1998-05-133817SENATE261101998-05-13The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous2611Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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.Bills2611r4542611Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Senator Alston:That this bill be now read a second time.09:32:002611Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I rise to speak in the second reading debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill. This is the second of a package of bills to put into place the youth allowance arrangements which have been put forward by this government. I suppose in most cases you would consider that a bill which is entitled `consequential' would be only that, but although it does contain the administrative arrangements for the new youth allowance, it goes a little further. Before I go on to deal with those matters, I remind the chamber and the community at large about the effect of the youth allowance package, because although it was put forward by this government as a move to put more young people back into education, in fact the real effect of much of this package is to punish families who are not particularly well off, despite being labelled as such by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman).This legislation requires families who earn as little as $23,700 to support their children between the ages of 18 and 21—and although this legislation uses the term `children', they are in fact young adults between the ages of 18 and 21. I do not believe that families on those levels of income—and we are talking generally about a family with two parents, at least one adult child and sometimes other children—should be expected to support their children at an age when the community at large accepts that they are adults, as they are over the age of 18.To return to the bill that is before us, as I said, it puts in place a number of administrative arrangements relating to the youth allowance proposal, but it does some other things as well. It transfers from DEETYA three payments that were generally regarded as education payments to the Department of Social Security and, subsequently, they will also be administered by Centrelink. They are, firstly, Austudy; secondly, the pensioner education supplement; and, thirdly, the financial supplement loans scheme which was introduced by the previous Labor government and which is probably better known as the student loans scheme.One of the sad things about all of these changes is that, even though the government has stated that it will encourage people to go back to education, I believe that `encouragement' is a dangerous term, because it beats young people around the head and forces them to go back into education. With regard to the 27,000 people who are expected to be forced back into education—and that is school education—there has really been no provision made by this government to ensure that proper funding and services are provided for those young people. There is a great fear on the part of the Labor opposition—and I believe it is a fear that is shared by many parents of children at school and also by schools and teachers—that those young people returning to school who are unwilling or not suited to the school environment may disrupt educational services and the classroom. In fact, the result of this package will be that those who are happily at school and are pleased to be there may find that their educational opportunities are limited or restricted by those people who have been forced back into school by this government's policies who are not suited to that environment.It is quite ironic to see that at the same time there have been major cuts in TAFE education. Certainly, in my time, TAFE education was often an alternative form of education for those young people who might have liked to continue their studies but who found that school was not suited to them or who wanted a more practical, hands-on type of education.At the same time as forcing young adults back into education, there has been a major cut in TAFE funding, a major cut in higher education funding and a movement to user-pays based academic education in the universities rather than a merit based education. That move is a great negative and one which I think we will regret in the future. I always saw a great distinction between higher education in Australia and higher education in many other countries where you could only get into university if you had parents who were affluent. I am saddened by the fact that we are seeing a movement here in Australia where students are not getting into university based on how hard they work and how bright they are; students are getting into university on the basis of how much mummy and daddy can provide financially. That is a pretty poor situation.Going back to the bill: those three payments which are presently made by DEETYA will now be administered through Social Security. I understand that as of 1 July 1998 these payments will come from Centrelink. The transition is not as straightforward as we would like to be told by the government. As there seems to be every time a change is put forward by the government, there is a nip here and a tuck there. Somehow the people involved always come out of the transitional process with just a little bit less and in some cases a lot less than they started with. This is exactly what is happening with this bill.As always with this government, the people who are worst off—ordinary Australians, families who do not have big incomes—are the people who pay in the end. We saw that last night. I suspect, as long as we have this government, we will continue to see that the people who pay are the people on low incomes who are ordinary Australians.Who are the people who will be worse off as a result of this bill? Personal income tax currently allows students to earn $6,000 before their Austudy entitlement is reduced by 50c for each $1 earned. This new bill proposes that only the first $80 per fortnight of additional income be reduced at the 50 per cent rate and that after that reduction will be 70c in the dollar; in other words, a much steeper taper. My belief is that this sort of very steep taper is quite contrary to public policy and the way we have been treating the integration of government payments and income over some period of time.There is always a very big concern with these steep tapers that the steeper you make the taper, the more people lose when they earn some small additional income and the more likely it is that people receiving these payments will be discouraged from earning additional income. This is bad. It is bad for students because they do not have the advantage of additional income. It is also bad for the government and for the rest