1998-05-123816SENATE251101998-05-12The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous25112511The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—On behalf of all senators, I express our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of Midshipman Megan Pelly, Petty Officer Shaun Smith, Leading Seaman Bradley Meek and Able Seaman Phillip Carroll, the service personnel who on Tuesday, 5 May lost their lives in a fire on board HMAS Westralia . I also wish to commend the service men and women who so courageously fought the fire and tended to the injured. I invite honourable senators to stand and observe a minute's silence in the memory of those who died and in sympathy with their loved ones and friends with whom we join in mourning.Honourable senators having stood in their places—Questions Without Notice251125112511Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can the minister confirm that the Prime Minister stated on 4 February this year, in response to questions about Mr Chris Corrigan, `I don't have to give a running commentary on every corporate citizen in Australia.'? Is the Prime Minister's reluctance to provide a character reference for Mr Corrigan because Mr Corrigan failed to tell the truth on the AM program of 4 December 1997, when he denied any knowledge of or involvement in the Dubai training scheme; he failed to tell the truth to the Sydney Morning Herald of the same day, denying that he had provided money for Dubai; he failed to tell the truth under oath to the AIRC when he denied any financial involvement in Dubai; he failed to tell the truth to Minister Reith when the issue was first raised in the parliament by claiming that Dubai was news to him; he failed to disclose that he was the primary Australian contact for Dr Marc Faber, the financier behind the Dubai stevedores; or because he claimed that these failures were justified because it was in his commercial interest to do so and there was not an overwhelming public interest to know?2511Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thought it was former Labor minister Senator Richardson who said, `Whatever it takes.' It was legitimate for Labor to lie in politics—apparently to serve its political interests, lying is okay. But then in stark contrast Senator Faulkner comes in here and suggests that Mr Corrigan lies to further his business interests and that is appalling. I would have thought that is a classic case of double standards from Senator Faulkner. I do not know whether Mr Corrigan has told the truth or not. Senator Faulkner, if he so wishes, can come in here and attack Mr Corrigan, but that is irrelevant to the issues before this government.2512Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister outline to the Senate the government's view of these failures on Mr Corrigan's part to tell the truth to the Australian people and also to tell the truth under oath to the AIRC? Can the minister also confirm that, according to a report tabled in the South Australian parliament in 1982, Mr Corrigan and his fellow BT Australia executives `lied and invented sham transactions to cover up their role in a complex business deal.'? While you are at it, Minister, perhaps you can explain to us why Minister Reith seems so comfortable in wrapping himself in an individual like Mr Corrigan?2512Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think Senator Faulkner misses the whole point. What this government is interested in is waterfront reform. What this government is interested is an efficient, internationally competitive waterfront because without that all Australians suffer and small business in particular suffers.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Rubbish!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, stop shouting.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order: you have recently written to all senators talking about behaviour during question time and addressing the Senate through the chair. It is also appropriate that ministers answer questions that are directed to them through you. I directed a question through you about Mr Corrigan's lying and the attitude of the government to it. Perhaps Senator Hill might care to answer and give the government's views about this incorrigible liar.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Schmuck.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Is it parliamentary to call people `Schmuck'?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I would think not. Senator Vanstone, if you would not mind withdrawing.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—I withdraw.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! A question has been asked of Senator Hill. There may well be some preliminary statement he wishes to make, but I would draw his attention to the question.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, what I am saying is that Senator Faulkner has missed the point of the government's action here. What the government is seeking is waterfront reform in order that we can be internationally competitive in that tier of business practice. In other words, in this world of globalisation, this era of globalisation, it is necessary to be competitive at all levels if you are to be an efficient exporter. This government recognises that, due to the longstanding rorts on the waterfront, which were condoned by the Australian Labor Party for so long—(Time expired)25122512Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. It relates to the question of jobs. Will the minister outline the reasons for the recent positive figures on unemployment, such as unemployment falling to 7.9 per cent—which happens to be the lowest level since 1990 when Labor created the recession we had to have? How is the government's responsible economic management of low interest rates, low inflation and low debt assisting families and small businesses?2512Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is an important question. The reason is that this government has taken tough decisions on tough issues. In the same way that it has taken on the waterfront, it took on doing something about the gross expenditure abuse by the previous Labor government. We inherited a deficit of $10.3 billion. I would have thought that Senator Cook would have something to say about that a little later—like a personal explanation. We inherited that and we tackled it. Unlike the previous government, we did not walk away from it, and now all Australians are gaining the benefit of that.They are gaining the benefit through lower interest rates and low inflation which are enabling business, and in particular small business, to expand and to employ, and so we are now getting good employment figures. These are the best figures on unemployment since before the recession we had to have which was imposed on the Australian people by Prime Minister Keating and the Australian Labor Party.What a stark contrast. The Labor Party gives you an unnecessary recession and mass unemployment. It has taken nearly nine years to recover the employment level to the situation that existed before that recession. So many Australians have suffered from unemployment as a result of the maladministration of the economy by the Australian Labor Party. So, Senator Knowles, the issue you raise is vitally important because we are now getting figures which can demonstrate to Australians that they have the opportunity for future employment.There is no doubt that we still need to do better. Okay, we have turned it around. We have now got the best figure since 1990, but we still need to do better. And we have in place the policies that can achieve that; we have in place policies that have restrained expenditure and got interest rates down to record low levels. We are tackling the waterfront and we will achieve the competitive gains that are necessary on the waterfront. We will tackle tax reform, which is also necessary to ensure that we have an economy that can continue to pick up the unemployed that Labor unfortunately left.There are further good signs that we can make progress in relation to unemployment. Recently, the ANZ job advertisements rose by 4.7 per cent in the year to April. In April alone, they rose by nearly one per cent. The Morgan and Banks job index survey in May showed that 17.4 per cent of firms intend to increase employment over the next three months. These are positive signs and they can give further confidence to Australians that, as a result of the policies that the Howard government has implemented, they have the best opportunity for employment that they have had for years. This is good news for all Australians and news that I would have thought that even the Labor Party would have been prepared to applaud.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No, it is misleading!BH4Senator HILL—Senator Cook interjects and says that it is not good news. I do not know what the Labor Party wants. Do they want to return to the past? Do they want to remind Australians that when Mr Beazley was employment minister we had one million Australians out of work? When the Labor leader was employment minister in this country, unemployment was over 11 per cent. We have now got it back to under eight per cent. We have made real positive gains in this regard and we have, furthermore, given hope to the unemployed—those who are still out of work. This is a real contrast and shows the benefits that can flow from sound economic management. (Time expired)2513Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister: how does the government's present policy approach contrast to the previous government's approach? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies which also contrast to the government's long-term goals which should not be jeopardised if the improvements you have outlined are to continue?2513Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The policies of the last government, the ALP, were high taxation, high expenditure and high debt.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Wrong!BH4Senator HILL—There is nothing to suggest that they will not go down the same path again. We heard it from the prize recruit the other day—from former Senator Kernot. She said, `Yes, there will be new taxes, but they are going to be specific purpose taxes.' Apparently that is different; that is legitimate. We are waiting, like all Australians, to actually see a detailed policy from the ALP—two years in opposition and still not one detailed policy.We know—due to leaked reports—that at the shadow ministry meeting on 6 April Labor said that it would be announcing a number of policy launches over the next five weeks. The five weeks have passed and there is still not one policy launch. There can be no hope for the Australian people in what is not being presented by the Labor Party. (Time expired)25142514Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Vanstone, representing the Attorney-General. Does the minister accept that the affidavits provided by Mr Mike Wells relating to Mr Chris Corrigan's role in the Dubai fiasco are inconsistent with the sworn evidence that Mr Corrigan gave to the Industrial Relations Commission on 9 February? Is the government concerned that Mr Corrigan's evidence appears to have been deliberately misleading in a number of respects? Will the government refer this matter to the federal Director of Public Prosecutions and, if it will not, why not?2514Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Senator, I think you need to understand—and you ought to already understand—that there are legal proceedings on foot in relation to some of these matters. I have no intention of canvassing publicly matters in relation to that that do not need to be canvassed, especially since the Commonwealth is party to at least one action that is now on foot. I will have a close look at your question, Senator. If there is anything in it that requires an additional remark from the Attorney I am sure he will forward you further information.2514Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that you have declined to answer a very straightforward question, Minister. Minister, you told the ABC radio on 15 April that you would happily vote for Mr Corrigan as Australian of the Year. Minister, is this still your view?2514Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I did actually say that at some time earlier in the year and I added that I would vote for anybody for Australian of the Year who is conscientiously seeking to get improvements on the waterfront. That is not a portfolio matter and is not really an appropriate question. Just in case Senator Cook misunderstood: this government is about getting reform on the waterfront. We are all there behind Minister Reith. You may as well understand that, and you are not going to win in your petty little squabbling.25142514Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer the minister to the additional 183,000 jobs created since August last year and the lowest unemployment rate since October 1990. Will the minister advise the Senate of the efforts being undertaken by the Howard government to provide more jobs for more Australians and to ensure that they are work ready? Will the minister also outline how these initiatives contrast with previous approaches? 2514Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Synon for that very good question. The recent 7.9 per cent figure for unemployment seasonally adjusted was good news for unemployed Australians and is in stark contrast to the previous approaches of the former Labor government. In August 1993 Mr Kim Beazley, the member for Brand and the former minister for employment, said:There will be absolutely no chance that people will find themselves in a situation where they will get into work.That is, under the opposition's policies. He then went on to say:. . . unless a person is in one of our labour market programs, he or she has absolutely no chance of success . . .That was back in August 1993 when Mr Beazley, the then minister for employment, was presiding over figures of 11.1 per cent unemployment. That is in stark contrast to 7.9 per cent, the recent figure seasonally adjusted.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—What was it under Howard in 1983?9X5Senator ELLISON—Senator Ray, youth unemployment in Mr Beazley's time was hovering around a total figure of 34 per cent, a staggering youth unemployment figure of 34 per cent under the former Labor government. That is in stark contrast to the figures which have recently been handed down.This government is justifiably proud of this figure, not because it is the lowest rate in nearly eight years in relation to unemploy ment but because of the 183,000 total new jobs created since August last year. That, indeed, is a significant figure. The reason for that jobs growth is that this government has managed the economy responsibly.Senator Synon asked: how are we doing to plan for jobs growth? How are we going to create this? We are doing it by keeping interest rates down, which will encourage business. We are keeping inflation down, which will keep the economy strong. We have introduced wide ranging industrial reforms and we have cut the red tape that small business previously had to deal with.This government knows that it is with a strong economy that we will experience strong jobs growth. That figure for the year to April 1998—and the opposition might want to listen to this—is two per cent seasonally adjusted. We have the runs on the board. We have the jobs growth and we have the figures which prove it. Not only that, we also have the jobs network program which is going to match unemployed Australians to those job vacancies.The jobs network, which commenced on 1 May this year, has provided for 1,400 sites for unemployed people to seek jobs. This is in stark contrast to the 296 Commonwealth Employment Service sites which previously existed. We are offering more opportunities for unemployed Australians to search for jobs. Not only that, there's more: we have a variety of jobs providers who are doing this. We have a variety of providers, some 300, and of those 246 were existing jobs providers.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise on my left is too high. Senators will cease interjecting.9X5Senator ELLISON—The former minister for employment, Mr Beazley, was using Working Nation as the benchmark for success. What a sorry state of affairs that was! That provided for the net cost of a job of $143,000, billions of dollars of expenditure. What did it get? 11.1 per cent, which is in stark contrast to 7.9 per cent recently announced. (Time expired)2515Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister further inform the Senate of other programs to address work readiness and assist unemployed people to find jobs?2515Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Synon for that valuable supplementary question. On 28 January this year this government announced further funding for the jobs pathway program to the extent of $12 million. This pathway will build a bridge between school and jobs. There is nothing factually wrong with that, as the opposition might say. The opposition does not want to have a look at what we are doing because what we are doing is succeeding.We are also spending $6 million on a new apprenticeships access program, and we have provided for mutual obligation, which is going to assist young people improve their skills, improve their training and make them more job ready. This will bring more young people into the employment sector.The opposition might have talked about job programs but that is about all they did—talked and talked, more training and more training. They did not deliver on jobs. All they could come up with was 11.1 per cent unemployment under the then minister for employment, Mr Beazley, the member for Brand. That is in stark contrast to 7.9 per cent. (Time expired)25152515Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to the minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Isn't it a fact that Minister Reith told the 7.30 Report on 27 January this year that he knew nothing of the NFF's registration of a stevedoring and training company until the 7.30 Report told him 24 hours before? Isn't it also a fact that Paul Houlihan has now revealed that Mr Reith was briefed on the Webb Dock operation on 6 January, two days before the NFF registered the three companies? Isn't it also a fact that Minister Reith learnt the thrust of the NFF plan at Webb Dock at this meeting? How do you reconcile this with the dishonest answer he gave to the Australian public through the 7.30 Report ?2516Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I did not actually see any of those interviews, but let me make it perfectly plain: what the opposition is interested in doing here is playing around at the margin, trying to construct a conspiracy where there is not one and trying to suggest that somehow there is something un-Australian about trying to reform the waterfront by sending people offshore. There is nothing wrong with sending the likes of Senator Cook and his mates off to Moscow for regular briefings and re-education sessions, but when we try to send people off and when those who have a genuine interest in productivity improvements on the wharves want to take action to reform the process, what do they get? They get an opposition that is bound lock, stock and barrel to the MUA.If you want to talk about conspiracies, there is a big one going around. It is the MUA, the ALP and the trade union movement. All they are interested in is getting out there and defending compulsory unionism. Have you heard Mr Beazley say one word of criticism about compulsory unionism? Of course you have not, but he has been very busy going down to the docks and putting his hand up, hasn't he? I suppose he has to do that because he expects a bit of funding in due course. It is very important to remember that there is only one crowd in town that is interested in reforming the waterfront.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Madam President, I direct you to the fact that Senator Alston was asked a question about the fact that Minister Reith on 27 January failed to indicate that he knew about the Webb Dock matter when he had obviously been informed about it previously. These are pretty specific questions that have been asked of him. Senator Mackay asked why Mr Reith misled the Australian people in that 7.30 Report interview. Don't you think, Madam President, we are entitled to an answer?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think perhaps the minister has been distracted by the interjections. Minister, I draw your attention to the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, let us look at the question. It is replete with assertions and judgments about Mr Reith having clearly misled the Australian public on the 7.30 Report . I have not the slightest notion of what Mr Reith said in that interview, but I certainly do not accept the conclusion that is put forward by those who have no genuine interest in waterfront reform.The question also suggested that Mr Reith had obviously been informed about Webb Dock. Again, these are judgments that those on the other side want to make to distract attention from the fact that they are not interested in reforming the waterfront, not interested in being critical of those who have achieved world's worst practice on the wharves, not interested in seeing any productivity improvements brought about, and not prepared to stand up and say, as Lindsay Tanner was prepared to say out the side of his mouth to Laurie Oakes, that we cannot be caught defending the indefensible. But, no, you have been flushed out. So of course you have to get up there and do the best you can for your masters because otherwise they might withdraw your preselections. We understand the motivation, but let us get to the issue of rorts on the waterfront and productivity improvements. Why don't you start by conceding that the wharves are a national disaster? Why don't you get out there and urge the MUA to concede that massive productivity reforms are required? We might then be able to have a genuine debate, but do not come in here making judgments about who said what on the 7.30 Report as though it has some even passing relevance to the main issues, because it has not.2516Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. My question was very clearly that Mr Houlihan had revealed that at a meeting on Webb Dock on 6 January Mr Reith was fully briefed with regard to this and in fact went on to say that he was not unhappy with the result. Why did Mr Reith mislead the public in the way that he did? If he had nothing to hide, why didn't he tell the truth? Who is telling the truth?2516Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If I had to choose between you and Mr Reith, it would be no contest. You suggest that Mr Houlihan revealed that Mr Reith had been fully briefed. I do not know what he has supposed to have been fully briefed about. Why did Mr Reith mislead the parliament? If you really want me to get you an explanation of what was said on the 7.30 Report and Mr Reith's position in relation to it, I am sure we will invite Mr Reith to respond and be as helpful as possible, but we will not for a moment let you get away from the fact that the Australian public understand where you are coming from on this.You only have to look at the latest Bulletin survey, but you can see it in all of the discussions and feedback we have been getting—that is, they know where you are. They know you are not interested in reforms. They know you are tied into a crowd that is simply trying to take Australia backwards. If you unravel that conspiracy and come clean on productivity reforms, we might be able to get somewhere.25172517Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston. Does the minister have an estimate of the amount of revenue which has been lost to the Commonwealth because the government has decided to loan rather than auction spectrum in the changeover to digital television transmission? If so, what is that estimate? Is it the case that cabinet went against the advice of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, of Treasury, of the Department of Finance and Administration, of the Office of Asset Sales, of the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, and of the Office of Regulation Review in framing its policy on digital transmission?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Read out the Financial Review editorial.2517Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I read the first sentence. I did not have a problem with that, but it went downhill badly after that I have to confess.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Did you read the headline? LD4Senator ALSTON—I did read the headline, yes. I must say I was taken by surprise because I could not comprehend how a newspaper could redefine the notion of Westminster responsibility in such a manner.Senator Schacht interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I would be interested to know whether Labor worked on this basis when they were in government. The essential proposition was that if cabinet takes a decision on the advice of a minister which is to some extent contrary to the advice of the bureaucrats then presumably everyone who was a party to that decision should resign. I would like to hear of the occasions when that happened on the other side on a regular basis. This mob made decisions time and again on the basis of politics—on the basis of everything but the facts that were submitted to them. To answer Senator Bourne's question about the estimate—UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—Oh!LD4Senator ALSTON—If you do not want me to answer it, I will not. But anyway, I will do my best. You want an estimate forgone by not simply throwing open all of the spectrum that might be available to the highest bidder. The trouble is that it is not quite as simple as that. There are a number of important policy parameters that you need to put in place.For example, there is more spectrum available for data casting than there is for free to air broadcasting. That part of the spectrum that is available for data casting for new entrants will be subject to free market processes and an auction which will then determine the amount that is charged to free to air players for the use of the spectrum for data casting.In respect of the amount of spectrum that is loaned to them, not given to them, that spectrum will be capable of improvement and rationalisation at the end of the simulcast period so it would have a greater market value then than it might have now. There is no reason to assume that you are necessarily forgoing any revenue at this point in time. The fact is that you continue to derive licence fees which will reflect the additional income, if any, that is available to free to air broadcasters from digital television.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Treasury, PM&C and Finance were all wrong, were they?LD4Senator ALSTON—I know you have not the slightest idea on this subject, but if you want to have a sensible discussion you should ask me a question about it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, you should direct your remarks through the chair.LD4Senator ALSTON—I apologise, Madam President, I was momentarily distracted. The fact is that if it is a criminal offence for a cabinet to take into account advice from departments and then reach its own conclusion then that is news to me. I would be very surprised if there were very many precedents for that other than on the other side of the chamber.2518Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you did not answer the second part of the question so I will repeat it. Is it the case that cabinet did go against the advice of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance and Administration, the Office of Asset Sales, the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism and the Office of Regulation Review in framing the policy on digital? Would it be possible to get the estimates that obviously have been made by those departments and those offices of the amount of money forgone?2518Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—You say that estimates have obviously been made by those departments. I do not have any knowledge of each of those departments having made independent estimates of the amount of revenue forgone. I am not in the business of confirming what cabinet did in fact take into account.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Didn't you read the coordinating comments?LD4Senator ALSTON—You may have read some leaked material in the newspapers and you may get quite excited about it. I come back to the point that if it is seriously being suggested that there is anything improper in a cabinet rejecting at least part of advice offered by the bureaucracy then we are fundamentally redefining the notions of cabinet responsibility. I cannot imagine how even Senator Ray—he obviously finished his run early so he has come into question time a bit earlier than usual—for a moment could suggest that that is a tenable proposition because it simply is not.25182518Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone. Is the minister aware of threats made by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business late last week to have the Australian Federal Police investigate principals of the firm Fynwest? Does the minister know whether such a request has been made to the Federal Police? Did such a request come through the minister or the Attorney-General? On what grounds was the request to the police made? What alleged criminal offences are being investigated?2518Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I am sure Senator Carr knows that there are numerous requests made for investigations to be conducted. I will take his question on notice and come back and give him further and complete advice.Senator Schacht interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—I have read reports in relation to this.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you should cease interjecting.7E4Senator VANSTONE—I want to check those reports and check the detail of your question, Senator Carr. Let me come back to the point since you again raised the waterfront issue that Senator Cook raised. That is really what you are on about.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone, you should address the chair and not the questioner.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Sorry, Madam President. The questions today have tended to focus on the waterfront. As I think Senator Alston indicated, if you are looking for a conspiracy you need to look no further than the MUA, the ACTU and the ALP. The problem that Labor has is that they just cannot swallow the fact that this government is determined to—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The Minister for Justice in her own capacity and in her capacity as the Minister representing the Attorney-General was asked an extremely specific question basically about Mr Harris and Fynwest and a reference by one of her fellow ministers to the fact that these matters are going to be taken up with the AFP for investigation. He has asked specific questions about what criminal offences were involved and who referred this to the Federal Police. It was not a licence to go wandering across so she can have a bit of group therapy on the waterfront.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister is aware of the question and will answer it.7E4Senator VANSTONE—I am aware of the question and I am part way through answering it. It is important to put it in perspective. As you know, Madam President, from being in the chair, the first question to me today related to the waterfront. Then we had others in relation to the waterfront to Senator Alston and others. Now we have another question in relation to the waterfront. I think it bears putting on the record again that this government is committed to waterfront reform. We will achieve it. We will not have the Labor Party standing in the way.This is a very reformist government. This gives me the opportunity to back up that statement that this is a reformist government. I remind those opposite and the community at large what has been achieved by this government in the last two years. With all the reforms that we have undertaken we have the lowest home rates since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. We have the lowest small business interest rates since—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: surely this part of Senator Vanstone's answer to a very specific question that was directed to her ought to be ruled out of order by you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I agree that the minister has strayed from the substance of the question that was asked. Senator Vanstone, if you have anything more on that, you still have time to deal with it.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Thank you. What I was doing was putting in context the questions that have been put to me today. There is no reason why I cannot do that. I have had two questions in relation to waterfront issues, and I am just pointing out the reforms that we insist on delivering—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: Senator Vanstone is now flouting the ruling you just made. You ruled in favour of a point of order I made in relation to that part of Senator Vanstone's answer being clearly out of order. She is just canvassing your ruling, in contempt of your ruling and in contempt of you as the President of the Senate, and I think you should sit her down.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—In your opinion, Senator. I ruled Senator Vanstone out of order when she strayed into talking about interest rates and matters relating to the economy. The question related to the waterfront and waterfront issues. She dealt initially with that and, while she is talking on that topic, I think she is in the range of the question. I ruled the economy out of order as straying outside the question.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Madam President, on the point of order, and I do not want to take contest with you, the question was not on the waterfront. The question was on Fynwest and Mr Harris and putting Federal Police onto him on presumably criminal charges. It does not go to waterfront reform or anything else along those lines.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is not for the President to debate in detail who is who on the waterfront. I call Senator Vanstone.7E4Senator VANSTONE—As I indicated, the two questions to me today have been in relation to the waterfront. I understand the concern by Senator Faulkner, who often turns his back when he does not like the message. I understand that they do not think that reforms such as those on the waterfront are critical to the whole economy. I understand that upsets them and I understand they do not want to know that we have the lowest home loan interest rates since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. I equally appreciate, to conclude, that they do not want to know that we have the lowest small business rates since the Rolling Stones could not get any satisfaction in 1965. No doubt they do not want to know about it, so they will just have to realise it in their daily lives, and I will come back to this another day.2520Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I draw the minister's attention to the press reports on 9 May which I must quote. They state, `The minister for workplace relations, Peter Reith, referred the men behind the allegations to the Australian Federal Police.' I ask you to check those reports, Minister, and I ask you this question specifically. Is it the case that this is a statement of fact and he did refer them? Or is it the case that Mr Reith was seeking to use the police and threats of investigation in an attempt to stop the Fynwest principals—Wells, Kilfoyle and Harris—from releasing the documents they did release, thus damaging Mr Reith's credibility? Isn't it the case that this government will go to almost any lengths to avoid releasing documents which would shed light on the government's role in the waterfront debacle?2520Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I understand Senator Carr's problem. Nobody in the ALP wants to play with him so he has to play with himself. I will get you an answer. I have told you that I will go back and look further at these matters. When I have, if there is anything to add, I will come back and give it to you. Okay?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order. You wrote to all senators earlier today and asked for improved parliamentary standards. Senator Vanstone, I might say, is the person who was waxing lyrical about people being turfed out of the chamber. She has already referred to members of the opposition as schmucks, which you have said is unparliamentary. We now have her latest contribution in relation to Senator Carr. Don't you think that in Senator Vanstone's case there is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think all around the chamber there is room for improvement.25202520Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, and it refers to the government's decision during the break to cut legal aid. Is it not a fact that this will impact most seriously on the most vulnerable—that is to say, asylum seekers who have fled their own country after persecution and have arrived here lonely, frightened and with very little English? Is it fair to consider that those people should be able, without advice and support, to negotiate the complex legal processes that they need to negotiate to get residence of this country? Is it a fact that legal aid has provided thus far 75 per cent of the subsidised advice given to those asylum seekers? Will the government—(Time expired)2520Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I thank Senator Harradine for the question. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided some information in relation to this matter and I can give you that information now. I further indicate that, if you want to give the remainder of your question to me at the end of question time, I will get you an answer as soon as I can in relation to those matters.The minister has been concerned for some time about the use of legal aid resources on refugee and migration applications. In these cases, the principal beneficiaries are not Australian citizens or permanent residents but people with no right to remain in Australia and who are seeking to prolong their stay. The system has also contained significant duplication, with assistance being provided through the Attorney-General's portfolio as well as through Minister Ruddock's portfolio. The Attorney-General's new guidelines complement the new immigration advice and application assistance scheme and so enable us to adopt a whole of government approach. Legal aid, of course, should be used in areas beneficial to members of the Australian community. The minister considers that discrimination and equal opportunity should continue to be defined as a priority area.We have a first-class system for determining claims for Australia's protection, which includes a full, independent merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Legal expertise is not required to make a protection claim, nor to have the claim reviewed by the tribunal. All non-citizens in immigration detention who seek to apply for a protection visa are eligible for free assistance through the immigration advice and application assistance scheme, which is managed by the immigration department. In addition, other disadvantaged applicants in the community may be eligible for assistance. The scheme provides assistance in the preparation of primary applications and applications for merits review by the tribunal. The legal aid guidelines are framed to reflect the assistance given to the protection visa applicants through the IAAAS.The new arrangements, Senator Harradine, are consistent, we believe, with Australia's international obligations. The convention relating to the status of refugees does not require that legal aid funds be made available for making and pursuing applications seeking to engage Australia's protection obligations. Australia has an international obligation to provide legal assistance for persons wishing to challenge the legality of their detention, and that has been provided for in the guidelines.Senator Harradine, I heard one portion of the last part of your question which related to the 75 per cent contribution. I do not have any advice on that but I will get it. I have given you the information that I have, but if you want to put more by way of supplementary or simply give me the rest of the question later, I am happy to take that too.2521Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am sure those in the refugee service will have noted the insult dished out by the minister. I certainly have taken that as a personal insult to me because I have been involved in the matter for many years. I simply ask the minister: will there be a guarantee from the person she represents in this chamber that there will be no diminution in the amount of funds available to those asylum seekers who, on the face of it, have genuine claims, who have suffered persecution and require that sort of advice in order to negotiate the complex legal system that Australia has adopted?2521Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Madam President, I think it is clear from the advice provided to me by Minister Ruddock that he believes the IAAAS does provide that which Senator Harradine is seeking, and it is clear to me from Senator Harradine's supplementary question that he is in disagreement with that point.I will take your question back to both ministers, Senator, and I will come back to you with such information as they can provide. If you want to give me the additional part of your question, as I said, I am happy to take that as well.25212521O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, my question is directed to Senator Alston representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, what precisely were Dr Stephen Webster's qualifications in relation to the waterfront reform sector to warrant his appointment, without any tender process, to a government consultancy worth $95,000? Why did he work directly to Ministers Sharp and Reith, yet have his consultancy costs met by the Department of Transport and Regional Development? Wasn't this simply a ruse to get around the prohibition on ministerial consultancies? Why was it considered necessary for Dr Webster to bring Dr John Davies with him at a cost to the taxpayer of $96,000?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Can you find me a good job?2521Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Can I find you a good job? Well, I'm afraid we can't. There are varying levels of competence required, but I do not think you would measure up. Madam President, I do not know the precise details—Senator O'Brien interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—If you think that I ought to be aware—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, address your remarks to the chair.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, if Senator O'Brien suggests that somehow I ought to instantly be aware of the precise nature and extent of a consultancy and contract, what the options were, how it was put out to tender or why it was not put out to tender, then he is wrong, and I am sorry to disappoint him.What is very significant about this question, Madam President, is that the ALP seems to object to the government taking any steps to try to explore ways of reforming the waterfront. In other words, whenever you try to call in people to give you expert advice or to suggest how improvements might be brought about, all you get met with is negative carping and criticism.Madam President, it is a matter of notoriety that this mob have been colluding with the MUA and its predecessors, the painters and dockers, and all those other wonderful people, all those friends of humanity, all those warm and caring people. I suppose you would vote for John Coombs for Australian of the Year, wouldn't you? Did you advise Mr Coombs to get out there and wear a sports coat, did you? If you think that advising John Coombs to wear a sports jacket is somehow going to persuade the Australian public that he is suddenly in favour of massive waterfront reform, then you are sadly mistaken.The fact is that what you are objecting to is a government seeking expert advice on how we can best bring about reforms in the face of entrenched criticism. Madam President, some years ago this crowd threw about $160 million worth of taxpayers' funds at redundancy arrangements which resulted in some of those very people still being employed down on the waterfront, going through the motions, and picking up very substantial pay packets.This government tackled the hard issues in an attempt to get around that entrenched collusion, and it did its best to obtain advice to ascertain how it can best bring about reform. That advice undoubtedly costs money when you employ people who are qualified to give it to you. I will find out for you, as far as I can, what information can be disclosed about these matters. But, at the end of the day, this was confidential advice obtained by the government.Senator O'Brien has tried to move heaven and earth to have the details disclosed. I would have thought he had much more important policy matters to address, Madam President. But no, we are still digging around, fossicking in the dark, trying to find all these marginal aspects of a very important issue.Never let us forget that we are the ones who want to do away with the rorts. We are the ones who want to improve productivity to generate higher exports, to produce more jobs and to make Australia more competitive. We have the runs on the board and, unless and until you wake up to the fact that there is only one party interested in these reforms, then you will go crashing to defeat at the next election.2522O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Surely the minister is not serious when he says the issue of Dr Webster's consultancy is not a matter that he should have on his plate for today. While you are at it, Minister, is it a fact that Mr Reith was referred to Dr Webster by the Prime Minister?2522Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I have no idea about that last matter, Madam President. All I can say is that I will make inquiries to ascertain the basis upon which Dr Webster's services became available to the minister.25222522Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Senator Kemp, can you please outline the very good economic news received over the last month? How has our government's responsible economic management helped Australian families and small businesses? How does our government's responsible policy approach compare with the previous government's?2522Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Ferris for that important question which deals with one of the major issues of public concern—the state of the economy. I am very pleased to report that, for many reasons and, most importantly, because of this government's good management of the economy, Australia is in a good position to deal with the Asian financial crisis.Since the Senate last sat, there have been some very good indications of economic activity. It might be worth while running through some of the important figures which have come out. Another very good inflation figure was recorded, with the CPI rising by only 0.3 per cent in the March quarter. Underlying inflation has fallen from 3.3 per cent in the March quarter 1996 to just 1.5 per cent in the March quarter 1998. I think the public and the Senate would agree that this is an exceedingly good result.