSenator Cook—We were in opposition last year.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes. So, if the committee, for instance, discovers that the true effect of the IMF program was to benefit a few transnational companies and relegate the majority within the recipient country to poverty, Australia could not resile from its commitment. It would be locked into supporting an unjust and destructive program.As I have alluded to before, this amendment is a reflection of the often dismal record of the IMF to truly assist the citizens of recipient countries. This is an ongoing debate since the fund began about who is really getting the benefits of IMF loans. Past and present IMF programs have resulted in lenders continually receiving a stream of money from southern nations, regardless of social and environment al costs. The IMF places emphasis on export incomes rather than domestic production, and focuses on loan repayment rather than social programs. The IMF seems happy to impose rescue packages which cause hardship and internal disruption within countries while setting up a system of financial liberalisation which is likely to result in a phenomenally huge transfer of assets from domestic to foreign owners.It seems like they are using the desperation of countries to put forward what is in fact a political choice; because, unlike a number of other people in this chamber, I actually think economics is a political decision. Political economy is not called political economy for no reason. We make political choices, and the choice of political theory is a political choice. In this particular case, it would seem the IMF is imposing their political choices on other countries when they have the least ability to resist.The current IMF experience in Indonesia exemplifies the IMF's socially irresponsible method of handling crises. In the face of enormous devaluation of the rupiah, which will cause serious pain, the IMF is twisting the knife deeper and rubbing a truckload of salt into the wound. While the economy is crashing and estimated GDP loss for the year is climbing, the IMF is prescribing even tighter monetary policy and requiring Indonesia to restrict the budget deficit to one per cent of GDP.How will Indonesia be able to meet these targets? How about taking up the IMF suggestion of eliminating the food subsidies? What a fabulous idea when Indonesia is faced with a grave food crisis and millions losing their jobs. The IMF clearly does not have the interest of everyday citizens anywhere in its thought processes. The IMF is ripping the food out of people's mouths while ripping any political decision-making power from the government.We can see quite clearly what happens when governments are left with this no-win situation. It becomes quite convenient, in a desperation situation, to look at those people in their society who are doing relatively well—in this case, the Chinese merchants. It is quite convenient for the governments of these countries which are put under this kind of pressure to allow that kind of scapegoat mentality to take over. This is certainly what is happening.I believe the IMF's actions are completely politically insensitive. The IMF knows that it would never be viable for a government to impose such harsh measures themselves. Why does a short-term financial need give the IMF the right to strip a legitimate government of its ability to make decisions about provisions of services, health policy, wage levels and the like?The Thailand experience is also a case which casts doubt on the benevolence of the IMF. On announcement of the rescue package, many analysts pointed to the fact that the beneficiaries were primarily the transnational banks and creditors. The fact that the ordinary Thai's life was not improved one iota was not considered to be of more than marginal importance. This is despite the fact that the debt which resulted in the need for rescue was generated by the consumption of the highest strata of Thai society. But, of course, it is the ordinary citizen who bears the full brunt.There are a multitude of examples that question the value of IMF's programs. Australia should be assessing these programs that we are throwing millions of dollars at to ensure that they come up to the social, equitable, democratic and environmental standards that Australia supports. If they do not, Australia should be moving to give notice that this will not be a permanent agreement.21:33:001670Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I wish to make a few comments concerning the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998 currently before us. A brief description of the purpose of the bill is to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to establish a framework for Australia to provide financial assistance to a country that is undertaking an economic adjustment program with the support of the International Monetary Fund.This purpose obviously gives rise to a number of issues: firstly, Australia's participation in IMF sponsored economic assistance packages for Thailand, Korea and the Repub lic of Indonesia; secondly, the nature of the financial collapse in Thailand and South Korea; thirdly, the nature of the economic collapse in Indonesia as it develops and gets worse; and, fourthly, the role of the IMF in the circumstances that the above countries find themselves in at the current moment.Turning briefly to point one, of Australia's participation in the economic assistance packages for Thailand, Korea and Indonesia, in each case Australia has pledged loans or currency swaps of up to $1 billion. Our participation has been in our national interest, and it is important that that is said and goes on the record. It goes without saying, also, that stability in nations located in our region, in the economies of countries that are or will be major trading nations of this country in the foreseeable future, and in countries that are properly described as fully fledged parliamentary democracies is a good thing and to be encouraged and facilitated at nearly every opportunity.It also goes without saying that these countries like Australia which do participate in loans or currency swaps have the ability to seek modification or change to IMF packages because of special circumstances that might apply in countries like Indonesia. Those special circumstances may have more impact on, or be of more concern to, Australia than a country like the United States simply because of their locality in this area and the immediate impact if Indonesia should go into a dire economic recession.Issues like drought, starvation, severe social dislocation, rioting, internal upheaval, unemployment and loss of life savings for what is commonly described as the emerging middle classes are all factors on the horizon for the Republic of Indonesia. Their impact could be horrendous both for relevant individuals in those countries and nearby neighbours like Australia. Hence, any opportunity to point out, stress or demonstrate to the United States and to the IMF the possible consequences of inappropriate economic measures is a special circumstance which this country needs to take advantage of. In this context, the intent of the bill is worthy of support.The bill provides an explicit framework for Australian participation in future IMF-spon sored economic adjustment programs. The bill essentially provides for five things: firstly, a standing appropriation to allow the Treasurer to make loans or currency swaps to a country that is participating in an IMF-sponsored economic adjustment program; secondly, the Treasurer can only agree to provide Australian assistance if at least one other country or international organisation is also participating in that