of the taxpaying community because, if students do not make an effort to earn additional income, in the end government payments will be higher.I am very concerned to see this sharpening of the taper, the taking of more money from students when they earn small amounts of additional income. I might go back to this later and give some further examples of it. This particular cut-out provision also applies where income is earned by the partners of Austudy recipients.There is another group of losers in the bill, that is, students who are over 25 years and are living at home. There seems to be some discussion about the government giving way on this issue. If that is the case, I will be very pleased to hear that. Possibly Senator Newman, when she speaks to the Senate later today, might point it out. This is not a large group—it has been estimated to be 1,000 students—but these students have been particularly adversely affected because a new at-home rate for over-25s has been introduced which means a reduction of approximately $90 a fortnight for those on the maximum rate. For students on limited income such as Austudy, $90 a fortnight is a large amount of money. I am sure many senators would be a little upset if they lost about a quarter of their income with the stroke of a pen, as seems to be occurring here.Apparently, this will be a fairly minor cost saving of $2.35 million a year. I encourage the government to review their position on this particular matter and, if possible, announce to the Senate that they will not be proceeding with this fairly retrograde step in relation to this group of people who live at home and are over the age of 25.Another major concern with the way the bill is being implemented is the fact that it comes into effect on 1 July this year. I can understand that the minister feels some pressure from the Minister for Finance and Administration to put in place the government's budget savings, but it seems to me rather extraordinary to put a change in place right in the middle of the academic year.Young people have made decisions about their future, about whether they should be studying or whether they should be seeking work, based on the circumstances that existed at the beginning of the academic year—for most people, I suppose, that is early February. And then, suddenly, along comes the coalition government which makes a decision to review all the regulations that affect them, and to put this into place on 1 July this year. I really believe that the government should have some serious thought about this. Is it really fair to change the rules and regulations halfway through the academic year? It may well mean that some people, who have done six months in a course, suddenly find their circumstances have changed and they can no longer afford to continue. So they have to go off and either get a job or, sadly, go onto unemployment benefits and the effort and expense that they and the educational institution have gone to will be wasted.Alternatively, I suppose, there could be circumstances where young people might have gone into education if they had known these changes were coming, but who had made a decision not to, and to seek work or do something else. It would seem to me much more logical and fairer to everyone concerned to put these changes into place at the beginning of the next academic year. Maybe, when the minister is on her feet, she could also explain what the great necessity is for putting this into place in the middle of the year. Certainly, I personally cannot see any great benefit that is gained. I believe that a lot of young people will find this change in the middle of the year very difficult.Another negative that arises from this legislation is the fact that those students who are over 25 will not be receiving rental assistance. I do not know whether the government believes that those over 25 suddenly do not need accommodation or, alternatively, that once you reach 25 you have access to some cheaper form of accommodation that those under 25 do not have. But this does not seem to me to be the case. It certainly seems unfair not to allow one group of people to have access to rent assistance just because they reach the age of 25 years, even though their personal circumstances and, I suppose, their financial circumstances have not really changed.There is one other matter that I would like to raise that is of concern in the bill, though I hope it will be remedied, and that is that much of the detail of the student loan scheme—this is set out in the Student and Youth Assistance Act—are missing from this bill entirely. I do understand that this bill gives the power to the government to establish the scheme and I think it was originally suggested that the vast bulk of the scheme would be set out in regulations to be dealt with at some later stage. But I have to say that there is a great deal of concern within the student population that, if it is to be done in that secondary way, some of the provisions could be changed to be less generous or, alternatively, the regulations in the lead-up to an election and post the budget could be lost. It appears that Mr Howard is suggesting that this could be the last session. We obviously do not have a lot of time to get legislation through. They are very concerned that, in fact, between now and the election this particular group of regulations could be lost.We ask the minister to give an undertaking, when she is on her feet, that the provisions for the student loan scheme will be incorporated within the Social Security Act as soon as possible. We also ask her to give a commitment as to a certain date when this might occur and an assurance that it will, in fact, take place before the election is held—whenever that might be. Certainly, if in the lead-up to the election the student loans schemes were to be lost entirely, it would be a great loss to a large number of students who rely on it to assist them in getting through their education.There are some positive amendments. They are fairly minor in this bill and I really feel, in fairness, I should mention them. I am sure that any that I miss, the minister will take great pains to draw the chamber's attention to. One of them is that there has been a fairly major change for assessing income for students—from an annual to a fortnightly estimate. That is a positive thing, because for many students—with the ups and downs of their income over the year—it is very hard to estimate accurately what their annual income might be. In fact, this often leads to overpayments, which means that students have a difficult time having to repay the money. Alternatively, they find at the end they have overestimated and they get the money back. But they will have suffered a great deal of financial distress throughout