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—What about the foreign debt?WW4Senator KEMP—There was also a rise in building approvals. There were further rises in retail trade. With regard to the area of capital expenditure, I would have thought that Senator George Campbell, particularly, with his background in the manufacturing industry, would be pleased with the figures that reported that business investment rose solidly in constant price terms. Other figures came out on dwelling unit commencements and so forth.Perhaps one of the most important figures that came out dealt with the labour market. I think this was briefly touched on by my colleague when he responded to an earlier question. Labour force figures for April showed an unemployment rate of just 7.9 per cent—the lowest rate since October 1990.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—I am interested in the foreign debt.WW4Senator KEMP—I think that figure would be welcomed by all in this parliament; presumably, Senator George Campbell would also welcome that figure. It contrasts very strikingly with the appalling performance under the previous Keating government, when the unemployment rate rose to over 11 per cent. Seasonally adjusted employment rose by 58,200 persons in April. These figures are supported by other current and leading indicators of employment growth.As I said, there has been a spate of very good news on the economy which confirms the soundness of management by this government in dealing with the problems that were left to us by the previous government and in making sure that Australia remains in a very strong position. Finally, there was one further bit of good news. I think that all of us are aware of Mr Beazley's infamous 1 February 1996 quote when he said:We're operating in surplus and our projections are for surpluses in the future.On 17 April 1996, after the government released the official figures on the state of the budget, Mr Beazley said, among other things:This notion of an $8 billion hole is largely a fraud.However, thanks to the shadow Treasurer, Mr Gary Evans, who drew the public's attention to the fraud and the deceit—(Time expired)2523Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Kemp, what further economic indicators have reflected the good economic management of this coalition government?2523Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As I was saying, the whole notion of the black hole was constantly denied by Mr Beazley in this parliament.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Oh ha, ha!WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Faulkner laughs but the truth of the matter is that Mr Beazley constantly denied the accusation that he had left an $8 billion black hole. That is why the comments by Mr Evans on Sunday were very important. Mr Gary Evans pleaded guilty to Labor's deficit. On Channel 7's Face to Face program we witnessed the following exchange:Q: Yes, but you also left us with a $10 billion deficit as a result.Former Senator Evans, now the shadow Treasurer, replied:Yeah, but it was a deficit that could and would have been corrected.So there we are, after all this period of time: Labor have finally conceded the substance of our attack.(Time expired)25232523Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the minister aware that Mr Howard is on the record as saying, in relation to the bottom of the harbour schemes back in 1982, that—and I quote:There is some element of fraud attaching to the arrangement whereby a company engages in a straight out asset strip with the clear intention of leaving the company unable to pay its tax liabilities.Is this the same John Howard whose government has actually instructed its hired consultants to discuss with employers the option of sacking the entire MUA work force? Why does Mr Howard condone asset stripping as a tactic to avoid a company's normal contractual obligations to redundant workers when he condemned asset stripping as a device for companies to avoid tax liabilities?2524Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. The senator's question in relation to the waterfront, yet again, of course, contains a number of assertions, not all of which I share. I therefore treat it as a hypothetical question and give it right back to you, Senator. You can play all you like with quotes from one place and another, but I am not going to play that game with you. Play it with yourself.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. In question time, is it competent, if a minister is totally incapable of answering a question, to use the words, `I'll give it right back to you'? What does that actually mean, Madam President?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is a matter that you could take up at a separate time, and ask the minister what she meant.2524Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question, and I will give the minister a couple of specifics. Did the government seek advice on the legality of Patrick's asset stripping their four labour hire companies? Have the circumstances surrounding these matters been referred to the Australian Securities Commission, as in the case of Cobar Mines Limited?2524Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Madam President, the senator knows well that, if any government department seeks advice from the Attorney-General's Department, then the department seeking the advice is the client and it is up to that department to choose whether to reveal that they have sought advice and the contents thereof. As to the reference to the ASC: you have addressed that question to the wrong minister. That question should have gone to Senator Kemp. So you miss out again, I am sorry.25242524Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that the director of the government-owned Employment National, Peter Storey, has confirmed that Employment National will be charging employers between $300 and $2,000 to provide employment services? Is the minister also aware that employers are being told by Employment National that they will have to pay as much as $250 to see resumes and $800 to see a job seeker who has been sent to be interviewed? I ask the minister: given that these charges will act in much the same way as, say, a payroll tax, drastically increasing the cost of hiring new employees, what are you going to do to address this significant disincentive to job creation?2524Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The contracts that were signed with jobs providers by the Commonwealth do not entail any fee for eligible job seekers. I am not aware of the fee for employers. In relation to people seeking employment, some states forbid the charging of fees: as I recall they are Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. There is no problem in relation to fees being levied on eligible job seekers. Concerning fees applicable to employers, I will seek instructions and get back to you.2524Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am amazed that the minister is not aware of those reports. They have been in recent newspapers. Can the minister at least confirm that Employment National is already being paid by the government on a per-placement basis and that this charge has been introduced so that the government can, through Employment National, increase its profit, despite discouraging job creation? Is this idea so that Employment National can make some money for the government, even though this will act as a disincentive to employers to take on employees and it will be a profit but will discourage job seekers at the same time?2525Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Madam President, of course we are paying jobs providers for placement of eligible job seekers. That is part of the new jobs network. The jobs network members must comply with a code of conduct in relation to quality of service and that is being monitored by the department. There is indeed a monitoring process and there is going to be a report to the government by early next year in relation to the operation of this jobs network.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice2525252515:03:002525O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston, for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 1118 and 1129 which I asked on 30 March and 7 April 1998 respectively.15:03:002525Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I acknowledge that Senator O'Brien contacted my office this morning to inquire as to progress. Accordingly, we made contact with the minister's office and relayed the concerns. As I understand it, every endeavour will be made to comply with that request as soon as possible.15:04:002525O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the explanation.The government claims it has nothing to hide in relation to its involvement in the whole waterfront fiasco and specifically in the training of industrial mercenaries in Dubai, but to date everything has been hidden. I have enunciated a number of actions which the government has taken to hide information, including consultancy reports from ACIL, from Dr Webster, from Dr Davies, from David Webb, from BGC Media and from Minter Ellison, and I have asked some specific questions which the government has chosen not to respond to in the appropriate time. A number of questions were put on notice that go to the question of the government's role in the Dubai exercise and the mass sacking of workers because they happen to be members of a union. That is not only my view; it is the view of the Prime Minister of Australia. Let me remind the Senate what Mr Howard told A Current Affair on 9 April. When asked about the sacking of workers in ports such as Townsville and Burnie, he said:They're all part of the one union. One of the consequences of having a bargaining monopoly . . . is that some innocent people get affected.These questions go to matters of legitimate public interest. The exact role of this government and of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, in particular, in the fiasco we have all been watching played out on our television screens for weeks is of legitimate public interest. We have seen the guards and the dogs on chains, and we have heard the seemingly endless chants from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. He is clearly locked into a script prepared for him by Jonathan Gaul and he cannot get out of it.The questions that remain unanswered are important. They go to the question of Mr Reith's relationship with the National Farmers Federation. They go to the question of who has accessed the consultant's reports that have so far been denied to the Senate. They go to the amount of money the government has spent on consultancies which we know about and they seek information on any new consultants the government might have engaged.For example, the Senate and the public are entitled to know why the government hired Dunhill Madden Butler. What did that firm do for Mr Reith? What was Attorney-General's up to? Was Mr Amendola from that firm employed as a consultant to the department of workplace relations or to Mr Reith personally? What other legal advice was provided to the department and the minister? When, and at what cost? Mr Reith has confirmed that the government had a team of lawyers on stand-by in London in case there was an attempt to put in place an international boycott. When was that team of lawyers engaged? Who were they? How much did they cost?The questions also asked for copies of all invoices relating to the consultancies undertaken by Dr Webster and Dr Davies as part of the government's waterfront strategy. These invoices were provided to Dr Greg Feeney in the Maritime Transport Division of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business, and he paid them. Those two consultancies cost the Australian taxpayer $191,000 and, as one of those taxpayers, I want to see where my money went.This whole bizarre affair still has some considerable way to go. And all the details of the role the government played in the illegal sacking of an entire work force of 2,000 Australians who support 2,000 Australian families are yet to be revealed. But they will be.It is often the case that questions on notice are not answered within the required 30 days, and there are often good reasons for such delays, but these questions go to a very important issue, as I have said. They go to an issue that has commanded more space in the newspapers and more time on radio and television than just about any other issue in recent times. They go to an issue that has entangled not only the minister for workplace relations but the minister for foreign affairs, the Minister for Defence, the former minister for transport and now the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) himself. That is the reason I am pursuing the answers today, and that is why the government should have provided the answers to me when they were due.Question resolved in the affirmative.Questions Without Notice2526252615:09:002526Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—On the last day of sitting I undertook to provide further detail to Senator Stott Despoja on a matter concerning the employment services market. I have written to Senator Stott Despoja and seek leave to have the letter detailing further information incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The letter read as follows—SENATOR THE HON. CHRISTOPHER ELLISONMinister for Schools, Vocational Education and TrainingSenator for Western AustraliaSenator Stott DespojaDeputy Leader, Australian Democrats212 Grenfell StreetADELAIDE SA 500012 May 1998Dear Senator Stott-DespojaI refer to your question in the Senate on 8 April 1998 which I took on notice, regarding the taping of feedback sessions for the Employment Services Market.Feedback sessions were offered to all organisations who tendered for the Employment Services market, whether they were successful or unsuccessful.Each tenderer was offered a half hour session in which the details of the processes used to ensure that decisions were reached on a fair and consistent basis were explained and feedback was given in relation to that organisation's tender.The sessions were being taped to ensure, should an issue arise, that there can be no dispute about any advice given. The tapes are for Departmental reference only and will not be transcribed or used for any further purpose.A letter was sent to each tenderer requesting a feedback session, confirming the appointment, outlining the boundaries of the sessions and stating that "you should note that the Department will retain a record of the session on tape."For feedback sessions being conducted by telephone (in addition to the letter), the Department notified the participants that it was being taped. This is consistent with the telecommunications legislation.Some tenderers have also taken the opportunity to tape their own session.It should be noted that all information sessions that were provided to prospective tenderers before the tender process were also taped. There have been situations where tenderers have disputed what was said at these sessions. The tapes have provided a quick solution to any of these queries.I hope this information is of assistance to you.Yours sincerelyCHRIS ELLISONSenator for Western Australia 252715:10:002527Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), to the question without notice asked by Senator Mackay today, relating to workplace relations and waterfront reform.That very question exposed the fact that Minister Reith told the 7.30 Report on 27 January this year that he did not know anything at all about the NFF's registration of a stevedoring or training company until he had been informed about it by the 7.30 Report the day before.That is what he said to the Australian people on 27 January. But the truth is that Mr Paul Houlihan revealed that Mr Reith was briefed on the Webb Dock operation on 6 January, which was two days before the NFF registered the three companies. That is when Mr Reith learnt about this matter. That is when he knew about the NFF's plan for the Webb Dock. Of course, Senator Alston and Senator Vanstone today, in one of their worst ever performances, could not answer the questions directed to them by the opposition. There is no way that you could reconcile the dishonest answer that Mr Reith gave on the 7.30 Report with the facts of the matter.There is a real problem for Mr Reith now, because Mr Reith is either being publicly exposed as a lying, conniving, co-conspirator with corporate cowboys like Chris Corrigan and Mr Scanlon, a minister of the crown who actively and knowingly has incited the sacking of an entire work force, or he is a dupe and he has been led by the nose by those same corporate cowboys into what we believe and what has been proved to be a massive abuse of his ministerial trust. That is the truth of the matter. Mr Reith either willingly got into bed with these characters or he has been duped by them. I can assure the Senate that we will be examining this close relationship between Mr Reith and these characters a great deal more.But look at Mr Corrigan and what he has said. He lied on the ABC's AM program on 4 December when he denied any knowledge or involvement in the Dubai training scheme. He lied to the Sydney Morning Herald the same day when he denied that he had provided money for the Dubai training scheme. He lied under oath to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission when he denied any financial involvement in the Dubai training scheme. He lied to Minister Reith, when the issue was first raised in the parliament, by claiming that the Dubai scheme was news to him. Mr Corrigan lied when he failed to disclose that he was the primary Australian contact for Dr Marc Faber, who was the financier behind the Dubai stevedores. He then claimed that all these lies were justified because it was in his commercial interest to do so and there was no overwhelming public interest to know—and that position was defended by Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate in this chamber today.We say that Mr Corrigan is continuing his corporate behaviour from 1982 when a special investigator raised very serious doubts about his evidence regarding Elders shares and the stories that have been concocted after the event. We say that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) ought to instigate a comprehensive, independent public inquiry into this whole sordid matter, especially given the symbiotic relationship that exists between Mr Reith and the government and Mr Chris Corrigan. Without such an inquiry the Howard government's credibility will be exactly the same as Chris Corrigan's credibility—and that is non-existent. We ought to have a full, public, independent, comprehensive inquiry now. (Time expired)15:15:002527Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—Once again in question time and in this debate, Senator Faulkner has missed the point of this whole issue of what waterfront reform is all about. He chooses to try to character assassinate the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith, and a number of other people rather than address the issues. A report on waterfront reform was released by the Productivity Commission 14 or 15 days ago. It would be interesting to know how many on the other side bothered to read and study it and recognise the necessity to do something. We have two situations here, with the Labor side defending the indefensible—it is absolutely impossible to defend what has been going on—and the government side trying to do something by getting some productivity improvement into our waterfront and improving our ability to compete.I want to run through a few of the issues that were raised in that report because they are very important. These are the things that the public need to know about. They need to know why it is necessary to reform our waterfront. I will touch briefly on some of the matters raised in respect of the Productivity Commission reports. The first point is that it:Fully supports the Government's position that substandard waterfront performance is hurting Australia and reform is needed.The following comment is made in regard to the second report:Shows how labour arrangements are retarding container stevedoring performance.The document went on to list a number of things and I will touch briefly on some of them. Under the heading `Container stevedoring' it listed the following:a. charges higher than overseasb. shiploading & unloading slowerc. poor reliability (a large proportion of ships are delayed in Australian ports)d. increased costs to userse. significant scope for improvement.With regard to MUA working arrangements and work practices, the following items are listed:a. complex, inflexible systemb. retards productivityc. increases costsd. reduces reliabilitye. entrenches `overtime culture'f. the `pick' or order of engagement is a key problemg. high shift premiums and overtime.These are some of the issues. When are Labor Party senators going to get dinkum about this issue and do something about it? They should support a coalition government that is trying to do something about it. They should say to the people that they support, `You've got to lift your game; you've got to lift your performance. It is in the interests of Australia that you do so.'An example of an industry that is having some difficulties right now is the wool industry. Just moderate reform on the waterfront would be worth at least 6c per kilo to every woolgrower in this country. The benefit of that to the community would be absolutely enormous. They are the plus dollars; they are the dollars that get spent; they are above and beyond the cost of production. Yet this lot on the other side continually hide behind their old charade. As Senator Alston said in answer to a question today, the conspiracy is really between the Labor Party, the ACTU and the MUA. They refuse to take a realistic approach to this and address the issue—the real things that matter.We are told about reports and consultancies. I remember well seeing some information with regard to the report that was done by Turnbull and Wran on the Australian National Line. Would Senator Collins give us a line? Would he give us a word? Not a word. He said, `That is government property. We have this right as a government.' You can check the Hansard on this; it was asked many times. Repeatedly he said, `We do this to carry out our function; it is not something for the parliament.' Yet you run this conspiracy line as if there is something very strange or unusual about getting a consultant in to give advice in terms of a particular issue. You have been dragging a red herring across this matter; and what is more, you know it is a red herring—it is your way.Let us touch on a couple of other things. All we have asked for on the waterfront is a lift in container rates from 18 to 25. Yet we find that New Zealand is doing better than that. We find that Thailand, using the same equipment, has a rate of 30 an hour. Fremantle has only 18.9; Brisbane, 16.8; Sydney, 18.4; Melbourne, 18.8; and Adelaide, 21.4. We should look, for example, at double-header time—that is, back-to-back shifts on Saturday, when people working on the waterfront earn $630 as a result of poor unexplainable work practices which exist in that indus try. That is what this debate is about, and that is what has to be addressed. The Australian public know that that has to be addressed in terms of fixing up the problem. (Time expired)15:20:002529Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I would like to make some comments about the double standards that have been demonstrated so ably by the Labor Party over so many weeks now. I will quote some words of certain people. It might be interesting for people to decide who might have actually said this and about whom. One quote is:My message to them is that they will cop every instrument of punishment and retribution and reaction that the operators bring against them. It is a different game this time boys; it's war. They are exceptionally greedy.A further comment was made. The quote is:They are behaving like a bunch of bloody-minded thugs.Another quote was:They are a special elite group that can hold this country to ransom.One might ask who were these words directed at and by whom. The first quote was by Bob Hawke when he was referring to the pilots dispute. The other two quotes were by former Senator Bob Collins. He, too, was referring to the pilots dispute. But it does not end there, because the duplicity of the argument that we are seeing today will never end when you look at one group of people vis a vis another. Senator Collins said this about the pilots:What I overwhelmingly want to do is go out and kick a few airline pilots to death.Anyone in their right mind would say that it is absolutely and utterly absurd for a member of parliament to say that. But the Labor Party did not bring him into line; the Labor Party did not say, `Well, hold on. Maybe there are other people who should be brought into line, other unions who should be called to account.' The Labor Party had no reform agenda at that time at all—just a pure and utter unadulterated vendetta against the airline pilots.The Labor government brought in the army. The fact of the matter is that it was the Labor government that brought in foreign workers at the cost of Australian jobs. Yet those opposite do not seem to be worried about that at all today. The Labor Party just seems to say, `But the MUA is a very different case.' The MUA is a different case all right. The MUA silvertails are allowed to hold up millions of dollars in vital exports on Australian docks. They are allowed to maintain inefficient work practices, hang on to their ill-gotten gains and conduct industrial warfare with the total and utter approval of the Labor opposition. That is how they are different from the pilots.The other myth that the Labor Party is creating non-stop is that industrial disputation has increased since the coalition government came to office. What one must look at is the figures from 1983 to 1995 and the industrial disputes of the stevedoring industry compared with the all other industries average. In those years from 1983 to 1995, the average for the stevedoring industry was 2,174 days lost. The all other industries average was 193. So there we have it—2,174 versus 193. Since the coalition government has been in office, the 2,174 average of the Labor government has been reduced to 1,030, and the all other industries average has been reduced from 193 down to 103. Yet we still have the Labor Party saying that the MUA is some special protected case.The stevedoring industry is performing poorly even in terms of occupational health and safety. The number of work-related injuries in 1994-95 was 169.6 per 1,000 employees. Compare this with the figure of 64.3 for the mining industry and 29.1 for all industries. Yet the Labor Party can still say that the MUA, this restricted club that they support because the MUA supports them in return, is something that should be protected. Even worse than that, the average incidence of fatalities per 10,000 employees between the years 1991 and 1995 was seven times the all Australian industries figure. That just demonstrates the MUA's lack of care for their own members. (Time expired)15:25:002529Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise to support the motion to take note of the answers given by Senator Alston and to say, `What a differ ence five weeks make.' On the last day we spent in this place we were treated to the spectacle of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Prime Minister slapping each other on the back in the other House, and because of what? Because they had achieved waterfront reform? No! It was because they had put in place a rort to sack 1,400 workers in this country and to expose 1,400 workers' families to unemployment. That is what they were congratulating themselves on in the other chamber on 8 April. They were slapping each other on the back and saying, `We've achieved a major victory. We've put 1,400 families in jeopardy, and we've put another 1,400 people on the dole.' That is what waterfront reform was about on 8 April.AW5CARRSenator Carr—They couldn't get the dole.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—No, they could not get the dole. But they probably would have in the long term after the redundancy payments they would have got from the government funded by the taxpayers because Mr Corrigan was not going to fund them. After those redundancy payments were expended, they may have then had access to the dole. But in reality what has happened in the intervening five weeks? We have had 10 prominent judges in this country all say that a potential conspiracy had occurred between the stevedores on the waterfront and the government that sacked those workers and, much more importantly, that they have a case to answer. That will be brought to finality one day, and the truth will out as to what happened in terms of the waterfront in this country.If you are not concerned about the government's involvement with Corrigan, if the Prime Minister and Peter Reith did not know about Dubai and did not know what was going on in the minds of the stevedoring companies from July last year, there is a simple way to dispel it, put the whole issue to rest and get on with the business of running the country: put the consultants' reports on the table. They will demonstrate whether they knew. They will tell the Australian people whether or not Peter Reith was part of the conspiracy. That is not an unreasonable request to make—put them on the table and demonstrate that you had no involvement, put beyond doubt what Mr Webster's role was in the process and let us get on with the business of running the country.Senator Hill interjecting—NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—But you won't put them on the table, will you, Senator Hill, because you know they will expose you and your cohorts on the other side for what you are really about, and that is an attack on a union. I have found the rhetoric in this whole debate intriguing. I will take you back, Senator Hill—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Attacks on inefficiencies that you condone!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Hill. Senator Campbell, please address the chair.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I will take you back, Madam Deputy President, to what the Minister, Peter Reith, said on 23 May 1996. He said:The government is not anti-union, and our legislation is not an attack on unions. The legislation will assist unions who are seeking to be effective in providing a good service to their members.There is nobody in this place, including the Prime Minister and Peter Reith, who would suggest that the waterside workers or the MUA have not been effective in looking after the interests of their members. They keep screaming about it. In fact, the MUA have been too effective; they have done too good a job on behalf of their membership. That is what the agenda is about—it is about union busting and it has been union busting all along; it has been union busting right from the start.Otherwise, why would you have a situation where they sacked trade unionists in Tasmania and in Townsville? Why? Because there were excessive rorts. Why? Because they were not making benchmark figures. In fact, it was demonstrated that these workers were achieving world's best practice but, at the end of the day, it did not matter to the Prime Minister or to Peter Reith what they were achieving in terms of efficiency and productivity on the waterfront because this was an agenda to destroy the MUA. (Time expired)15:30:002531Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I also rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Alston. We have heard in this place today questions from Senator Quirke, Senator Faulkner and Senator O'Brien about who knew what, when they knew it, why they knew it and how they knew it. But the real question surely is: who is interested in waterfront reform? Let us have a look at the evidence. Interestingly enough, John Coombs, the National Secretary of the MUA, claims to be interested in waterfront reform. On the Four Corners program on 9 March, just a few weeks ago, he said:I accept that productivity . . . can always be improved, and that's what I'm about . . . trying to improve productivity . . .Even the President of the ACTU, Jennie George, has agreed. She said this on the Sunday show of 12 April:Look . . . I think there is a good case, and Mr Coombs has conceded that too, that there is room for further improvement.So we now have the national secretary of the waterfront union—the MUA—and the ACTU president conceding that there is room for improvement on the waterfront. But have a listen to what Mr Beazley said at the same time:. . . I endorse the activities of the Maritime Union of Australia . . . on the whole the union movement has handled this quite well and I think they ought to go on handling it that way—quite well.So the Leader of the Opposition, contrary to the views expressed at the same time by the union president and the union secretary, does not favour waterfront reform. He pays very poor lip-service to waterfront reform.The only time Mr Beazley had supported waterfront reform was under the WIRA process when $420 million of taxpayers' money went the way of the waterside workers. A better question for the opposition to have asked today would have been: how many of the MUA are still working on the waterfront after they took the WIRA package comprising $420 million of taxpayers' money? Perhaps another better question that Senator Carr might consider asking tomorrow is: what did Neville Wran deliver in that report that we never saw—that, as Senator Campbell said, was never laid on the table. A better question for Senator George Campbell to ask tomorrow might be: what was delivered in Neville Wran's package of consultancies to the government of the day, the previous government, for the $304,000 that he was paid? If it was annualised, it would even make a wharfie embarrassed because it was $760,000 for a two-day a week, part-time job. It sounds a bit like the sort of productivity we have come to accept on the waterfront. But not any more.During the past week, I had the pleasure of attending a small business meeting with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Peter Reith. I sat next to a small businessman who previously had been a Vietnam veteran. He told me that he had been in Vietnam as a 19-year-old and he had spent two Christmases in Vietnam. The first Christmas he got no letters from home because the wharfies would not load the mail bags, and the second Christmas he got no Australian beer from home because the wharfies would not load the beer.That is a long time ago, but that is why this community, three to one, supports waterfront reform. We will deliver it; we will go the extra mile; we will make the hard yards; and we will deliver the ports of this country an efficient, effective union and non-union work force.15:35:002531Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I also support the motion to take note of the answer given to the question asked by Senator Mackay. At the outset it seems that two matters need to be identified. Firstly, this whole waterfront dispute is now not about reform, productivity, growth, improvement, more jobs, better jobs, or sound and sensible ongoing permanent reform. The entire trade union movement, individual unions and whole sectors of industry have been engaged in that process since at least the early 1980s. For the last 15 years, all of the former union officials on this side of the chamber have been actively engaged in that reform process.Repeatedly, the ALP through the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) has said that this party in government will recommit to reform and achieve that end. Our record on that issue is sound. It is proud and it has stood the test of time. So if this issue is not about waterfront reform, one asks the obvious question: what is it about? It is about one thing only—bashing and destroying the MUA—and that process is to be achieved by illegality, deceit, corporate manipulation, surprise, and the engagement, hiring and training of de facto mercenaries.Today in Australia the lesson for children at school, the lesson for the business community and the lesson for the entire Australian community is that the end justifies the means. The litany of illegal and improper activity by this government, Minister Reith and a range of private interests is now emerging inch by inch, and other questions in today's question time outlined the scope of those lies and that deceit.There were multiple instances of Mr Corrigan lying on 4 December when he denied any knowledge of involvement in the Dubai training scheme. Mr Corrigan lied to the Sydney Morning Herald on the same day, denying that he had provided money for the Dubai training scheme. Mr Corrigan lied under oath to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission when he denied any financial involvement in the Dubai training scheme. He lied to his friend and ally Minister Reith when the issue was first raised in the parliament by claiming that the Dubai scheme was news to him. Most interestingly, he claimed that those particular lies were justified because it was in his commercial interest to do so and there was an overwhelming public interest to know.Mr Howard condoned asset stripping as a tactic to avoid a company's normal contractual obligations to redundant workers. The same Mr Howard was apparently happy to condemn asset stripping as a device for companies to avoid tax liabilities back in 1982-83. Apparently, those unacceptable practices 15 years ago are okay when they involve the illegal sacking of workers in 1998. We have a tissue of lies from Mr Corrigan and an about-face by Mr Howard.We come now to the arch-protagonist, the leader in this whole dispute, Mr Reith. We know that Paul Houlihan told Mr Reith of the Webb Dock operation on 6 January, two days before the NFF registered the three companies. We know that 21 days later Minister Reith told the 7.30 Report, on 27 January, that he knew nothing of the NFF registration of the same stevedoring and training company. Why do we continually have these lies from Mr Reith and Mr Corrigan and apparent about-faces by Mr Howard? The answer is clear: the end always justifies the means—we bash the MUA and we destroy the union. That is what this whole dispute is and will be about.Similarly, with respect to Dr Stephen Webster and his mates well-known Liberal Party operators Jonathan Gaul and Mark Textor, there was no tender process for government consultancies involving the huge sum of $95,000. Dr Webster was working directly to Minister Sharp and Minister Reith as a consultant, but the consultancy fees were paid directly by the department. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Faulkner be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous25322532The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—On behalf of the President, I present a statement on the declaration of interests by senators. Copies of the statement have been circulated in the chamber and, with the concurrence of the Senate, I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—In the Senate on 23 March 1998, I referred to the question whether declarations of interests made in relation to a bill should be required to be repeated at subsequent subsidiary stages of the consideration of the bill. I indicated that I would ask the Committee of Senators' Interests to consider the matter. That committee has now indicated that it has agreed that a change should be made to the Senate's requirements so that declarations of interests in relation to a bill can apply in relation to all stages of a bill except where an amendment to a bill raises some issue requiring a further declaration.The Senate may therefore wish to consider a change to the relevant order of the Senate.The change could be achieved by adding the following subparagraph to paragraph 5 of the Senate's order of 17 March 1994:(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), in proceedings on a bill a declaration of a relevant interest shall be made: (a) when a senator first speaks in debate on any stage of consideration of the bill; and (b) when a senator first votes in a division at any stage of the consideration of the bill; and (c) when a senator speaks or votes in a division on an amendment to the bill which raises an issue not included in an earlier declaration of interest during proceedings on the bill.15:40:002533Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following subparagraph be added to paragraph 5 of the Senate's order of 17 March 1994 relating to the registration and declaration of senators' interests:(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), in proceedings on a bill a declaration of a relevant interest shall be made: (a) when a senator first speaks in debate on any stage of consideration of the bill; and (b) when a senator first votes in a division at any stage of the consideration of the bill; and (c) when a senator speaks or votes in a division on an amendment to the bill which raises an issue not included in an earlier declaration of interest during proceedings on the bill.15:41:002533Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to make a short statement on that notice of motion.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?BH4HILLSenator Hill—What is it about?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will be very brief—two minutes.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You can speak on it tomorrow.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I might not be able to speak on it tomorrow, that is the problem.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It might be quicker to do it today.