arrangement; thirdly, the Treasurer can only agree to provide assistance to a recipient country at IMF request; fourthly, any agreement by the Treasurer must allow Australia to demand early repayment in the event of the suspension or premature termination of the fund program; fifthly and finally, the bill provides for ratification taken in respect of assistance offered latterly to South Korea and Indonesia. Having made these rather technical contributions, I want to pass on a few observations on what has become known as the Asian financial crisis and the appropriate role for the IMF to pursue as this crisis develops over time.In this context it is proper to acknowledge my reference to three articles. The first is by Wade and Veneroso entitled `Asian crisis: the high debt model versus Wall Street—Treasury—IMF Complex', as yet unpublished but available on the Internet. The second is an article by Lester Thurow called `Asia: the collapse and the cure' was published in the New York Review on 6 January this year. The third is an article by Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President of the National Bureau of Economic Research, entitled `Refocusing the IMF', published in the Foreign Affairs Journal of March-April 1998. All writers are very senior and respected economists in their field. They are longstanding public commentators on finance and economic matters. They are published authors with longstanding interest in developmental economics, Asia and the variants of finance and differing models of capitalism that have developed in the last 50 years, and they are all senior professors at elite universities such as Harvard, MIT and Princeton. Wade and Veneroso develop an interesting thesis. They argue that the debt crisis in Asia is now a fully fledged development crisis. They point out that South-East Asia, particularly East Asia, has been a region of great economic success over the last 30 years and that living standards have risen at high levels over many years. They stress that at risk are the living standards and lifestyles of millions of people who, as I said earlier, have entered the middle classes in those countries and obviously would seek to retain that status. They point out that Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia are all heading down the path to significant depression with all the consequences that flow from that. They ask: what are the features of this Asian financial crisis? And they point out that most, if not all, of the countries in East Asia and South-East Asia have a number of features. Obviously all of the features do not apply to all countries but, if you plot them, most of the features apply at this time to most countries.Firstly, they say that in nearly all of those countries most debt is private debt and not government debt. Secondly, they say there is low inflation, budget surpluses or very small deficits which have been under control for many years. Thirdly, they say that nearly all of the countries have stable or rising foreign exchange reserves. They point out that the region as a whole has been, and is, growing fast, that it has a quarter of world output, half of world growth in this decade of the 1990s and, in the last seven years, over two-thirds of capital spending around the world. They point out that the IMF solution is relatively simple and is based upon models developed in many countries that needed assistance in recent years—most recently the Mexican crisis in the early 1990s. The solution which the IMF seeks to impose on South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia in the forthcoming months has two threads. The two threads are, firstly, domestic austerity—the aim being to restore the capacity of those countries to repay foreign debt—and, secondly, to seek radical institutional reforms, including further financial liberalisation, essentially freeing up the product, labour and capital markets in each of those countries.They then conclude that the crisis that has developed is essentially one of a lack of liquidity—or illiquidity—more than one of insolvency of firms in each of those countries. They say this crisis has occurred because of excessive financial deregulation in allowing banks and firms to borrow abroad without either government control, coordination, supervision or monitoring once those funds have been borrowed. As well as that, they point out laxness or slackness at government level in each of those countries. International banks have largely been unregulated. They have been very happy to provide Asian corporations with large amounts of short-term unhedged dollar loans. The consequences of both of those factors coming together is that, once any company or corporation is pressed to repay loans short term and is unable to do so, others also seek to call in loans and the crisis builds, and builds very quickly.So they conclude that the immediate goal is very simple. In terms of the financial markets, provision of capital from international banks and the guarantees from international organisations via the US is simply to restore confidence in international capital markets that existing debts, existing loans and future loans will be repaid as their original terms allowed. They say this requires overcoming collective action problems in which no lender wants to re-finance what others will not and hence suffer a loss. In the short term, they say that demand and liquidity must be increased, not reduced.Thurow, in his article, `Asia: the collapse and the cure' makes a number of points about the current problem, likely future problems and what the role of the IMF should be. Thurow argues a number of points. Firstly, he says that the IMF and the major world economies must not allow panic to continue to be almost the sole and dominant theme in financial markets and economic considerations in Asia. Collapses like the current one in Asia are part of the global economy and will continue to be part of economies as domestic economies become internationalised and globalised. He says that a steady response is required, not continued panic that will lead to a continued lack of confidence in the Asian markets and a further run on their currencies.Secondly, he says that the primary problem arising from the panic is a lack of liquidity. In such a crisis, normal business practice is forgotten. Short-term loans are not renewed when they normally would be. Suppliers demand up-front cash payment when they would usually wait 90 days. Companies that cannot self-finance themselves maintain repayments out of cashflow and go broke for no good reason.Thirdly, he says that the major problem with the IMF approach has been its nation by nation response rather than the required regional response. Its commitment to restoring national austerity is inappropriate when its measures must apply to many countries at one time. The impact of that combined approach is to cut worldwide aggregate demand, as was mentioned in passing by Senator Cook—its effect in a country like Australia. He says in particular that the IMF has not clearly understood the role of increased Chinese exports on the rest of the South-East Asian region.Additionally, the IMF has provided a very orthodox approach, as it did with the Mexican crisis. It must be said that, with hindsight, its approach in that crisis was correct. This approach, however, does not recognise that many of the South-East Asian economies have had, do have and will continue to have very high savings levels. For example, South Korea has a 40 per cent national savings rate. Mexico, on the other hand, had appallingly low levels of national savings.Fourthly, Thurow stresses that the IMF also needs to recognise that each nation will attempt to solve its problem by increasing