the year and, even though that might give them a little bonanza at the end of the year, it probably would have been nice for them to be able to access that money for what it was meant to be used for, and that is for their support throughout the year.There is somewhat of a concern in the shift from taxable income to gross income, as this could reduce the entitlements of some students to what used to be called Austudy. I suppose, to some extent, we are prepared to wait and see on this issue. There may be some minor losers—I hope not. But I hope that some of the advantages of greater flexibility for students will offset some of the problems that are created by this change.The positive amendments are minor ones but I am sure they will be gratefully received by the students. They include an additional three days payment in the changeover. I suppose they could have one good weekend before they lose it all. In fairness, I suppose this additional three days will be of some assistance. It is largely due to the fact that there is a changeover in the cycle of payments between Austudy and social security payments. I suppose we should be grateful that they have not made a decision to do the reverse, which is to take three days from students to make the cycles align. I am grateful that they have been given an additional three days. Personally, I still believe that this slight benefit does not offset the disruption and difficulties created by introducing the scheme in the middle of the year, but I suppose it would have been worse if they had lost some money.There is also the introduction of a liquid assets test for students. I understand that there is a broadening of the exemptions for the liquid assets test to allow for the educational expenses that relate to students. This is a matter that I would like to clarify in the committee stage.Overall, the opposition is still concerned about some of the negative aspects of this bill. We are concerned about the fact that the whole package of bills is stated by the government to encourage young people back to education but at the same time this government is slashing and burning in terms of its funding of education. We are fearful that the additional strain put on schools and other educational institutions may hurt those people being educated now. (Time expired)09:54:002615Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Before I begin to address some of the problems associated with this consequential bill, I would like to place on the record some comments related to the passage of the original youth allowance bill in March of this year. On behalf of the Greens (WA) I moved 56 amendments to the youth allowance legislation in March in an attempt to curtail many of the harsh measures contained in the bill. Unfortunately, the Senate caved in to government threats to shelve the entire youth allowance scheme if they did not get their way, and many of the important, commonsense amendments proposed by the Greens and the Democrats were rejected. I hope we will not see a repeat of that situation with this bill. The job of the Senate is to make amendments to legislation to effect benefits to the Australian community or to prevent harm—not to be a rubber stamp for unjust government changes when they threaten the Senate with double dissolution triggers.I will now go over some of fee key areas in the March debate. I am sure many of the issues raised will come back before this chamber when they start to impact upon the community. To start on a brighter note, government plans to force 16- and 17-year-olds to be engaged in education in order to receive youth allowance were changed. The Greens (WA) were successful in moving an amendment which allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to undertake employment case management as an alternative to full-time study. Thankfully, this change was accepted by the House of Representatives, despite the government's opposition to it in the Senate.The Greens (WA) were also successful with amendments which allowed de facto couples with a relationship of 12 months to qualify as a youth allowance couple, improved notification requirements, and ameliorated criteria relating to independence as a self-supporting person.Now for the bad news. In relation to the age of independence, one of the key aspects of the youth allowance is the parental means test. At least 45,000 young people will have their payments reduced or abolished due to the amount of money their parents earn. However, if a young person is classified as independent they are exempt from the parental means test. The government set the age of independence at 21 for the young unemployed and at 25 for full-time students. The Greens (WA) moved amendments to have the age of independence set at 18 for both students and the unemployed. The Greens (WA) also supported amendments by the Australian Greens and the Democrats to have the age of independence set at 21 for students and 18 for the young unemployed. Unfortunately, all age of independence amendments were defeated. It is worth noting that while the ALP supported the age of independence being 18 for young unemployed, they did not support the age of independence for students being lowered from 25, contrary to their policy when in government.The parental income free area basically sets the level at which parents' income starts to affect the youth allowance payments of a young person. This level was set at $23,400 per annum for both parents. The Greens (WA) moved amendments to set this amount to the average weekly ordinary time earnings figure of approximately $36,000 per annum. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated by the government and Senator Harradine.Rent assistance for students was the big `carrot' in the youth allowance package. Whenever the Greens (WA) spoke to the government about changes to the bill, we were told that any extra cost incurred by our suggested changes would prevent rent assistance being paid to students. In other words, this measure was included to play one group of young people off against another. The young people did not fall for it, however.In any case, the youth allowance rent assistance provisions remained restrictive for students. Some will not receive it because they are not paying enough rent—a person's rent has to amount to 28 per cent of their maximum allowance before it can be paid. Others will not receive it because it is being paid only to those who need to live away from home, as opposed to those who choose to live away from home—or find it difficult to prove under the government's restrictive category. Of those who are left, many will receive only two-thirds of the maximum because they will be sharing a house. The Greens (WA) and other parties moved amendments to remove those restrictions, but unfortunately they were defeated by the government and Senator Harradine.On the youth allowance activity agreement, the Greens (WA) amendment sought to exempt full-time students from the possibility of having to enter into a youth allowance activity agreement or lose their benefit. This was defeated by the government, Senator Harradine and the ALP. It means that the department could require a student to perform a range of activities if, for example, the secretary of the department considered that the full-time student was not performing satisfactorily in their course.And we have the work for the dole, of course. The Greens (WA) moved amendments to remove provisions which allow for the young unemployed to be forced into a work for the dole program or lose their benefit under the youth allowance legislation. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated by the government, Senator Harradine and the ALP. And just look at the budget and see what the impacts are this time.The government's youth allowance scheme retains the controversial actual means test that exists under Austudy. However, it leaves most of the detail on how the actual means test operates to regulations and guidelines. The ability for the department and the minister to botch these regulations has been dramatically evidenced during the last two years with the mishandling of the actual means test, leading to the downfall of Senator Vanstone and continuing problems for previously self-employed independent students caught by the test. The Greens (WA), the Democrats and the ALP all moved amendments that the actual means test be in the legislation in full or not at all. Unfortunately, they were all defeated by the government and Senator Harradine.On the industrial action exclusion, the Greens (WA) moved to amend sections which prevent youth allowance being paid to people who are unemployed due to industrial action. The provisions even prevent a person receiving youth allowance if they are a member of a trade union involved in industrial action which leads to the person's unemployment. Doesn't that sound familiar! Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated by the government, Senator Harradine and—wait for it—the ALP.I now turn my attention to some of the changes proposed in this bill and foreshadow some of the vital amendments which the Greens (WA) will be moving. First of all, rent assistance for students over 25. When the proposed changes to payments for students under the youth allowance bill were debated earlier this year, the big carrot was the long overdue payment of rent assistance to full-time students. While the Greens did not agree with many of the regressive changes which were traded off for the provision of student rent assistance, we did welcome this long overdue change.Predictably, the government trumpeted the introduction of student rent assistance as reflective of their commitment to students and delivery of their promises made in opposition. All those who criticised the youth allowance package were chided by Senator Newman for ignoring the provision of rent assistance. Organisations such as the National Union of Students and APAC were derided for not embracing the youth allowance changes on the basis of the provision of rent assistance to students. In fact, one could say that it was one of Senator Newman's favourite sales pitches when selling the youth allowance package to the young people of Australia.It seems proven that this so-called commitment to students receiving rent assistance was nothing more than a trade-off for the regressive changes in the last youth allowance bill. But, really, where is the real commitment to providing rent assistance for students? In this bill, all students who happen to begin their studies after the age of 25 will be ineligible for rent assistance. Perhaps they do not have to pay rent if they are over 25.We will have a ridiculous situation in which a person who begins study when aged 24 years and 11 months—and therefore receiving youth allowance—will be entitled to rent assistance whereas someone who begins study at 25 years and one month—and therefore receiving the new Austudy payment contained in this consequential bill—will not be entitled to rent assistance. All in all, there will be 35,000 people around Australia who will be discriminated against by virtue of the fact that they have been unable to begin study until the age of 25.We know how quickly things are changing. We know how the blame for unemployment is being put on the individual—the need to keep up, the need to be relevant—and now the government may be punishing people for the situation they are in. How absolutely ridiculous; how utterly insensitive; how manifestly inequitable.I assure all senators in this place that this issue will haunt those who do not support such a basic point of equity. I assure you that a situation in which students of the same age, studying the same course, and in exactly the same financial situation, receive benefits which differ by up to $75 per fortnight will be an ongoing source of justifiable anger, frustration and disillusionment. Perhaps we can pass a law which says that students are not permitted to talk about their allowances. I urge senators to support the Greens (WA) amendment to allow all students access to rent assistance if they need it. After all, isn't consistency what the whole youth allowance package is supposed to be about?Currently there are about 1,000 students aged over 25 who live with their parents. The current Austudy system, quite sensibly, makes no demarcation between over 25s living away from home and those remaining at home. The current maximum rate for these students, provided they are not long-term income support students—in which case they receive more—is $265.39. However, under the provisions of this consequential bill, from 1 July their payment will be reduced to $174.80 literally overnight.Most of these people have no idea that such a change is coming. In fact no-one apart from a few people in the Department of Social Security knew this was coming until March this year. So these people who have been tightly budgeting on their existing meagre payments are about to be kicked in the teeth with a reduction of about $90 per fortnight, which will cause confusion, anxiety and real financial hardship. This is what you get for being a full-time mature age student who has taken up the government call to educate yourself and contribute to your community.Even this government recognises that those over 25 are financially independent from their parents. The Greens (WA) argued vigorously during the debate on the youth allowance bill that those people should be considered independent at 18 for the purposes of student assistance—as they are