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—This is a recommendation from the President regarding the declaration of senators' interests, a matter in which, as the Senate will be aware, I have had a close and abiding interest. It is a sensible set of recommendations. It means that, instead of having to repeatedly get up and declare interests, senators will be required to do so only once during the course of a bill and once while voting on a bill, unless an amendment is introduced, in which case they will need to decide whether to declare an interest when a new matter is raised.I will be supporting the motion if it is put forward as the President has indicated because I think it will lead to a smoother application of the extraordinarily important Senate standing order that senators must get up and declare an interest when they have a proprietary interest or they have the potential to gain from their contribution to a debate or from voting in this place.Condolences2533253310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 9 April 1998 of former Senator David Bernard Vigor, a senator for the state of South Australia from 1984 to 1987.15:43:002533Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on Thursday 9 April 1998, of David Bernard Vigor, a senator for the State of South Australia from 1984 to 1987, places on record its appreciation of his public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.David Vigor was born in France on 24 June 1939. He moved to Australia with his family when he was 12. David was educated at Adelaide Boys High School and the Universi ty of Adelaide. He was also one of the first research students at Monash University. Before entering federal politics, David had been a university lecturer, a pioneer in the area of computer science and a farmer. While lecturing at the University of Glasgow, he developed the first computer data-based expert system used for medical diagnosis by the Western Regional Hospital Board in Scotland.In 1971, David and his wife Susan returned to Australia and David joined the South Australian Institute of Technology as head of the school of data processing and director of the computer centre. Together, they bought a mixed cereal, dairy, poultry and sheep farm in the Barossa Valley in South Australia to accommodate their growing family, as well as to expand their business challenges. Today, their farm is a base for an executive training facility and computer consultancy which developed and markets an innovative medical system to help in-patient care and management of medical practices.David was a founding member of the Australian Democrats and was elected to the Senate in 1984. He was national Vice-President of the Australian Democrats from 1983 to 1984 and a member of the Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment. In his maiden speech he stated his belief that you can `change the world in which we all live'. These were words to live by for David Vigor.He assumed his Senate duties with enthusiasm. He introduced private members' bills on varying subjects and was tenacious in his questioning in Senate estimates sessions. He was also a staunch supporter of proportional representation and self-government in the ACT. He showed endless support for individuals and struggles with the legal system and bureaucracy. For example, he highlighted the problems with the Australia Card.He left the Senate in 1987 and went on to become a founding member and at the time of his death was Secretary of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia. After politics David returned to computer consultancy and software develop ment. The day before his death he attended the opening of a dental research unit at the University of Adelaide which featured software developed by his company.Madam President, on behalf of the government, I extend to his family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.15:46:002534Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I wish to associate the opposition with this condolence motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) on the death of David Vigor, a former Democrat senator from the state of South Australia. Labor senators expressed our sorrow at David Vigor's sudden death last month and we, too, offer our deepest sympathy to his family.As Senator Hill has indicated, David Vigor was elected to parliament until 1984, but he was unsuccessful in retaining his Senate seat in the 1987 double dissolution. So David Vigor was a senator for only a very short period of time, but I am assured by many people in the chamber who served with him that he certainly made his presence felt during that period.He was a man of strong principle and conviction. He fought hard and, I am assured, long for the issues that he believed in. He did advocate strongly proportional representation and self-government in Canberra. That was part of what was a strong personal commitment to fair elections and responsible government. He was also very active on consumer issues as well as fighting to ensure funding for all levels of sport Australia wide. I understand from colleagues how vigorous and thorough his questioning was at times at Senate estimates committee hearings, and many senators in this chamber have shared those experiences with him.There was another one of David Vigor's achievements which perhaps he is not recognised as widely for, which is the role that he played in stopping smoking on Australian aircraft. That perhaps was an achievement not welcomed by all Australians but I must say, as a frequent traveller and one who does not smoke, it was certainly one that I would welcome and I am sure many other fellow travellers do.Let me say to David Vigor's family, on behalf of all opposition senators, we offer to his family our most sincere regret at his death and our condolences to his family and friends.15:49:002535Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise also to speak on the unexpected passing of former Senator David Vigor. Twenty-three Democrat senators have served in this chamber over the past 21 years, but this is the first time that a condolence motion has been necessary for a Democrat. Therefore, it is fitting that I, as current leader of the party, should make these comments.There have been obituaries published which detail David's life prior to politics and told by people in a better position than I who only came to know David at the time that I became involved in the South Australian division actively in 1986. So I would like to take up the tale at the time that I met him.Yes, I knew him through his and my involvement in the party in South Australia. In those early days of our acquaintance he struck me for the very qualities that no doubt he is best remembered for by those who served in this place with him. He was enthusiastic, indeed incredibly enthusiastic, about all the issues that he was involved in. He was capable of great passion. He was a man of commitment and an avid technophile.He was a founder member of the Democrats and gave long service both on our state executive and also at national executive level. He served as deputy national president, as has already been mentioned, in 1983-84. Later in 1984 David Vigor was elected to the Senate, giving the Democrats a second South Australian Senate seat, a seat today held by Senator Stott Despoja. This was a milestone for our party in South Australia and one of which David could be rightly proud. When elected, David was one of only five non-British European born MPs in the Australian parliament. He and his father in particular were incredibly proud of their cultural heritage.There are many in his class of `84 who are still with us—amongst them Senators Vanstone, Cooney, Knowles and McKiernan, who probably all have a personal story or two about David Vigor. Unlike many of these honourable senators, the then Senator Vigor did not have any period on the back bench. On his first day in the Senate chamber in the Old Parliament House he held the portfolios for us of trade, transport, science, communications, local government and administrative services and territories. He attacked all of them with gusto. I am told by some who were around at the time that whatever David Vigor did as a senator he did with gusto, whether it was legislative debates, committee work—and I have quite a few stories about his work in estimates committees—or indeed placing questions on notice. I suspect that, if one goes back through the Hansard, one would see that he held close to the record for the largest volume of questions ever placed on notice in any 12-month period. In the 1984 campaign which saw David elected, our party's slogan was `You can change the world' and, in many ways, this describes David's attitude to politics. He believed in it, he tried to achieve it and indeed he lived it. He was a central player in the move to self-government in the ACT and a tireless advocate for the science community within public life. He also took a strong interest in improved electoral and parliamentary procedures. One of his many ideas, a 1987 amendment to require senators to declare any interest in the outcome of a vote, is well known to current senators. Indeed, it is what we dealt with immediately prior to this condolence motion. While it took until 1994 to be accepted by this chamber—and, unfortunately, by that time David was no longer here—it is one of his many initiatives. Outside the parliament, David Vigor was an enthusiastic contributor to the community—a founding member of the Australian Democrats, active in the campaign for proportional representation, a founding member of community television through ACE Television in Adelaide, and a founding member of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia. At the time of his death, he was secretary of the association. Before I conclude my remarks, I cannot fail to mention the fact that, eventually, David Vigor and I found ourselves on the opposite sides of an inter-party disagreement within South Australia, one which saw David Vigor unsuccessfully contest the 1987 election as a candidate for another party. This party was a very short-lived one. However, many members of the party in South Australia still hold great affection for him and view the internal drama of 1987 in the context of a life of active enjoyment with and contributions to the community in which he lived.David can rightly be described as having lived an extraordinary life. I offer my sincere sympathies to his wife, Susan, to his children and to his grandchildren. It must be for them a time of great sadness. My final words which best describe the motivation behind his political involvement have been provided by David Vigor himself. Knowledge is power, power to change the world we live in for the better if we care. No-one who ever knew him in the Australian Democrats or elsewhere will ever doubt that David Vigor cared.15:55:002536Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I join with my colleagues in speaking to the condolence motion moved by Senator Hill in respect of former Senator David Vigor who came here in 1984, and I express my sympathy to his family at his death. He could only have been 57 or 58 years old, which is too early to go. Not only did he have a parliamentary career but I believe he was very successful in the computer industry. One thing you could say about David Vigor was that he was enthusiastic. I believe that he was the most vigorous debater this parliament has ever seen. In fact, at one stage we took a rough calculation and we believe that one senator, David Vigor, was using one-third of the Senate's time. He almost had former Senator Walsh driven to distraction at the estimates committees. He gained some fame in his one term of office. He was a pleasant person, a person who really got excited about any issue that he became involved in. He became involved in very many issues in his one term of parliament. He is one of those characters who will always stick in your mind. Many people come and go, but David Vigor was different. He will be remembered by all of us who were here in 1984. I once again express my sympathy to his family and his wife and say to them that we are thinking of them in this hard time.15:57:002536Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I support the condolence motion moved by Senator Hill on the passing of David Bernard Vigor. I do so as I regarded his friendship as being very important. Vigor by name and vigour by nature, although they are spelt slightly differently. His name was spelt V-i-g-o-r, but in the v-i-g-o-u-r category he left other people for dead. His enthusiasm for this place and for this particular chamber was extraordinary, probably a little overemphasised. He had a little bit of an inflated view about the power of the parliament as distinct from the power exercised by others outside of this parliament. I am stating this as a matter of fact, not as a desirable proposition.He of course placed numerous questions on notice and his questioning of ministers in this chamber was direct and well researched. He had a number of private members' bills prepared and tabled in this place. I would like to associate myself with my parliamentary colleagues in offering condolences to David's wife, Sue, to his family and extended family.15:59:002536Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I would like to take the opportunity of this condolence motion to express my sympathy to the family of the late David Vigor. He was a hardworking senator, highly motivated, and had a huge capacity for hard work. His office in Parliament House was a mass of files, with a major shelving arrangement bisecting his room.There are not many technocrats in this place. However, it is a lot richer for people like David Vigor and even Bruce Childs, who was another technocrat. Such people bring to this place a specialisation that makes people sit up and take notice when they talk.Although he was here for only one term, David Vigor put much energy and enthusiasm into his work and placed many issues on the Senate agenda. It would take others 10 years to achieve such a record. His questioning at estimates brought profound respect—the manner in which he researched his questions, the number of questions and the vast range of issues that he covered simply amazed many of his admirers as well as his detractors. I believe he made a significant contribution to this place. However, I do not think he realised all his expectations as a result of coming to the Senate, but I think few of us do. Certainly while David was here he enriched this place. He was one of those senators who people will long remember.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.253710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:2537135QD4Brown Sen BobTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows that we citizens of Australia support a world-wide ban on the production, stockpiling and use of all forms of anti-personnel land mines.Your Petitioners request that the Senate support our call for a world-wide ban on the production, stockpiling and use of all forms of anti-personnel land mines, give high priority to support for efforts to clear land mines in affected countries and use its influence to encourage other countries to financially support the clearance of land mines in poor countries.Senator BrownQD4Senator Brown(from 135 citizens)25371195F4Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows strong support for a quality, accessible, liberating, public higher education system. As such we are opposed to the education measures announced in the 1996 Federal Budget process.Your Petitioners request that the Senate not support legislative attempts tointroduce up front fees for Australian undergraduate students;lower the thresholds at which HECS fees must begin to be repaid;increase the level of HECS fees;introduce a system of HECS whereby fees are differentiated according to course; or reduce funding, in particular operating grants, to the sector;and use all other means possible to oppose attempts to reduce public expenditure to education or increase the private contribution to the system.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 119 citizens)2537845F4Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the Senate to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for Australians.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 84 citizens)253732HX5Woodley Sen JohnWe the undersigned request the Australian Senate implements the following:A Senate enquiry into the use of genetic engineering in the Australian Food Supply, including the ethics of its use.That consultations be undertaken with the general public to ask if we want this technology in our food supply and consent to its use.That consumers be resourced to attend these consultations.Any food that is genetically engineered or contains components that are genetically engineered are required to be labelled, including the origin of the genes.That meaningful right to know legislation be enacted to guarantee public access to toxicology data.Senator WoodleyHX5Senator Woodley(from 32 citizens)2537821M6Allison Sen LynTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of Australia:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns about proposals to introduce legislation amending the Native Title Act. We feel that the Government's proposed 10-point plan appears to favour the vested interests of pastoralists over the principles of fairness and justice for indigenous peoples. Such legislation would also severely impede the reconciliation process, and would rob Aboriginal people of their dignity and right to self-determination.Your petitioners therefore request the House to: reject the Government's proposed 10-point plan;ensure any legislation passed maintains the integrity of the Racial Discrimination Act and respects the High Court's native title decisions; andencourage the introduction of legislation that includes negotiated agreements that are fair and workable for indigenous peoples as well as pastoralists.Senator Allison1M6Senator Allison(from 82 citizens)2538451X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales notes with concern the impact of the policy of charging entry fees—often necessitating the sale of the family home—for people needing nursing home care. Furthermore, the petitioners note with concern the impact of the policy of charging residents of aged care facilities an extra daily fee which provides no additional benefit to the resident and is nothing more than a disguised tax.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate acts to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all who need it and further that the family home is exempted from any asset test relating to payment for such care.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. Senator West1X4Senator West(from 45 citizens)2538427510000 QD4VICE-CHAIRMAN; Brown Sen BobTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.For permanent protection of old-growth forests and all other areas of high conservation value, and for the implementation of tree plantation strategies.This petition from the undersigned respectfully points out that: there is an increasing and urgent demand from the people, to protect all remaining high conservation value forests which support flora and fauna unique to Australia, thus complying with the United Nations Biodiversity Convention to which Australia is a signatory. We have a responsibility to future and present generations, and the necessary reasons, knowledge and technology to act now on the following achievable solutions.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate legislate to: immediately stop all logging and woodchipping activities in high conservation value native forests; ensure intergenerational equity by planning for the rights of future generations, and protecting in perpetuity all biologically diverse old-growth forests, wilderness, rainforests and critical habitats of endangered species; facilitate rapid transition of the timber industry from harvesting high conservation value native forests, to establishing mixed-species farm forestry on existing cleared and degraded lands, using non-toxic methods to protect ecological sustainability; maximise use of readily-available plantation timber for industry needs, using appropriate forestry techniques and progressive minimal-waste processing methods, such as radial sawing, and wherever possible, reuse and recycle wood and paper products; support incentives for nationwide employment in composting, soil remineralisation programs, and the planting programs of trees and annual fibre crops, inter-grown with appropriate fruit and nut trees and medicinal plants; encourage sensitively-managed, environmental education tourism in appropriate forest areas, with full respect for natural ecosystems, Aboriginal cultural heritage, sacred sites and other sites of significance; and progressively utilise technological expertise and resources transferred from the military sector, to help implement these tree planting solutions; and to motivate the international community to follow this example.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.The President10000The President(from 32 citizens)Senator BrownQD4Senator Brown(from 4,243 citizens)2538253FX5Murphy Sen ShayneTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the regressive decision by the Howard Government to allow small businesses to be charged for timed local calls on data services such as electronic mail, facsimile, the internet and other on-line services. This measure, if implemented, will have an adverse effect on the profitability, development and growth of small businesses across Australia.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognise that timed local calls on data services is an untenable proposition for small business. We call on the Howard Government to live up to its election promise to guarantee untimed local calls for small business in both voice and data services. Senator MurphyFX5Senator Murphy(from 253 citizens)2539215F4Calvert Sen PaulTo 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 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 corporations.2. Not sign the MAI unless substantive amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards.3. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be held.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 21 citizens)25396431X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:The 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 House recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse these decisions immediately.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 643 citizens)2539385F4Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes uranium mining.Uranium mining is the first step towards Nuclear Weapons: 200,000 humans died in Hiroshima. A `modern' nuclear bomb can kill millions. A global nuclear war could end life on earth. Nuclear accidents: The tragic meltdown of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl may cost 40,000 to 1,000,000 human lives over the next forty years. A complete release of the reactor's radioactivity would have been 200-400 times worse. Nuclear Waste: The radioactive waste from uranium mining (the `tailings') will contaminate the biosphere forever. These tailings are many millions of times more dangerous than the original ore, mainly because of the fine milling of the ore. They are being produced in vast quantities in Australia—14,000 tonnes each day. These tailings are estimated to cost billions of lives in the future, the lives of our future generations.Respect for the dignity of human life demands the banning of uranium mining urgently. Only recently, the banning of apartheid, asbestos, mining and landmines have been largely achieved. Please support the campaign for a nuclear free future.Your petitioners ask that the Senate promote a nuclear free future.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 38 citizens)253922FX5Murphy Sen ShayneTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows that:The Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable.Fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet the extra costs.the Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs.The Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk.Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament;make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Senator MurphyFX5Senator Murphy(from 22 citizens)253941FX5Murphy Sen ShayneTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the Senate to the negative effects the Government's jobs, education and health policies are having on Australian women. Failure to create jobs and sustain decent wages together with the rising costs of education, health and childcare which have resulted from deep Budget cuts have reduced both the incomes and the opportunities of Australian women.Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to implement policies which advance the position of Australian women and which reverse much of the damage that has already been done to women as a result of two Federal Budgets.Senator MurphyFX5Senator Murphy(from 41 citizens)25404WW4Kemp Sen RodTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that:1. We the undersigned wish to signify our strong opposition to any change in the design or colour of the AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL FLAG.2. We believe that the current flag has served Australia well and will continue to do so in the future and represents a true manifestation of the Nation's history.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator KempWW4Senator Kemp(from four citizens)Petitions received.Notices254025402540Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) on 27 October 1997 the Senate agreed to a motion proposed by Senator O'Brien on behalf of the Opposition for the production of documents relating to the consultancy contract to ACIL Economics on waterfront reform;(b) on 19 November 1997 the Senate agreed to a further motion proposed by Senator O'Brien on behalf of the Opposition for the production of the report by ACIL Economics and documents relating to other waterfront consultancies awarded by the Government; and(c) the Government has failed to comply with these orders of the Senate.25402540Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) notes the call by United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, at the Group of Seven meeting in London, for Indonesian protesters and authorities to refrain from violence and for President Suharto to allow demonstrations; and(b) calls on President Suharto's Government and protest groups to refrain from violence and for the Indonesian Government to ensure full civil rights, including legal rights for protesters and those arrested as a result of the current disturbances in Indonesia.25402540Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes:(a) with the gravest concern, the implications of the Government's efforts to remove copyright protection for the creators of Australian music, including: (i) the potential establishment of a discriminatory legislative framework against music artists under the copyright laws, (ii) the dismantling of an internationally respected intellectual property regime that has allowed Australian culture to grow and prosper on the international stage, (iii) the destruction of investment in emerging Australian musical talent, threatening the future development of Australia's most important cultural export, (iv) the facilitation of the importation of pirated compact disc (CD) products and deleted stock, which will cause direct revenue loss through loss of royalties to the original creators of the intellectual property and a general decline in CD quality, (v) the unemployment of thousands of Australians currently employed in the manufacture of CDs in Australia and in the music industry generally, (vi) the inability of the Government to guarantee delivery of lower CD prices as a result of its position, and (vii) the expenditure of $750 000 of taxpayers' money, through a departmentally-run propaganda campaign, in a cynical attempt to convince youth, media and Government backbenchers, amongst others, to support the proposal prior to it being debated in the upper house; and (b) the contemptuous attitude held by the Government to the industry and artists' concerns.25412541Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following documents be laid on the table no later than 3 pm on Monday, 25 May 1998:(a) by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Senator Alston): (i) copies of all reports or advices commissioned by the Minister from the Department of Transport and Regional Development, or from outside the department, dealing with waterfront reform, or touching on industrial relations on the waterfront since 1 January 1997 including, but not limited to, all reports prepared by and correspondence from or to Dr John Davies, Dr Stephen Webster, Minter Ellison, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Mr David Webb and the National Institute of Labor Studies, and (ii) copies of all reports, advices, file notes and correspondence involving Dr Webster or any officers of the department with Fynwest or any directors of Fynwest in respect of waterfront reform or the training of an alternative waterfront workforce;(b) by the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Senator Alston): (i) copies of all reports or advice commissioned by the Minister from the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business, or from outside the department, dealing with waterfront reform, or touching on industrial relations on the waterfront including, but not limited to, all reports prepared by and correspondence from or to Dr John Davies, Dr Stephen Webster, Minter Ellison, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Mr David Webb and the National Institute of Labor Studies, (ii) copies of all reports, advices, legal advices, correspondence, meeting notes, briefing notes and file notes touching on any companies, directors or employees of any of the Patricks group of companies since 1 January 1997, and (iii) copies of all reports, advices, file notes and correspondence involving Dr Webster or any officers of the department with Fynwest or any directors of Fynwest in respect of waterfront reform or the training of an alternative waterfront workforce; and(c) by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Hill): (i) copies of all reports, advices, file notes and correspondence involving Dr Webster or any officers of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with Fynwest or any directors of Fynwest in respect of waterfront reform or the training of an alternative waterfront workforce, and (ii) copies of all reports, advices, legal advices, correspondence, meeting notes, briefing notes and file notes touching on any companies, directors or employees of any of the Patricks group of companies since 1 January 1997.25412541O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme as contained in instrument No. 5 of 1997 made under subsection 115B(1) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—On 11 March 1998, I reported to the Senate on the committee's concerns with this instrument, which related to a possible unenforceable provision, a discretion with no indication whether it was subject to independent review and an inadequate provision for the protection of personal information. The minister has now agreed to amend the instrument to provide for a discretion to determine whether a grant has been applied for a proper purpose and has provided other information which meets our concerns. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning the instrument.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation SchemeInstrument No 5 of 1997 made under subsection 115B(1) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 19865 March 1998The Hon Bruce Scott MPMinister for Veterans' AffairsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Veteran's Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme, being Instrument No 5 of 1997, made under subsection 115B(1) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 , which seeks to assist specified classes of veterans to find employment and to continue in employment.Clause 1.3.1 defines a service provider as a person or organisation with which the Commission or the Department has entered into an arrangement to provide services. It would appear from the tenor of the Scheme as a whole that such service providers may well be commercial organisations. However, there is no avenue provided in the terms of the Scheme whereby a person or organisation, which is dissatisfied with the decision to reject its application to be a service provider, may seek a review of that decision.Clauses 1.4.1 to 1.4.3 permit the Secretary to require a veteran to be examined or assessed, or both, by a service provider, and for that service provider to report to the Secretary, who in turn reports to the Commission. However, there is no provision in the Scheme requiring the service provider to maintain confidentiality of the information it acquires in that process. Since the service providers may be private individuals or companies, it does not appear that they would come within the restrictions of the Privacy Act 1988 , with the result that any requirement of confidentiality would have to be included in this Scheme.Paragraph 1.5.2(b) requires the service provider or the Secretary (if they have prepared a rehabilitation plan) to agree with the veteran on its details. The Committee suggests that this provision could not be enforced as the law cannot force parties to come to an agreement.Clause 3.2.3 provides that an approved scheme should not normally include particular elements. If a scheme were not to be approved because it contained some such element, it would appear to be impossible for a veteran to succeed in a review of that decision. The Committee notes that there are no criteria by which the reviewing body might determine whether the case before it was normal or not. Even if it were found to be abnormal, there is no indication whether that circumstance would be enough to permit the reviewing body to include the relevant element. Clause 4.5.2 gives to the Secretary a discretion to determine whether or not a grant has been applied for a proper purpose. However, Chapter 5, which deals with rights of review, applies only to the review of decisions of the Commission, and hence does not apply to the decision of the Secretary under this clause. There does not appear to be any provision in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 which allows for review of any decisions of the Secretary. The Explanatory Statement would also appear to be misleading as it does not qualify that reference to rights of review to decisions made under the Scheme are those of the Commission only.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanThe Hon Bruce Scott MPMinister for Veterans' AffairsParliament House Canberra ACT 2600Telephone: (02) 6277 7820Facsimile: (02) 6273 4140Senator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesAustralian SenateParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 6 March concerning the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme (the Scheme). In your letter you have sought my advice on various issues concerning the Scheme and my comments are as follows.Firstly, you observe that there is no avenue available under the Scheme for a service provider, as defined in clause 1.3.1, to seek a review of a decision to reject its application to become a service provider. Such a provision is not considered appropriate because, like certain other service providers with whom the Department deals on a normal commercial basis:. the Scheme, insofar as service providers are concerned, is to be arranged under normal tender and contractual arrangements;. service providers are not to be delegated the functions that the Secretary or the Commission have under the Scheme or the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986;. services provided by service providers are not of a kind that were previously provided by the Department; and. service providers are independent contractors and have access to remedies under contract law. Regarding your comment that there is no provision in the Scheme requiring the service provider to maintain confidentiality, the position is that where the Department enters into a contract with either a private individual or a commercial organisation, then that contract will bind the service provider to the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988. I stress that this is the normal practice for contracts in this Department, the terms of relevant clauses having been cleared by the Privacy Commissioner's office.In any event, the Department, as a result of the tender process, is to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a Government body to provide the services. That body is bound by the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988. In addition, it is intended that there will be clauses in the MOU requiting undertakings by individuals, in relevant circumstances, in respect of privacy obligations. Accordingly, both in principle and in practice the privacy issues will be dealt with.Paragraph 1.5.2(b) of the Scheme requires the service provider or the Secretary to reach an agreement with the veteran as to the details of the rehabilitation plan. you note that the law cannot force the parties to come to an agreement. That is true. If there is no agreement then the veteran does not go onto a rehabilitation program. Neither the veteran, the service provider or the Secretary can be compelled to agree to a particular program It is important that all parties agree on the program. The process of agreement is a matter for further discussion and compromise rather than the adoption of adversarial techniques.In connection with your comments on clause 3.2.3, you observe that if a Scheme were not to be approved because it contained a particular element that should not normally be included, then it appears impossible for a veteran to succeed in a review of that decision.The matters that should normally be included are set out in other clauses of the Scheme. Clause 1.3.3 sets out the contents of an approved program and lists various elements that are to be included in the program, but the list is stated not to be exhaustive. Clause 3.2.1 sets out factors that are relevant when the Commission approves a rehabilitation program, but this list is also not exhaustive.The purpose of clause 3.2.3 is twofold. The first is to ensure that those matters that would normally be provided by a person themselves, for example in keeping their skills level up for a particular type of employment, are not provided at Commonwealth expense. Secondly, and most importantly, the use of the word "normally" in that clause is clearly intended to indicate that the Commission does have a discretion to examine the circumstances of each case.That is, clause 3.2.3 is intended to provide the flexibility to add matters that can be provided at public expense. It is not limited even to exceptional circumstances. It is drafted in this way because it is considered unwise to fetter discretion. If a fuller definition/criteria were to be included there would inevitably be more specificity and the likelihood of some tightening up. Overall, the preferred approach is to retain flexibility, which is to the veteran's benefit.Finally, in relation to your comments on clause 4.5.2, it is now proposed to give the Commission the discretion to determine whether or not a grant has been applied for a proper purpose, and accordingly that decision will be reviewable under the appeal rights in Chapter 5 of the Scheme. An amendment is being prepared as a matter of urgency.I hope that these comments are of some assistance. If it would be helpful, Is my departmental officers would be happy to discuss any of the issues raised by you.Yours sincerelyBRUCE SCOTT9 April 199825432543Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on Monday, 22 June 1998, if the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) has not fully complied with the orders of the Senate of 27 October 1997 and 19 November 1997 for the production of certain documents relating to government consultancies on waterfront reform, I shall move:That if the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) has not fully complied with the orders of the Senate of 27 October and 19 November 1997 for the production of certain documents relating to government consultancies on waterfront reform:(1) A select committee be established to inquire into and report by 7 September 1998 on issues raised by the Government's refusal to comply fully with the orders of the Senate and other related matters.(2) The name, composition, powers and specific terms of reference of the committee be contained in a subsequent resolution.25432543Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) expresses its impatience with the New South Wales Labor Government's red tape which is holding up the dredging of Swansea Channel, near Newcastle;(b) notes: (i) that immediate dredging is needed to ensure Lake Macquarie is kept healthy through regular flushing from the sea, and (ii) that simple, much needed maintenance dredging has been offered privately for a cost of $25 000 per annum and the right to use the sand extracted;(c) recognises that, according to New South Wales Labor Government policies, such an extractive operation requires a complex environmental impact statement and development approval even though its purpose is just to restore the natural channel to the sea;(d) expresses its disbelief that the New South Wales Labor Government will not fund $25 000 of dredging during the 1997-98 financial year without a $30 000 design plan;(e) calls on the New South Wales Government to stop delaying the dredging; and(f) condemns the New South Wales Labor Government for rejecting a low-cost dredging offer in favour of an expensive, impractical and drawn-out bureaucratic process which will create environmental degradation.25442544Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate condemns the Government for condoning the practice of asset-stripping companies in order to evade the normal contractual responsibilities of employers to their employees, as evidenced by Government support for the corporate re-structuring and asset-stripping of Patrick Stevedores' labour hire companies.25442544Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) with great concern, news reports that the Indian Government has recently conducted three underground nuclear tests, and (ii) that the Australian Government has strongly condemned this action by the Indian Government and has recalled Australia's High Commissioner to India;(b) recalls that the Australian Government played a cynical role during negotiations for the review of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995 by promoting a proposal put forward by the nuclear weapons states for an unlimited extension of the treaty rather than supporting the proposal from the non-weapons states for a rolling fixed extension with commitments to nuclear weapons reduction; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to press the nuclear weapons states to commit to a timetable for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, so that a positive message can be sent to the so-called threshold states, such as India, that all countries are committed to nuclear disarmament.25442544Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Abetz, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on its inquiry into the Multilateral Agreement on Investment currently being negotiated by the Australian Government be extended to 1 June 1998.25442544Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Senator Alston), no later than the conclusion of question time on Thursday, 14 May 1998, that component of the second ACIL Australia report on waterfront reform that consists of research conducted by Australasian Research Strategies.25442544Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the advertisement on page 24 of the Australian Financial Review of 23 March 1998 regarding funding for human cloning research;(b) reaffirms the resolution adopted by the Senate on 6 March 1997 about genetic engineering; (c) expresses concern that the Government is not taking a leading role in assisting the Australian community to understand and deal with this new technology; and(d) urges the Government to take measures to ensure human reproductive cloning is banned in Australia and to take a leading role on this matter in international forums.25452545Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Government's recent announcement of the listing of subAntarctic islands, Heard, McDonald and Macquarie as world heritage areas, (ii) one of the unique things about these islands is the marine area around them which supports the Patagonian toothfish, (iii) several years ago an inquiry by the Auditor-General into fishing strongly recommended that there be environmental impact statements made on all new fisheries, as fisheries of Australia were being severely depleted, (iv) the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) finally designated a new fishery proposal to the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) for a decision about whether or not to have an environmental impact assessment, (v) the Minister for the Environment surprised everyone by allowing the fishery to go ahead without an environmental impact assessment, (vi) the world heritage nomination was subsequently severely compromised as the waters around Macquarie Island were refused listing because the Australian Government had permitted fishing of the Patagonian toothfish around the island and, as a result, only the terrestrial area became listed as world heritage, (vii) these fish are now being hunted legally and illegally, and (viii) outside Senator Ian Macdonald's office on 12 May 1998 there is a fibreglass replica of a Patagonian toothfish which is almost 2 metres long;(b) asks Senator Ian Macdonald to: (i) explain to all parliamentarians how this Government could allow the fishery to go ahead with no environmental impact assessment and no scientifically-based understanding of the status of the fish, and (ii) point out that soon all Australia will have left will be fibreglass replicas because of the decisions of his government.25452545Ray, 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 63 days since the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) defied his own guidelines.25452545Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the launch in Melbourne on 11 May 1998 of the National Human Rights Register, which will record new developments in Australia's human rights performance at federal and State level, (ii) that the register's scope will be comprehensive, including the rights of children, refugees and migrants, and legal aid issues, and will register instances where Australia fails to honour its domestic and international human rights obligations, for example, breaches of the Racial Discrimination Act, and (iii) the register will monitor both positive and negative human rights developments;(b) condemns the Federal Government's restructuring of, and funding cuts to, the Human Rights Commission, which have seriously weakened its capacity to monitor and act on human rights development; and(c) welcomes this initiative, which will enhance information exchanges between States and help to curb government complacency on human rights issues. 25462546Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) India is not a nuclear state as recognised by the non-proliferation treaty, (ii) it is widely known that India is developing nuclear weapons, (iii) the Indian Government conducted three underground nuclear tests on 11 May 1998, (iv) the Indian Government claimed the tests were for India's own security rather than to threaten the security of the United States of America, and (v) most Australians believe that nuclear tests threaten the security of the whole planet and all life on it;(b) condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the Indian Government for conducting three underground nuclear tests; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to advocate sanctions against all nations that conduct nuclear weaponry experiments from now on.Business25462546Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—proposed:That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 12 May 1998, be from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to adjournment and for Thursday, 14 May 1998, from 9.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to adjournment and that:(a) the routine of business from 7.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 May 1998 shall be: (i) Budget Statement and documents 1998-99, and (ii) adjournment; and(b) the routine of business from 7.30 p.m. on Thursday, 14 May 1998 shall be: (i) Budget Statement and documents—party leaders to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and (ii) adjournment; and(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister. 16:20:002546Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Mr Acting Deputy President, I am wondering why there is no time set for tonight's adjournment.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—There is; when the budget speech is finished.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—But that was not mentioned.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is in the motion. We just hope it is not a long budget speech.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—It would have been useful if it were written on the program and mentioned in the motion that has just been proposed. At the moment it looks as though the program is open-ended until the adjournment is proposed, and we are signing up to an open—AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is point (b) of the motion.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I did not have the motion in my hand, so I thought it necessary to point that out and to suggest that something might have been left out. I am relieved to think we will have an adjournment at some stage.(Quorum formed)Question resolved in the affirmative.2546Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 1069 (relating to the failure of the government to respond to questions and reports on education) and no. 1073 (the Government's response to a question asked at an estimates hearing) standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, be postponed till 25 May 1998.2546Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1089 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2546Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notices of motion no. 1 (relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee) and no. 3 (the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee) standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2547Motion (by Senator Carr, at the request of Senator George Campbell) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1084 standing in the name of Senator George Campbell for today, relating to the response of the Government to estimates questions on notice, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2547Motion (by Senator Denman) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1086 standing in the name of Senator Denman for today, relating to the funding of services for the intellectually disabled in Tasmania, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees254725472547Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 be extended to 2 June 1998.Business25472547Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee, be postponed till 14 May 1998. Committees254725472547Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for presentation of the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 be extended to 26 May 1998.Leave of Absence2547Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Tambling for the period 12 May to 14 May 1998, on account of parliamentary absence overseas.Committees254725472547Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998 and the provisions of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 be extended to 27 May 1998.