exports. The natural result of that will be increased competition, which will lead over time to a devaluation of national currencies which could continue to spiral and create further continuing competitive devaluations. This of course was a major contributor to the Great Depression in the 1930s. He says that the IMF should be the agency through which procedures to certify the accounting of government and large companies are established, speed up the process of the Asian transition to an equity based financial system rather than a debt financing system, and assist Asian nations to develop their growth strategy on a domestic basis.He concludes that the IMF must focus on the current crisis and the particular problems it presents rather than simply relying on the old orthodox methods of solving economic problems. Without this type of approach, the Asian crisis will not be resolved and their economies restructured to a satisfactory level.Martin Feldstein wrote an article entitled `Refocusing the IMF'. As I said earlier, he is a Professor of Economics at Harvard University, President of the National Bureau of Economic Research and chief adviser to the Department of State in the US. His publication in the Foreign Affairs Journal can be interpreted as an emerging different focus within the United States government on the way the crisis in Asia should be handled.He argues a number of points. Firstly, the IMF has recently adopted a policy of imposing structural and institutional reforms rather than focusing on balance of payment problems. This has the potential, he says, to create further long-term problems. Secondly, it is important for the IMF to recognise the difference between a lack of liquidity and company insolvency—a recurring theme in all of these articles. This requires two different approaches, certainly in the immediate future. The problem of confusing insolvency with liquidity is that businesses that should be able to finance their debt in the long term end up closing down and making workers redundant because of IMF policies that are inappropriate at that time and for that particular cause. The IMF has gone beyond the key areas of concern, such as large current account deficits. (Time expired)Debate interrupted.Adjournment167310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.167321:50:001673Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise this evening to acknowledge the announcement today by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that the Chief Justice of New South Wales, Murray Gleeson, will succeed Sir Gerard Brennan as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia in May this year. In announcing the appointment, the Prime Minister described Justice Gleeson as a person held in the highest regard for his advocacy skills. The Prime Minister said:I am sure Mr Justice Gleeson will serve as Chief Justice with great distinction. His experience, skill and superb legal abilities admirably fit him for the task.However appropriate these words are, they convey little of Murray Gleeson the man, who has been such a feature of the legal landscape and legal profession in New South Wales for the past 30 years. My own professional contact with Murray began when he was a young and promising barrister lecturing law students at Sydney University law school, me included, on company law that some 20 years later is still in the process of being simplified.I had the good fortune to be junior counsel to Murray Gleeson just prior to his appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in an important appellate case, Norwest Beef against Peninsula Navigation Company. In trying to pinpoint the essence of Justice Gleeson's legal brilliance, I believe it is his ability to identify the issues in a case with precision and to develop an attractive legal argument out of the most unpromising case.Justice Gleeson's use of metaphor and his ability to excite the interest of the most uninterested judge was legendary. One such case involved a collision between two vessels on Sydney Harbour, where one vessel ran tours and afternoon teas while the other, a trawler and Justice Gleeson's client, was engaged in the more serious business of carrying cargo destined for overseas ports. The three judges of appeal seemed uninterested until Justice Gleeson opened his case. `Your Honours,' he said, `my client's vessel was navigating its way up the harbour when it was run into by a restaurant.' There was instant attention from the bench. He was the master of economical understatement, always accompanied by sardonic wit that fitted him well for his nickname of `Smiler'.Murray Gleeson was the ultimate tactician in court. In fact, I am reminded of what his colleague Justice Roddy Meagher QC is reputed to have said of him in the mid-1980s:When one visits Gleeson, one passes fishponds wherein piranhas glide between the bones of inefficient solicitors and discarded jurors and arrives eventually at a grey house and ultimately the baleful presence himself.Murray Gleeson will be right at home in the High Court, as much of his work at the bar brought him there primarily in the areas of equity, commercial and constitutional law.Murray Gleeson was perhaps one of the finest advocates since Sir Garfield Barwick when he made the move from Leader of the Bar in New South Wales to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1988. During a time of great pressure on the courts in New South Wales he has struggled to reconcile the need for change with maintaining the values that have underpinned the administration of justice since the courts' inception. Although it is a futile pastime to try to predict the way in which High Court judges will decide matters, I venture to suggest that Chief Justice Gleeson will continue to find that balance between orthodoxy and pragmatism that has distinguished his work thus far.Murray Gleeson is a great believer in the traditional role of the court and has wondered publicly about the High Court's modern reputation for radical decisions. In an article last year he said one reason for this could be the increasing use of litigation to achieve political and social aims and:We have long been accustomed to the use of litigation as a weapon in corporate and commercial rivalry, but we are seeing an upsurge in what might be described as the politically and socially aggressive use of litigation.Because of his great belief in and commitment to the courts and the judicial system, he is constantly monitoring developments in these areas. In an earlier article he raised the issue in which the increasing demand for the courts to tailor general rules to individual cases might undermine their legitimacy. He pondered that individualised justice could all too easily shade into quasi-legislation.No judge has, and no wise judge aspires to, political legitimacy— he said—Judges are unelected and, from most points of view, relatively unaccountable. Their independence and unaccountability are appropriate to the judicial role, but they are inappropriate to a quasi-legislative one.He is concerned at the role of the media in the law. In his Earle Page memorial oration at Parliament House last year he reaffirmed the legal values and restated the importance of judicial independence, the separation of powers and the rule of law. But to these principles he added some thoughts on the modern realities, which include the difficulties judges face in administering justice:. . . a context of saturation media coverage and highly politicised concern about law and order issues.Night after night they—the people—see on their TV screens victims or relatives of violent crime, telling their stories and being asked whether they are satisfied with the sentences imposed on