under just about every other law in society. Nevertheless, even using the government's definition of independence at age 25, the logic of applying a different rate of payment to those who happen to live at home is entirely inconsistent.Let us look at who we are considering whacking with this 33 per cent reduction in payment. Many of these people will be in a situation where their parents are elderly—perhaps on an aged pension or living on superannuation payments. Remember that this is the government that says that $60,000 or $65,000 for a couple is okay to qualify for a health card. So while it is concentrating on blaming and punishing students and young people, the government is looking at increasing its own votes in this forthcoming election.If a student's parents are elderly, perhaps on an age pension or living on superannuation payments, what sense is there in reducing the amount they can contribute to the family home? Does this government really want to force students over 25 out of the family home in a situation where they are assisting their aged parents? Perhaps Senator Newman wants these 25-, 30-, or 40-year-olds to be going cap in hand to their 55-, 60-, 70- or 80-year-old parents for some pocket money as of 1 July. The whole idea is rather offensive and cruel, to say the least.The Greens (WA) will be moving amendments to remove the artificial distinctions in both this bill and in the yet to be proclaimed youth allowance bill between over-25s living at home and those living away from home. We also have a `break glass in case of emergency' grandfathering amendment which, in the extraordinary circumstance that the situation for students aged 25 and over is not returned to normal, means that at least those who are currently in receipt of Austudy will retain a maximum rate of $265.50 a fortnight for the remainder of their course.Under the liquid assets test, students can be excluded from receiving youth allowance or Austudy payments for up to 13 weeks if they have more than $2,500 in the bank. In the previous youth allowance debate, the Greens argued for the liquid assets test to be eased for students, given that many people, especially those over 25, often save more than the limit to use for legitimate education expenses such as computer software, transport to university and many other costs integral to pursuing their course of education.The Greens (WA) felt that it would be unfair for a student to be penalised for up to 13 weeks for being responsible enough to save money for education expenses not specifically covered in the current guidelines. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated. On this occasion, we are simply asking that the allowable deductions be placed in the legislation rather than in the attached guidelines, for both youth allowance and Austudy payments for over-25s, and that the deductions specifically include computer software and other matters necessary for a course of study as approved by the secretary. I look forward to this amendment receiving government support, as was indicated to my office by Senator Newman's staff.We stated in the last Senate debate on youth allowance that the concept of the student income bank is a good one as it allows students who typically earn their extra money in the holiday periods effectively to spread their earnings over the year without running the risk of receiving overpayments. We support the idea of students receiving $230 per fortnight or earning credits up to a maximum $6,000 before their earnings begin to affect their youth allowance or Austudy payments.However, there is a potential glitch, both immediate and ongoing, which could undermine the effectiveness of the student income bank and cause unnecessary hardship. The problem we have identified relates to those who happen to earn a significant amount of their extra income when they first receive youth allowance or Austudy. For example, a person who has been receiving Austudy this year will be transferred to the new payment system on 1 July. If they had planned, say, to pick fruit for three weeks during their July break, they would be expecting to be able to earn up to $1,500 without affecting their Austudy payments, as was the case under the old system.However, because the new student income bank has an opening balance of zero, it will take nearly 12 weeks before this person has enough credit in their student income bank to prevent these earnings affecting their payments. In fact, in this entirely typical example, the person's payments will cease altogether for a month. This is going to cause much distress for the hardworking students who have the initiative to find holiday work in order to afford textbooks and other essential costs—perhaps when the tyres blow on their old car—in the second half of the year.In addition, as many students will be taking exams and then be on holidays during the introduction of the new system, the removal of their payments will come as a complete surprise. This situation will be ongoing for all those who take up youth allowance or Austudy payments during a holiday period in which they have the initiative to take on casual or one-off work opportunities.On 12 March 1998, during the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) said:There are differences in this element between students and the young unemployed. Students have a much more constrained opportunity to take work because of the nature of their studies and their time commitments. It is much more difficult for them to take part-time work during the year, but they can take it during semester breaks and the long break during the summer. That is why we have tried to make special arrangements for students.To put that in context, it shows the inability of the government to see that it could allow up to $15 a week for people on youth allowance—mingy as that is. Clearly, in the examples I have given, the well-intentioned aims that the minister has expressed are not going to be achieved.The Greens (WA) have proposed an amendment which may serve to ease this problem by changing the opening credit balance in the student income bank to $2,000—hardly a sovereign's ransom—rather than zero. However, we would welcome any other amendments from senators which address the rather serious problem we have identified. It must also be said that this highlights a potential problem for all students who plan to earn a substantial amount of their $6,000 extra income in the first few months of the period in which they receive youth allowance or Austudy. It seems that these people will, in fact, be worse off under the new student income bank than they are under the current system.Clearly, quite a bit of work has to be done before this package is ready to be unleashed on the unsuspecting youth and student