(Quorum formed)25472547Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Schacht)—as amended by leave—agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 October 1998:The need for a uniform national retail tenancy code, with particular reference to:(a) the present effectiveness of the existing State and Territory regulatory framework;(b) the need to eliminate duplication between State and Federal Governments in this regard; and (c) any required legislative changes to implement such a code.2548Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that, on 2 April 1998, Haigh's Chocolates launched the 1998 Easter Bilby;(b) commends Haigh's Chocolates for contributing proceeds to the Anti-Rabbit Research Foundation of Australia (ARRFA);(c) notes that the ARRFA works to protect endangered species as well as controlling rabbits which destroy Australia's environment; and(d) calls on: (i) all Australians to support the Easter Bilby, and (ii) the Government to support the work of ARRFA.Matters of Urgency25482548UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 12 May 1998, from Senator O'Brien:Dear Madam PresidentPursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the Howard Government to set up an independent legally-constituted public inquiry into the serious allegations which have been made about the nature and extent of the Government's role in the waterfront dispute.Yours SincerelyKerry O'BrienIs the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.16:32:002548O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The failure of the Howard Government to set up an independent legally-constituted public inquiry into the serious allegations which have been made about the nature and extent of the Government's role in the waterfront dispute.It is now clear that the Howard government has well and truly outsmarted itself with its plan to smash the Maritime Union of Australia. The plan has landed the government in the Federal Court facing conspiracy charges. There has been massive economic disruption on our docks. That disruption continues as everyone tries to unravel the mess Mr Reith has created. For weeks on the nightly news the community has been confronted with the images of guards with their faces covered and vicious dogs on chains. Australians are now far from relaxed and comfortable.Let me remind the Senate of the details of the Reith plan that led to all this. Advice to Mr Reith on 27 February last year from Mr Derren Gillespie, Assistant Secretary, Industry Strategy Team, stated:. . . a dispute would not, of itself, remove or alter MUA coverage, remove or suspend registration, or cancel the award or terminate any agreement . . . although it could provide the basis for taking action to one or more of those ends.What would be needed for the MUA's influence on the waterfront to be significantly weakened would be for a range of affected service users and providers to take decisive action to protect or advance their interests.Stevedores would need to activate well prepared strategies to dismiss their work force—I repeat, `dismiss their work force'—and replace them with another, quickly, in a way that limited the prospect of for example, the Commission ordering the reinstatement of the current work force.The first problem with the Reith plan was that its success depended on conflict and division. The second problem with the Reith plan was the role required of the government. It was not a role of setting a policy and legal framework, as governments normally do. The government and the minister in particular had to be active participants in the implementation of the plan. And the third problem with the Reith plan was that, in fact, it broke this government's own laws. That is now the major problem facing the government and Mr Reith.The plan to dismiss an entire work force and replace it quickly is in breach Mr Reith's own Workplace Relations Act. The act specifically prohibits the termination of an employee's employment because the employee is a trade union member. The Prime Minister has, in effect, already confessed to this charge on national television. When asked why the entire Patrick work force was sacked, Mr Howard told A Current Affair:They're all part of the one union.One of the consequences of having a bargaining monopoly, ruthlessly used in the hands of the union that won't listen to reason, is that some innocent people get affected.That means that people were sacked because they were members of a union. The sackings were also in breach section 170CL of the Workplace Relations Act, which requires prior notification to the CES of proposed sackings. The sackings were also in direct breach of the Stevedoring Industry Award 1991, which of course is a law of the Commonwealth. Clause 43 of that award specifically required Patricks to notify their employees and their union of any definite decision that is likely to have a significant effect on employees, including termination of employment, and it obliged Patricks to discuss such changes before they come into effect.But don't just take my word on the question of the legality of the government's actions. Let me remind senators of the findings of Justice North which were upheld by the full bench of the Federal Court and then upheld by the full bench of the High Court. Justice North found that there was an arguable case that Patrick acted illegally by breaching employees' contracts of employment. There was an arguable case that Patricks breached the Workplace Relations Act by dismissing workers because they were members of a union. There was evidence that Patrick's owners and others agreed on the unlawful acts as part of an overall plan. There was an arguable case that Patrick's owners and employer companies engaged in an unlawful conspiracy.There was evidence that Patrick's owners and others agreed on the unlawful acts as part of an overall plan. There was an arguable case that Patrick's owners and employer companies engaged in an unlawful conspiracy. The Reith plan to beat the commission by getting rid of one work force and getting a new one in place quickly might have beaten the commission, but it did not beat the Federal Court.Mr Reith now has another legal problem, again of his own making. The alleged conspirators—the Howard government being one of them—have to prove they are not guilty, rather than the MUA having to prove that they are. This arises from Mr Reith's own legislation. The explanatory memorandum tabled in parliament with the Workplace Relations Bill states that the section containing the freedom of association provisions reversed the onus of proof applicable to civil proceedings. Normally, the onus of proof would fall on the complainant to prove the charges, but not in this case. Mr Reith has certainly got himself and the government into an awful mess. The High Court highlighted the size of this mess. Chief Justice Brennan said:If the damages consist of the lost earnings of the entire workforce for the rest of their working lives, one must wonder about the sufficiency of the defendant's assets.That must be taken into consideration.The question is conspiracy, and what remedy might be appropriate on an interlocutory basis when the case of conspiracy is mounted against a number of the defendants.It would have regard to all the mitigating circumstances in relation to lost earnings, everything that would be relevant to the damage suffered by those series of individuals.And Mr Justice McHugh said:The damages in this case could be enormous and they could include punitive damages and that is something that has to be kept in mind.This was not a plan prepared in haste. It was a strategy that was a long time in the making. It was carefully put together with the use of a large number of consultants starting in May 1996 when the then minister for transport, Mr Sharp, convened talks in his office with a core group of players including Mr Andrew Robb, Mr David Trebeck and Mr Paul Houlihan.Mr Trebeck's company, ACIL, was commissioned to develop a plan. That plan was handed to the government in August 1996. The central points of that plan were: how to keep the ports moving during a strike; how to hire new labour during an all-out stoppage; the legal aspects of banning secondary boycotts; the role of common law action; and how to target the MUA and highlight dock inefficiencies.Mr Corrigan—we have heard a lot about him—was also involved in the plan. He met with Trebeck early in 1997. The option of mass sacking of Patrick's work force was discussed at that meeting. Mr Corrigan said that the pair met at Patrick's Sydney offices to discuss options if the MUA took unilateral action over the sale of ANL. The senior public servant responsible for waterfront policy, Mr Derryn Gillespie, met with Mr Corrigan on 25 February. Corrigan sought advice on how the new act could be used to weaken the MUA.The Reith strategy was further developed through a second ACIL contract, awarded without a tender process being followed, on 20 June last year. The principal contractor was again Mr David Trebeck. But Mr Reith wanted Dr Stephen Webster involved. Greg Feeney, from the maritime branch of the department of workplace relations, advised the estimates committee on 12 November last year that Mr Sharp had instructed the department to engage Webster following meetings of the cabinet subcommittee established to look at maritime reform issues.On 30 July Dr Webster was formally appointed as a consultant on waterfront reform to Reith but he was on Mr Sharp's payroll. In September, Liberal pollster Mark Textor's company, Australasian Research Strategies, was commissioned to provide a report to ACIL on community attitudes, at a cost of $42,000. He found that although waterfront was not a top of the mind issue there was strong concern over waterfront efficiency, international competitiveness and hindrances to exports.Another consultant and long-time Liberal Party election strategist, Jonathan Gaul, through his company, Canberra Liaison, used this research to develop a formal communications strategy. The strategy addressed ways for the government to convey concern about the privileged wharfies. John Howard claimed his government had reformed and changed the law. He said the climate now existed for companies to act in a way that they had not been able to act before. He did not mention plans to manipulate public opinion, however. Nor did he mention the government's strategy to get around key provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. This was a political campaign put together by political strategists.Dr Webster then employed a number of other consultants, and the Reith plan was further refined. We are now told by Mr Wells from Fynwest, in a sworn statement, that Dr Webster kicked off the Dubai venture on 30 July, the day he officially started work for Mr Reith.The first attempt by the minister for workplace relations to smash the MUA was launched in Cairns on 18 September last year. It was a disaster but, again, do not take my word for it. Let me quote Mr Greg Bondar, the former senior maritime adviser to Mr John Sharp, former minister. Mr Bondar is quoted in the Daily Commercial News as saying of Cairns:It was initiated by Peter Reith's department but I think in a way it got out of hand.So Mr Reith and Mr Sharp then moved on to plan B. They met in Melbourne with advisers to talk about waterfront reform on the same day—18 September. A key item on the agenda was the establishment of a new stevedore. The ever-present Dr Stephen Webster wanted to bring the NFF into the discussions. Within an hour, Ms Craik and Mr Ferguson were in the room. And, after some discussion, Craik and Ferguson agreed to consider setting up a new stevedoring company. Fancy that! Present at that meeting were Dr Alan Hawke, secretary of the department of transport and Dr David Rosalky, secretary of Reith's department.The government, together with the NFF, launched plan C at Webb Dock on 27 January. But when the minister was asked whether he was aware of the NFF plan on the 7.30 Report that night he claimed not to know anything. He was asked:Mr Reith, you are now telling me you did not know the National Farmers Federation had registered a stevedoring and training company?Mr Reith answered:No, I didn't know. Your people told me in the last twenty-four hours.But the weekend edition of the Australian newspaper later revealed that one of the architects of the NFF strategy and former consultant to Mr Reith and then to Mr Sharp, Mr Paul Houlihan, had briefed Mr Reith on 6 January. Houlihan was quoted as saying:Reith was briefed on January 6. Even then we didn't spell out the details of the operation. But I have to add he was not unhappy with what we had to tell him.And John Coombs told AAP on 28 January that the minister, Mr Reith, threatened him with the farmers at a meeting before Christmas. John Coombs said:He taunted me with this information about farmers coming down to take over the waterfront on the last occasion I met with him in Melbourne before Christmas . . . It is also interesting indeed that Mr Paul Houlihan—one of the key architects of the Reith plan—just happened to be in the office of the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) when the Dubai plot was raised in parliament on 3 December. Mr Houlihan was reported as saying:A cold clammy feeling ran down my spine as I took the call—that is, from a journalist—I was praying the reporter did not know where I was. If she did all hell would have broken loose.Houlihan did not say why he was in Mr McLachlan's office. And what about Mr Corrigan and Dubai? Chris Corrigan was asked on 4 December whether his company would ever get involved in something like Dubai. He said:Not really. It's just so hypothetical a proposition. I can't, I can't respond to it. He was not telling the truth, was he? And what about Mr Reith? He was asked:Can you guarantee that no member of your staff, or your department, had any prior knowledge or involvement in the operation? If you cannot give this guarantee, will you undertake to make all the necessary inquiries and advise the House before we finish today?Mr Reith said:I am not going back to my office and have a Spanish inquisition with my secretaries, my staff, my this, my that. All I can tell you is that I knew nothing of this until I heard about it yesterday.Well, he should have. And now we know that there were several meetings between Dr Webster, who was on his staff, and the Fynwest people. And there were sworn statements from a man who served this country with honour that Dr Webster was a key to the Dubai exercise. And there were clearly many meetings between Corrigan, Webster and the minister. Mr Reith said he regularly had talks with Corrigan but knew nothing of the Dubai venture until Corrigan confessed to his involvement. (Time expired)16:45:002551Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—This is another diversion by the Labor Party from the fundamental thing that the government is tackling—waterfront reform. Why are we tackling waterfront reform? I remind the Senate that Australia is a trading nation. We trade about 20 per cent of our GDP and most of that is in goods—there is only a small proportion in services—and over 95 per cent of those goods move over our wharves.We were elected more than two years ago. One of our election promises and pledges to the community was that we would fix up the wharves, and we are about doing that. All Australians know that there have been rorts and inefficiencies on the Australian wharves for a long, long time. A lot of that inefficiency is tied up with the monopoly control by the MUA. This government has provided leadership and it is going on with the job of providing efficiency changes and reform on the waterfront. I add that the public fully supports the government's call for waterfront reform. We are doing the hard work needed to bring the waterfront up to world's best practice. Australia's ports are some of the least efficient and the most expensive in the world. The Productivity Commission's report of two weeks ago confirms that. Inefficiency is a burden to all in the nation. Australian exporters pay for this inefficiency as they struggle to compete against other nations with much more efficient ports. Part of our mandate when we were elected was to improve the waterfront, and that is what we are doing.Our ports are the worst in value for money terms. For example, Adelaide may have crane rates of 21 lifts an hour, but it is also the most expensive port in the country. The average crane rate at our five major ports is 18.3 lifts per hour—the government benchmark is for a modest 25 lifts an hour. The main port in Thailand averages 30 lifts an hour. Working days lost on the waterfront are more than nine times those recorded across all industries, and injury and disease rates are four times those of the national average across all industries. Industrial disputes are 12 times higher than the national average and reached a peak under the Labor government in 1994.In the meantime, the wharfies go home with salaries of $70,000-plus: compare that with average weekly earnings of $37,000. Pity the poor battlers on average weekly earnings and lower when they look at what the wharfies are getting: five weeks annual leave with 25 per cent holiday loading; 10 weeks cumulative sick leave that can be cashed in; two weeks extra leave every 15 weeks; subsidised meals at major cost; paid stop-work meetings; and clothing, laundry and telephone allowances. The Productivity Commission has revealed the overtime culture that the wharfies work to. The only time they work to world's best practice is when they can finish a shift and knock off early, or go do down to the pub, or go and watch a strip show.Labor had 13 years to fix these problems. Back in the eighties they threw $420 million—of which $165 million was supplied by the taxpayer—on its WIRA reform process because it knew, and it confirmed to the public, that the waterfront was largely overstaffed. But that process was largely a waste of taxpayers' money; not much was changed. The only improvement has been in bulk grain handling where we now have world's best practice. Why do we have that? Because we got rid of the MUA out of that process.Labor cannot do anything about the wharves because it is still tied hand and foot to the MUA. Labor will not condemn the MUA's actions; Labor will not do anything about them. Regarding the dispute, Mr Beazley said on 19 April:On the whole the union movement handled this quite well and I think they ought to go on handling it that way.Quite well! This is after lots of confrontation. He thereby condoned children on the picket lines, unlawful picketing, defiance of Supreme Court injunctions and international threats made to Australia's trade. Between 1983 and 1996, the previous Labor government gave the unions nearly $92 million. In 1994-95, the unions received more than $16 million from the taxpayer funds of the Labor government. Labor is hamstrung and wants to stop our government from doing what Labor cannot—reforming the waterfront.The government has put forward its seven benchmark objectives for the efficiency of the waterfront. The first objective is to end overmanning and restrictive work practices. The overmanning of container terminals is a major factor behind the restrictive work practices and resistance to change in the industry. Reducing the numbers will make a marked improvement in productivity. The government has put in place a very generous redundancy package worth up to $270,000 each to help wharfies made redundant in the process.The second point is about higher productivity. We have commitments from the two major companies, P&O and Patricks, to achieve 25 container lifts per hour as a national average. This is not world's best practice, but it shows that the government is flexible and it is a marked improvement on 18. This is an intermediate target and we want to see this achieved within 12 months.The third point relates to greater reliability through less disruption. Australia has a reputation for great unreliability through its wharves—it is near the bottom of world rankings. Greater reliability is crucial for the shippers, and they will not achieve this unless we stop the disruption which we continually have had until now.The fourth point relates to injury and fatality levels being reined back to the all industries average. Between 1991 and 1995, the actual response on the wharves was seven times the all industries figure,—seven times—and can be seen as a measure of poor practices on the waterfront. This is unacceptable to all Australians, and achieving this goal would be welcome as it would mean saving the lives of many Australians.The fifth point is lower costs through the logistics chain of the waterfront gateway—in other words, the movements in and out of the wharves. The government has made a commitment to talk to state governments to examine ways of containing costs and improving the efficiency of those movements in and out of the wharves.The sixth point goes to making full use of technology that is available to increase productivity. The major stevedoring companies have invested $400 million over the last three years and have done so with very little return. That equipment must be used efficiently for the benefit of everybody.The seventh point relates to improved training. The government is prepared to commitment funds to training to maximise benefits flowing from the new technologies over the next three years. We will encourage stevedores to develop apprenticeships and training opportunities to enhance the overall pool of skills.Senators, the waterfront reform is under way. The government, and I guess anyone who has had anything to do with the waterfront, always knew that it would be a very difficult process and that there would be lots of complications. And so it has proved. But the government is determined to proceed. We are making a commitment to the people that we will go on with the reform and make sure that there is improved efficiency on the waterfront. Already this week the major companies are signalling that they want major reductions in manning. Both P&O and Patricks are indicating that they can work the wharves efficiently with something like a one- third to one-half reduction in the number of people they employ on the wharves.The government is committed to seeing this through. The first step it made when first coming to government was to change the law with regard to industrial relations and restore the secondary boycott legislation that the previous government had removed from the statutes. That change was made with the help of Cheryl Kernot. With that change, secondary boycotts are now outlawed. That has made a big difference and made possible an attack on the waterfront.Patricks is to be congratulated for having a go at changing the waterfront practices. Sure, we do not agree with all the tactics that took place, but we always knew that it was going to be difficult. With hindsight, some of those tactics should perhaps have been better, but this is a difficult and dangerous game. Many of the people involved at the managerial level are under threat of physical violence. The government is committed to seeing this through. (Time expired)16:55:002553Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I rise to support the motion of Senator O'Brien. On the industrial relations and competition fronts, the Democrats see that there are five issues at stake: freedom of association, job security, monopolistic and restrictive practices, secondary boycotts and productivity reforms.The Democrats oppose compulsory unionism. We also oppose compulsory non-unionism. Freedom of association is entrenched in the Workplace Relations Act, which means that workers can choose whether or not they wish to belong to a union. Under the act it is unlawful for an employer to make unionism or non-unionism a condition of employment.I think it is important to note that the Employment Advocate has not, to this date, indicated that the MUA or the NFF practices are illegal. To date, neither the government's aggression against the MUA nor its support for the NFF has been dealt with by the Employment Advocate, who has responsibility for freedom of association provisions. However, these issues are being dealt with by the courts. Sacking workers because they belong to a union, sacking the good and the bad together, regardless of their work record and actual productivity, is clearly unethical; it is also illegal. Serious questions concerning the minister's and Patricks' alleged breaches of the letter and spirit of the act, of complicity in unfair and unlawful dismissals, are, as you know, currently before the courts.The Democrats are strong supporters of job security. Volumes of research confirm that happy, secure, well-trained and well-managed employees with good working conditions and wages are not only much more productive but are much better for society as a whole. Claims that the Patricks group of companies contrived in-house job contractors and then turned them into bankrupt corporate hulks through slick legal and accounting footwork in order to evade their rights and responsibilities to employees are also before the courts. If those stratagems can be used by any unscrupulous employer, then every Australian employee is at risk. My expectation is that the courts will find such stratagems unlawful, but if not, then that legal loophole must be closed, and both Labor and the Democrats have indicated that they will move to do so.The Democrats oppose private sector monopolies, oligopolies and cartels, whether they are in the hands of labour or capital. The wharves have been characterised by monopolistic and restrictive practices on both the labour and capital fronts. The MUA has a historical monopoly on the supply of labour but, in law—and we all recognise it—they now cannot prevent any employer employing non-union labour as well. On the company side, 16 of Australia's 46 ports are in the hands of various monopolies and nine are in the hands of various duopolies. Jeff Kennett does not oppose corporate monopolies, as we know from the Crown Casino. He feels the same way about duopolies, having prevented a third stevedoring company coming on to the Melbourne docks.In an act of bias, and contrary to its own supposed commitment to competition, the government has been supportive of these practices on the capital side but has attacked them on the labour side—that is, until Peter Costello came along. Just recently, both the federal and WA governments approved the reduction from two stevedoring employers down to one at Dampier Port.The Democrats oppose secondary boycotts as an instrument of industrial action. The 1996 Workplace Relations Act retained Labor's laws, allowing the innocent third party to seek civil damages if a boycott damages their business. It introduced special protection against boycotts affecting international trade, but only if the boycott was not about employment related matters or issues such as consumer or environmental protests. By all accounts, the MUA has not infringed the secondary boycott provisions in the act. The Democrats support the advancement of productivity improvements on the wharves, but the government rhetoric has been way over the top and, in consequence, you have lost the support of the community. The lowest figure I have seen of potential benefits to Australia is $150 million, and the highest is $1 billion. Those figures are significant and important, but they are not critical.Our bulk cargo movements rank with the world's best, and some container ports, such as Townsville, Burnie and Adelaide, were before this dispute very productive. At Fremantle, which has a way to go yet on productivity reform, costs per unit in cargo have decreased by 48 per cent in real terms over the past six years, with container trade per employee quadrupling over the same period. It is not true to say that there has been no productivity improvement. There have been significant productivity improvements over the past 10 years, and there are bound to be significant productivity improvements in the years to come.There are two themes on the political front. The first theme is the coalition hard Right's frustration at being unable to forcibly crush union power on the wharves, until they found two willing waterfront union breakers—the farmers union and Patricks. Gaining absolute control over Australia's wharves is the coalition hard Right's dogma.The second theme is a broader anti-unionism. Some powerful members of the coalition seem to have a strong prejudice against unions and workers which descends into visceral hatred in some quarters. While not all Liberal and National supporters feel like that, the gloating and savage triumphalism of Mr Howard and Mr Reith at the loss of 1,400 union jobs reflected the views of many. The gloating was quickly suppressed when they realised it was bad public relations.There are just two issues on the parliamentary and public interest front: have the minister and the Prime Minister been telling the truth in their answers to parliament; and have the partisan and prejudiced stance of the minister and the Prime Minister resulted in activities that have improperly committed the government and exposed them to the serious charge of unlawful conspiracy?Let us understand that if that charge were found to stick in the courts, we would be in a constitutional crisis. Senator O'Brien, the mover of this motion, is quite right in saying that this issue therefore deserves proper investigation by either the government, the Senate or the House of Representatives. (Time expired)17:02:002555Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Think of a country where a work force is shut out from its lawful workplace; think of a country where troops or police are sent in against those workers; think of a country where greater rights are given to workers who illegally are put in to replace those workers with the assistance of dogs and police; think of a country where the government has laws in place that enable prosecutions to even be attempted for members of a union who communicate with other unions in other countries and communicate—or even think of communicating—that what is happening to them is illegal; think of a country that treats its workers and its own laws with contempt; and think of being able to proceed honourably with countries that treat their workers in that way for wishing the `crime' of acting collectively. I could be describing many countries in the developing world, but I am not. Unfortunately, I am describing Australia in the late 1990s.I was down at the docks in Fremantle on a number of occasions over the last few weeks amongst people who included not only non- unionists but also small business people or unemployed people looking for work. It seems that, on a number of occasions, the attempt by this government to drive a wedge between one group of workers and the rest of the community has not worked. This wedge politics is about creating a situation to divert the attention from those people who are hurting: the larger group of working poor in our society who are being handed worse working conditions on a daily basis. They include the 300,000 people who last year were cut off benefits by this government and who have to work for whatever is available. This is the country we are talking about, and these are the issues that are recognised by all of those community members who joined with me and other people down at the docks in Fremantle and across the country. (Time expired)17:05:002555Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—One of the things that is typically Australian—and we are fortunate indeed in this regard—is that commonsense prevails. Commonsense will prevail on the waterfront because it is in the best interests of Australia and everyday Australians that it does. Our aims in government are simple, honest and appropriate in the 1990s with respect to waterfront reform.What do we want? We want a more productive waterfront, providing for the creation of more jobs in the wider community, more employment flexibility and more legitimacy, so that more shipping companies and potential customers will come here. It is all because productivity on the Australian wharves is far below our trading partners and worse than many Third World nations. In terms of container lifts, Thailand has 30 per hour; the Philippines, 29 per hour; Mozambique, 27 per hour; and Australia languishes at 18.5 per hour.Next, we want to remove the Maritime Union of Australia's monopoly on waterfront labour. If you run the taxi driver test, you get two answers about the MUA: firstly, answers about violence and thuggery and, secondly, answers about continued rorts and strikes. Simply, the stevedoring industry has the second worst strike record of any industry in Australia—after coalmining, which is another industry that has a sorry history of union manipulation at the expense of everybody else.In 1997, stevedoring working days lost amounted to 930 per 1,000 employees, which is 12 times the national average. It is interesting to note that we have two per cent of world trade and 25 per cent of dock disputations. Well-known waterfront rorts indicate a work force which is out of control. Issues range from the petty, like going on strike about where the billiard table has been moved to—can you believe it?—to the outrageous, like delaying a ship to cause an extension of overtime and then nicking off before the ship is unloaded.Next, we want to improve occupational health and safety because in that area the waterfront has the worst record of any industry in Australia. Most importantly, we want to provide for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and we want to deal with overmanning. Australia's container terminals are overmanned by about 50 per cent. Basically this means that for every existing job you have 2½ people employed, with one doing the job—reasonably inefficiently, I suspect—and the other 1½ making sure that that wharfie does not work too hard.On our commitment to a fair day's pay, I ask you, Mr Deputy President, to compare the MUA workers' average wage of $74,500 per annum with that of really important members of the community—real contributors to the community. For instance, nurses earn in the high $30,000s; middle-ranking police officers earn in the low $40,000s; and school teachers—the people who have the future of our children in their hands—earn about $40,000. But just remember that this day at Port Botany the meter reader is back at work earning $73,000 a year.We have no desire to see the MUA—or, for that matter, any other union—destroyed. That will be determined by the good sense or otherwise of union leadership, but the MUA is a dinosaur in the modern global world and it has been for quite some time. Before the war, the Bulletin, a good left-wing magazine in those days, used to refer to the MUA as `our foreign policy'. It was not until Hitler invaded its heartland—the Soviet Union—in June 1941 that the Federation of Waterside Workers actually started loading the ships properly for the war effort in World War II.The MUA is generally a law unto itself. This has been shown to be true in the creation of the unlawful pickets in the current dispute. Mr Carr has made absolutely pathetic efforts to look for credibility somewhere. The most tragic leader of any state is today in South-East Asia telling them that New South Wales is a good place to do business because it has the competitive advantage. We will wait and see about that.The MUA's philosophy can be summed up as being jobs for all or jobs for no-one. In the months leading up to this dispute the MUA workers were on strike and, after being sacked, they became very agitated. I remind the Senate that they offered to work for nothing. That is one for the history books.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What about the illegal sackings?CX5Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALD—We see you, Senator Mackay, hand in glove with the MUA—with their rorts and their closed shop. Mr Tanner, the shadow minister for transport, who is more intelligent than you, and probably franker and more practical, allegedly made this aside to Laurie Oakes: `How can we defend the indefensible?'10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! Remarks should be addressed through the chair.CX5Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALD—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is time for Mr Beazley to do what he knows is right. He should repudiate the MUA's record of violence and he should support the ALP's now forgotten Hobart resolution to allow new stevedores to operate the Australian wharves. He should also repudiate a typically stupid comment by Mr Gareth Evans who said, `So what if the inefficiencies cost another $50 per container!' I will tell you what that means: it means $100 million, and that is a lot of money that could be used to create jobs and to make a profit for producers and exporters.As a government, we never assumed that it would be easy to reform the waterfront, but we said we would and we will. Dealing with a powerful, cornered and rich union with a monopoly was never going to be easy. Margaret Thatcher took over seven years to reorganise the labour arrangements in the British coal industry. At that time, public opinion and support for her reform program fluctuated, as it has in this dispute. But one thing is sure: this government is resolved to do what is right.I would like to make two brief final comments. Firstly, I have a word of support for the Patrick company. It has been brave enough to do something that should have been done 25 or even 60 years ago. At great personal cost and at great personal risk—which is especially evident if you read some of the threats made against them over the last few weeks—they will achieve the reforms that we want. P&O's decision to move makes it surer than ever that the waterfront will never be the same again. The game is up for the MUA. It should realise that. Congratulations to P&O for coming in—although a little belatedly, I might say—and acting in a way that is appropriate and is in the best interests of the company and in the best interests of Australia.Secondly, I note the proud record of the NFF and all Australian primary producers generally in bringing reform to the waterfront and to other industrial relations areas—including the live sheep dispute, the wide combs dispute and Mudginberri. (Time expired)17:13:002557Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I find it interesting that not one coalition speaker on the urgency motion on the waterfront today has addressed the substantive issues that were raised. We have heard the usual stuff about how they are all about waterfront reform, but not once have they mentioned the illegality of the sackings. Why? Because it is indefensible. Let's have a look at some of the facts. Let's look at how the government spent $1.3 million of taxpayers' money on secret waterfront consultancies.Fact: in April 1996, the government commissioned a consultancy to determine the views and concerns of industry about waterfront reform and to provide a strategy for the implementation of the government's reform agenda. Fact: in May 1996, the first ACIL contract was awarded with no tender process. Dr David Trebeck was asked to begin discussions with various industry groups and port users about their needs, and Mr Paul Houlihan was asked to look at the industrial relations situation in each port.Fact: in June 1996, the draft ACIL report was completed. Fact: on 18 September 1996, the ACIL report was completed and received by the government. We are aware of some of its contents, and I think Senator O'Brien has already covered that. Fact: on 20 June, the second ACIL contract was awarded, again without a tender process being followed, and the principal contractor was again Dr David Trebeck.Let us have a look at the existence and content of the now infamous departmental minute. Fact: a departmental minute in February to Minister Reith from Derren Gillespie entitled `Meetings with stevedore employers' describes in detail what happened on the waterfront, with absolutely astounding prescience, I believe. Fact: the minute advises Minister Reith not to commit to any strategy but draw out the employers' commitment to reform and their assessment of risk.Let us look at the government's refusal to produce the ACIL consultancy reports. Fact: the government has consistently refused to produce the ACIL consultancy reports, despite the Senate asking the government to do so. The government has given the usual old excuse—commercial-in- confidence, cabinet-in-confidence; `whatever it takes we don't want to give you the documents.' Finally, let us look at how the Dubai debacle was finally exposed. Fact: the story broke that a $20 shelf company was set up by Mr Wells and Mr Kilfoyle to recruit people in Dubai as an alternative work force on the waterfront.Let us look at how this government is inextricably linked to Dubai. Let us look at Minister Reith's total misleading of the people of Australia on the 7.30 Report, a matter that was questioned today in question time. Fact: despite clamming up on 27 January and saying that he did not know anything about the Dubai debacle prior to the ABC informing him, Paul Houlihan informs us that Minister Reith was actually briefed on 6 January and was `not unhappy with what we had to tell him'. Question: who is telling the truth here—Mr Houlihan or Mr Reith? Question: what was the minister so happy about? I think we now know what the minister was so happy about.Let us look at the claims that the government knew nothing about the Dubai debacle. Fact: the sworn affidavit by Mr Mike Wells, former director of Fynwest, claims that Dr Webster telephoned Wells on 30 July 1997 and asked him to contact Chris Corrigan about a possible job. Fact: the sworn affidavit claims that Dr Stephen Webster, a government consultant on waterfront reform, told Mr Wells that he was doing a special job for John Howard. Fact: this discussion occurred on the very day Dr Webster took up the $1,000 a day consultancy to advise the federal government on waterfront reform—a consultancy which resulted in a report which still remains secret, despite the Senate directing the government to table the information.Question: what was the special job? Question: who was behind the Dubai scheme? Question: what was the involvement of the government? Question: did the government provide any moneys or support for the plan? Question: what was the nature of this contact? Question: did Dr Webster brief Minister Reith on his discussions with Mr Wells? Question: did Dr Webster talk to anybody else about the matter? Answer: this government does not want the people of Australia to know. Question: what does this government have to hide?Fact: on 7 August Michael Wells telephoned Stephen Webster to advise him of his meeting with Corrigan. Webster asked if Wells could recruit the people he sought. Wells said, `Yes, sure.' Of course he could. Fact: on 5 September 1997 Wells telephoned Stephen Webster and advised him everything was in place to proceed with the Dubai operation. Dr Webster advised that as everything was okay it was probably not wise to contact him again unless Mr Wells had a particular problem. Fact: at all times, Mr Wells states, he believed that Dr Webster was reporting back to the federal government.Question: is Mr Wells's statement correct? Question: if not, why doesn't this government hold an inquiry to clear itself? Answer: because this government is in it up to its neck and it does not want the people of Australia to know the actual truth. Question: what does this government have to hide? Fact: it is alleged that discussions occurred before 3 December, the date when Minister Reith told parliament the government was unaware of the Dubai scheme, and that Dr Webster had had detailed discussions regarding this.Fact: documents obtained by the Age allegedly confirm that Mr Wells placed several calls to Dr Webster. Mr Wells claims that this was about the Dubai recruitment. Phone records and diary notes reveal a series of contacts between a key government adviser and the Dubai organisers.Fact: according to reports in the Weekend Australian on Saturday, 9 May, `a key government adviser has admitted having a series of discussions with organisers of the Dubai training scheme, but said they had nothing to do with the secret plan to break the waterfront union'. The Weekend Australian of 9-10 May reported that Dr Webster stated that `not only had he never discussed the plan to replace MUA members with former soldiers, he advised against it'. To whom did he advise against it? That is another question.The story gets more intriguing. Dr Webster confirms that he has had several conversations with Mr Wells, but Dr Webster's version of events is that the conversations concerned arranging a chauffeur and a bodyguard for Mr Pratt. Apparently the reason for this series of calls was that Mr Pratt had decided to hire the person full time. What an absolute joke! It gets more intriguing.Question: the telephone calls apparently took place. Exactly what was the nature of the telephone calls? Question: why are Mr Wells's and Dr Webster's stories inconsistent? Question: was Mr Reith briefed on the communications between Mr Wells and Dr Webster? Answer: the government does not want the people of Australia to know. The government does not want to answer this. Question: what has this government got to hide?Let us have a look at Mr Downer's office and its link to Dubai. Fact: according to information, if passports were not issued promptly the personnel were simply to mention a Mr Tweddell of Mr Downer's office, after which passports were issued within hours of their application—a couple of hours, as I understand.Let us look at what have now become Mr Corrigan's quite clear lies with regard to funding Dubai. Fact: the documents assert Mr Corrigan fully funded the Dubai plan in contradiction of his sworn evidence before the AIRC. Fact: Commonwealth Bank statements dated 9 January 1998 obtained by the Age show that Patrick Stevedores deposited $140,000 into Fynwest's bank account. Wells states that Corrigan totally funded the Dubai operation. Under oath before the AIRC, Corrigan said that he had no financial involvement in Dubai except for leasing some equipment. Corrigan denied any knowledge or involvement until he owned up in early February this year.Let us look at Mr Reith acknowledging the secret discussions he had with industry with regard to this. Fact: Mr Wells has stated that at all times Mr Corrigan made it clear that he, Mr Corrigan, had the support of the federal government and that he was reporting back to the federal government. Fact: Mr Reith has confirmed that the government had canvassed with Patrick Stevedores throughout last year the option of replacing its unionised work force. Fact: the Age on 9 May reported that Minister Reith said, `There were certainly discussions about what could be done, but as to what he [Corrigan] was intending to do or thought he would do that was always a matter for him.' Question: what communications did Minister Reith or anybody associated with Minister Reith have with Mr Corrigan? Question: what was discussed with regard to those?The allegations in the affidavits are very serious. No government would want them on the public record without having an inquiry so that they can be repudiated. It is simply not good enough for Minister Reith to claim in respect of Dubai, as he did yesterday, that he is not sure that anyone actually came up with the idea. That is probably the most astounding statement. I think you start to absolutely lose the plot when you start making those kinds of statements. The Australian people deserve to know to what extent, if any, this government was involved in creating the environment for the waterfront dispute. They deserve to know. Ten out of 11 judges agree that there is a case to be answered. We already know from Mr Howard that one of the reasons for the dispute was that the workers were union members. I restate what I think Senator Murray said. The Employment Advocate has had no communication with Minister Reith's office with regard to an alleged breach of the freedom of association provisions on the waterfront—not a single communication. In fact, he routinely has a barrage of complaints from Minister Reith's office to his office saying, `Please investigate this closed shop or that closed shop'—every closed shop in Australia except the one they allege, which is the one on the waterfront. Questions that should have been answered include: who is behind the Dubai scheme? Where would the men be put to work? What was the involvement of the government? Did the government provide any moneys or support for the plan? The government has had regular contact with P&O and Patricks during the industrial dispute. What was the nature of this contact? Did Dr Webster advise Minister Reith on 5 September last year that all was in place to proceed with the Dubai operation?Question: why does the government not want an inquiry? Answer: this government does not want an inquiry because it does not want the people to know what the truth of the matter is. Answer: this government is in this scandal up to its back teeth. Answer: this government is involved, I allege, in a conspiracy of gargantuan proportions. It does not believe it can defend itself. It does not believe it has a case to answer despite criminal proceedings going ahead in various legal forums. This government is running scared. Not one single coalition minister has been able to answer in either chamber today allegations directly related to this matter. The bottom line is that this government cannot and will not put itself at risk, but it cannot defend itself in terms of a process that is open and transparent. I commend the motion to the Senate.17:24:002560Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—Senator O'Brien calls for a public inquiry into the nature and extent of the government's role in the waterfront dispute. He alleges, for example, that the conspirators—and one assumes that he includes the government in that—have to prove that they are not guilty rather than the MUA having to prove that they are. That would be an easy task for the MUA because they are guilty as charged: charged with the crime of presiding basically slothlike over an overmanned, inefficient, indefensible waterfront. The allegations about the government are very interesting. As the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has said, we will plead guilty to conspiracy because we have encouraged reform on the waterfront. He said, `Let's have a conspiracy. Let's fix up the waterfront.' In fact, he said that he will write a book on how we conspired to fix up the Australian waterfront. What he said, and what is absolutely right and what those opposite are choosing to ignore, is that most Australians would say—and they are saying in polls—that it is about time somebody did something to encourage the employers to finally fix up the rorts, the overmanning and the excesses which have plagued this country for years. In moving this motion the opposition calls for an inquiry. We can only presume that they are hoping the inquiry will not even glance in their general direction, because it would find a closeness of relationship that would defy even the most vivid imagination. What a public inquiry would find is a relationship between the MUA and those opposite that is extraordinary in the extreme. We have journalists, for example, saying that Labor is drafting affidavits for the MUA.I think I heard Senator Conroy use the phrase `up to their necks'. It is the Labor Party that is up to its neck in a conspiracy with the MUA by running their campaign. It has been given research by the MUA so that the MUA can tell it what to say publicly on their behalf. They demanded of Mr Beazley that he oppose voluntary unionism on the waterfront so that they can retain their monopoly and so that crane drivers can earn $90,000 for about 14 hours a week.The MUA dictated to Mr Beazley what his policy will be and he, like a very good boy, has publicly announced that they will repeal the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Why is that? Because the MUA like to have a monopoly. Mr Beazley is going to remove the one sanction that there is against them, in spite of their ability in the past to hold this country to ransom with the stranglehold of their monopoly holding up trade. Just what are the links that we would suggest are a conspiracy between the Labor Party and the MUA? What about the commitments given secretly by the Labor Party to the MUA about policy? What about the involvement of senior members of the Labor Party with the MUA? What about the deals with senior frontbenchers of the Labor Party to publicly encourage people to break state laws and injunctions issued by state supreme courts? You want a full public inquiry but you cannot have a full public inquiry because, as you well know, the matter is already before the courts. The ALP is obviously aware that the MUA has made allegations against the government with regard to the events on the waterfront.Opposition senators interjecting—M56Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNE—They do not want to listen, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I am not going to stop. These issues cannot be the subject of an inquiry until the legal matters have been concluded.AW5CARRSenator Carr—So you have joined the uglies in New South Wales!M56Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNE—You would not have to move very far, Senator Carr. The reality is that the companies involved in this dispute have already suffered significant damage as a result of the industrial campaign run by the MUA, and they will continue to face those significant challenges—Opposition senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Conroy and Senator Carr, we might proceed with some decorum.M56Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNE—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. They will continue to face significant challenges to comply with the orders of the High Court. This is an industry that was in need of urgent reform. It takes leadership, not only from the companies involved but also from the government, to fix it. It is up to the MUA and the ALP as to whether they want to be part of that process or whether they want to continue to sabotage the Australian waterfront.It seems to me that it is very easy to ignore the facts here. We can call for inquiry after inquiry. You can keep doing that, but ultimately the High Court, in part 64 of its decision, said:As the orders made by North J. were not subject to the power of the administrators to determine whether or not to resume trading by the employer companies, there was an appealable error which can and will be rectified by the insertion of an appropriate qualification.The government will support the administrator in that task and will give the administrator the authority necessary to manage the affairs of the company. But what about the MUA? Oh no, it considers itself above the law in that regard. It does not consider itself as required to abide by that resolution of the High Court. Let us return to the government's key policy objectives—that is, the achievement of real competition on the waterfront and fixing up the problems which have delivered this country such a poor international reputation. Those opposite have alleged that the government's role in this issue is somehow nefarious, somehow underhanded.