convicted offenders.Talkback radio programs are filled with people expressing feelings of insecurity and demanding ever-increasing severity of penalties.To all of this, politicians respond by competing with one another to be seen to be tough on crime.As Justice Gleeson pointed out, judges cannot prevent crime; its causes lie in the social and economic conditions of the time.Justice Gleeson also has strong views on the adversarial system of justice. Again, in his Earle Page memorial oration he said people tended to overlook the adversarial nature of our whole society.Why should conflict and distrust be regarded as the natural order of things—he asked—It does not assist the people of NSW for the Parliament, the executive and the judiciary to regard each other as adversaries.Justice Gleeson will bring to the High Court a distinctive intellect and an intellectual rigour that will see High Court decisions continue to be cited in common law countries. He may also be able to achieve what many have been unable to do successfully in the past: explain to the general public what it is the High Court does and why its role is so important. He went a long way to achieving this in the New South Wales Supreme Court with the appointment of a public information officer. A similar role for the High Court should not be ruled out.The people of Australia will be well served by a Chief Justice of such calibre. I welcome his appointment and congratulate him on it. I also wish Justice Gleeson, his charming wife, Robyn, and their family well for the arduous task that will be ahead of them.167521:58:001675Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—John Howard was a director of the Menzies Research Centre from the time he took office as Prime Minister until 15 October 1996, when he surreptitiously resigned. He failed to declare this directorship in his declaration of pecuniary interest to the House of Representatives. Did he in fact declare it in the more detailed declaration form required of his ministers?At an estimates committee hearing on 18 September 1996, Senator Ray asked:Who does the Prime Minister make his pecuniary interest declaration to?His question was taken on notice, and a considered response later provided. That response read as follows:The Prime Minister has completed the same detailed declaration of interests that other ministers are required to provide to him. He retains custody of that document along with those of all other ministers. The Deputy Prime Minister has seen the declaration.From this one can draw either of two conclusions: that the Prime Minister failed to declare his directorship in the more detailed form or the Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, endorsed the Prime Minister's abrogation of his own code of conduct.Was it the Secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, who drew this matter to the Prime Minister's attention when he reviewed all the declarations in October 1996? Was he part of the cover-up or was he just embarrassed by the fact that he himself had retained directorships in the Victorian Public Transport Corpo ration and Southern Hydro, positions which attracted fees of some $85,000 per annum?The Prime Minister was clearly in breach of his own code of conduct, which states on page 10:Ministers are required to resign directorships in public companies . . . The Prime Minister says that this matter is trivial because it did not involve any financial return to himself. Tonight on A Current Affair he said:I wasn't paid anything. I had no personal private interest.Let me quote Senator Hill from 4 May 1992, when, in relation to former Senator Richardson, he said:It may not be a question of some financial or pecuniary conflict. This is related to registrable interests, not just pecuniary interests. The statement and the standards that the Prime Minister said he stands by require that Ministers disclose other registrable interests so that the public can see that they are not, in dealing with legislation and Cabinet matters, putting themselves in any potential position of conflict.I bet Senator Hill is not around at the moment explaining these principles to the Prime Minister. I suspect that he is on the first plane to Paris. So what is good for the Prime Minister apparently was not good for former Senator Richardson.Let us look at what John Howard had to say in a question that he asked on 30 April 1992. He said:Is it not, therefore, the case that unless the Parliament is satisfactorily assured that Senator Richardson either disclosed his interest as a director of the radio station whenever he participated in Cabinet discussions or decisions on broadcasting matters—and not just those relating to licence fees, but all broadcasting matters—or, alternatively, absented himself from those discussions, he must, in accordance with accepted Cabinet practice, resign from the Ministry and in default you ought to remove him.On those grounds, and out of his own mouth, the Prime Minister should resign. In the portfolio budget statements of 1997-98 the following item appears:Funding for the Menzies Research Centre and the Herbert Vere Evatt Memorial Foundation. An amount of $100,000 is allocated to the Menzies Research Centre in each year from 1997 to 2001. The document states the purpose of the grant as being:To provide funding as approved by Cabinet on 1 October 1996 of $0.1 million to each of the Menzies Research Centre and the Herbert Vere Evatt Memorial Foundation.John Howard chaired the cabinet meeting at which this decision was made. We know he was in the cabinet meeting because in a radio interview with Howard Sattler on the day in question—1 October 1996—he said:I'm over here for a cabinet meeting.Cabinet sneaked this grant through on 1 October 1996 when the former Treasurer was overseas covering himself in glory with Alan Greenspan. We ask: did John Howard exclude himself when this decision was taken? If not, John Howard, director of the Menzies Research Centre, is present when they make a decision to enrich the foundation to the tune of $400,000 over four years.The death sentence which John Howard so gleefully pronounced on former Senator Richardson has come back to haunt him. If in fact the Prime Minister did absent himself, the cabinet note-takers will have noted that. By that very action, the Prime Minister admits a conflict of interest situation and condemns himself for not declaring this directorship in his declaration to the House of Representatives.Isn't the timing interesting? The critical cabinet decision is made a mere two weeks before Senator Short hits the fence and before Senator Gibson taps the mat but John Howard, Prime Minister, softly softly, resigns his directorship.167622:07:001676Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to speak about a very serious environmental problem affecting much of Australia. I refer to the salination of agricultural land. The Weekend Australian magazine of 21 March featured an article by Nicholas Rothwell which I recommend to senators as a very useful on-the-ground account of how European agricultural prac tices, particularly tree clearing and irrigation, have already destroyed so much farmland in Australia. I think we can all say that much of this was done in ignorance, and indeed, on the instruction of government agencies, so it is not a question of attaching blame for past practices.However, the article points to a paper entitled `The increase of salt in soil and streams following the destruction of the native vegetation' that was presented to the Royal Society of Western Australia, published by them in 1924 and, of course, promptly ignored. Land clearing continued from that time and is still under way today. We are irrigating more pastures