community of Australia, therefore, I sincerely hope that the government takes a cooperative approach during the committee stage of this bill.10:13:002619Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—In speaking to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 , which is a complementary bill to the youth allowance bill which was passed by this parliament earlier this year, I am unfortunately reminded yet again of how the government treats education. Over the past two years, the coalition has put education and training at the top of its hit list. Australia now stands alone amongst the developed nations of the world as the only nation with an increasing ratio of military to education spending. The Howard government is the first in our history to scale back the level of public education, research and training funding.Already Labor has made clear it that it has a huge agenda for broadening educational opportunities. The Labor Party has historically and will always continue to view education as the best investment in our nation's future. Labor is committed to regrowing the university and TAFE sectors, with the latter sector alone having $240 million cut from it by the coalition.Labor is also committed to abolishing up-front undergraduate fees—so proudly introduced by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) in one of his regular ideological bouts of zealotry against the public education system. Labor is determined to offer a better way—to treat education spending as an investment rather than a cost, to restore fairness and growth of post-secondary access, and to strengthen our society and its economy through the higher education and TAFE systems. In the original youth allowance legislation, we have already witnessed how this government is prepared to further burden the battling families of Australia with the responsibility for the income support of their unemployed young adult children aged 18 to 20. Never mind that this provision applies to families earning as little as $23,400. According to the coalition, these families are considered relatively well off and capable of fully supporting their unemployed children. I do not think anybody would regard a family income of $23,400 as relatively well off; I would consider them to be battling. For ideological and cost saving interests, the coalition are denying that young adults aged 18 to 20 are independent and should not be forced under the imposition of parental income assets and actual means test requirements.At the same time, the coalition have failed to tackle the youth unemployment issue, with the rate well over half a percentage point higher than when the coalition government was elected—despite lower participation rates. This is a failure of the personal pledge made by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on election night that his highest priority was to make major inroads on youth unemployment. Like that pledge, this bill continues the coalition's policy failure towards Australia's young people. It continues to remove their sense of identity and independence and replaces it with a mean-spirited, strict and rigid set of requirements before any income assistance is forthcoming. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 contains a large number of measures to transfer program elements from DEETYA to the Department of Social Security. It also creates a new Austudy payment under the Social Security Act which will replace the existing Austudy scheme for students over 25 who are not covered under the new youth allowance payment. Also contained in this bill are a series of draconian measures such as activity tests, waiting periods and income maintenance periods, which are new initiatives not found in the existing Austudy legislation. Their existence is designed purely to hinder access to income support and save money for this government.As a result of this bill and earlier legislation, it is not difficult to identify why the coalition will have cut $500 million to Austudy before the end of its first three years of government. In general, the rates and conditions affecting former Austudy students under DEETYA will be significantly altered by this legislation. First, under section 569G of the bill, the secretary to the Department of Social Security has the legal authority to make judgment on secondary students in receipt of Austudy. It is the secretary's judgment as to whether a student is making `satisfactory progress' through their secondary studies. Under the current Austudy regulations, a student's school had to be satisfied that the student was doing sufficient work to satisfy the test of being full time. It is difficult to see why this change has been made as schools are generally in the best position to make this judgment. It is to be hoped the departmental secretary does not exercise an unrealistic expectation of `satisfactory progress'.This bill also applies new terms which were never mentioned in the previous Austudy legislation. Two in particular—the `waiting period' in proposed section 575 and `income maintenance period' in proposed section 1067L-D6—are draconian measures aimed at depriving students access to welfare support. Waiting periods are an application of the liquid assets test waiting period and effectively will deny students access to support until all their existing liquid assets have been run down; for example, any personal savings in their bank account.Similarly, the income maintenance periods will apply to those seeking support but who have received a prior termination payment, lump sum leave payment or other leave payment prior to taking up study. This will act as a major disincentive to people to seek training and education opportunities. Already these people are making a financially costly decision by leaving to work to pursue a study opposition. Why is the government providing a further barrier to their aspirations and preventing their ability to better their education achievements?Apart from these particularly mean-spirited initiatives, there are a range of other measures in this bill which have previously never existed under Austudy legislation or are simply inconsistent with other initiatives the coalition have announced in other areas of welfare support. For instance, a non-payment period exists where a newstart recipient who has breached in any way the activity test carries over to Austudy the penalty provisions incurred under newstart. This is coupled with a rate reduction period in that a person who has already had their payment suspended or cancelled has to—on reactivation of their eligibility—be subject to a rate reduction period. This is a form of double punishment, which is particularly unfair to those students who are unaware of their original error in the first