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Nefarious—it's criminal!AW5Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNE—What the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business said in this regard is instructive. He said that, in the end, what we face is a situation where we have an unproductive waterfront and there are commercial pressures on the parties to do better than what they have done. The government's role has been to facilitate and encourage reform. As previous governments have done, we have a structure in place to help the companies meet the government's national policy objectives.I would like to refer briefly to the position of business in, for example, my own state of New South Wales. Today's statement by the Executive Director of the New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce, Katie Lahey, is instructive and a good indicator in this regard. More than 70 per cent of businesses surveyed by the New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce have indicated that they feel that the current situation on the waterfront will result in an improvement in waterfront efficiency and that is what they are looking for.Some 150 businesses across New South Wales were surveyed and only nine per cent were confident that the Maritime Union of Australia was legitimately committed to efficiency on the waterfront. Some 51 per cent of respondents said they had confidence in the federal government's handling of the dispute. When asked about the picket line situation, 88.7 per cent of respondents had no confidence in the New South Wales state government's handling of the issue—an instructive piece of information for the New South Wales Premier, Mr Carr. As Katie Lahey, an executive director of an important chamber of commerce in this country, said:It is obvious that the business community is firmly behind the process of reform and although the dispute has had a significant impact are keen to see real change.The government is determined to push ahead with waterfront reform in Australia and that determination is in no way diminished. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That, in accordance with standing order 154, the motion be conveyed to the House of Representatives as a message for concurrence.Miscellaneous256110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—I present a report on an audit of the use of senators' outgoing freight entitlements. Committees25622562256210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present a further response by the Presiding Officers to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories entitled A Right to Protest . In accordance with the usual practice, I ask that the response be incorporated in Hansard .The response reads as follows—PRESIDING OFFICERS' FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES ENTITLED "A RIGHT TO PROTEST"The report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, entitled `A Right to Protest', was presented to the Senate in June 1997. Mr Speaker and I presented a response to the report on 4 September 1997 and the Government response was tabled on 25 March 1998.Mr Speaker and I recognise the right to protest as an inherent part of any active and healthy democratic process and wish in the light of the Government's response to affirm our position in relation to the Committee's recommendations. Our joint response emphasises the special position of the Parliament as established by the Constitution, privileges and immunities provided for by the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 and authorities to control and manage the Parliamentary Precincts as provided for by the Parliamentary. This response endeavours to balance the needs of the Parliament as a legislature with those of public access to the Parliamentary Precincts and its elected officials. Committee RecommendationGovernment ResponsePresiding Officers' Response1.A permit not be required in order to protest on national land, subject to recommendation 3 dealing with protest structures.The Government supports this recommendation.Recommendation supported.2.A broad legislative scheme for non-compulsory prior notification of protests, based on the Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 , not be introduced, but instead a cooperative approach to protest management be encouraged by:The Government supports this recommendation.Recommendation supported.a)Identifying in a community liaison section of the Australian Federal Police a contact officer for the coordination of protests on national land who would provide a contact and information point for protest organisers and who would be responsible for liaising with other relevant authorities when a protest is planned for national land; anda)The Australian Federal Police have indicated that the ACT Region Planning Team could be the coordination point.a)Recommendation supported. b)Producing and making available a public information booklet on protesting in the national capital which would encourage prior notification of protests to a protest coordination officer of the Australian Federal Police and which would provide relevant information and advice on the conduct of protests in the national capital, focussing on national land.b)The National Capital Authority will have carriage of the production of the public information booklet.b)Recommendation supported subject to the public information booklet incorporating specific reference to the Parliament and special conditions applying within the Parliamentary Precincts.3.A permit system be introduced for the management of protest structures on national land so that a permit is required from the National Capital Authority for a structure placed on national land as part of or in association with a protest but a permit not be required where the structure:The Government supports this recommendation with the additional proviso that the permit system include vehicles and machinery as well as structures. It is also noted that the Guidelines for Protests, Demonstrations and Public Assemblies with the Parliamentary Precincts issued by the Presiding Officers cover the use of sound equipment in the Parliamentary Precincts.Recommendation supported subject to permits only being issued for the Parliamentary Precincts with approval of the Presiding Officers.a)is of a size which would have minimal impact on the land and is used to facilitate the protest, such as sound systems and small stages; anda)Proposed amendments to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 will facilitate the permit system.a)Recommendation not supported for the Parliamentary Precincts due to the scope for land use conflicts between the Parliament and protest groups seeking to erect structures on occasions where other events have been scheduled for areas of the Precincts e.g. ceremonial welcomes for Heads of State and Heads of Government.b)is erected and removed on the same day during daylight hours.b)Recommendation not supported (See comments against a).4.Relevant legislative amendments be introduced to recognise protests as an appropriate use of national land and to enable the National Capital Authority to issue permits for the erection of protest structures.The Government supports this recommendation. Relevant amendments will be considered as part of the review of legislation recommended by the Committee.Recommendation supported subject to discussion and agreement on any amendments which affect the Parliamentary Precincts. 5.The term "structure" be defined broadly to ensure that the myriad fixtures, edifices, constructions, vehicles, machinery and fixed display materials which could be used in association with a protest, including tents used for camping, come within the terms of the permit system.The Government supports a broad definition of structure, provided it is not inconsistent with other legislation e.g. planning or traffic laws. In supporting this recommendation the Government does not wish to imply that camping would normally be permissible.Recommendation supported but the Parliament would seek input to the definition process.6.In determining an application for a permit to erect a protest structure on national land, including the duration of a permit, the National Capital Authority be required to give due consideration to: a)the public's right to peaceful assembly on national land; b)issues regarding equality of access to national land; c)public interest considerations which may require certain limitations to be placed on the erection of structures, including public order, public health and safety, national security, the rights of other persons, and the proper functioning of the Parliament and other national institutions, including their ceremonial functions; and d)any specific requirements relating to the Parliamentary Precincts as determined by the Parliament's Presiding Officers, including existing requirements set down in their guidelines for protests in the Parliamentary Precincts. The Government supports this recommendation, but would further add that the National Capital Authority, when determining an application to erect a protest structure on national land, give consideration to: .the requirements of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1972 and other legislation which relates, among other matters, to Australia's obligations under Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to prevent any disturbance.; .heritage values of any Register of the National Estate place affected, in line with s.30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 ; and .human rights referred to in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.Recommendation supported in terms of comments against recommendation 3. Consultation between the National Capital Authority and Presiding Officers is required in relation to the erection of structures adjacent to the Parliamentary Precincts and particularly on Federation Mall. 7.Guidelines on the erection of protest structures on national land covering issues such as location, duration and public health and safety considerations, be developed by the National Capital Authority and be included in the information booklet proposed at recommendation 2.The Government supports this recommendation.Recommendation supported subject to discussion and agreement on any guidelines which may affect the Parliamentary Precincts.8.On the basis of advice from the National Capital Authority or the Presiding Officers in relation to the Parliamentary Precincts, the Australian Federal Police be empowered to remove any protest structure on national land for which a permit is required under the system proposed at recommendation 3 but for which a permit has not been issued.The Government supports the principle that the Australian Federal Police be empowered to remove any protest structures on national land for which a permit is required, but has not been obtained. However the legislation for the permit system should provide for them to act of their own motion, to remove a structure which has been illegally erected.Recommendation supported.9.The Unlawful Assemblies Ordinance 1937 be repealed.The Government supports this recommendation.Recommendation supported.10.The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, in consultation with the Australian Capital Territory Attorney-General's Department, review the existing laws which apply to protests on national land to ensure that they are written in plain English and define clearly the powers which are available to relevant authorities in dealing with protests.The Government supports a review of the legislation and will consult with the ACT Government in determining the best approach.Recommendation supported. 11.Building on the memorandum of understanding established between the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Protective Service, clearly documented procedures for coordination of protests be developed between all relevant authorities involved with the management of protests on national land.The Government supports this recommendation. The Presiding Officers of the Senate and the House of Representatives have pointed out that the Parliament already has clear procedures set in place in relation to the coordination and management of demonstrations in the Parliamentary Precincts. In addition agreed guidelines are being developed between the Minister for the National Capital Authority and the Presiding Officers to ensure consistency of approach in dealing with protest activity in the Precincts and in those areas in the Parliamentary Zone adjacent to the Precincts.Recommendation supported with the proviso that aspects of any agreements concerning the Parliament between the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Protective Service are approved by the Presiding Officers.Documents25662566256610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 42 of 1997-98—Preliminary inquiries into the Natural Heritage Trust.17:34:002566Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.Obviously, I welcome the findings of the Auditor-General, particularly his clear and unequivocal statement:. . . the NHT decision-making process is fundamentally sound in providing transparency and rigour and there was no evidence of systemic bias in the allocation of funds to projects.This inquiry was instigated after a demand by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, who thought he could achieve some short-term political benefit not only at the expense of the government but also at the expense of the Natural Heritage Trust and, therefore, the commitment of so many thousands of Australians who are contributing to wrestling with Australia's natural resource problems. In effect, they are overcoming and remedying damage that has been done in the past and putting in place better processes to ensure the sustainable management of those resources with proper conservation for the future.Another finding in the Auditor-General's report is that in the overwhelming majority of cases the reasons for rejecting or varying state and territory recommendations were adequately documented and related to the published decision-making criteria. Even though the Auditor-General noted that there were a small number of cases which could have been better documented he found that there was satisfactory oral advice as to the background and reasons for the decisions in all cases. He confirmed that the reasons behind decisions taken by the ministerial board were sound and related to the board's desire to see more money go to community groups instead of state government agencies and more money go towards projects on the ground and outcomes.He also examined those projects which had not been recommended by regional or state assessment processes. I mention in particular the Baillieu family from whom the opposition sought to make some political mileage. He found that of the 16 such projects that can be classified by electorate, interestingly nine were in Labor seats and only seven in coalition seats. More importantly, he found that each of these projects met the published eligibility criteria for funding under the trust. He acknowledged that most of these projects were incorrectly assessed by the regional and state panels as ineligible. In other words, that is exactly what we said in this place.He confirmed also, as we have been saying all along, that the major programs of the Natural Heritage Trust are aimed at the major environmental problems which are found in rural areas, which is why most of the money was going to rural areas. I have reminded the Senate before that, if 90 per cent of rural seats are held by the coalition, it is not surprising that in this instance that is where the money ends up. As I have said before, it was exactly where the money ended up when Labor administered its much smaller scheme when in government—something that Labor conveniently forgot when it decided to attack the coalition in this instance.He also states that the number and value of project applications from coalition seats were significantly higher than from Labor seats. I have mentioned that. He found that rural communities are well organised and more familiar with the types of programs being run by the trust. Therefore, he put forward some suggestions that will encourage a broader range of applications in the future, and we will, of course, take up those suggestions. We already are, by the appointment of facilitators, trying to extend beyond the original landcare groups to other groups the capacity to make applications and quality applications. We accept these suggestions he made for improvements.He said he would like to see more biodiversity experts on the panels. We have already put that in place. We acknowledged from the start that that was necessary, and this year's regional assessment panels will be better represented in that regard, as will the state assessment panels. He wanted us to further communicate the emphasis the Commonwealth was placing on particular selection criteria. We have already done that this year through our letters and other published material to the states and to regional and other organisations.These findings are a complete vindication of the government's actions in relation to the Natural Heritage Trust. I would like to put on the record too that they are a vindication of my departmental staff as well. The professionalism of the departmental staff in properly documenting all the decisions that were made should be commended.It is a matter of great regret that literally tens of thousands of dollars of public money has now been wasted as a result of this Labor Party attempt to gain some political points when they knew they were never there in the first place. A lot of extra work had to be put in by departmental officers to meet the opposition's demands. Nevertheless that was duly done. In summary, this report is, therefore, a damning indictment of the Labor Party's politically motivated muckraking.The most important thing now is for Senator Faulkner in this place, who I am pleased has come in here, to finally have the intestinal fortitude to apologise to the Baillieu family for so unjustly and maliciously defaming them in an attempt to try to attack us. We demonstrated in this place there was no foundation at all for his attacks on the Baillieu family. He accused them of colluding with us for their financial advantage. He accused some of those who have actually been dead for decades of colluding with us for financial advantage. It has been demonstrated that he failed to exercise any or due care in his attacks on those individuals.It is time that he had the stomach, as I said, to come in here and apologise for doing that to that innocent family who are prepared to commit part of their land to protect important remnant vegetation in the public interest. For that, what did they get? They got attacked and abused by Senator Faulkner under the privilege of this place.Now the Auditor-General has shown that there was no basis for that attack, surely the time is there for Senator Faulkner, if he is to demonstrate any sort of leadership at all of the Labor Party in the Senate, to be willing to now stand up and say to the Baillieu family, `I'm sorry. I missed it. I got it wrong.' That would be the least he could do to demonstrate that sort of leadership to those of the Australian community who are prepared to make this commitment to better environmental practice.I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that some 6,000 different groups or individuals made applications under the first full year of this trust, which demonstrates how many Australians out there do want to contribute to better environmental management. By apologising to the Baillieus, he can indicate to those Australians that he recognises finally that the Natural Heritage Trust is a sound investment in Australia's environment. In fact, it is the largest investment by any Australian government in rectifying the damage that has been done to the Australian environment.Senator Faulkner could finally be prepared to come on the record and say, `It's true. It is a good investment. The Labor Party recognises it. We fought it up hill and down dale. We opposed the funding basis for it. We said it would not work. We tried to rip the guts out of it in the attacks on the ministerial board. We even got the Auditor-General to assist us in that task. It has been demonstrated now publicly and with authority that there was no foundation at all for our baseless attacks. We're now prepared to get behind the trust and help make it work.'If Senator Faulkner was prepared to get up here today and say that, he would actually be contributing to the good of Australia, which would be something of a change from what we usually get. Apart from that, if he does not get that far but at least apologises to the Baillieus, it would be a small step in the right direction.17:44:002568Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Audit Report No. 42 1997-98: Preliminary inquiries into the Natural Heritage Trust very much vindicates the opposition's highlighting of the funding imbalance, where $9 out of every $10 went to coalition electorates. In his report, the Auditor-General states that neither DPIE or Environment Australia chal lenges Labor's analysis. This report also confirms Labor's highlighting of the degree of ministerial intervention into the process. It also states that, notwithstanding the circulation of extensive eligibility and selection criteria:. . . the emphasis placed on particular criteria by the Ministers was greater than expected by applicants, RAPs, SAPs, State and Territory Ministers and the Departments for the 1997-98 funding round.In other words, the published criteria cannot explain the decisions that the ministers made. We were absolutely right in pointing out the unrepresentative nature of the panel composition, and the ministers themselves have agreed to make changes to that for the next round.Our concerns that the Natural Heritage Trust must be improved if the environmental priorities, rather than the political priorities, are to be addressed are vindicated by this report. This report is not a clearance, as the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill, reckons. In fact, the ANAO concludes, `There is scope to enhance the geographic reach.' As far as the selection process is concerned, the opposition stresses that this report indicates that the flaws in this program flow from the structure of the selection process.What we have here is a scheme at the mercy of a submission-driven process which was grafted on to some existing rural landcare and catchment programs. A national government proposing a national scheme intended to address national problems should have ensured that funds went to all areas of need and should have avoided a situation where those already established groups were able to take advantage of the first round. By the time the ministers and the Australian National Audit Office acknowledged the imbalance in the representation on the community panels, the first round of funding—almost $200 million—had underwritten the coalition's political imperatives in the electoral cycle.One of the concerns which the opposition had and which we put vigorously was the level of intervention by Senator Hill once the recommendations were put to him after this exhaustive, costly and independent process had taken place. We recognise that the Auditor-General addressed himself to this particular concern and, given that Senator Hill invited me to comment on it, we note the very guarded language the Auditor used in reference to the Woodhouse Pastoral Company project or, if you like, the Baillieu family project. Let me go to that in the Auditor's report. The report states:Project Protection of significant natural estate remnant vegetation..Proponent Woodhouse Pastoral Co. . . . . . . . .SAP Assessment Rated ineligible.. . . . . . . . .NHT Guidelines Assistance for on-ground activities by individuals on private land will only be available where there is a `clear and substantial public benefit' (Funding for individuals is only available in the 1997-98 round)This is what the Auditor said. This is the great clearance that Senator Hill talks about. This is what he wants apologies for. Listen to what the Auditor said about this shonky operation from Senator Hill. He said:While on balance the project would appear to be eligible, judgement is required to interpret the extent to which there is a `clear and substantial public benefit'.The Auditor went on, and this is what he said about this shonky grant:The evidence would appear to support the eligibility for the project . . . Honourable senators interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Congratulations to the Auditor-General for those verbal gymnastics to deal with what is a very contentious project. The Auditor-General acknowledges some projects did result from direct representations from the proponent to the Minister for the Environment, but there is no light shed at all on who sought and who obtained ministerial approval for the shonky Woodhouse project. None at all. The minister, under direct questioning in this chamber, has never offered an answer on those issues about this shonky project. He has never been able to offer an answer.Honourable senators interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We still want to know who sought and obtained ministerial approval for this rort and shonk that Senator Hill has been responsible for. I have got to say that, in this context, it is worth noting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Faulkner, I do not seek to interrupt you at the moment, but I think it would be appropriate that, if people are so interested in this matter—as senators obviously are—we endeavour to hear the statements of the respective senators in silence. I should also remind senators that it is only appropriate for them to speak when they are seated in their own place. I call Senator Faulkner.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—In this context, it is worth noting—(Quorum formed) As I was saying, in this context, it is worth noting that the ANAO chose not to examine the records from the office of the ministers, which, of course, had it been done, would have shed light on the issue of who sought and obtained ministerial approval. But our concerns on funding dispersal ratios are vindicated in table 6. I draw the attention of everyone who is interested to table 6 on page 21 of the report. If you want to follow the matter, have a look at the table. I will come back to it if I have time.Perhaps the most notable defect in the Auditor-General's report is his failure even to address, let alone pass any judgment on, Senator Hill's extraordinary practice of involving his backbench colleagues in the decision-making process—a practice that we were able to prise out of Senator Hill at the estimates hearings last year. Why did Senator Hill find it necessary to involve Senator Crane in making decisions about trust fund grants in Western Australia? Why did he fly Mr Billson to Adelaide to assist with the Victorian grant? Why was Senator Eggleston in the room? Any reader of this report looking for answers to those questions, for the Auditor's view of the propriety of Senator Hill's actions, would be very severely disappointed. He did not even look at it and he did not even address it.The processes associated with the selection of the NHT projects may well have been transparent, but so is the inherent political bias of those processes. Notwithstanding this report, the opposition remains very concerned at the skewed outcomes of the first round of funding under the multi-million dollar program. We hope and expect that the changes that the Auditor-General has recommended will produce more equitable outcomes in the second round.Honourable senators interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I say this to the Senate: go to table 6 on page 21. This is what you will read about ministerial approvals by political parties. Number and percentage of projects: Coalition—87.1 per cent; Labor—8.4 per cent; Independent—4.5 per cent. Value of ministerial approvals: Coalition—90 per cent; Labor—we go down here—4.6 per cent; Independent—5.3 per cent. Average value of the projects: Coalition—$46,500; Labor—$25,000; Independent—$52,500.Honourable senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Hill has been involved in one of the greatest shonks and one of the greatest rorts we have seen since this government has been elected, and that is saying something in a government of shonks and a government of rorters. Senator Hill stands condemned for this program.(Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Before I call Senator Alston, can I remind senators on both sides, as I said earlier, that there seems to be a degree of interest in this matter and it would be more appropriate if we were able to hear what was being said. I remind senators again that it is not appropriate—in fact, is a breach of standing orders—to speak or interject when they are not sitting in their own place.17:56:002570Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Faulkner's departure from the chamber, I think, says it all. Quite clearly, he is not the slightest bit interested in the findings of this report, which are a devastating indictment of the Labor Party's approach. This gives not only Senator Hill but the process a clean bill of health. You are not interested in the slightest in the findings. In fact, what Senator Faulkner had to say was, `Notwithstanding this report, we remain concerned.' That says it all. What he is saying is that, irrespective of the evidence and irrespective of the findings of an independent arbiter—the Auditor-General who is brought in to check these things and who gives it a tick on all counts—you are interested only in the gutter.Honourable senators interjecting—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It speaks volumes for your ethical standards and codes of practice. This will haunt you at election time because you have had 2½ years in the gutter, you have passed up innumerable opportunities to get into the policy game and you have decided not to do it.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—But these things come back to bite you. You think you can get a cheap shot on the way through but it comes back. When you find, time and again, that these sorts of slurs are baseless, then your credibility is what suffers, not Senator Hill's and not the Bailleau family's.Honourable senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—We long ago abandoned any prospect of Senator Faulkner having the guts or the decency, because it is not in his nature. His approach is: you never concede, you never apologise and you just plough on regardless.Honourable senators interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You might be the biggest buffoon or dolt who has ever been elected to this chamber, but you think that somehow political progress consists of actually—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I am quite sure there is a lot of interest in this matter. It is a broadcast day and members of the public might be interested in what people in this place have got to say. It would be appropriate that we do allow them to have some chance of hearing what people have to say.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I am very conscious of the fact that I have got one minute left. The public ought to know that this decision-making process has been found by the Auditor-General to be fundamentally sound in providing transparency and rigour. There is no evidence of systemic bias in the allocation of funds to projects. The Auditor-General has gone through all of these muckraking allegations and found that they are completely baseless. The attack on the Bailleau family is utterly disgraceful and indefensible. It could not possibly have been made outside this chamber, because you know you would have the pants sued off you. You do it nonetheless, under parliamentary privilege, because you think there is some cheap political mileage in somehow slandering those who are outside the political process.This has not worked. You have been exposed. We never expected anything more of Senator Faulkner, because he has made it perfectly plain by his conduct that he would never apologise, irrespective of the circumstances. So we are not surprised, but I think the public will give you your award in due course.Sitting suspended from 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Miscellaneous2571257119:30:002571Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table the following documents:Budget documents— Budget strategy and outlook 1998-99; Budget measurers 1998-99; Federal financial relations 1998-99; The Commonwealth public account 1998-99;Ministerial statements— Addressing priorities in indigenous affairs; Maintaining our commitment to women; Regional Australia: Our commitment; Investing in our natural heritage: The Commonwealth's environment expenditure 1998-99;I seek leave to make a statement relating to the 1998-99 budget.Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Tonight the Treasurer is delivering in another place his Budget Speech for 1998-99.In March 1996 our country set out on a new journey.It started from a bad position. We had lost our way—our budget, under Labor, was $10.3 billion in deficit. Government debts had grown nearly $80 billion over five years. Looking out to the next century there was just a haze of deficit upon deficit and climbing ranges of debt which hemmed us in and closed off our future opportunities.Australia needed direction. Australia had to change its way.So our Government laid out a map. We marked out the places we wanted to get to. We identified the goals we wanted to achieve and we put down a timetable so we could measure our progress. So we could stay on track.We wanted to get the budget out of deficit—out of the red and into the black—in three years. We wanted to stabilise our growing debt then halve it (in proportion to GDP) in five years. We wanted to achieve our goals not by raising taxes but by spending taxpayers' money more efficiently and well.That was two years ago. This coming year is the third year of the journey. We will finish the first leg in good shape. We have achieved our goal. Our budget is now in surplus. We are back in the black. We are back on track.The Commonwealth budget will be in surplus in 1998-99—a surplus of $2.7 billion.When we set out on this journey we knew it would be a tough road. If it were otherwise our predecessors would have taken it. And in many respects the road has become tougher—with the severe turmoil in the Asian region.But we all know that worthwhile achievement requires work and dedication and we have never lost sight of our goals.The burdens were shared and the benefits will be shared. It was something that all of us—as Australians—have achieved together.And now we set out on the second leg of our journey.Our second leg is to pay our way now and set up opportunities for the future by repaying Labor's debt.Repaying the debts of the past will secure the jobs for the future. Lower debt means lower interest payments. Our taxes will be lower and they will go on new services, better services, improving living standards, rather than servicing the past debts and the past failures.We are now well on track.In fact today we can map out even more exciting possibilities. The Government's sale of one third of the equity of Telstra gave millions of Australians the opportunity to share in the ownership of this company—mums and dads, employees—many people who have never owned a share before in their lives.The Government proposes to sell the further shares in this company—not because we need to balance the budget. The budget is already balanced. But a once only sale will let us get a once only reduction in our debt burden—a once only opportunity to reduce net debt to 1½ per cent of GDP—to wipe out Labor's debt for good. This would put the Commonwealth, at the Centenary of Federation, back in the strong position it had in the mid 1970s—in its best position in twenty-five years.I said earlier that the burdens that have been shared mean that the benefits will be shared.When we began this journey two years ago mortgage interest rates were 10½ per cent. Now they are closer to 6½ per cent. These are the lowest home mortgage rates since 1970. For the average Australian home buyer this represents a saving of $320 per month—they are $3,800 per year better off.And low home interest rates means the affordability of housing has, according to the HIA index, improved by 24 per cent over the last two years. What this means is more young Australians, more young families can buy their own home and get a start in life.Young people and families are sharing the benefits of good economic policy.Two years ago small business overdraft interest rates were over 11 per cent. Now they have come down to 7.7 per cent. These are the lowest rates for small business since the 1960s. At the start of the decade, under Labor, small business interest rates were 20.5 per cent—nearly three times the current rate. Small business is sharing the benefits of good policy.If we had not acted to repair the nation's finances, if we had not acted to lock in low inflation, if we had not been able to enjoy lower interest rates, if we had not been able to help small business, jobs would have been lost. But these measures have allowed new jobs, better jobs to be created. Employees are sharing the benefits of good policy.There are now more Australians in work then ever before. Whilst unemployment is too high, it is now the lowest it has been in Australia since 1990—the lowest in eight years, the lowest since Labor's recession. That was the recession we did not have to have. Finally, we are over it.CHALLENGESIn his first Budget Speech two years ago, he said that unless we acted decisively then ". . . Australia would be dangerously exposed to shifts in the international outlook . . ."We did not know then that the Asian region would, as happened late last year, experience its greatest financial crisis ever and its largest downturn in economic growth since the oil shocks of twenty-five years ago. We did not know then that the Asian region, which for decades has been an engine for growth in Australia, would become a brake on our growth.But we knew that prudent management meant we should strengthen the Australian economy against shocks outside our control. And we did. And it is now clear what an important decision that was. Our critics opposed us. Labor, which had put Australia in deficit, fought to keep it there. We are fortunate their views did not prevail.In the midst of the turbulence of the region, Australia's economic growth will remain strong—not as strong as it could have been without this external downturn, a downturn beyond our control—but Australia will have one of the highest growth rates in the developed world. Importantly, Australia will be the strong economy of this region. Our economic fundamentals are as good as they have been for twenty-five years: low inflation, low interest rates, good growth, falling unemployment, falling debt and a budget swinging into surplus.It is important to remember that this is the result of a coherent policy framework:. a new framework for the conduct of monetary policy with an agreed inflation objective—set with the Reserve Bank—keeping inflation low;. a Charter of Budget Honesty recognised as a standard setter by the International Monetary Fund—implementing the best practice in the world—keeping the budget on track;. a leading edge reform of the financial sector which has proven strong and will be strengthened further under new institutional arrangements flowing from the Financial System (Wallis) Inquiry; and. a programme of Corporate Law Reform that will make Australia one of the most efficient, stable, reliable centres in the world to do business—directed to our objective of providing economic growth and jobs.But the turbulent events of Asia in recent times should remind us of the need to continue to work to strengthen our future. While many hard yards have been covered, many more have to be travelled to improve our tax system, to improve our ports and wharfs, to keep our focus on a stronger economy and jobs, to maintain our commitment to help families, the elderly, and those in regional and rural Australia.BUDGET OUTCOMESMadam President, we have turned around the nation's finances without increasing the tax burden on Australians.For the third time in a row, tonight the Treasurer will announce that there will be no increase in income tax rates, no increase in the company tax rate, no increase in the wholesale sales tax, no increase in the petrol excise.The uplift factor for provisional tax in 1998-99 will be reduced again one further percentage point to 5 per cent, half the rate that applied under Labor at the beginning of this decade. This will save business and individuals around $75 million in provisional tax instalments in the forthcoming year.We are putting the nation's finances in order by being careful with government spending—targeting the areas of need, whilst eliminating rorts and wastage. In the social security area alone, in the first eighteen months of the Coalition Government more than $600 million was repaid by people who had received more than their entitlements. In 1996-97, $28 million a week was saved by cancelling payments to those who were not entitled to them.Budget outlays as a proportion of GDP are expected to fall from around 27 per cent of GDP in 1995-96 to below 24 per cent by 2000-01. This represents an outcome not achieved since the early 1970s.And careful management of the nation's finances has allowed us to redirect spending to those with greater need.Care and