and crops than ever before and although there is much good work under way in the landcare movement, the message has not got through, either to many farmers or to the government. This article tell us where the salt comes from. It says:Billions of years ago, the rocks that made up Australia lay beneath primeval ocean. Thrust up, they formed the oldest continent, and were swept for hundreds of millennia, by salt-bearing winds.Australia's stone base is impregnated with this ancient salt spray. It has always lain there, far beneath the zone of native vegetation—those thick grasses, under-storey shrubs and wide-spaced trees that European settlers first saw and wondered at 200 years ago, and found very like the gracious parklands of a country estate.Over the next few decades, the most sustained land-clearance effort in history took place. Trees were ringbarked, dragged, uprooted—perhaps 18 billion of them in the Murray-Darling Basin alone.The new plants began using water in new, less efficient ways. Rain poured into the ground and down to the salt-rich water table 20 or 50 meters below. Undetected, relentless, the water began rising 50cm a year or more.The water table, across much of the nation's farmland, is within one or two metres of the surface. At dips in the land, along water courses, wherever you see bare soil patches, reeds and rushes, stunted or dying trees or their white trunked skeletons, there you have it evaporating, concentrating; the salt of Gondwana. Dryland salinity.The same weekend as that was published I was visiting Terang to witness the opening of the duck shooting season at a place called Lake Murphy. This barbaric practice of duck shooting—now banned, I might say, in Western Australia and New South Wales—is one in which wildlife is killed and injured, and it is done in the name of sport. As usual, numerous protected species were killed and birds of many types were injured.One of the brave band of rescuers in a kayak brought in a grey teal duck whilst I was there and I took it up to the vet. It was still alive but one of its eyes had been shot out and it had lead shot lodged in its underside. The vet treated this and the many other injured birds there on that day. There were coots, swans and numerous other water birds.I would like to acknowledge tonight the work of the tireless Mr Laurie Levy and many others involved in challenging this practice of shooting ducks. These people rightly argue that this is a dangerous, cruel and totally inappropriate activity which should now be banned. Shooter numbers were down this year, as were the ducks. In fact, the shooters were quite strongly outnumbered by the protesters, police, the state Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the RSPCA and the media. The Democrats hope that this is a dying sport which will now give way to tourism, which can at least celebrate and protect our native water birds.As most in the Senate will be aware, Victoria is extremely dry at present and there is very little water around at all. Lake Murphy is called a wetland and, indeed, it did have an expanse of water across its surface. Water was especially diverted for this purpose to fill Lake Murphy so that the duck season could take place. Otherwise, it would have been dry, as in most summers.When I think of wetlands, I think of landscape teeming with wildlife and lush vegetation. Lake Murphy, however, is anything but that. Lake Murphy looks like a moonscape. It has become salty and is largely dead. Salt marsh vegetation has emerged around its shores and the lake is dotted with hundreds of silver-grey trunks of dead red river gums. Lake Murphy is surrounded too by farmland—wide brown paddocks grazed to dust and almost completely treeless as far as the eye can see. This is not an unusual sight around the area of Terang, nor in other parts of Victoria. Nicholas Rothwell, in his article, talks to a farmer and pioneer of the landcare movement south-east of Terang at Benalla who says:A lot of land should be taken out of agriculture. If not, we'll continue to see the demise of our land and water systems, and of rural communities. I think we have a moral duty as a nation to not stand by and to see the land destroyed. From my point of view, it's a human philosophy thing. If it doesn't matter, nothing matters.These, I thought, were very poignant words and a message that must be taken to heart. Nothing should be done by this government to exacerbate this terrible problem. The article quotes another farmer near the Grampians. He says:I was only two years old when my family arrived here in 1946. It wasn't then recognised that the water table had risen 15 meters since white invasion and the clearing of the trees and that 10 per cent of the land was affected by salinity. They used to ringbark the trees for 10 pence each in the thirties. The best of them had been cleared earlier by timber millers for use as railway sleepers.This farmer has now planted out 12 per cent of his land in trees, 65,000 of them. The salting and erosion have become significantly lower. He says the land is now more productive. Madam Acting Deputy President, I understand I am sharing this 10 minutes with Senator Colston, and I seek leave to have the balance of my adjournment speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave not granted.167822:15:001678Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—The previous government, now in opposition, claims to have refashioned itself in the image of new Labor as a party with a heavy policy focus. In fact, on the day he was elected Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley promised an opposition heavy on policy, addressing the real issues. When the newest recruit scrambled on board, Mr Beazley was even more definitive. He said that the Labor Party is doing the fresh thinking, developing the ideas to see Australia into the next millennium. This new recruit, this self-professed serious policy advocate, agreed. In fact, she foreshadowed a major policy rethink for the ALP. So how is this new party that is heavy on policy—the one doing the fresh thinking and preparing for the new millennium—faring?Australian voters know this party as the one whose policies delivered the $10 billion black hole deficit that we have spent the last 2½ years repairing. But how can we be sure that this party is remaking itself? Where are the policies to prove the new policy ideas, and who has asked the questions in this place to substantiate the ALP's claims to this new policy beginning? Who in the opposition in this chamber has asked the policy questions, and how have the shadow ministers in this place been reflecting this refreshed and refashioned policy, this new Labor?A policy stocktake on a sample of shadow ministers is particularly instructive. Senator Peter Cook is the shadow minister for commerce and small business, and he represents the policy of trade, a portfolio he has always considered especially important, and I agree with him. In fact, in opposition he described his policy area as being the key to rebuilding Australia's export culture. So you might ask: where is the evidence of this continuing focus on trade policy in government or even on commerce and small business? The search is on.When I completed my policy stocktake of this year's question time last week, I saw that Senator Cook, the shadow minister for commerce and small business, also representing the trade portfolio, had asked just one question in these areas. It was, quite properly, on the Asian financial crisis. But I hasten to add that Senator Cook has also asked 12 other questions: 10 of them muckrakers out of the Labor Party muckraking bucket, nine of them against the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), and one wanting money for a project in the electorate of the former Prime Minister, a question he asked from the natural heritage bucket of Labor muck. This is a shadow minister with his portfolio clearly in focus.Senator Chris Schacht was an enthusiastic minister for small business, a portfolio he then described as of absolute importance to the community. I agree with him. But where is the evidence of this continuing interest in this policy area or even in his new shadow portfolio that he now represents in communications? At the conclusion of my policy stocktake on Friday, I found that Senator Schacht had asked just one question all year on his portfolio area. Now this is a shadow minister with a policy focus.The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner, was previously minister for the environment, a policy area he described as having very great significance for the future of Australia. Senator Faulkner, I agree with you; it is a high priority area.