instance.This bill also contains a lower rate of payment for those undertaking short-term studies. This is inconsistent with any existing Austudy requirements and it will lead to greater inflexibility and fewer options for students in the non-university environment. In particular, many students at various business colleges and training academies doing short, practical courses will be affected.One of the most glaring inconsistencies in this legislation with other welfare support measures is the existence of a lesser payment rate category for students who are living at home with their parents. Under the new arrangements for newstart allowance, a person aged 21 or more and living at home is paid the same as a person who is not living at home. The existence of this living at home provision in the new Austudy payment is purely a cost saving measure and makes a mockery of the coalition's much lauded claims of consistency between welfare payments.It is equalled in its money saved obsession by the new student income arrangements. Under these initiatives, a student's entitlement will be reduced by 50c for each dollar earned between $230 and $310 per fortnight and by 70c for each dollar earned over $310. Further, a student will lose 70c of Austudy payment for each dollar by which their spouse's income exceeds the spouse free area. These terms do not exist in the current Austudy measures and they are therefore significantly harsher than the current Austudy income provisions.The coalition is sending a message to students who come from battling families and who want to supplement their incomes while studying to back off from seeking a part-time job. The coalition is telling these people that part-time jobs in Australia can only be taken by either the very poor or the sons and daughters of those parents who are already wealthy and who do not require welfare support.There will be a major proportion of the student population forced to make a decision between accepting a part-time position and regularly forfeiting part of their Austudy because they have earned too much or deciding to put their studies on hold. Unfortunately, through financial pressures I believe many will be forced to choose the latter option and risk being lost to the education sector indefinitely.I call on the government to reconsider the fine detail in some of these initiatives. When they do they will discover that several of their initiatives are either unrealistically harsh or are inconsistent with other measures they have introduced. I accept that the creation of the youth allowance is necessarily a technical and complex task as it represents a merger of previous disparate income support payments.However, I believe the intention of the coalition has not just been to rationalise and streamline Australia's system of income support payments but to re-align and alter the purposes and origins of many of these payments. In the process, they are fundamentally changing the nature of Australia's social security system and denying many people the principles of fairness and equity which have been inherent in the system for the past half a century.10:27:002621Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to address the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 . Following on from some of the comments of Senator Gibbs, I think we all appreciate that there are aspects of this bill that are in the interests of the nation—such as the streamlining of payments—and at all stages the Democrats have been willing acknowledge those positive elements of the bill. At all stages during the debate on the previous legislation and during this debate we have also acknowledged that there are a number of hidden nasties and some not so hidden nasties in this bill.Reference has been made in previous speeches in this debate in this place to the low threshold at which the parental means testing kicks in and the fact that it has always been a cause for concern. Despite attempts by the Australian Democrats to amend that very low threshold, we were unsuccessful. That threshold remains at that incredibly low level of just over $23,000 per annum. That is something about which we continue to object.Another aspect of the common youth allowance is the nature of payments to 16- and 17-year-olds who are not in some form of employment, education and training. We have strongly objected to the fact that those 16- and 17-year-olds will, in most cases, receive no benefits whatsoever. At all stages we have said that we are concerned about that. Not only that, we are concerned that there are no employment opportunities or strategies being created to deal with those 16- and 17-year-olds who, for whatever reason, may not be participating in the education, training or employment sectors.The other aspect that has been mentioned by both Senators Neal and Margetts is the age at which young people will be considered independent—that is, the age they will be considered adults for the purpose of receiving the youth allowance. Again, the Democrats tried very hard to ameliorate the worst aspects of this bill. In particular, we tried to decrease the age at which young people were eligible for the independent rate of the youth allowance—in the case of young unemployed people to 18. I concur with Senator Neal that it is outrageous that young people should be considered dependent upon their families up to the age of 21 if they are unemployed and, similarly, up to age of 25—an absolutely concocted notion of independence—if they are in some form of education and training.Unfortunately, the attempts by the Democrats, with the support of the Greens (WA), to amend both those aspects of the bill but in particular the latter, the age of independence for a student, were defeated. The latter was defeated with the support of the Australian Labor Party. Again we put on record our concern that young people and students were not supported by the opposition in relation to the age of independence.The bill before us does a number of things, including establishing a new Austudy payment for students who are 25 and over. I understand that some market research has gone into determining the best name and way of promoting the new Austudy payment. The bill also establishes a pensioner education supplement, PES, as currently exists, for common youth allowance, Austudy and PES recipients, and provides the details of the supplement loan scheme for the youth allowance and the Austudy payment.We have said many times that we believe the common youth allowance, despite some positive elements, will hit hardest at those young people who are on a lower socioeconomic scale—from lower paid and middle income families. They are the ones we anticipate will lose most under this legislation. The Democrats believe that the decisions