Support for Older AustraliansMadam President, the Government has already demonstrated its strong commitment to older Australians.This is the only Government that has, by legislation, set the benchmark rate of the age pension at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. This means that although the Consumer Price Index did not increase last year, the rate of the age pension did. This delivered an increase in the pension of $6.80 per fortnight in March 1998. The Government has also provided for this increase to flow to the recipients of War Widows' pensions.This Government also delivered tax fairness to the self-funded retiree. The Government has now introduced, in full, the availability of the pensioner tax rebate to self-funded retirees. Self-funded retirees now pay no more in tax for the same income than do pension ers. This allows a qualifying single self-funded retiree to earn up to $12,163 without paying tax.Starting from 1 July 1998, the savings rebate will reduce tax on savings by 7.5 per cent and by 1 July 1999 reduce tax on savings by 15 per cent up to the first $3000 of income.The Government has decided that from 1 January 1999, a Gold Card for health care will be made available to an additional 50,000 Australian World War II veterans—those who faced danger from hostile forces during that war. This measure, which costs around $500 million over four years, recognises the significant contribution made by Australia's war veterans. A grateful nation acknowledges the debt we owe them.The Gold Card provides the veteran with free treatment as a private patient with choice of doctor or medical practitioner in hospital, together with a wide range of other services such as optical, dental, physiotherapy, podiatry and chiropractic services free of charge. These services are provided whether the conditions treated are service related or not. Gold Card holders receive the pensioner concession on pharmaceuticals. They are not required to pay the Medicare Levy. Their treatment is free.This Government wants to encourage people to save for their own retirement. And so it is determined to support those retirees who through thrift are now living from their own savings.To further encourage and support self-funded retirees, I announce tonight that eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card is to be expanded from 1 January 1999.The income test threshold for the card, which will be based on taxable income, is to be increased from around $21,000 to $40,000 per year for singles and from around $36,000 to $67,000 per year for couples. This change, costing $190 million over four years, is expected to allow some 220,000 additional self-funded retirees to qualify for the Seniors Health Card.It will enable cardholders to purchase eligible pharmaceuticals for $3.20—the same concessional rate as pensioners—with any prescriptions above 52 within a year being available free of charge.1999 is the International Year of Older Persons. A Government programme which will focus on implementing practical initiatives for improving the health and well-being of older Australians and recognising their contribution to the community and nation is being put in place to mark this occasion.A Healthy AustraliaMadam President, the Government is also building a stronger health system.Under Australian Health Care Agreements, Commonwealth funding available for public hospitals will increase by $2.9 billion over the next five years. In total, this will increase funding nearly 15 per cent in real terms and bring Commonwealth spending to $30.2 billion over the five year period. As part of this, the Commonwealth has taken on the full cost of purchasing veterans' health care, which is separately funded at $150 million per year. The extension of the Gold Card to an additional 50,000 veterans, separately funded for free treatment as private patients, creates additional places in the public system for others.Health Care Agreement funding will ensure that public patients receive free access to public hospitals, and will facilitate reforms to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health services. This demonstrates the Government's strong commitment to the public hospital system.Earlier this year, the Government announced a range of measures to enhance the care of older people staying in the community, and to provide greater recognition and support for carers. The Government's package Staying at Home—Care and Support for Older Australians , announced in April, will assist elderly Australians to remain independent and live in their own homes with additional care and support.The measures, costing around $280 million over the next four years, will see the number of people receiving assistance through Community Aged Care Packages to stay in their own home double to 22,000; they expand eligibility for the Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit; they will establish another fifteen Carer Respite Centres to give those caring for older people the chance for respite and help them to look after elderly relatives; and they provide additional respite care places for people with dementia.This year, the Commonwealth will also provide increased funding for the States of $130 million over five years under the new Commonwealth State Disability Agreement. This will provide for additional accommodation support services for people with disabilities. This funding is in addition to the $54 million in extra funding which was provided in the 1997-98 Budget.Our efforts to improve the health of Australians do not end there.Tonight, I am announcing the provision of around $80 million over four years to enhance preventive health programmes. This will fund a number of new programmes, including:. a free annual influenza vaccine to all Australians over 65 in order to treat this preventible illness, as recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council; and. a $6.1 million programme to reduce tobacco-related illness including school education campaigns to warn our children of the dangers of smoking.Following the successful introduction of Medicare claims units in pharmacies in rural Australia, the service will be extended to outer metropolitan and growth areas. Two hundred new units will open in pharmacies to allow people to access Medicare refunds from their local chemist.Foster parents, who generously give love and care to children, will be entitled to have a Health Care Card for the child, if the child qualified in his or her previous family, to use for health expenses. This recognises the important role of carers and the health needs of those who are cared for by them.The Government's commitment to medical research is demonstrated by our decision tonight to provide additional on-going funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council at a cost of around $175 million over four years. This provides longer term certainty for the health and medical research industry, and will encourage those with research skills to participate or continue in medical research.Expenditure on diagnostic imaging has grown significantly in recent years. Although this growth was slowed by measures introduced in the 1996-97 Budget, further reforms are needed to ensure that growth does not become unsustainable. The Government will be working with peak professional bodies to constrain diagnostic imaging expenditure.The Government will also be taking steps to ensure that abuse and waste in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is minimised, through enhancing the compliance activities of the Health Insurance Commission and the development of education and awareness programmes.Youth, Education and TrainingA key priority of the Government has been to expand employment opportunities, through labour market reform and improvements in Australia's education and training system. A particular concern has been our unemployed youth.The Government's initiatives have included the major reform of the provision of employment services, with the establishment of the Job Network from May this year; improved incentives for employers to take on apprentices; and the Work for the Dole scheme.The Work for the Dole scheme is based on the principle of mutual obligation. A person out of work is given income support by the community and is expected, in return, to support the community by doing useful projects, learning skills and keeping up work habits.The Government is also providing an additional $350 million over four years for a range of measures to address problems associated with youth unemployment.In particular, the Government is taking the Work for the Dole initiative further, requiring all young people unemployed for six months or more to participate in an activity in addition to looking for work. The additional activities required can include the Green Corps, education and training, a new programme for literacy and numeracy or community job projects.This Budget provides for the extension of the Job Placement, Employment and Training programme until the end of 1999-2000. This programme helps young people up to 21 years of age who face multiple disadvantages, particularly the homeless. It provides individual assistance, tailored to their particular needs, to help them overcome the barriers they face in putting their lives back on track.A new Youth Allowance is being introduced, which simplifies income support arrangements for young Australians and encourages them to further their education and develop the basic skills needed to secure their future.Additional funding is also being provided for programmes to facilitate the transition of young people from school to work and to assist those at risk of early school-leaving.This year, the Government will establish a Volunteer Ambassadors for Development programme. This will provide the opportunity for around 500 young Australians of up to 30 years of age to live and work as volunteers in the Asia Pacific region. Volunteers will be involved in activities such as teaching, providing health services, advising small business and improving the environment. This will help build Australia's ties with the region. Importantly, it will also expand the skills and experience of the young people themselves.In this Budget, the Government is also providing significant increases in resources to fight the scourge of drugs through the National Illicit Drugs Strategy. The Strategy involves funding of around $215 million over five years to reduce the demand and supply of illicit drugs in the community, for drug treatment and rehabilitation and for community education. The new initiatives funded in this Budget will involve establishing new strike teams against illegal drugs and fighting the drug trade at its source with new Federal Police posts overseas where the drug trade can be intercepted before it reaches our shores.Rural and Regional AustraliaMadam President, the importance of the rural industry to Australia, to the nation, can never be forgotten. We know that many in the bush have faced difficult times, particularly because of drought.Sound policy and low interest rates are of enormous benefit to rural and regional Australia. The $525 million Government package, Agriculture—Advancing Australia , aims to help farmers out of debt and drought problems and, through the new FarmBis programme, provides assistance to farmers to improve the management of their businesses.Shortly after tonight, the Government is introducing legislation to provide a tax rebate for landcare works of 34 cents in the dollar. This will apply to expenditure in the 1997-98 financial year. Primary producers will be able to claim the rebate for works on levee or contour banks to control soil erosion, drainage works to control salinity, and the eradication of pests. There will be an annual limit of up to $10,000 for eligible landcare expenditures. The rebate will be available for those with taxable incomes of up to $20,700 from primary production—or around 70 per cent of farmers. The landcare rebate is an incentive for farmers with low taxable incomes to improve their land—one of our country's greatest natural resources. The rebate, worth $80 million, will be paid from the Natural Heritage Trust.In the coming year over $200 million will be spent on natural resource management and sustainable agriculture under the Natural Heritage Trust and other programmes.Steps are being taken in this Budget to improve rural and regional health, through the expansion of multi-purpose health and family services for Australians in rural or remote areas. This involves providing a flexible, integrated range of health and family services in conjunction with the States, in areas where individual health and care programmes would not otherwise be viable. An extra thirty rural areas will have access to new multi-purpose services, with an additional 836 residential aged care places to be made available over four years. This is designed to complement services to older Australians in rural areas who want services near their friends and families.Other MeasuresMadam President, one of the first areas where the impact of the downturn in Asian economies has been felt is the Australian tourism industry. We recognise the importance of tourism for the Australian economy. In that context, we recognise the need to promote Australia effectively in the world tourism market.Accordingly, this Budget provides increased funding of around $50 million over four years for the Australian Tourist Commission to improve Australia's promotional effort overseas in existing and emerging markets. A further $8 million will be provided over that period for the promotion of tourism in regional Australia.The Government is also taking steps to enhance the effectiveness of Australia's immigration and visa procedures. Experience shows that there is a high risk that visitors from certain countries will attempt to remain in Australia after their visas expire. Accordingly, visa applications from those countries are to be more closely scrutinised. These measures are to be funded by introducing a new visitor charge for applicants from high risk countries. At the same time, arrangements provide for faster processing of travellers from low risk countries.BUDGET REVENUESIn August last year the Prime Minister announced the Government's commitment to fundamental reform of the Australian taxation system.Our current tax system is not serving Australia's interests and is therefore no longer appropriate to a modern and dynamic economy.It is unnecessarily complex—the result of years of changes to patch up a system that was first developed in the 1930s.It imposes high rates of personal tax on additional earnings for Australians who do not have high incomes. The interaction of the tax and social security systems reduces the incentive to find work, or to earn more. Reward for effort is taken away through tax and reduced benefits. The tax system includes a Wholesale Sales Tax which applies high tax rates on a relatively narrow range of goods including many everyday items. The structure of the indirect tax system also adds to the costs of businesses and penalises our exporters.A more certain, fair and efficient tax system is necessary as Australia enters the next century. We need a tax system that ensures that all parts of the community pay a fair share of tax.In its first two Budgets the Government has taken action to protect honest taxpayers by clamping down on tax avoidance and tax minimisation. This has been achieved without increasing the overall tax burden facing the community.But repair and maintenance of the present taxation system can only go so far. In short, it is no longer a sufficient option for achieving fairness and avoiding disincentives to work. We must have fundamental reform of the taxation system.Madam President, since the Government is committed to ensuring all taxpayers meet their obligations, I am announcing tonight an extension of the funding for a special taskforce within the Australian Taxation Office which is investigating the tax minimisation practices of some high wealth individuals. Examination to date has already unearthed a number of undesirable practices. Tonight's Budget sets aside $19 million for this taskforce which is expected to yield $200 million in additional tax compliance over the next two years.Year 2000 Computer SoftwareThe Government considers that expenses incurred in detecting and remedying software problems associated with the Year 2000 millennium bug should, in general, be immediately deductible for taxation purposes.To a limited extent this is provided for in the current law but amendments will be made where this is not so. This decision reflects the Government's determination that businesses should be encouraged to take all steps to iron out possible computer software failure before the Year 2000.The Government has also decided to amend the taxation law as it applies to computer software expenditure in response to a recent announcement by the Commissioner of Taxation withdrawing a ruling that deals with the taxation treatment. Unless the Government acted, most software expenditure could not be written off for taxation purposes or at best could be written off over twenty-five years. Most software expenditure would have been treated as capital and therefore as not deductible in the year incurred.The Government has decided to act in response to provide that expenditure on acquiring or developing computer software—apart from that associated with Year 2000 compliance—will be written off over 2½ years.The write-off rate of 2½ years reflects the relatively short expected effective life of software arising from rapid developments in the information technology industry.The proposed arrangements are generous compared to those applying in comparable overseas taxation jurisdictions.The new arrangements will encourage business modernisation and apply from the time of withdrawal of the ruling.I am also announcing some measures that will simplify the tax law and address some potential anomalies.A new generic tax framework will be introduced for the demutualisation of non-insurance organisations. Demutualisation is an emerging trend as more sectors of the Australian economy respond to increasing competition and structural reform. The development of the framework has benefited from extensive public input. It will provide greater certainty for organisations about the taxation consequences of demutualisation.The Government has decided to increase the revenue collected through telecommunications numbering charges in order to better reflect the market value of these numbers and discourage hoarding. Additional revenue of around $30 million per annum will be collected from telecommunications carriers for the use of special service telephone numbers such as `13' and `180' numbers. The Government's decision recognises the fact that special service numbers are a valuable community resource and previous charging levels have undervalued their true worth.Finally, Madam President, I am announcing an increase in the Passenger Movement Charge of $3, taking it to $30. This will take effect from 1 January 1999. This increase will help meet the additional costs associated with the transit of people and goods for the Sydney 2000 Games.ECONOMIC OUTLOOKMadam President, it is expected that economic growth will remain solid in 1998-99, although it will slow from 1997-98. But for the effect of Asia we would be looking at a continuation of rapid growth in 1998-99.The strong growth in activity in 1997-98 reflects strong private sector demand. This is expected to carry into 1998-99. Investment plans remain strong, supported by low interest rates and high corporate profits. The housing recovery is proceeding and consumption will be supported by continued favourable labour market conditions.Employment growth should remain firm, supported by recent and prospective growth in non-farm activity. The unemployment rate is forecast to fall to around 7¾ per cent in the year ahead.While inflation will rise gradually in the year ahead, it is under control and expected to remain within the RBA's medium-term target band.The slowdown in some of our Asian trading partners will reduce Australia's export returns. Continued strength in the domestic economy will lead to a temporary rise in the current account deficit, edging it up to an average 5¼ per cent in the coming year.However, the rise in the current account deficit in prospect is expected to remain below the peaks in the 1980s and mid-1990s.And importantly, the rise in the current account deficit in prospect is taking place in clearly different circumstances to those earlier episodes. It does not reflect excessive growth in domestic demand. It is taking place in a period where the Government has locked in low inflation. It is occurring against the backdrop of policies designed to increase public saving and to provide a better environment for private saving.As a result, investor confidence in Australia can be expected to remain strong.CONCLUDING COMMENTSMadam President, on its election the Government mapped a course for economic and social prosperity into the next century.This Government was determined to deliver, not just for this generation, but the next. When we set out, we said that the burdens would be shared so the rewards would be shared.That is why young people, homebuyers, small business, job seekers now have better opportunities and a bright future—why we can care for the older citizens and hope for the younger ones.The journey is not yet finished. We should not stop now. This is an important milestone along the road. With the confidence and continued support of the Australian people, we will not stray from the task.I commend the Budget to the Senate. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the budget statement and documents.Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I move:That the Senate take note of the budget statement and documents.Debate (on motion by Senator Faulkner) adjourned.Miscellaneous25792579The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—As senators would probably know, a number of Senate staff in the Table Office continues to work for some time after the Senate adjourns each night—in order to process legislation dealt with that day, to finalise the Journal of the Senate for that day and the Notice Paper for the next day, and to prepare motions and papers for the next day. This work usually takes one or two hours after the Senate rises. On Thursday, 9 April 1998 the Senate adjourned at 2.26 a.m., after finalising its consideration on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] and completing an adjourn ment debate. Several Table Office staff continued to work after that time in order to prepare the schedule of the Senate's amendments to the native title bill and to have it ready for the House of Representatives when it met later that morning.I would now like to recognise the work and dedication of those staff. The three members of the team which finalised the Journals for that day—Richard Pye, Stephanie Holden and Jenny Sawkins, finished work variously between 2 a.m. to 3 a.m., having started at 8 a.m. on the previous day, and with Richard Pye delivering the hard copy version of the Journals to the printer on his way home at about 3 a.m.Staff working on the native title legislation were Rosa Ferranda, Terry Brown, Sue Blunden and Naomie Kaub, who worked until between 3.30 a.m. and 4.30 a.m., also having started at 8.30 a.m. the previous day. Rosa Ferranda, in fact, did not finish until after 5 a.m. when she hand delivered the message on the bill and the Senate's schedule of amendments to a House of Representatives officer. Gordon Kimber from the Senate printing unit also stayed back until 5 a.m. in order to print copies of the schedule, which ran to some 40 pages, ready for distribution in the House of Representatives. John Vander Wyk also worked until 5.30 a.m. but he prepared the rest of the note for me and did not include his own details.While all senators will acknowledge the high standard of work of Senate staff, I think it important that we also recognise from time to time the dedication of staff which makes them willing to put in the long hours necessary to complete the work of this Senate. This, of course, applies not only to Table Office staff but also to those in all offices of the Senate including, in particular, the committee and procedure offices.Adjournment2579Motion (by Senator Kemp) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.257920:05:002579O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Tonight I wanted to speak on the state of the Australian pork industry. On 7 April the Senate supported a motion that I moved calling on the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson, to take immediate action to assist the Australian pork industry. Specifically, the Senate called on the Howard government to launch an immediate inquiry to determine whether the level of imported pig meat was the primary cause of the industry's current difficulties. If that proved to be the case, then the Senate called on the government to look to the `emergency protection of an industry' provisions of the World Trade Organisation rules to limit the volume of imports. The motion also called on the government to review the current level of financial assistance available to the industry and put in place proper labelling arrangements.There is no doubt that the industry was in a state of crisis at that time. In many instances, the prices received by growers were well below the cost of production. Following that Senate resolution, two things happened. Prices deteriorated further. The front page of the May issue of the Pig Producer says it all with the heading `Farmers Shoot Pigs—They can't sell them'. The minister, Mr Anderson, decided to play politics with the issue. In an interview on the ABC Country Hour, the minister claimed that there had not been a rise in imports. He said:My honest assessment of that is that at the moment it is likely to be found that there's been no particular rise in what's coming in.In fact, what's coming in now is what was allowed in under the 1992 protocol set up by Labor.He continued:Nothing extra is coming in from Canada or Denmark under the slightly revised protocols that were issued in November last year which caused so much concern.I was very surprised that the minister was so out of touch with the circumstances of this important industry. The reason why I raised this matter in the first place was because it was obvious to me—and to everyone else except Minister Anderson—that the pork industry was in trouble and needed help from the government. That is why governments are elected, is it not? That is the reason why we have a minister for primary industries, is it not?I said that this was not the minister's fault because import protocols for imported pig meat were varied last November. I said that there had been a surge in imports and a collapse in the domestic price and that the government needed to look at that as a matter of urgency. I said that, if imports were the major problem, then there were things that the government could go to to assist the industry. I called on the government to look at what action could be taken within the terms of our GATT arrangements.That was the view, apparently, of 75 other senators. The resolution had the support of National Party senators, Liberal Party senators, my own colleagues, the Democrats, the Greens and the Independents, but apparently not Mr Anderson or Mr Fischer. I believe that the Senate saw this as an apolitical issue, but the minister was not of the same view. He did not say, `Yes, there is a problem and we will do what we can.' He said, `There has not been an increase in imports and, anyway, it's all Labor's fault.'There were record imports in 1997. Over 11,000 tonnes were imported, resulting in a fall in pig prices in the lead-up to last Christmas for the first time in history. Most of these imports were boneless leg meat, which is the premium market segment in Australia. The majority of this meat is manufactured into ham. Canadian imports now account for 30 per cent of this segment of the market in this country. The fact that an unlimited quantity is available through imports means that processors are able to bargain the domestic market down.A number of processors have also contracted for imports and are, therefore, not in the market for Australian pigs whatever the price on offer. Some producers cannot even give their pigs away. Despite what the minister might say, there has been a significant increase in imports over the past year, and in imports of special cuts, not just pig meat. The prices being received by growers are now at their lowest level for 30 years. Prices are currently in the range of $1.28 to $1.70 a kilogram, with a national average of around $1.50 a kilogram. The average cost of production is around $2 a kilogram. A farmer with an average 100-sow piggery is currently losing over $1,000 a week.The minister must also be aware that pork producers do not have the same options as the extensive livestock industries to hold stock back during periods of low prices. The pigs have to be fed and if they are fed they grow, and if they grow too much there is no market for them. For that reason, when the government failed to respond quickly to the terms of the Senate motion, I wrote both to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I urged both ministers to immediately investigate the state of the industry and the impact imports were having. Mr Anderson had the courtesy to acknowledge my letter. Unfortunately, Mr Fischer has not even bothered to do that.On 24 April, Mr Anderson finally released a media statement announcing that he would consider an application from the pork industry for the provision of exceptional circumstances assistance to producers. He said that he had asked the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics to conduct an analysis of the state of the industry. I understand that that work has been completed and is with the minister.There is a need to look at how this industry can best be helped through this extremely difficult period. The provision of exceptional circumstances assistance is, in my opinion, not the answer. At best, it is part of the solution. Some action to deal with the volume of imports must also be considered and the Deputy Prime Minister has a key role to play in this regard. The government plan for this industry is to help it export its way out of trouble. I believe that the $10 million package that the government offers this industry is designed to do just that.I note that, in a media release, Mr Fischer said that a trade delegation to Russia in the next few weeks will include representatives from the pork industry. I agree that the future of the industry is to be found in a growing export sector, but that cannot happen if the breeding sow herd is not sustained. The herd is now clearly under threat, with the prospect of hundreds if not thousands of producers being forced out of business. I am sure that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy understands this point very well. It was an issue which he pursued with some vigour in relation to the nation's sheep and cattle breeding herds during the 1994 drought.The record shows that the pork industry supports trade that is fair and free, but the industry is quite rightly opposed to competition from countries which subsidise and protect their own industries. Denmark has granted unimpeded access to Australia for pork product exports to Denmark, but only as long as our local producers pay a tariff of up to $3,145 a tonne. I believe that Canada provides its domestic industry with production subsidies of around 16 per cent. The Canadian High Commissioner has contacted my office and suggested that this figure has been reduced to 11 per cent. I am investigating that matter further.If the Australian pork industry were to enjoy a production subsidy of 16 per cent a year, it would cost the government around $100 million annually. We are certainly not talking about level playing fields when we talk about Canadian and European Union imports. I note that a recent issue of the Pig International magazine refers to the active role of provincial governments in Canada in the expansion of the pork industry. In a column in that magazine, the editor, Mr Peter Best, says that there is expected to be a significant expansion in pig production in Alberta `now that projects have access to a preferential loan program underwritten by about $50 million of government funds'. That is what he says the Canadian government is doing.It is important to note, and it is important for the government to acknowledge, that the Australian pork industry has been going through a significant period of change. In the 1970s, there were more than 40,000 producers; now there are just over 3,000. Very few sectors in the rural economy have experienced such a significant change. The pork industry for the 1990s produces more meat of a better quality at a lower production cost than ever before.Such a radical change was not without difficulties, but this sector accepted that it had no choice. It has been underpinned by a considerable producer investment—around $12 million annually—in research and development and marketing programs. This change has come about without the support of the price stabilisation schemes, floor prices, single-desk arrangements or import tariffs and quotas enjoyed by the wool, wheat, sugar and dairy producers.Some 34 days have passed since the Senate called on the government to take action in support of the pig industry. Since that day, the industry estimates that it has lost another $10 million. In these circumstances, and considering the desperate situation that this sector of the economy is in, it is incumbent on the government to act and to act soon.258220:15:002582Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I had not intended to speak tonight on the adjournment but having listened to Senator O'Brien I feel obliged to respond to some of the issues he has raised tonight. I do so knowing that had I spoken on this some four years ago I would have had to declare an interest, having spent 30 years in the pig industry as an owner and managing a piggery in conjunction with my brother. I do not know how long Senator O'Brien has been involved in the pig industry or whether he has just collected information that has been passed on to him by other pig producers, but he accuses the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) of playing politics when in fact I am not sure whether the person who is playing politics is not Senator O'Brien himself.I attended a very large meeting at Balaklava in South Australia about two weeks ago at which some 250 pig producers attended. One of the issues that was raised was the notice of motion that was given in this place by Senator O'Brien. There are many people outside the parliament who are totally unaware of the procedures of the parliament and the tech niques that are used by opposition senators and at times by government senators as well.I do recall on one occasion prior to Senator O'Brien's notice of motion, which was formally passed, that there had been 130 notices of motion put in place as a political tactic by the opposition because this was the way they wanted to proceed on a certain day. On this particular occasion, Senator O'Brien's motion, which was passed without debate by this Senate, called on this government to do certain things. People who are unaware of the procedures and tactics that often take place in this chamber were quite surprised that the very next morning something had not happened as a result of Senator O'Brien's motion being passed unanimously.I have no objection to Senator O'Brien highlighting the difficulties the pork industry is facing. In all of my years in the pork industry there were always ups and downs—some terrific ups and some tremendous downs. I have to say that in all the years I was involved in the pig industry there was never a crisis as much as there is today. I will concede that point. Prices are as low as they have ever been. But they are not the lowest for 30 years. Senator O'Brien said that the prices per kilogram were the lowest they had been for 30 years. They are not. In adjusted terms they may be, but they certainly are not in real terms.The government in acknowledging the problem—and it does acknowledge that the problem exists in the pork industry—is doing its best to endeavour to try to help pork producers and pig meat producers in Australia within the constraints of our international obligations. It is important to remember that those international obligations were put in place by the Australian Labor Party when they were in government. Ten years of negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, the Uruguay Round and the GATT talks took place in order for the existing international agreements on tariffs and trades to be put in place. They were not put in place lightly, and they had the total support of the National Farmers Federation at that time. The pig producers and pig meat producers, being members of that National Farmers Federation and by their very association, supported the actions that took place at that time.There are a number of measures that the government cannot take. One of the things that was in your notice of motion, if I remember rightly, and certainly one that has been brought forward by the Pork Council of Australia, is that we immediately stop the imports of Canadian pork. It may not have been in Senator O'Brien's motion that there be a call for an immediate pause on imports, but certainly the Pork Council requested the primary industries minister that there be an immediate pause on the importation of pork.I was asked at this particular meeting as an individual rather than as a member of the government whether I would support those first two clauses. In response to those pork producers—and as you can imagine they were not there for a discussion; they were there to try to tell me about the difficulties that they were going through, and I did understand their difficulties because I have been through them myself—I said that I would only support the cause that was put forward by the Pork Council provided it could be done within the framework of our international obligations and in no other way. I believe that they must be adhered to. If we are going to maintain the trust we have with our trading partners and if we are going to maintain our integrity, it must be done within the international framework that has been put in place.I do not believe there is a level playing field. I do not know anybody who believes there is a level playing field. Let me say that it is more level than it has ever been in the past number of years. It is not level but it is more level. We are not looking for a level playing field; we are looking for fairer trading terms. I believe the negotiations that have taken place in the last 10 or 12 years, for which the previous government deserves some credit for the role they took, have put us in a better position now than we have ever been.It does stand to reason that there are some industries that have suffered more through this process than other industries. Right now the pig meat industry is one of those industries that is suffering. I can promise Senator O'Brien that the government is aware of the difficulties. We hold 42 of the 45 rural seats in Australia. So there is hardly a lower House member of parliament who does not have a pig producer in his electorate who has not contacted him and said how difficult things are at present.Being aware of their situation and determining what we can do under the current agreements we are working with is a far more difficult situation than the simplistic arrangements of saying, `Stop the imports' or `give money to the industry.' The real difficulty, which Senator O'Brien has highlighted and one that I have known myself over all those years, is that you cannot hold your product for any length of time. It has to be sold when it is ready to be sold. The real difficulty is that, although we may wish to put export programs into place, if that takes a period of six months or more and if prices do not recover in a very short time, it will be too late for many of the producers we are trying to protect.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—And the abattoirs, too.2583Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—The other thing is that, over time, as my colleague Senator Calvert says, the abattoirs that we currently have in place are simply not capable of handling and processing the amount of export trade we would like to put in place on an urgent basis. It just cannot be done. There is a significant amount of work to be done particularly in the area of slaughtering and abattoirs in order for the magnitude of exports that we want to take place to take place. The argument was brought forward at that meeting that the Canadians have reduced the amount of beef that we can send into Canada, but in fact they are sending pig meats to Australia. The argument in world trade terms is that we can send as much pig meat to Canada as we like. If you are going to compare trading terms, you have to compare apples with apples. It just happens that the trading terms favour the Canadians in particular, and I am thinking of the Canadians more than anybody else because they are the ones that have had the major impact on Australian trading in pig meat over the past four or five months. The Canadians can in fact do it on better trading terms than we can at present.In raising this, Senator O'Brien raises a very important issue. We have to be very careful that we go past the politics of the issue which Senator O'Brien raises when he asks why the government has not done something after 34 days. An anti-dumping case was taken and thrown out of court, so we cannot use anti-dumping. The measures that were brought forward about subsidised arrangements for Canadian pig meat simply did not stand up in court, so we cannot use anti-dumping as a measure. We can look at countervailing measures but that takes time. As you know, there is no time for us to act successfully in the case of many pig producers that are currently experiencing such difficulties. I can assure Senator O'Brien that the government is very conscious of the problem that exists in the pig industry at present. It is very conscious that whatever action has to be taken has to be taken as urgently as possible. It will respond to the request that the Pork Council asked to be responded to within the 60 days. I can promise you that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson, is very conscious of the matter along with a number of other issues that are troubling primary producers throughout Australia at present. I can promise you that this government will take every action necessary and possible to alleviate the problems that are currently facing Australia's pig meat producers at this time.258420:25:002584Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Over the last few months the government and Professor Fels from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have made a number of assertions about how the Australian record industry will benefit from the introduction of parallel importing provisions for CDs. On 20 March this year the ACCC issued a press release stating that the price of CDs in Australia is extremely high and that consumers receive no benefits whatsoever from the Australian recording industry. Professor Fels's solution is to introduce parallel importing which he mistakenly claims will reduce the cost of CDs without any effect on the local music industry. Senator Alston, political master of relevance deprivation, has relied exclusively on Professor Fels's arguments even though they are based on research conducted more than eight years ago. The government is now proceeding, thanks to special cabinet approval prior to the budget, with a three-quarters of a million dollar information campaign designed to target those who do not concur with the government's view on CD parallel importation. Out there in the community the government specifically identifies youth, media and, believe it or not, government backbenchers to persuade them to come to the government's view. This public expenditure prior to the passage and debate of the bill that affects the changes I have mentioned is a cynical mechanism to fund a political campaign, because I doubt that we will see this issue debated before the election is called. The lack of leadership with respect to the development of Australia's greatest creative and cultural strength exposes the fragmented and inconsistent approach the coalition has on industry development. Senator Alston as minister for the arts and information economy should understand more than anybody else the exciting developments in on-line content using the creative platform of music. However, instead of advocating the strengths of creative content generally, he is undermining it. This debate is not about just what is happening now; it is about what happens next. When almost every other country is seeking stronger controls over intellectual property and copyright, the coalition wants to throw protection for Australian culture out the window. They want to wind back the type of copyright protection that virtually every other country uses to foster and protect their music culture. It is an interesting and pertinent exercise to review what other countries are doing in terms of copyright policy and protection. In England, a 1994 report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission concluded that uncontrolled importation of CDs would result in a worse situation for consumers. According to this report, the removal of parallel import provisions in the UK would be damaging because of the increased risks of privacy and the threat that weakened copyright protection would cause. In 1995 the Music Industry Group of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation reported to the Irish government on their music industry. They concluded that the success of the Irish music industry is dependent on the ability to capture revenues generated by Irish composers, performers, publishers and producers. They found that unless a reasonable share of these benefits return to local composers, publishers, venues, recording and production companies and record retailers the music industry will wither and die. By way of explanation, it is worth saying at this point that parallel importation causes the bypassing of the payment of royalties to artists thus removing an incentive for them to create and earn revenue from their original works. Of particular significance is that the report to the Irish government found that:Unless the originators of unique works can be confident that they will be rewarded for their work, original work will disappear. Likewise, if record companies cannot be sure that they can be remunerated for their investment in the development of recordings, they will withdraw from the industry.The report also stated that jobs and prosperity in Ireland were dependent on the protection of intellectual property rights. Amazingly, and let me state this clearly for coalition members, the Irish music industry identified Australia as one of the main countries to adopt policies that supported intellectual copyright protection. I say `amazingly' because this report is dated 1995.The Liberal government of Australia is proposing to remove this very same protection that is held up by other countries as an essential policy level that ensures a viable and identifiable part of a nation's culture. Ireland is just one example of how other countries protect intellectual copyright.A similar report in 1994 concluded that the success of Canadian culture was also dependent on the existence of adequate copyright laws. They found:Only if songwriters, composers, performers, music publishers and sound recording companies are able to control the use of their work . . . can the music industry succeed and creators and performers have successful professional careers.The Irish and Canadian governments both see music as a fundamental component of their culture. They have commissioned reports that confirmed the need for strong copyright protection to ensure the survival of their indigenous music.To put it simply, copyright laws are required in order for the creators of cultural works to be protected against unauthorised use of their works. Copyright laws also protect those who have invested in and nurtured cultural industries. Copyright laws also protect artists from CD piracy, which is estimated to be worth a staggering $2,246 million a year.It is far easier for this government to say, `Cheaper CDs for all,' than it is for them to explain the machinations of copyright and unauthorised sound recordings. Blind repetition of a populist mantra must not be interpreted as an argument of substance. A closer analysis exposes the flaws in the government's position and their blatant manipulation of the facts.Professor Fels holds up Sweden as an example of a country with successful parallel importing laws. Yet Sweden has produced only two international acts in the last 20 years—Abba and Roxette. Norway, a country where CDs are more expensive than here, experimented with parallel importing but was soon beset by a major influx of pirated CDs and unauthorised imports.England does not allow parallel importing and it has more expensive CDs than Australia when you consider the weakness of the dollar against the pound. Hong Kong, a great promoter of free trade, has moved to strengthen the ban on parallel importation of intellectual property rights. In fact, it costs less to buy a full-priced CD here than in Japan, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Sweden and the UK.Finally, we have the USA, a country where CDs allegedly are so cheap that we must dismantle our copyright protection so that consumer goods are the same price here. Professor Fels has stated that it is:. . . inconceivable, given the price differences between Australia and the US, that the price [of CDs] would not fall.However, even Professor Fels would be hard-pressed to continue that argument based on retail price, given that the dollar is now hovering around 64c to the greenback.The Prime Minister has also taken the opportunity to play patsy with CD prices. On 16 October 1997, the Prime Minister told a press conference that parallel importing will mean that CDs will fall by at least $7 per item. Given the current state of the Australian dollar, Mr Howard's blind boast looks all the more ridiculous. As of today, an Australian retailer importing premium priced CDs from the US will pay $24.66, and that is before any retail mark-up is added. The truth is that the price of CDs in Australia is not comparatively excessive. When you consider that over 50 per cent of CDs sold here retail for $20 or under, I fail to see how Professor Fels can allege that prices are extremely high. There is nothing of substance to substantiate this statement.Consider the fact that many countries are net producers and exporters of contemporary music and many others are net consumers. That is why intellectual copyright protection is so important in terms of cultural identification. Without adequate laws to protect intellectual property and ensure the artists, composers and record companies are rewarded for their talent and investment, Australian music would not exist. We in Australia are quick to celebrate the success of our music industry. We must be as quick to nurture, to protect and to provide support to that industry.20:35:002586Senate adjourned at 8.35 p.m.Documents25862586The following government documents were tabled:Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act—Administrative Review Council—Report for 1996-97—Errata.