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—In opposition this year, according to my policy stocktake—Senator Ray, I completed it on Friday—Senator Faulkner had asked seven questions on this most important area. Well done, Senator Faulkner! That is until we look a little more closely at the substance of these policy related questions.When the layers are peeled away, we find the same old bucket of Labor muck. Senator Faulkner's seven questions on the Natural Heritage Trust were nothing more than a cheap opportunity to sledge the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) and the Baillieu family in a desperate attempt to reincarnate the Ros Kelly memorial white board of sports rorts fame. There has not been a single question on the real environment issue—just mud and muck—and there has been no apology to the Baillieu family either.In fact, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, who now holds the environment portfolio, and who does a thoroughly competent job at it, would be happy to tell any of you in opposition how he is restoring the environment if only you would ask him just one policy question. But, again, Senator Faulkner has not asked one policy question on his shadow portfolio of public administration and government services. The sharp policy focus continues.According to my stocktake, 48 questions out of a total of 74 that have been asked this year have done no more than muckrake—disgraceful sledging and slamming of individuals and their families. Listen to this record: on the issues that concern Australia— the real issues, as Mr Beazley describes them—there has been one question on taxation, one question on nursing homes, one question on regional Australia, and one question on trade and exports. It is a disgraceful policy vacuum in the Australian Labor Party.There are plenty of policy issues we would be happy to explore in question time—the economy, interest rates, care of the aged, child care, even tax reform. We would be happy to explore reform now under way on the waterfront, which, interestingly enough, Archbishop Tutu opposes, but the Australian Labor Party is still searching for the courage to agree that waterfront reform is one of this country's highest priorities. In fact, I must be truthful and say that there has been a question on waterfront reform: one from a backbencher, Senator Kerry O'Brien. But, just when you think there might be a bit of policy on the way, guess what? The old bucket of Labor muck is at work again. This time the question was directed at a Canberra consultant who had done some work for the government.Frontbenchers and shadow ministers have been strangely silent on the waterfront. Mr Beazley's major policy announcement has been to advocate the return of the old silver bodgie himself—R.J. Hawke. Now there is a giant policy leap right back to the seventies. So not much policy development seems to be under way in the Australian Labor Party, and the evidence to support Mr Beazley's changing face is strangely missing. In fact, new Labor under Mr Beazley looks pretty much like old Labor, the government that this country suffered under for 13 years. The Australian Labor Party is where it belongs—over on the opposition benches. Without a policy feather to fly with, that is where it will stay.167922:22:001679Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Faulkner tonight outlined what he saw as a conflict of interest by the Prime Minister. It has an interesting background, because it first emerged as an issue when the Prime Minister walked into the House of Representatives on 30 April and tabled his guide to ministerial conduct—and he did so with great trumpeting, with great pride.It is interesting to know though that at estimates committee, when we sought the identity of the author of this particular document, we were never told. I now understand that it was former departmental deputy secretary Mr Bill Blick who actually did the work, and John Howard obviously read the cover but not the contents.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Like Ros Kelly.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Good. Thank you, Senator Ferris—exactly the same as Ros Kelly. You are absolutely right. Thank you for that comment on the Prime Minister. I will pass on to him immediately that his actions were the same as those of Ros Kelly. Thank you for that.But having put in the guidelines on 30 April 1996—which, basically, were just a collation of the previous government handbook and one or two pieces of correspondence—the Prime Minister ever since has failed to observe them. Let us consider the circumstances regarding Senator Short. When issues were raised in this place about conflict of interest concerning Senator Short, the Prime Minister of course vigorously defended him until the smoking gun was found, and then accepted his resignation.The Prime Minister also accepted the resignation of Senator Gibson—a fact I still reflect on as not being a justifiable acceptance. When I reflect back on all this and look at the circumstances when Senator Gibson resigned and the subsequent events, I do not think he was required to resign; and I think he was treated very shabbily and badly at the time. When Mr Prosser came up with his difficulties, the Prime Minister held on to him for weeks at a time.Time and time again, the Prime Minister has rewritten the guide. But I could not understand why the Prime Minister was not enforcing his guide in the last few weeks. Why didn't he? Suddenly, we find out that the Prime Minister of Australia was a director of a public company from the time he was elected right through until 15 October 1996. By going through the record, we also find out that the definitions of what constitutes a `conflict of interest'—as espoused by Senator Hill, and Mr Howard in 1992—lead one to the conclusion that, if they were to apply the criteria they applied to the Keating government, Mr Howard himself would have to go.But I can understand it is possible that the Prime Minister may just have forgotten he was a director of a company. That is a possibility—that he may have forgotten that, in the same way as Senator Richardson may have forgotten it. But do I point out that, from within six days of Senator Richardson becoming the minister for communications, he had resigned that position without there being any public comment on it at that stage. So, as soon as was possible, former Senator Richardson made arrangements to divest himself of the directorship of a particular radio station.But not Mr Howard. He stays as director for six months. Exactly 14 days before he resigns, he chairs a cabinet meeting in Perth that enriches that research centre by $400,000 over the next four years. Mr Howard does not indicate then or now that he absented himself from the room. And you can bet that the cabinet note takers, who take detailed notes, would not have recorded him as being absent from the room. What bigger conflict of interest can you get than being a director of a public company to which cabinet makes a conscious decision to allocate money? What bigger conflict of interest could you get than that?C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—The Evatt Foundation.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Poor old Senator Heffernan in his befuddled way talks about the Evatt Foundation. There was never a member of the Labor cabinet, a director of the Evatt Foundation, sitting in cabinet when a decision was made.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—We will check that out.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, you can go back and check that. It simply did not occur.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Why didn't Macklin declare an interest, when George Campbell did because George Campbell—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Poor old Senator Heffernan in his befuddled way says, `What about Mrs Macklin and Senator George Campbell?' They are not present in a cabinet room when decisions are being made to make a grant in aid to these particular organisations; they do not have the conflict in front of them. The Prime Minister is a director of a public company to which cabinet makes a direct decision to give $400,000. How is that not a conflict of interest?But if you want to have a look at guilt, Senator Heffernan and others, look at the circumstances in which Mr John Howard left the directorship; have a look at the circumstances. He had a press conference on 16 October where he discussed conflict of interest. He had a press conference on 16 October and discusses conflict of interest—but he omits one thing at the press conference. He omits to say that one day before he has deleted a directorship. What a sneaky way of doing it.I would have at least a little admiration for a Prime Minister who, on 16 October 1996, had come in and said, `Look, I made a mistake. Unfortunately, I've overlooked a directorship; I've now rectified that.' But he does not do that. He keeps it hidden. No-one knows about it. He gets Tony Staley three days later to officially process his resignation from this particular directorship. No announcement; total concealment. He would have got away with it, but for the cabinet decision 14 days before, when the cabinet of this country granted his particular organisation $400,000 over the next four years—a clear stark conflict of interest. When the Prime Minister—VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Oh!UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Go back, Senator Herron, and have a look at the Prime Minister's definition of this matter in the past.168122:29:001681Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to now incorporate the balance of my speech in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The stories abound in this article of the struggle to solve this intractable problem. 6 million hectares are said to be vulnerable to salination if no action is taken. In NSW it is 5 million, 600,000 in SA, 74,000 in Qld and there are no figures for the other states. Two weeks ago I travelled to Wodonga, Albury and up into NSW to Holbrook and surrounding areas. I was shown some of the work of the Landcare movement and some of its failures too.Hundreds of thousands of trees in this region are dying. This remnant vegetation is showing the telltale signs of dieback. Dead branches sticking up beyond the straggly foliage. I am told that these trees have only a few years left. The reasons for their dieback are complex. They are attacked by insects because there are not the native birds to keep the insects under control. These trees have been isolated from one another which affects the nesting habits of some of our birds. Miners take hold in such trees and exclude other birds.I am told by a biologist that the only way to save these trees is to fence them off, encourage undergrowth of shrubs and to allow seedlings to emerge. Biodiversity comes not from a row of newly planted seedlings or a single ancient tree grazed up to its trunk, but from vegetation which is diverse in species and in age.Victoria recently decided to allow large remnant trees to be removed provided they were replaced by 10 new trees. This is an absurd concept. Even if they survive, it will be decades before they could do the work of one large tree.I saw streams at Holbrook which would have been dry but for the salt water seeping out into seriously eroded creekbeds. Water courses in this area have still not been fenced off. Where animals are able to graze up to the water's edge, the vegetation can no longer hold the soil. We have known about these principles for decades and yet still waterways are unprotected.My reason for raising this issue tonight is to point out again to the Government that we have begun to solve the problem but we are still not doing the most obvious work to stop it getting worse. The Natural Heritage Trust Fund is assisting with a small number of fencing projects but the point is that we now risk doing exactly the same thing on pastoral leases.The Native Title Amendment Bill has been criticised by the National Biodiversity Council because it allows the states to by-pass Native Title and allows for the upgrade of pastoral leases. It allows pastoral leases to be upgraded for cotton or rice growing or other crops and this land is, by and large, much more vulnerable than Kerang or Holbrook ever was. This land must be carefully managed and it is the role of the States and the Federal Government to see that this happens.This week my office received a copy of a letter to the Minister from Dr Tim Flannery, author of The Future Eaters, and whose work Senator Minchin said he admired. Dr Flannery says he shares the concerns of the National Biodiversity Council about changes to land use and the impact this will have on Australia' s biodiversity.He says "I am concerned that the Native Title Amendment Bill, in making it easier to expand the range of land uses, will almost inevitably lead to that further degradation. He said to the Minister, "I urge you to carefully consider the implications for Australia's biodiversity that arise from the Native Title Amendment Bill."I will of course raise this issue when we again go into committee this week on this legislation but in the meantime, I think it is important that we reflect on the damage already done to our land and take all necessary steps to prevent further damage. Native Title acts effectively as a safeguard against that—another protection against unwise, outmoded farming practices in this country.22:29:001682Senate adjourned at 10.29 p.m.Documents16821682The following government documents were tabled:Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal employment opportunity program—Australian National Railways Commission (Australian National)—Report for 1996-97.Higher education funding for the 1998-2000 triennium—Report by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Telecommunications Act 1991—Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Telstra carrier charges price control compliance 1996, February 1998.1682The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 3 of 1998.Broadcasting Services Act—Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice No. 1 of 1994—Amendments Nos 1-3 of 1998.