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act—Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report—Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals.Treaties—Text, together with national interest analysis—Bilateral — Agreement between Australia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, done as Islamabad on 7 February 1998. Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement to further amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand on Social Security of 19 July 1994. Films Co-Production Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Ireland, done at Dublin on 4 February 1998. Headquarters Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, done at Canberra on 20 January 1998.Multilateral — Amendment, done at Montreal on 17 September 1997, to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 16 September 1987. Amendment and adoption of Annexes, done at Kuching, Malaysia, on 27 February 1998, to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989. Fifth Protocol, done at Geneva on 12 December 1997, to the General Agreement on Trade in Services of 15 April 1994.Answers to Questions on Notice2587The following answers to questions were circulated:2587(Question No. 903)9032587Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 October 1997:(1) What qualitative or quantitative research has been undertaken by the Department and its agencies since 3 March 1996.(2) What was the nature of the research undertaken (sample sizes, questionnaire length, evaluation) and to whom were the results of the research available.(3) In each instance, which firm or firms have been engaged to undertake this work.(4) In each instance, what has been the cost of the work undertaken.2587Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The information sought is provided for each agency in the portfolio.Treasury DepartmentSince 3 March 1996 two research consultancies have been contracted by the Department of the Treasury. The details are as follows:Research Associated with the Financial Systems Inquiry:Analysis was undertaken on the personal consumer banking and financial behaviour of Australians aged 14 and over. The data used for analysis were based on survey interviews conducted between 1988 and 1996. The results of the analysis were available to the Financial Systems Inquiry. Roy Morgan Research $30,000.Effectiveness of Treasury Graduate Recruitment Campaign:Interviews were conducted with: staff from university careers offices; graduates who had declined a placement offer from Treasury; and graduates who were unsuccessful in the Treasury recruitment process. Focus groups were convened, comprising university students and new graduates to Treasury. Twelve people took part in the focus groups and six people were interviewed. Statistical data relating to student numbers and gender were collected from some universities. The results of the research were available to the Treasury Executive, the Departmental Services Committee, and Treasury staff participating in the graduate recruitment process in 1997. Watcham Penrose Associates Pty Ltd $9,780.Industry CommissionSince 3 March 1996 no research consultancies have been contracted by the Industry Commission.Insurance and Superannuation CommissionSince 3 March 1996 no research consultancies have been contracted by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission.Royal Australian MintSince 3 March 1996 two research consultancies have been contracted by the Royal Australian Mint. The details are as follows:Testing Coin Size & Package Size for Sydney 2000 Olympic Coin Program:Representative customer groups were surveyed to assess customer reaction to product design. The results of the research were available to the Royal Australian Mint and the Perth Mint. New Focus Ltd $ 11,067.Report on Olympic Coin Program Research:A sample group representing a wide cross-section of the Australian population was surveyed on various marketing related issues for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Coin Program. The results of the research were available to the Royal Australian Mint and the Perth Mint. Brian Sweeney & Associates $32,454.National Competition CouncilSince 3 March 1996 no research consultancies have been contracted by the National Competition Council.Australian Securities CommissionSince 3 March 1996 fourteen research consultancies have been contracted by the Australian Securities Commission. The details are as follows:Tracking ASC Performance as a Corporate Regulator from the Clients Perspective:Workshops inside the ASC, and twenty two qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with professional intermediaries in accounting, law firms, securities industry, liquidation practitioners, large corporations and financial journalists. The quantitative phase of the research was conducted with 571 interviewees in similar categories; questionnaire administered by 20 minute telephone interviews. The results of the research were available to the ASC, with a summary of the results being made available to the public. Chant Link $46,677.Company Searchers Focus Groups:Workshops inside the ASC, and six focus group discussions with various categories of customers for ASC company information to explore potential changes in ASC marketing policy. The results of the research were available to the ASC only. Company Searchers Focus Groups $24,114.Small-Medium Enterprise Research:Assistance from Chant Link in questionnaire design only, enabling the ASC to conduct its own survey on Phoenix company activity and its effects on small business. The questionnaire design was provided to the ASC. Chant Link $2,600.Electronic Data Generated Exchange (EDGE) Client Qualitative Research:Workshops within the ASC, and eight focus groups among various categories of lodging parties to qualitatively explore reasons for adoption and non-adoption of electronic lodgement using EDGE. The results of the research were available to the ASC only. Chant Link $31,066.Lodgement Client Tracking 1997:Workshops within the ASC, and twelve in depth interviews, and 302 telephone administered questionnaires gave data from lodging party satisfaction, but also to quantify reasons for adoption and non-adoption of EDGE, to enable accurate forecasting of EDGE adoption, and to formulate marketing strategies to increase adoption, and to formulate marketing strategies to increase adoption and usage of EDGE. The results of the research were available to the ASC only. Chant Link $42,837.Insider Trading ResearchQualitative interviews by telephone with 18 senior traders in stockbroking firms in six states regarding the incidence and severity of effects of insider trading. The results of the research were available to the ASC only. Chant Link $4,400.Infoline Research—Tax Driven Investment Schemes Campaign:Telephone interviews with ten users of the Infoline, followed by questionnaire design, enabling staff to collect information from 100 Infoline users. The results of the research were available to the public. Chant Link $5,000.Small Business Research:Workshops inside the ASC, with eight in-depth interviews with SME experts from various industry associations, credit providers and insolvency practitioners. Eight group discussions were also held with SME's. The results of the research were available to the ASC only. Chant Link Approx $34,460.Staff Climate Survey:Survey of management and 247 staff of IPC with a view to determining human resource management and staff attitudes of the Division. The results of the research were available to the ASC only. ProConsult $47,000.ASC Internal Communication:Four staff focus groups in ASC regional offices were held to discuss aspects of internal communication. The results of the research were available to the ASC only. HRM Consulting $6,496.Advisory Services Guide:Structured interviews with draft samples of possible consumer information guides to investment advisory services in order to test consumers' ability to find and understand information. The results of the research were available to the ASC only. Communication Research Institute $18,850.Managed Fund Prospectuses:Structured interviews with actual samples of managed fund prospectuses to test consumers' ability to find and understand information. The results of the research were available to the public. Communication Research Institute Nil cost to ASC—costs borne by the Investment Funds Association.Simpler Managed Investments Prospectuses:Self completed questionnaires targeting a sample of 2250 investors to measure the performance of four short form prospectuses for managed investments, and follow-up qualitative work with 16 investors and 16 advisers. The results of this research are not yet available. Eureka Strategic Research Approx $45,000.Securities Licence Applications:Structured interviews and advice on developing and testing the securities dealers or advisers licence application Form 701. The results of the research were available to ASC only. Communication Research Institute $5,000.Australian Competition & Consumer CommissionSince 3 March 1996 one research consultancy has been contracted by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. The details are as follows:Staff Attitudes:A survey of all ACCC staff (approximately 300) to assist with developing and implementing improved management efficiency. The results of the research were available to the ACCC only. Purdon Associates Pty Ltd $4,745:Australian Bureau of StatisticsSince 3 March 1996 six research consultancies have been contracted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The details are as follows:Marketing Plan for Census Product:Qualitative research, using a sample of twenty people. The evaluation of the research was used as input for the development of a marketing plan for the census product CDATA96. The results of the research were available to Burson-Marsteller and the ABS. Eureka Strategic Research, subcontracted by Burson-Marsteller $25,000:Integrated Regional Data Base DevelopmentQuestionnaire of 204 clients to assist with the redevelopment of the Integrated Regional Data Base to better meet ABS clients' needs. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions. The results of the research were available to the ABS. Quadrant Research Services $25,000.Client needs for ABS International Trade Data:A questionnaire of 387 clients to assist with improving the delivery of systems of international trade data to ABS clients. The questionnaire consisted of 10 questions. The results of the research were available to the ABS. Eureka Strategic Research $11,070.ABS Dissemination Strategy:Qualitative and quantitative research (130 and 400 participants, respectively) was conducted to assist with the development of a new dissemination strategy, and to gain insights into ABS clients' perceptions of the ABS and into the use of its data. The results of the research were available to the ABS. Woolcott Research Pty Ltd $81,310.Population Census Awareness Campaign:A series of telephone based interview surveys were conducted to identify and monitor census awareness issues before and during the census operation. A post-census survey covered attitudes about privacy and the retention of census forms. The survey samples for the four surveys ranged from 2000—2400 people. The results of the research were available to the ABS, the Treasurer, the Australian Statistics Advisory Council and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. AGB-McNair Research Pty Ltd $117,304.Business Perceptions Survey:Personal interviews were conducted with ten individuals; in-depth telephone interviews were conducted with 25 people; with a further 100 people also being interviewed by telephone. The purpose of the research was to provide information to ABS management on issues affecting the interaction of small to medium business respondents with ABS and its staff. The results of the research were available to the ABS management. Australian Representation Services Pty Ltd $28,500.Reserve Bank of AustraliaSince 3 March 1996 one research consultancy has been contracted by the Reserve Bank of Australia The details are as follows:Perception of Currency Notes:Research was conducted into the tactile perception of polymer and paper currency notes. Investigations covered tactile discrimination under visual and non-visual conditions. Up to 50 experimental subjects were tested. The results of the research were available to the Reserve Bank. University of Sydney $35,000.Australian Taxation OfficeSince 3 March 1996 sixty seven research consultancies have been contracted by the Australian Taxation Office. The details are as follows:Customer Satisfaction Survey:A telephone survey of 29 questions; random sample of 9725 payers and 9725 payees. The results of the research were available to all Child Support Agency (CSA) directors and to the CSA Executive. Reark Research $68,790.Market Testing of Registration Letters:Three focus groups were held in Melbourne involving a total of 27 participants. A written report and briefing was provided to the staff working on the project. Michael Gill & Associates Pty Ltd $4,500.Market Testing of new Application for Child Support Assessment (101 Form):Focus groups involving a total of 50 participants met to assess and test the new form in Melbourne, Brisbane, and Toowoomba. Oral briefing and written report provided to the staff working on the project. Michael Gill & Associates Pty Ltd $15,425.Research to determine which factors influence payers decisions about paying their child support:Qualitative phase: Eighteen focus groups of approximately 7 per group considered 10 questions covering a range of issues. Quantitative phase: 2513 payers surveyed by phone; 40 questions asked. The results of the research were available to CSA Executive for consideration. Murray Woods and Associates Pty Ltd $180.014.Market testing of Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Brochure (CSA): Market testing by two focus groups conducted in Melbourne. A written report and oral briefing was provided to the staff working on the project. Michael Gill and Associates Pty Ltd $4,97.Letters Testing—Recent Payers and Payees:Three focus groups were convened in Melbourne to test letters designed for recent applicants. A written report and oral briefing was provided to the staff working on the project. Michael Gill and Associates Pty Ltd $8,492.50.Testing of Logos, Employer Brochure and Estimate:Mini-group discussions and individual in-depth interviews were held around Sydney. A written report and oral briefing was provided to the staff working on the project. Stancombe Research and Planning Pty Ltd $19,720.Testing of a proposed change to child support payments assessments:Eight focus discussion groups were convened. A report was compiled detailing the findings derived from testing and provided to the staff working on the project. Michael Gill and Associates Pty Ltd $21,374.Market Testing of the Complaints Flyer:Two group discussions were organised. Oral debriefing of project outcome and written report provided to the staff working on the project. Stancombe Research & Planning $7.609.40.Market research on TaxPack 96:Two focus groups were held in each of Sydney, Brisbane and Maitland (total of 85 participants). Evaluation report produced and supplied to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Minter Research $24,000.Market research on TaxPack 96 & 97:Market research was conducted in three stages:(i) eight focus groups consisting of 6-8 respondents to assess TaxPack 96; (ii) eight focus groups consisting of 6-8 respondents to assess TaxPack 97, eight one-on-one observational interviews; 1000 telephone interviews; (iii) eight focus groups consisting of 6-8 respondents to test changes made to TaxPack 97. Evaluation reports were produced and supplied to the ATO during the contract period. AGB McNair $78.000.Market research on 1996 return forms:Market research to assist with the identification of key drivers of attitudes and opinions towards the 1996 tax return—short form for individuals. Evaluation reports produced and supplied to the ATO. AGB McNair $37,800.Market research on publications: Market research on the draft "Tax Information for the Aged" publication to evaluate the content, readability and comprehensibility of the booklet. Focus groups were conducted in NSW and Victoria. Evaluation report produced and supplied to the ATO. Minter Research $18,880.Market research on Tax Returns and Guides:Market research involved 1000 aged persons to participate in the pilot of a tax return and accompanying guide specifically designed to meet the tax obligations of the aged community. Evaluation sheets (2 pages) were completed by participants after using the pilot pensioner guide and return form. The research results were available to the ATO. Minter Research $ 14,225.Family Tax Assistance (FTA) Work Sheet:Market testing of the FTA Work sheet was designed to assist in the identification of the most user friendly return form option for inclusion into TaxPack 97. Eleven focus groups, 99 respondents. The results of this research were made available to all relevant internal stakeholders for consultation concerning the make up of the FTA Worksheet. Minter Research $23,920.Market testing of Family Tax Assistance (FTA) Booklet & Employment Declaration Form:Qualitative testing of the Employment Declaration was used in the development of the form enabling eligible persons to claim the correct Family Tax Initiative entitlement. Six focus groups, 52 participants. The results of this research were made available to all relevant internal stakeholders for consultation concerning the FTA components of the Employment Declaration for example Withholding Taxes, General Enquiries and the like. Research relating to the FTA booklet was made available to Client Communication areas, General Enquiries and other staff within the ATO. Results were made available ATO and the Advertising Agency. Minter Research $15,350.Market Research—Family Tax Initiative (FTI) Advertising Concepts:This market research assisted with the selection of a suitable advertising option for the FTI Advertising and Marketing campaign. Four focus groups, 40 participants. The results of this research were made available to Corporate Affairs and Marketing (ATO), and the Department of Social Security (DSS). Minter Research $10,000.Market Research—Family Tax Initiative Advertising Animatics & Print items:This market research tested advertising material for use in informing and advising eligible members of the public about how and where to both claim and get more information about the FTI. Fifty one respondents. The results of this research were made available to Corporate Affairs and Marketing (ATO), the external advertising agency responsible for the FTI advertising and marketing campaign and DSS. Minter Research $15.000.Market Research—Family Tax Initiative Advertising and Marketing Campaign Evaluation:This market research project was shared by DSS and the ATO. One hundred structured telephone interviews nationally with FTI eligible people, 30 in depth interviews and 100 semi structured interviews. The results of this research were made available to Corporate Affairs and Marketing (ATO), the external advertising agency responsible for the.FTI advertising and marketing campaign and DSS. Woolcott Research $77,500.Market Research—Family Tax Initiative Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils Association (FECCA) Market Research:Market research was conducted in relation to the FTI with non English speaking background community groups. Various group sizes in ten focus groups of differing ethnic background. Results made available to ATO and DSS. FECCA $18,000.Market Research—Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme and Medicare levy Surcharge:This market research was undertaken to test the comprehensibility and useability of the Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme and Medicare levy Surcharge Draft TaxPack 98 Questions & Instructions. Eight focus groups. Preliminary results available to ATO only. Bennett Research $21,150.Market Research—Perceptions of quality of Individuals Non Business Advisings advice:Consisted of 6 focus groups of 12-16 people. Sample size of 500. There were approximately 30 question asked. Evaluation of the results will be conducted at TMC. The results will be made available to the ATO. Interim report at this stage. Minter Research $31,000.Evaluation of Performing Arts Occupational Rulings:A random sample of less than 200 taxpayers identified from the ATO database. Telephone interviews to determine type and source of information used by performing artists to prepare their income tax returns. Results available to the ATO only. Kwikasair Direct Marketing Services $2,756.A market survey of taxpayers who visited the Cheltenham and Chatswood sites of the ATO:To research the need for servicing taxpayers using the Cheltenham and Chatswood offices. 243 taxpayers in Cheltenham and 205 in Chatswood participated in the survey which comprised 32 questions. Results available to ATO only. AC Nielson McNair $26,200. Enquiries Causal Analysis project:A survey is being conducted of taxpayers in the VicTas region who contacted the ATO Enquiries telephone service during October—November 1997. To analyse data collected by Enquiries Officers on taxpayer enquiries; the level of taxpayer satisfaction, and to gauge acceptance to alternative methods of providing information other than via telephone or in person. Approximately 2000 taxpayers will participate. Results available to ATO only. AC Nielson McNair Approx $26,000.The Lost Members Register (LMR):To gauge reactions to the concept of LMR and public perception as to its usefulness. Three focus groups. Results available to ATO only. Brian Sweeney & Associates $9,300.Reasonable Benefit Limits (RBL) Determinations:To assess the effectiveness of prototype RBL Determination notices. Two focus groups. Results available to the ATO only. Brian Sweeney & Associates $6,955.Transitional Reasonable Benefit Limits (RBL):To evaluate the relevant age group's awareness and understanding of Transitional RBLs. Six focus groups. Results available to ATO only Brian Sweeney & Associates $20,614.Effectiveness of Super Education Campaign:To measure the effectiveness of the Super Education Campaign including the community's awareness and attitude toward the Money Tree logo. Quantitative-307 face-to-face interviews; 8 questions; Qualitative-3 focus group discussions. Results available to the ATO and to Government. Brian Sweeney & Associates $19,600.Attitudes to Superannuation:To gauge the community's attitudes to superannuation. Four focus group discussions. Results available to the ATO and to Government. Brian Sweeney & Associates $14,000.Superannuation Modernisation Project:To gain an understanding of the community's response to the Eligible Termination Payment (ETP) Project and use of Tax File Numbers in the Superannuation Industry. 14 in-depth interviews and 7 focus group discussions. Results available to ATO only. Extracts of results discussed in industry working group. Brian Sweeney & Associates $29,750.RBL Determination Notices:To evaluate reactions to the revised RBL Determination notices. Two focus groups. Results available to ATO only. Brian Sweeney & Associates $7,500.Superannuation Coverage and Attitudes: Analysis of superannuation status and attitudes according to occupational status. 2007 telephone interviews; 30 questions. Results available to ATO and Government. Brian Sweeney & Associates $101,959Systems Capability Study:To gauge preferences for data transfer of superannuation providers for the purposes of the superannuation surcharge. Stage 1: 1003 telephone interviews. Results available to ATO. Brian Sweeney & Associates $75.250.Tracking Research on Collection of Tax File Numbers (TFNs):To measure the rate and volume of the collection of TFNs by superannuation providers. 1373 questionnaires mailed to super providers. Results available to ATO, Government and Superannuation Industry. Brian Sweeney & Associates $25,500.Round 1 of Market Testing of New Logo:To market test the design and concept of new Money Tree logo. Three focus groups. Results available to ATO only. Brian Sweeney & Associates $9,000.Eligible Termination Payment (ETP) Forms:Two focus groups tested the effectiveness of the contents and design of new ETP forms. Results available to ATO only. Extracts of results discussed in industry working group. Brian Sweeney & Associates $7,160.As above—Round 2 of Market Testing of New Logo:Three focus groups. Results available to ATO. Brian Sweeney & Associates $9,000.Second Wave Tracking Research of Collection of TFNs:To measure the rate and volume of the collection of TFNs by superannuation providers. 1316 questionnaires mailed to super providers. Results available to ATO, Government and Superannuation Industry. Brian Sweeney & Associates $10,500.Employer compliance survey:To undertake a statistically valid survey of employers to determine Superannuation Guarantee compliance levels and gain audit coverage. 4,374 desk audit surveys issued to randomly selected employers. Results available to ATO. Australian Bureau of Statistics $15,500.RBL determination notice market research:Two focus groups tested reaction to the draft redesign of RBL determinations, letter and brochures. Results available to ATO. Brian Sweeney and Assoc $7,500.Labour Market Research: Examination of the interaction between workplace arrangements and the tax system. Results for ATO internal use only. Flinders University $11,000.Market testing of payment booklets:Market testing the relevance and usefulness of PAYE payment booklets. 792 business surveyed. Results made available to ATO only. KDMS Telemarketing $15,000.Market Testing of PAYE Booklet:24 people interviewed on the usefulness of PAYE Booklet. Results available to ATO only Minter Research $7,500.Research into the incremental compliance costs faced by taxpayers to changes in taxation legislation:The consultants surveyed 10,035 business and personal taxpayers. Respondents completed and returned 3,400 useable questionnaires. A further 861 taxpayers responded to a single question rather than complete the detailed questionnaire. Three separate questionnaires: one each for personal taxpayers—34 questions; sole traders—36 questions and other businesses—40 questions. Results and analysis of the initial research and surveys are contained in A Report into the Incremental Costs of Taxpayer Compliance. The follow up research into the total costs of taxpayer compliance is contained in A Report into Taxpayer Costs of Compliance. Both reports have been released to the public and are available free of charge from the ATO. The ATO engaged four academics from the Australian Taxation Studies Program at the University of New South Wales as consultants to undertake this work. The research and preparation of A Report into the Incremental Costs of Taxpayer Compliance cost $92,688.64. The research and preparation of A Report into Taxpayer Costs of ComPliance cost $13,500.Internal client satisfaction of Information Technology Services:5000 staff were surveyed; 4 page questionnaire put to ATO staff members. This is an annual survey The results of the survey were published throughout the ATO. Donovan Research $24,400.End user computing survey:End user computing survey to determine the cost of providing Lan Computer equipment and services to the ATO. Four page questionnaire to about 1000 ATO staff members. Results provided to ATO Information Technology Services. Nolan, Norton & Co $29,000.Electronic Commerce and the Australian Taxation System: an exploratory study of selected industries:Evaluation of 6 industries for ATO Electronic Commerce Project Team relating to the challenges of electronic commerce for tax administration. The results are published in volume 2 of "Tax and the Internet" which is publicly available from AGPS and on the Internet. Online Media Program, La Trobe University $20,000.Electronic Commerce, Banking and Finance Issues:Conducted for the ATO Electronic Commerce Project Team regarding the challenges of electronic commerce for tax administration. The results are published in volume 2 of "Tax and the Internet", which is publicly available from AGPS and on the Internet. Computer Money Consulting Pty Ltd $50,000.The Internet Report:This is a technical report on cryptology, identity and jurisdiction issues in relation to the Internet. It was conducted for the ATO Electronic Commerce Project Team regarding the challenges of electronic commerce for tax administration. The results are published in volume 2 of "Tax and the Internet", which is publicly available from AGPS and on the Internet. CSIRO Division of Mathematical and Information Sciences $100,000.Attitude and Behaviour Research:A review of some of the methodological literature and the present and emerging analytical approaches for attitude-behaviour research using existing materials. A report was prepared for SBI (ATO). Professor Alex Wearing, University of Melbourne $5,000.Examination of the influence of media on small business taxpayer compliance:The project is bringing together principles and issues from the existing literature with a view to developing a framework that can be used for evaluation and monitoring purposes. Results not yet completed. Dr Peter White, La Trobe University $6,000.Analysis of small business attitudes to tax compliance:Research comprised series of interviews of groups of 4 or 5 people. Report prepared for SBI (ATO). Dangar Research Group $29,850.Evaluation of ATO Business Guides:Comprised random telephone survey, mail-out of guides, analysis, follow-up of the survey and group discussions. Ongoing project, but report will be made available to SBI (ATO). Minter Research $16,111.Non-member income of clubs:Test of reliability of formula used by registered clubs to determine the percentage of non-member spending within the club. Survey of club patrons. Report available to SBI (ATO). Croucher Counselling Services Pty Ltd $10,000.Taxpayers' Charter benchmark research:For introduction of Taxpayers' Charter—1,000 taxpayers (telephone interviews); 1300 staff questionnaires (self-complete): 100 tax professionals (telephone interviews); 3 business focus groups; 2 community focus groups. Results were made available to senior ATO management. Some benchmark results were released to the media as part of the marketing campaign. Eureka Strategic Research $85,000.Taxpayers' Charter research pre-testing content and design:For introduction of Taxpayer Charter—4 taxpayer focus groups: 3 staff focus groups; 2 tax professional focus groups; 2 business focus groups; 2 community focus groups. Results were made available to senior ATO management. Some benchmark results were released to the media as part of the marketing campaign. Eureka Strategic Research $35,000.Taxpayers' Charter research pre-testing advertising concepts:For Taxpayers' Charter—l staff focus group; 5 taxpayer focus groups. Results were made available to senior ATO management. Some benchmark results were released to the media as part of the marketing campaign. Eureka Strategic Research $20,000.Taxpayers' Charter tracking research:For Taxpayers' Charter—1000 taxpayers (phone interviews); 1300 staff questionnaires (self complete); 100 tax professionals (phone interviews). Results were made available to senior ATO management. Some benchmark results were released to the media as part of the marketing campaign. Eureka Strategic Research $57,500.Poll on attitudes to the ATO:Sample size 2000; 32 questions. Results available to ATO only. AGB McNair $18,000.Poll on attitudes to the ATO:Sample size 2000; 18 questions. Results available to ATO only. AGB McNair $9,950.Poll of ATO Staff:Sample size 400; 25 questions. Results available to ATO only. Roy Morgan $8,508.ATO Strategic Alignment Process:Sample size 30; qualitative study. Results available ATO only. Mind Openers $30,000.Corporate Services Client Satisfaction Survey: Sample size 3000; evaluation in progress. Results available to ATO only. Donovan Research $80,000.AQC Guided Self Assessment for Corporate Services:Sample size 260; questionnaire—83 for managers and 31 for operational staff. Evaluation in progress. Results available to ATO only. Australian Quality Council $21,600.Market Research to analyse ATO corporate information requirements:The research aimed to identify the categories of information, needs of ATO staff; and future trends for information management as a basis to internal redevelopment and improvement. 400 staff participated in the exercise through focus groups or through a brief questionnaire. The results of the research were used to restructure the ATO Library Services program, and results were made available to library staff, Corporate Directions staff, and other participants in the data gathering on request. The Information Source $25,120.Workplace Agreement Research:Nature of research: analysis of jobs, competencies and market rates for comparable job value/worth outside ATO, results from a survey of SES perceptions of senior management and performance management etc, practices in the ATO, interviews and focus groups held for all types of SES jobs in the ATO, all SES surveyed or otherwise participated in this project. Results to senior ATO executives. Hay Group Pty Ltd (remuneration specialists) $59,650.2594(Question No. 1067)10672594Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 9 February 1998:With reference to the report in the Age on 28 June 1997 that the Federal Government would continue to exempt the Melbourne Formula One Grand Prix from section 18 of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992:(1) Was this an accurate report of the Government's intention; if so, was the Government at that time satisfied that failure to specify the event would be likely to result in the event not being held in Australia.(2) (a) On what date was an application made to the Federal Government by the Australian Grand Prix Corporation for an exemption from section 18 of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 for the purposes of the proposed event in March 1988; and (b) can a copy of the application be made available. (3) (a) When will the exemption be granted; (b) what conditions will apply to the exemption and can a copy be made available; (c) will tobacco companies be permitted to use the image of a kangaroo in their advertising at this event; (d) on what basis exactly was the Minister's opinion formed that the event would be lost; (e) whose views were canvassed in forming that opinion; and (f) can copies be provided of relevant material in forming this opinion.(4) Is the Minister aware that Oxford University will be sponsoring a team in the British Silverstone Grand Prix in place of tobacco advertising.(5) (a) What evidence is there that alternatives to tobacco advertising revenue are not also available in Australia; and (b) can such evidence by provided.(6) Is the Minister aware that Belgium has, in the past 12 months, refused to allow tobacco advertising at its Grand Prix.(7) Has the Government acquainted itself with the latest status of tobacco advertising permissible at such events in other countries; if so, can the data be made available.(8) Has the Government collected data on the conditions set by other countries which permit tobacco advertising; if so, can the data be made available.(9) Has the Government collected data on the way in which tobacco advertising at previous events has been used in the print and electronic media during the event and subsequently; if so, can such data be made available.2594Herron, 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) The report in the Age on 28 June 1997 that the Federal Government would continue to exempt the Melbourne Formula One Grand Prix from section 18 of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 is not accurate.Decisions in relation to any future event are made in accordance with the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 and the Guidelines which were tabled in June 1993. Each decision is made on a case by case basis.The report also states that seven events are now exempt from the ban. This is also not accurate. An event may have been granted an exemption for 1997, however, an exemption in one year provides no guarantee of an exemption in the following year.At the time of the report of the Age in June 1997, the Government was satisfied that failure to specify the 1997 event that had been held earlier in the year would have been likely to result in the event not being held in Australia.(2) (a) The Australian Grand Prix Corporation's application for the March 1998 event was dated 5 November 1997 and received by the Minister for Health and Family Services on 7 November 1997.(b) A copy of the application cannot be made available as the application was submitted on a confidential basis and contains sensitive commercial information.(3) (a) An exemption for the 1998 Australian Formula One Grand Prix was granted on 4 February 1998.(b) The exemption and the conditions which apply to the exemption were published in the Commonwealth of Australia Special Gazette No. S 51, Monday, 9 February 1998. A copy is attached.(c) The use of the image of a kangaroo in advertising by particular companies is a commercial decision which is not covered by the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. It is not a matter over which the Minister for Health and Family Services has any control.(d) As required by the legislation and the Guidelines, the Minister took into account (a) whether the organisation responsible for allocating the event is not located in Australia (b) if other countries are eligible to hold the event, the strength of their claims to do so, and (c) other information the Minister felt relevant in determining the likelihood that the event would not be held in Australia.Given that the information provided in the application in relation to these matters is commercial-in-confidence, the details cannot be revealed. The Minister was satisfied that the event was an event of international significance which would be lost to Australia if an exemption was not granted.(e) The Minister took into account all of the material submitted by applicant which included information provided by the overseas promoters.(f) Copies cannot be provided of relevant material in forming this opinion given that the application and discussion of the contents of the application is commercial-in-confidence.(4) The Minister was not aware that Oxford University will be sponsoring a team in the British Silverstone Grand Prix in place of tobacco advertising.(5) In assessing applications under section 18, the Minister requests applicants to provide evidence that they have sought alternative sponsorship.With respect to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, sponsorship arrangements are controlled by the international event organisers or promoters, not the local event organiser, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation. Any possible availability of an alternative to tobacco advertising revenue does not of itself guarantee that Australia would continue to be granted the right to host a round of the Formula One Championship.The information provided in applications is submitted in commercial-in-confidence and thus not available.(6) The Minister is aware that Belgium has, in the past 12 months, refused to allow tobacco advertising at its Grand Prix.(7) The Government has acquainted itself with the latest status of tobacco advertising permissible at Grands Prix in other countries.(8) The Government has not collected data on the conditions set at each Grand Prix by each of the countries which hold such events and which permit tobacco advertising, but it has collected data on the type and level of tobacco advertising restrictions in each of these countries. This data can be made available.(9) The tobacco advertising that has appeared in the print and electronic media during or subsequent to previous Australian Formula One Grands Prix has either been permitted by the exemption applying to the event or has been accidentally or incidentally present during coverage of the event.2595(Question No. 1068)10682595Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, upon notice, on 10 February 1998:(1) Has agreement been reached between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories regarding the application of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment (EBA) for 1998; if so: (a) what will be the financial impact of the EBA on the level of funding available to public schools, on a State-by-State basis, in 1998-99; and (b) can details be provided of the calculations.(2) Will the Government apply the EBA on a national benchmark or a State specific benchmark.(3) (a) Once the EBA calculation has been agreed, what mechanism will be used to transfer funds from the State budgets to the Commonwealth; and (b) when is this transfer of funds expected to occur.(4) What is the cost to the Commonwealth of the increase in private school enrolments in 1997.(5) (a) How does the Minister explain the discrepancy between the 1996-97 budget enrolment projections and the 1997 National Schools Census; and (b) what are the projected enrolments for the next 4 years.(6) What are the implications of the higher level of enrolments in 1997 on: (a) the availability of teachers for the next 4 years; and (b) the Government's budget forecasts for the next 4 years.2596Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) No. The application of the EBA for 1998 will not be decided until early 1999. The financial impact of the EBA on the level of funding available to government schools in 1998-99 cannot be determined until 1998 enrolment figures are available.(2) The EBA for 1997 has been applied on individual State enrolment benchmarks.(3) The EBA for 1997 will be deducted from the affected States' General Recurrent Grants instalments from March 1998. Where the EBA liability is greater than fifteen percent of the monthly instalment for a State, it will be recovered over a number of monthly instalments.(4) It is difficult to determine the cost to the Commonwealth of the net increase in private school enrolments in 1997. From year to year there are a number of inputs and outputs which affect the overall level of non-government school enrolments. New students enter the non-government sector either as new starters or through transfer from the government sector. Students leave the non-government sector at the completion of their education or to transfer to the government sector. There are 12 categories of Commonwealth funding for non-government schools. As the Government does not track individual students, it is not possible to identify the funding category of the schools the students entering the non-government sector are enrolled in. This is further complicated by the movement of students between non-government schools with different funding category levels and of students leaving the non-government sector to enter the government sector. It is therefore not viable to provide an accurate cost to the Commonwealth of the increase in non-government school enrolments in 1997.(5) (a) Budget enrolment projections are based on ABS population projections, and grade progression ratios. All such estimates can be subject to a small degree of variability. The 1997 Budget enrolment projection is within 0.8 percentage points of the 1997 full time student population, as represented in `Schools Australia' (ABS Cat 4220.0).(b) Projected funded enrolments for the next 4 years are:1998199920002001Government2,281,6962,288,2292,293,4632,294,467Non-Government951,548965,478977,491986,311Total3,233,2443,253,7073,270,9543,280,778(6) (a) Teacher supply for the next four years is a matter for government and non-government school authorities are responsible for the recruitment for their respective sectors.(b) An increase in enrolments will result in an increase in program expenditure because of the per capita component. Any increase will automatically be rolled into the forward estimates.2596(Question No. 1071)10712596Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:With reference to the proposal for a dam on the Fitzroy River in Western Australia:(1) What will be the area flooded by the Dam.(2) Is Environment Australia doing any research on the values of the Fitzroy River.(3) Have any of the following values been assessed: (a) aesthetic values; (b) biological values; and (c) cultural values. (4) What role can the Commonwealth play.(5) What responsibilities does the Commonwealth have.(6) What discussion has the Government had with the Western Australian Government.(7) (a) Has the Commonwealth Government identified the impact on all surrounding areas of the dam on the Fitzroy River; and (b) what are those impacts.(8) Who will be the main beneficiaries of the proposal to dam the Fitzroy River.(9) What will be the impact on tourism.(10) What will be the impact on the catchment of the river.(11) What investigations have been done on the likely impact of erosion or increases in salinity.(12) (a) Is the Government aware of the likely lifetime of the dam, taking into account siltation arising from erosion in the catchment; and (b) what is it.(13) What are the various opinions which have been expressed. (14) (a) What industries will be serviced by the dam; and (b) what are the environmental impacts of the industries.(15) How many dams and water course alterations are envisaged should the dam be built; and (b) what areas will these affect.(16) What are the biological and aesthetic impacts which will happen in areas affected by subsidiary dams.(17) Can a list be provided of any threatened or endangered species or ecosystems which will be affected by the proposed Fitzroy River dam.2597Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The answer to this question will not be available until the feasibility studies and the Environmental Impact Assessment are complete.(2) Yes, within the Australian and World Heritage Group and Biodiversity Group.(3) This is the responsibility of the proponents of any development and of the Western Australian Government.I understand that assessment of these values would occur as a part of the feasibility studies to be undertaken over the next two to five years, and as a part of the Western Australian environmental impact assessment process which would follow the feasibility studies.(4) Under the Australian Constitution primary responsibility for natural resource management rests with State Governments. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth is concerned to support the conservation and wise management of our precious water resources. It is for this reason that the Commonwealth supports the work of the States through programs such as the National River Health Program and with projects such as the Wild Rivers project.(5) I am advised that, at this stage, there are no Commonwealth decisions or actions related to this proposal that would trigger the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974.I am also advised that, at this stage, there are no Commonwealth actions or decisions involved that would trigger Section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1976.The Bureau of Meteorology has a responsibility (in cooperation with State Government agencies) for the provision of flood warnings to towns and rural communities in the Fitzroy River region.My Department will examine and comment on a range of issues of interest to the Commonwealth, including the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), the Council of Australian Government (COAG) Water Reforms, and endangered species, if and when the Western Australian impact assessment becomes available, to ensure that issues of interest to the Commonwealth are addressed.(6) In December 1996, I wrote to the Hon Monty House MLA (WA Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries) noting the need to ensure that all likely environmental impacts associated with the development proposal are identified and quantified, consistent with the COAG Water Resources Framework. In February 1997, Minister House replied, advising that:. any irrigation developments in the West Kimberley will be subject to the normal legislative requirements for such projects in relation to environmental assessments associated with ecological requirements of river systems;. and the process under Western Australian legislation requires public consultation; and. review of appropriate assessments of ecological sustainability and economic viability will be made as required under the COAG Water Resources Framework.My Department will examine and comment on any future environmental impact assessment under the West Australian Environmental Protection Act 1986 to ensure that Commonwealth interests are taken into account.(7) (a) & (b) No. I understand that following feasibility studies, these impacts would be assessed under Western Australian environmental impact assessment legislation.(8) The responsibility for identification of benefits and potential beneficiaries rests with the Western Australian Government and with development proponents. It is likely that beneficiaries would include the proponent, Western Australian Irrigation (WAI), with potential benefits for regional economic development in north west Western Australia.(9) to (12) and (16) The answers to these questions will not be available until results from the feasibility studies and the Environmental Impact Assessment are completed.(13) I understand that there are varying opinions regarding the project. The capacity for organisations and experts to develop detailed opinions regarding aspects of the proposal is limited by the early stages of feasibility assessment and a lack of detailed information.(14) (a) I understand that the focus of the development is primarily on irrigation—mostly cotton with some horticultural potential.(b) The answer to this question will not be available until results from the feasibility studies and the Environmental Impact Assessment are completed. (15) I understand that proposed dams and watercourse alterations will be the subject of feasibility studies. At this stage there is nominally one preferred dam site identified on Diamond Gorge.(17) The following species of fauna and flora which are listed under the Commonwealth Endan- gered Species Protection Act 1992 have been recorded in the region of the proposed Fitzroy River dam project and may currently be present in the area of the proposed project. The flora of the Fitzroy River catchment and drainage areas has not yet been fully described and additional threatened flora species may be present in the area.COMMON NAMESCIENTIFIC NAMENATIONAL LISTINGGouldian FinchErythrura gouldiaeEndangeredGolden BandicootIsoodon auratusEndangeredBlack-footed Rock-WallabyPetrogale lateralisVulnerableOrange Leaf-nosed BatRhinonicteris auranteusVulnerableGhost BatMacroderma gigasVulnerableGreater BilbyMacrotis lagotisVulnerableCrested Shrike-tit (northern subspecies) Falcunculus frontatus whiteiVulnerablePurple-crowned Fairy-wren (western subspecies)Malurus coronatus coronatusVulnerableAlexandra's ParrotPolytelis alexandraeVulnerableRed GoshawkErythrotriorchis radiatusVulnerableKing Leopold Range malleeEucalyptus mooreanaVulnerable2598(Question No. 1072)10722598Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 3 March 1998:What are the details, by federal electorate, of all grants made since March 1996 under the Coastcare program.2598Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Lists of Coastcare grants, by electorate, made since March 1996 have been provided to the honourable senator. Further copies are available from the Senate Table Office. The Northern Territory has not, at this stage, become a party to the Coastcare Program. Grants have not been finalised for Western Australia for 1997/98.2598(Question No. 1074)10742598Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 3 March 1998:(1) What are the details of all grants made under the Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations program in the financial year 1997-98, including for each grant the name and address of the organisation, amount of funding granted, date of decision to make the grant and the departmental recommendation regarding each successful application.(2) What are the details of any grants that were not initially recommended by Environment Australia but were subsequently approved.2598Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Following is a list giving, for each grant, the name and address of the organisation, the amount of funding granted and the date of decision and the department's final recommendation regarding each successful application.Organisation and AddressAmount GrantedDecision DateDecision Final RecommendationAlternative Technology Association Inc, 247 Flinders Lane, Melbourne VIC 300012,00023.12.9712,000Australian Committee for I U C N Inc, GPO Box 528, Sydney NSW 200125,60023.12.9725,600Australian Conservation Foundation, 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy Vic 3065100,00023.12.97100,000Australian Marine Conservation Society Inc, PO Box 3139, Yeronga QLD 410414,20023.12.9714,200Australian National Parks Council, GPO Box 2227, Canberra ACT 26016,00023.12.976,000Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, 19 Colorado Avenue, Bardon QLD 406521,00023.12.9721,000Australian Rivers and Mineral Policy Institute, PO Box 21, Bondi Junction NSW 20228,00023.12.978,000Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers, PO Box 432, Ballarat VIC 335313,00023.12.9713,000Birds Australia, 415 Riversdale Road, Hawthorn East VIC 312314,00023.12.9714,000Clean Up Australia Ltd, PO Box 45, Pyrmont NSW 200920,00023.12.9720,000Earthwatch Australia, Level 1 453-457 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne VIC 300015,00023.12.9715,000ECODESIGN FOUNDATION INC, PO Box 369, Rozelle NSW 203912,00023.12.9712,000Ecological Society of Australia, c/- Kings Park & Botanic Garden, West Perth WA 60056,00023.12.976,000Environs Australia, Ross House, 2/247 Flinders Lane, Melbourne VIC 30009,00023.12.979,000Humane Society International, PO Box 439, Avalon NSW 210715,00023.12.9715,000Keep Australia Beautiful National Association, 20 Napier Close, Deakin ACT 260070,50023.12.9770,500Marine Education Society of Australasia Inc, PO Box 616, Indooroopilly QLD 40688,50023.12.978,500The Wilderness Society, 130 Davey Street, Hobart TAS 700050,00023.12.9750,000Urban Ecology Australia Inc, 84 Halifax Street, Adelaide SA 500010,00023.12.9710,000World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, PO Box 528, Sydney NSW 200165,00023.12.9765,000Albury Wodonga Environment Centre, 2/608 Dean Street, Albury NSW 264010,00023.12.9710,000Big Scrub Environment Centre, 123 Keen Street, Lismore NSW 24805,00023.12.975,000Futureworld: National Centre for Appropriate Technology, PO Box 127, Wollongong NSW 25205,00023.12.975,000 Murray Darling Association Inc, PO Box 359, Albury NSW 264025,00023.12.9725,000National Parks Association of NSW Inc, PO Box A96, Sydney South NSW 123523,00023.12.9723,000Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 39 George Street, Sydney NSW 200097,50023.12.9797,500North Coast Environment Council, Pavans Access, Stuart Point NSW 24419,00023.12.979,000O Z Green, PO Box 1378, Dee Why NSW 20998,00023.12.978,000Shortland Wetlands Centre Ltd, PO Box 292, Wallsend NSW 22879,50023.12.979,500Total Environment Centre Inc, 1/88 Cumberland Street, Sydney NSW 200022,00023.12.9722,000Australian Platypus Conservancy, PO Box 84, Whittlesea VIC 37578,00023.12.978,000Centre for Education & Research in Environmental Strategies, 8 Lee Street, East Brunswick VIC 30578,00023.12.978,000Environment Victoria Inc, 19 O'Connell St, North Melbourne VIC 3051108,00023.12.97108,000Field Naturalists Club of Victoria Inc, Locked Bag 3, Blackburn VIC 31309,00023.12.979,000Goulburn Valley Environment group Inc, Box 2073, Shepparton Vic 36325,60023.12.975,600Project Jonah Victoria Inc, 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy VIC8,00023.12.978,000Victorian National Parks Association Inc, 10 Parliament Place, East Melbourne VIC 300238,50023.12.9738,500Cairns and Far North Environment Centre, PO Box 323, North Cairns QLD 487015,00023.12.9715,000Capricorn Conservation Council, PO Box 975, Rockhampton QLD 470010,00023.12.9710,000Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council, 139 Durangin St, Currumbin QLD 42236,50023.12.976,500Mackay Conservation Group, PO Box 826, Mackay QLD 47406,50023.12.976,500National Parks Association Of Queensland, PO Box 1040, Milton Centre QLD 40649,00023.12.979,000North Queensland Conservation Council, PO Box 364, Townsville QLD 481010,00023.12.9710,000Queensland Conservation Council, PO Box 12046, Elizabeth Street, Brisbane QLD 4002108,00023.12.97108,000Sunshine Coast Environment Council Inc, PO Box 269, Nambour QLD 45607,60023.12.977,600Toowoomba & Region Environment Council, PO Box 1306, Toowoomba QLD 43506,00023.12.976,000 Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council, PO Box 694, Maryborough QLD 46505,00023.12.975,000Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, 2/133 George St, Brisbane QLD 400017,50023.12.9717,500Conservation Council of Western Australia, 79 Stirling St, Perth WA 600083,00023.12.9783,000Denmark Environment Centre Inc, PO Box 142, Denmark WA 63336,00023.12.976,000Malleefowl Preservation Group Inc, PO Box 3, Ongerup WA 63368,00023.12.978,000Men Of The Trees Inc, 182 Brown Street, East Perth WA 600410,00023.12.9710,000South West Environment Centre, PO Box 693, Bunbury WA 623124,00023.12.9724,000The Environment Centre of WA, PO Box 7375, Cloisters Square WA 685030,00023.12.9730,000WA National Parks & Reserves Association, PO Box 270, Maylands WA 60514,50023.12.974,500Wildflower Society of Western Australia, PO Box 64, Nedlands WA 69098,00023.12.978,000Conservation Council of SA Inc, 120 Wakefield Street, Adelaide SA 500095,00023.12.9795,000Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc, 1st Floor, 120 Wakefield Street, Adelaide SA 500015,50023.12.9715,500Trees For Life, Brookway Drive, Campbelltown SA 507410,00023.12.9710,000Launceston Environment Centre, 34 Paterson Street, Launceston TAS 725015,00023.12.9715,000Tasmanian Conservation Trust, 102 Bathurst Street, Hobart TAS 700047,00023.12.9747,000Tasmanian Environment Centre Inc, 102 Bathurst Street, Hobart TAS 700050,00023.12.9750,000Arid Lands Environment Centre, PO Box 2796, Alice Springs NT 087125,00023.12.9725,000Environment Centre of the Northern Territory Inc, GPO Box 2120, Darwin NT 080165,00023.12.9765,000Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre, GPO Box 1875, Canberra ACT 260127,00023.12.9727,000Conservation Council of 5th—East Region & Canberra Inc, GPO Box 1875, Canberra ACT 260126,50023.12.9726,500(2) Grants which were not initially recommended by Environment Australia and were subsequently approved were made to the Ecological Society of Australia, Project Jonah Victoria and the Wildflower Society of Western Australia. Details of these grants are included in the answer to (1) above.2602(Question No. 1076)10762602Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 4 March 1998:(1) (a) Which section of Environment Australia deals with applications from organisations for acceptance on the Register of Environmental Organisations; and (b) what are the criteria and requirements for admission to the register.(2) Can the Minister still refuse an application if it meets all the criteria and requirements.(3) Are organisations required to have policies and aims that are not contradictory to the Government's policies in order for them to be admitted to the register.(4) Is the department required to seek further information from organisations before rejecting an application.2602Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) The Client Relations Unit of my Department.(1) (b) The criteria and requirements for admission to the Register are outlined in The Guidelines for the Register of Environmental Organisations, a copy of which has been provided to the honourable senator. Further copies are available from the Senate Table Office.(2) I am required, under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, to advise the Treasurer that I am satisfied that an organisation, which is seeking entry on the register, is an environmental organisation in accordance with the requirements of the Act. However, in determining whether an eligible organisation should be listed on the Register, both the Treasurer and myself must have regard to the policies and budgetary priorities of the Commonwealth Government.(3) Under the Act both the Treasurer and myself must have regard to the policies and budgetary priorities of the Commonwealth Government in deciding whether to give a direction to list an organisation on the Register.(4) No.2602(Question No. 1082)10822602Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 6 March 1998:With reference to the consultancy study, advertised in August 1997, to develop measures and methods to determine the effectiveness of vegetation management programs:(1) What stage has the study reached. (2)(a) How will the effectiveness of vegetation retention, revegetation and vegetation management programs, funded under the Natural Heritage Trust be evaluated; (b) what baseline information exists; and (c) what evaluation methods are being used.(3) (a) How much money has been spent so far from the Natural Heritage Trust on tree planting solely or partly for commercial purposes; and (b) can details be provided in relation to these projects, including: project name, proponent, location, amount granted, area of planting and species to be planted.2602Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) A consultancy team has been selected and the project is expected to be completed within six months. The consultant team consists of the Centre for International Economics and the CSIRO.(2) (a) The consultancy project will identify performance indicators and methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of vegetation management programs and projects under the Natural Heritage Trust. These indicators and methods will contribute to an overall monitoring and evaluation strategy for Bushcare, which will be consistent with the Natural Heritage Trust monitoring and evaluation framework currently under development.(2) (b) The project will involve the identification of relevant existing data and databases, and will identify baseline information available from sources such as State of Environment reporting, data from previous vegetation projects, data held by the Environmental Resources Information Network, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, State agencies and research organisations, and information from relevant case studies. Project outcomes will assist the National Land and Water Audit in determining the focus of its information collection and management relating to vegetation.(2) (c) Evaluation of vegetation programs and projects will be undertaken using a range of methods, including:(i) the use of performance indicators—monitoring of key parameters to determine trends or progress in achieving on-ground outcomes;(ii) measures of activity—input and output measures, available from program management information systems and project reports, which assist in determining program efficiency, and steps towards longer term outcomes; and(iii) theme or case study evaluations—one-off, more detailed evaluations, e.g. of regional projects.A range of methodologies will be developed and tested as part of the consultancy study.(3) (a) and (b) The primary vehicle for Natural Heritage Trust funding of vegetation re-establish ment and protection is the `Bushcare' program. Bushcare will only fund tree planting where the primary purpose is to protect and sustain biodiversity, and to control land degradation. Bushcare will not fund tree planting where the primary purpose is for commercial or private benefit. No Bushcare funds have been spent on tree planting solely or partly for commercial purposes.My colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has responsibility for the Farm Forestry Program, which also provides Natural Heritage Trust funds for tree planting. The honourable senator may care to seek further advice from Minister Anderson on this matter.2603(Question No. 1083)10832603Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 6 March 1998:With reference to the EME Expert Committee which has been appointed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to make decisions about which applications will receive grants under the Federal Government's $4.5 million fund for research into the health issues relating to mobile phone towers:(1) Is the Minister aware that: (a) Dr Ken Joyner is a member of that committee and that he is employed by Motorola, as Director of EME Strategy and Regulatory Affairs; and (b) Dr Alan Harris and Professor Tony Basten are also members of the Committee and that they have previously conducted research on behalf of Telstra into the effects of mobile phone emissions on transgenic mice.(2) Is the Minister satisfied that the committee is sufficiently `at arms length' from the telecommunications industry.(3) Is the Minister satisfied that the conflict of interest guidelines for the Committee, which require those members with pecuniary interests to declare their interests, are adequate safeguards against conflict of interest either real or perceived.(4) Is the Minister satisfied that the procedures outlined in the guidelines have been followed in the most recent grant approval process.(5) Given the make up of the Committee, would it not be desirable to include a member who is a community representative.2603Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Australian research component of the Government's Radiofrequency (RF) EME Program is managed by the NHMRC and I have sought the NHMRC's advice on the issued raised.(1) I am advised that members of the NHMRC's EME Expert Committee have been appointed by the NHMRC on the basis of their widely recognised expertise in areas of science necessary for the NHMRC to effectively manage the EME research program. People with this level of expertise have been involved in research funded by a range of sources. If experts who have had any involvement with industry in the past were excluded from participation, it would be almost impossible to establish an Expert Committee.(a) I am advised that that Dr Ken Joyner was invited to participate on the NHMRC's EME Expert Committee because of his internationally recognised expertise in the fields of physical dosimetry, radiation physics and engineering. The World Health Organisation's International EMF Project identified accurate assessment of RF field dosimetry as an essential requirement for high quality research, and that this must be an integral part of all future studies.Dr Joyner's involvement in the EME Expert Committee in relation to electromagnetic energy and communications technology is as an individual and not as a representative of the telecommunications industry or his employer, Motorola. I understand that participation of Dr Joyner in the Expert Committee is likely to significantly enhance the ability of the Expert Committee to successfully fulfil its role.(b) I am further advised that the NHMRC invited both Professor Tony Basten and Dr Alan Harris to participate on its EME Expert Committee for similar reasons as Dr Joyner. Professor Basten is the Executive Director, Centenary Institute of Cancer, Medicine and Cell Biology and the Head of the Department of Clinical Immunology, Prince Alfred Hospital as well as having a strong involvement in internationally recognised research in the RF EME field. Dr Harris is a Senior Research Fellow at the Walter and Eliza Hall, Molecular Genetics of Cancer Division, and was also involved in internationally recognised research in the field.(2) Yes.(3) Yes. The NHMRC's guidelines relating to conflict of interest are a matter for the NHMRC. However, I am advised that the NHMRC's conflict of interest guidelines are not limited to pecuniary interest but also cover both indirect pecuniary interest and non-pecuniary interest, and that any actual or potential (or perceived) conflict must be disclosed. (4) Adherence to the procedures outlined in the NHMRC's guidelines is a matter for the Council. I have been advised by the NHMRC that the procedures outlined in the guidelines are being been followed in the process. You may wish to note that there have been no grant approvals to date as I understand the process has not progressed to that stage.(5) The appointment of members to the NHMRC Expert Committee is a matter for the Council and it is inappropriate for me to express a view on its composition. However, I am advised that the Strategic Research Development Committee of the NHMRC is considering inviting a member of the NHMRC, who is "a person with a background in, and knowledge of, consumer issues", to join the NHMRC EME Expert Committee.2604(Question No. 1087)10872604Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:(1) What was the cost of preparing and sending the Australian Defence Force (ADF) contingent to the Persian Gulf in early 1998.(2) Were any items of equipment, not already in inventory, procured to facilitate this deployment; if so, what are the details, to at least the level of detail contained in Senate Estimates Committee B Hansard, 16 April 1991, pp.B10-B12.(3) What is the daily, weekly and monthly cost of maintaining the ADF contingent in the Gulf and on what basis are these costs calculated.(4) Is the Defence vote to receive any supplementation, additional appropriation or other funding unplanned prior to the deployment decision to support the deployment; if so, what are the details; if not, from where in the portfolio did the resources come.2604Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) $1.658m, on an additional cost basis.(2) Yes. The items listed below were procured for the Gulf contingent. It should be noted that while this equipment was procured to facilitate the deployment, in all cases, it can be utilised by Defence when the deployment is completed..Outboard motor covers (for Army patrol craft)14.Honda XR250R and XR400 (for Army patrolling)4 of each.Assorted spares for motor cycles.B707 Protective Integrated Hood and Mask Systems (emergency oxygen equipment to provide NBC protection)14.Oxy Viva (medical support equipment)2.Defibrillator (medical support equipment)1.Computer equipment, power adaptors, batteries, power boards, cabling, bivvy tents and insect repellent(3) The additional cost of maintaining the ADF contingent in the Gulf is:Daily cost—$0.061m; Weekly cost—$0.429m; Monthly cost—$1.854m.Additional costs are those costs which can be attributed specifically to the operation and would not otherwise have been incurred. These costs are based on costs to date and are predicated on the current scope and level of activity being maintained. These costs may change if the scope or level of activity is modified. Similarly, periodic fluctuations in activity levels may alter costs from one interval to another. Costs may also vary as some support arrangements with Coalition partners have yet to be finalised.(4) Based on the current scope and level of activity being maintained, Defence will not be seeking any supplementation, additional appropriation or other funding unplanned prior to the deployment decision for the operation. The resources will be provided from within Defence's existing budget allocation, though use of existing budgeted rates of activity within the Army and Air Force programs or through adjustment of the priorities of future planned activities in those programs. 2605(Question No. 1089)10892605Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:(1) What were the specific reasons for deferring logging of coupe HU 307 near Mother Cummings Peak in Tasmania's Great Western Tiers during the interim forest agreement, preceding the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA).(2) (a) What scientific advice was provided on the conservation and cultural values of the coupe area; (b) did the RFA fall short of the goal that 60 per cent of old-growth forest types would be protected; if so, why not protect HU307 as a means of better achieving that goal.2605Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The decision to defer from harvesting or roading operations in the coupes HU 307A and HU 307M (identified in the 1995-96 to 1997-98 Three Year Plan as a single coupe HU310M) was made pending the outcomes of a full review of the values they represent.Correspondence received by the Commonwealth suggested that these coupes contain potentially significant conservation values of the type which the Interim Forest Agreement (IFA) was seeking to protect. Although the Commonwealth did not have sufficient information at the time to verify the values, given the precautionary approach to the IFA it was considered important to protect the coupe in the interim while the RFA was being completed.(2) (a) At the time the decision was made to defer the coupe there was no documentation on the conservation and cultural values within the area. Scientific advice on the values within the coupe as part of the region was provided as part of the RFA. The values identified in the coupe include two vegetation communities (Dry Eucalyptus delegatensis and Tall E. delegatensis ) and old growth components of both. Some national estate values were also identified including natural landscapes, aesthetic, social, key fauna habitat, representative vegetation, old growth and geoconservation values.(b)The Tasmanian RFA met the reserve criteria to the fullest extent possible on public land with flexibility applying for economic and social considerations.In the case of HU307 two old growth communities were identified within this area, Dry E. delegatensis and Tall E. delegatensis.Dry E. delegatensis (old growth) met the quantitative JANIS target of 60%. For Tall E. delegatensis (old growth) 56% of remaining old growth was reserved under the RFA. While this was below the quantitative target of 60%, the flexibility provisions of JANIS were applied for social and economic reasons. Higher levels of protection for this old growth, whether in this coupe or in any other area, would have resulted in unacceptable social and economic impacts.For both these old growth communities, locations other than HU307 were chosen to add to the reserve system. These other areas contained the required old growth in combination with other values not present in this coupe.2605(Question No. 1090)10902605Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:With reference to the decision of the Moe magistrate to dismiss charges of obstructing lawful forest operations against Senator Brown on 27 February 1998:(1) What action has the Government taken to assure itself that the logging of native forests in East Gippsland and the export of woodchips derived from East Gippsland native forests is lawful.(2) Is there a lawful basis for logging of native forests in East Gippsland.2605Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Timber harvesting operations in East Gippsland are controlled under Victorian legislation and controls under the Export Control Act 1982 relating to the export of hardwood woodchips and unprocessed wood sourced from East Gippsland's native forests have been removed for the life of the East Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement.(2) Timber harvesting operations in East Gippsland are controlled through legislation administered by the Victorian Government and this legislation forms the lawful basis for those operations.2605(Question No. 1092)10922605Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:With reference to the proposals to dam the Fitzroy River system in Western Australia's Kimberley Region:(1) (a) What discussions or deliberations has the Government, its departments or departmental offices had regarding any dam proposal or proposal for use of water from the system; and (b) when and with whom were these discussions or deliberations held and what was the outcome.(2) What information does the Government have about any such proposals.(3) Has any advice or information been sought or given about such proposals; if so: (a) who were the parties involved; and (b) what was the advice or information.(4) Which members of the Government have inspected any of the proposed dam sites and when.(5) (a) What approvals would be required from the Commonwealth for such a dam to go ahead; and (b) under what circumstances could it go ahead without approvals or input from the Commonwealth Government.2606Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) I have been advised by my Department that the proposal is currently in the early planning stage and no formal discussions have been held with the Western Australian Government.(b) Not applicable.(2) My Department has advised me that, at present, the information is limited and generally comes from newspaper articles and background reports such as the Registrations of Interest for the West Kimberley Water and Land Resources Development prepared by the Western Australian Government.(3) Yes. (a) and (b) In December 1996 and again in October 1997 I wrote to the Hon Monty House MLA noting the need to ensure that all likely environmental impacts associated with the development proposal are identified and quantified, consistent with the Council Of Australian Governments' Water Resources Framework, and seeking Commonwealth involvement in any future State assessment actions under the West Australian Environmental Protection Act 1986. In February 1997, Mr House replied advising that: any irrigation developments in the West Kimberley will be subject to the normal legislative requirements for such projects in relation to environmental assessments associated with ecological requirements of river systems; and that the process under WA legislation requires public consultation, and that review and appropriate assessments of ecological sustainability and economic viability will be made as required under the Council Of Australian Governments' Water Resources Framework.In addition, there has been a variety of general correspondence on this issue. In replying to this correspondence, I have stated that I have received assurances from the Western Australian Government in accordance with Mr House's letter of February 1997. (4) Neither I, nor my colleague the Hon John Anderson MP, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, have visited the site. I am unaware of any visit by other members of the Howard Government.(5) (a) The provisions of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1976, the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, or the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 would apply only if the dam proposals involve Commonwealth freehold or leasehold land; a Commonwealth agency, body or corporation; direct Commonwealth funding assistance; or a Commonwealth action or decision.(b) Commonwealth approvals under these Acts are not required because none of the above conditions are present.2606(Question No. 1101)11012606Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry Science and Tourism on 17 March, 1998:With reference to the 1996 Federal Government allocation of $2.66m into the Costerfield mine at Bendigo from the Industry Research and Development Board, and the fact that Diamin Resources company was the recipient of this funding:(1) Can details be provided of the nature of the research conducted by Diamin.(2) Was all of the $2.66 million used for research into the Costerfield mine; if not, what was it used for.(3) How was the research funding allocated by Diamin.(4) (a) What was the outcome of the research and; (b) is there a report; if so, can a copy be provided.2606Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLP10—The Minister for Industry Science and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The information requested relates to the research and development tax concession and is therefore subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. Additionally, the information maybe commercially sensitive.It is an established practice that the commercial activities of companies, relating to the R&D tax concession, are not made public by the Government. 2607(Question No. 1102)11022607Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 18 March 1998:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 255 (Hansard, 18 November 1996, p 5582) and the fact that the Victorian State Government appointed panel has recommended that the proposal for a `prescribed waste land fill facility at Werribee' proceed, in spite of strong opposition from local government, growers, business and residents in the area:(1) Is the Minister satisfied that the panel's report takes adequate account of potential risks to the adjacent Ramsar site.(2) What are the implications for the Ramsar site, with reference to the statement made by the panel that, `the panel accepts that no land fill can be designed to contain all leachate, and it is appropriate to recognise, assess and deal with the fugitive leachate. The panel is satisfied that the limited quantity of fugitive leachate will not produce any adverse environmental impacts'.(3) Will the Minister be informing the Convention on Wetlands of the possible degradation of the Ramsar site as a result of the proposal.2607Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) I am satisfied that any potential risks to the adjacent Ramsar site from the proposed prescribed waste land fill facility at Werribee have been adequately taken into account by the Victorian Government throughout the Environmental Effects Statement process.(2) I am advised that the waste dump will not significantly impact on ground water or surface water. I am also advised that the Victorian Environment Protection Authority has made an independent evaluation of the potential impact on ground water and has agreed with the findings of the Environmental Effects Statement.(3) No.2607(Question No. 1103)11032607Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1998:(1) Are recipients of Social Security payments eligible for any exemption from the requirement to pay Financial Institutions Duty (FID) on the accounts into which their payments are made; if so: (a) are there differences between the States in relation to the exemption; (b) how do people ensure that they receive an exemption; and (c) are banks, or have they been in the past, automatically notified of people who are in receipt of a Social Security payment so as to ensure FID is not applied.(2) Are people in Tasmania required to take a letter from Centrelink to their bank to verify their receipt of a payment so as to qualify for the FID exemption; if so, does this apply in all other States of Australia; if not, why not.(3) What efforts does the department undertake to make people aware of their eligibility for any exemption.2607Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is:(1) FID is a tax imposed by some State Governments on deposits made to accounts held with financial institutions. Policy on exemptions from FID for recipients of Social Security payments is a matter falling within State Government responsibilities.(a) I understand that in all States that impose FID except Tasmania, there is an exemption from FID only in respect of the depositing of a Social Security payment into an account. I understand that in Tasmania, where a person holds a Pensioner Concession Card or a Health Concession Card, all deposits made into an account into which a Social Security payment is deposited are exempted from FID.(b) and (c) I understand that in those States where there is an exemption from FID only in respect of the depositing of a Social Security payment into an account, the exemption can be automatically applied by the financial institution, because the payment is identifiable as a Social Security payment. I understand that in Tasmania, Social Security recipients may be required to complete an application form, and to provide evidence that they hold a Pensioner Concession Card or a Health Concession Card.(2) As set out in the answer to part (1), I understand that in Tasmania, Social Security recipients may be required to complete an application form, and to provide evidence that they hold a Pensioner Concession Card or a Health Concession Card. I understand that in other States there are no such identification requirements, and that financial institutions are expected by the relevant State Government to automatically provide exemptions for those deposits identified as Social Security payments. The customer identification arrangements that are required in a particular State for the purposes of applying FID exemptions are a matter for the State Government concerned.(3) Centrelink informs customers that they may be eligible for certain exemptions from FID through its Financial Information Service. The exemption is also outlined in "Dollars and Sense—the Older Persons' Guide to Banking", a publication of the Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' Federation which is distributed by Centrelink.2608(Question No. 1106)11062608Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 25 March 1998:(1) Do either the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) or the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) engage in the use of animals for experimentation.(2) Is there any Commonwealth legislation covering animal experimentation.(3) Are CSIRO and ANSTO required to adhere to State and Territory laws regulating the use of animals for scientific purposes.(4) Has CSIRO or ANSTO developed any cooperative agreement with any State or Territory in respect of the application of the laws of that State or Territory.(5) Do CSIRO and ANSTO report on their activities to the relevant State authorities so that statistics on their use of animals are incorporated into the statistics of animals used for experimentation in each State and Territory.(6) (a) How many animals were used by CSIRO and ANSTO for experimental purposes in the 1996-97 financial year; and (b) can details be provided of what species were used and what the objectives of the experiments were.(7) What procedures are in place for CSIRO and ANSTO to ensure compliance with the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes.(8) What mechanisms are in place to deal with breaches of the code.2608Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLP10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes, both.(2) While State and Territory legislation exists to regulate animal experimentation, there is no specific Commonwealth legislation regulating animal experimentation.The following Commonwealth legislation is, however, relevant to the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (the Code): (a)Australian Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982; (b)Export Control Act 1982, including Export Control (Animals) Order 1987; (c)Quarantine Act 1908.(3)CSIRO insists that its officers familiarise themselves with and comply with the spirit of relevant State/Territory legislation. CSIRO also insists that its experimental animals be treated in accordance with the standards set out in the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes; a code to which the Organisation has been a signatory since 1979 (CSIRO Policy Circular 94/4 of 22 March 1994 refers).ANSTO undertakes its activities involving the use of animals for scientific purposes in accordance with the NSW Animal Research Act 1985 and also with the above code.(4) CSIRO has reached agreements with New South Wales and Victoria, and an agreement is being developed with the Australian Capital Territory.ANSTO is formally accredited by NSW Agriculture as an animal research establishment.(5) CSIRO officers are expected to meet the varying reporting requirements of State and Territory legislation.ANSTO submits a detailed Annual Report to NSW Agriculture on its activities involving the use of animals for scientific purposes.(6) (a) (b) CSIRO does not maintain a central register of its experimental animal usage nor the specific purposes for which such animals are used. Objects of CSIRO's animal-based scientific procedures include: investigation into infectious diseases of animals and humans, animal nutrition, vaccine research, livestock husbandry, management of Australia's native and introduced fauna, the welfare of animals, and various fundamental research.In 1996/97 ANSTO used 533 rats and 343 mice for scientific purposes. The animals were used for scientific studies relating to development of pharmacological products, cancer and medical diagnostic research.(7) CSIRO compliance is overseen by relevant government departments and CSIRO's Animal Ethics Committees; the latter are mandated by the Australian Code of Practice. Both groups conduct site inspections while CSIRO's Animal Welfare Liaison Group, consisting of the chairpersons of CSIRO's Ethics Committees, performs a self-regulating function.In line with the Code, ANSTO has an Animal Care and Ethics Committee (ACEC). The Committee, made up of internal and external members, operates in accordance with detailed guidelines issued under the authority of ANSTO's Executive Director. The operation of the ACEC is subject to ongoing scrutiny by NSW Agriculture under the accreditation process referred to in (4) above. This scrutiny includes inspection visits by the NSW Animal Research Review Panel.(8) CSIRO mechanisms are those prescribed in Part 3A, Discipline, of the CSIRO Terms and Conditions of Service which deal with `failure of an officer to fulfil duty', with the potential to lead to charges of misconduct and disciplinary action.ANSTO's accreditation process provides for scrutiny by NSW Agriculture of all experiments involving the use of animals for scientific purposes. The ACEC, as noted in (7) above, is also subject to this scrutiny. The detailed guidelines for the use of animals for scientific purposes contain procedures which enable any staff member with concerns about animal experimentation to raise these directly with the ACEC for investigation and action.2609(Question No. 1114)11142609Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:(1) What is the estimated cost of the proposed tax concessions for parents supporting `dependent' children who are students.(2) Will these tax concessions also extend to anyone who is `supporting' students, such as married or de facto couples.2609Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Department is not aware of any proposed tax and concessions for parents supporting dependent student children.The Government is yet to make decisions regarding tax reform.2610(Question No. 1116)11162610Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1998:With reference to reports on 17 March 1998 that AusAID is to provide additional relief funds of approximately $1.1 million to assist refugees who have returned to Burma:(1) Can details be provided of how these funds will be distributed.(2) Will these funds be administered by reliable non-government organisations already established in Rangoon.(3) Can an assurance be given that the funds will not be provided to or administered by the State Peace and Development Council.2610Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The World Food Program (WFP) received $1.131 million to implement programs for Rohingya refugees returning to Burma. These programs include food for work, health, education and the construction of rural access roads. CARE Australia received $169,000 for a three year Agroforestry program that will develop the capacity of returnees to implement agroforestry systems in their home state.(2) Funds are being administered through both the United Nations system and the Australian non-government organisation, CARE Australia. Both these organisations have a proven track record of delivering humanitarian assistance inside Burma.(3) No funds will be provided to or administered by the State Peace and Development Council of Burma.