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1998/11-1998/13.Social Security Act—Child Disability Assessment Determination 1998.Proclamations1682A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of an Act to come into operation on the date specified:Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Family and Other Measures) Act 1997 —Items 1, 2 and 4 of Schedule 16—1 April 1998 (Gazette No. S 112, 19 March 1998).Answers to Questions on Notice1683The following answers to questions were circulated:1683(Question No. 798)7981683O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 2 September 1997:(1) (a) What programs and/or grants administered by the portfolio provide assistance to people living in the following federal electorates: Bass, Denison, Franklin, Lyons and Braddon and (b) what was the level of funding provided through the programs or grants to each electorate for each of the 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 financial years; and (c) what level of funding was budgeted for in each program or grant to each electorate for the 1997-98 financial year.1683Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The Department of Health and Family Services produces an annual set of Electorate Profiles which provides an overview of the Department's service delivery activity, for which information is available, in each of the federal electorates. The April 1997 Electorate Profiles, including the federal electorates of Bass, Denison, Franklin, Lyons and Braddon, are available in the Parliamentary Library.(b) The level of funding provided through the Department's programs and grants in each of the federal electorates for 1995-96 and 1996-97 is included in the April 1997 Electorate Profiles. Actual expenditure for 1996-97 is to April 1997, the date at which the Profiles were produced, however funds allocated to be spent in the full financial year 1996-97 are also included. Expenditure for 1994-95 is available from the May 1996 Electorate Profiles which are also available in the Parliamentary Library.(c) The portfolio does not budget expenditure by federal electorate and is therefore unable to provide data on the level of funding budgeted for each of the electorates for the 1997-98 financial year.1683(Question No. 995)9951683Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 25 November 1997:(1) Has the Minister received a letter, dated 8 October 1997, from Mr Ken Griggs, Branch Secretary of the United Firefighters Union of Australia.(2) What Staff cuts have taken place at airports throughout Australia to rescue and firefighting services.(3) Is the department aware that Airservices Australia is introducing a business plan which would reduce the number of aviation firefighters throughout Australia from 600 to approximately 120 or 150 by 1998.(4) Can a list of the airports, which currently have access to airport fire and rescue services be provided.(5) Which airports will still have access to fire and rescue services if the business plan by Airservices Australia is implemented.(6) What standard of fire and rescue service will these airports have if the business plan is implemented.(7) Does the department believe that this reduction in the number of fire and rescue services will reduce safety standards; if not, why not.(8) Is the Minister's office aware of any statements made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority regarding the effect of any reduction on safety standards.(9) Does the department agree that, by world standards, the fire and rescue provided within Australia is considered minimal.(10) Can the department explain how the demands of speed of attack and quick intervention will be met by the replacement of professional firefighters with part-time, part-trained auxiliary firefighters.(11) Does the department agree that to introduce the staff cuts within the business plan while the current enterprise agreement is in place would be in breach of the act and be illegal.(12) What steps have been taken to ensure adequate fire and rescue services at airports are maintained.1683Alston, 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) Yes(2) Throughout Australia, over the 12 months 1/12/96 to 30/11/97, Airservices Australia (Airservices) Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) Division reduced staff numbers by 29. This reduction was achieved by natural attrition.(3) No. Airservices has advised that it has no plans to reduce the number of firefighters from 600 to 120-150.(4) Airservices provides airport fire and rescue services (RFFS) at the following airports: Adelaide, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Coolangatta, Darwin, Hobart, Karratha, Launceston, Mackay, Melbourne, Perth, Port Hedland, Rockhampton, and Sydney.Avalon and Broome have their own private RFFS. Townsville has a RFFS provided by the RAAF.(5) Airservices has advised that the RFFS draft Business Plan does not require the withdrawal of RFFS from any of their 16 RFFS locations listed in Question 4.(6) The standards and recommended practices applied at Australian airports are pursuant to the provisions of Article 37 of the Chicago Convention 1944, as promulgated in Annex 14 by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). There will be no change to this situation if the business plan is implemented.(7) Airservices has undertaken a safety case analysis of its draft business plan proposals. Airservices considers that an appropriate level of safety consistent with international and CASA standards will be maintained after the implementation of the RFFS Business Plan.(8) Neither the Minister, nor his office, are aware of any such statements made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).However, CASA has advised that Airservices wrote to CASA on 27 October 1997 requesting advice on CASA's acceptance or otherwise of proposed revised staffing levels for the Rescue and Fire Fighting Service.On 4 November 1997, CASA's Airways Surveillance and Regulation Branch responded stating that, following an examination of the proposal, and verb al clarification of certain matters with Airservices staff, it saw no reason not to support the proposal.CASA's advice went on to say that the levels as proposed by Airservices should be the minimum number of fully qualified officers and fire fighters to meet the appropriate airport category as per the proposal.(9) ICAO only considers whether member states comply with their standards or notify a difference. In the case of the RFFS, Airservices complies with ICAO standards.(10) Airservices RFFS Division has withdrawn its plans to utilise auxiliary firefighters.(11) Airservices proposals to introduce staff reductions would be implemented through the normal consultative processes and in compliance with the Workplace Relations Act.Airservices diligently carries out its responsibilities under the Air Services Act to provide a fire and rescue service at airports. The RFFS Division applies quality management standards to its operations under Australian Quality Standard IS0 9000. The provision of Rescue and Fire Fighting services is subject to internal and external audit, including by CASA and the Auditor-General.1685(Question No. 1036)10361685Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) When will a decision be made by the Federal Government as to whether a Commonwealth contribution will be made to the costs of the conversion of Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) studios and equipment to digital television, as recommended in the Mansfield report.(2) Will such a grant, if made, be dependent on the ABC agreeing to outsource most of its program production; if so: (a) what components of ABC program will need to be outsourced; and (b) why.1685Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Government will be considering all aspects of the ABC's digitisation strategy, including proposed levels of outsourcing, in the context of the 1998-99 Budget.