made by this government in relation to the common youth allowance have overlooked many of the economic and social realities of family life today. I note that only last night the Treasurer, Mr Costello, was very keen to promote his budget as one that would assist families and young people. Already we have before us a measure that hits hardest at those two very groups. I should note that we can only begin to anticipate some of the economic and social hardships that will be wrought on families as a consequence of legislation such as the increased economic burdens for families where parents are going to be responsible, financially at least, for their children who are students up to the age of 25.The government claims that these incentives or proposals have been introduced to encourage young people to participate and stay longer in the education and training sectors. I think many of those young people who are affected by this legislation in one way or the other will be asking the government why it has not put as much effort into job creation as perhaps some of the efforts it has put into scapegoating young people with schemes such as work for the dole, dob in a dole bludger or employer contact units, which overlook some of the extensive voluntary work that many young people do. I think we have seen a distinct lack of job creation measures for young people in this budget, let alone some form of assistance to the education and training spheres, which are apparently so important to this government that it would want young people to stay in them for longer.I note, to follow on from Senator Margetts's comments, that the work for the dole scheme was extended in last night's budget to cater for another 25,000 young people. I still put to the government: what jobs will those young people occupy when they have finished their work for the dole? Even if they do take up the common youth allowance and education and training places, what job opportunities will be available to those young people when they have finished?UW4CRANESenator Crane—More than they had before!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I will take that interjection, if you are not careful, Senator Crane. If you can point out one job creation strategy in last night's budget I will take my hat off to you. No-one disputes the notion that young people staying in education and training is not bad; no-one suggests that it is not a good thing—of course it is. We believe very much that education and training and access to knowledge and skill development is one way of ensuring that we have an enlightened work force and one that is competitive. That is the way job opportunities of the future will be occupied by young Australians, and indeed older Australians, if they have a sound skills base and understanding of technology and changes. However, you cannot suggest that young people should stay in education and training longer without providing sufficient and adequate resourcing of those sectors, such as technical and further education, higher education and, of course, schools. But, as opposed to introducing incentives, certainly last night's budget did nothing to change the situation. We have seen only barriers put up in front of younger, and indeed older Australians, in relation to access to education and training. The barriers are the fees and charges that are obvious disincentives, as well as financial assistance packages that remain below the poverty line.If this government really wanted to fulfil its election promises to give hope to young Australians it would be giving some realistic education and training opportunities. It would not be putting up fees and charges and other barriers to education, at whatever level. It would provide young people with realistic and adequate levels of income support, not income like Austudy or the common youth allowance which, at its maximum rate, is only 60 per cent of the poverty line. It would fulfil what it likes to refer to as mutual obligation. We certainly heard a lot from the government last night about that.In relation to this bill, the Democrats will seek to amend various parts of it with the introduction of a rent assistance component for Austudy payment. Under the provisions of the bill, rent assistance will be made available to students who are eligible and receive the youth allowance. That is under the social security youth allowance legislation. This bill does not make comparable provisions for students who are 25 years or over when they begin their study or qualify for benefits due to their age related independent status.The Democrats will seek to delete the at-home rate for a single person over the age of 25 and the living with a parent category at the rate of $174.80 per fortnight, as opposed to what was $265.50 per fortnight. Under this rate a single mature adult living with their parent for whatever reason—for safety, security, or to provide a small amount of care—will not be treated as an independent adult, and we have a problem with that. Not content with treating young Australians as children up until their 25th birthday—certainly in the case of young students—this government is prepared to treat anyone who continues to live in the family home as dependent. We have a major concern with that and we will also seek to amend it in a way that Senator Margetts has indicated.The Democrats will also seek an extension of the minimum time for students with an intellectual or physical disability. Twenty-five per cent of concessional load students should be given more time than simply twice the normal full time to complete their course. The government—and it may want to clarify this—expects those students to transfer to disability support payments, which to me would defeat the very purpose of the government's claim that it is trying to streamline and ensure there is a social security system which is more seamless. This bill changes the way in which the eligibility of a student over 25 for an Austudy payment is assessed by changing this assessment from taxable to gross income and so removing the need for the rather controversial actual means test. The Democrats support this. However, there is the concern currently that students will not be able to claim certain self-education expenses due to recent rulings. The Democrats do believe that these should be tax deductible. I acknowledge that this should be viewed perhaps as a separate issue and I understand that it is currently the subject of an ATO draft ruling. We do call for self-education expenses to be made tax deductible. The Democrats' second reading amendment to this bill acknowledges the fact that we have had substandard student financial assistance provided by this government, or certainly that this government has perpetuated an inadequate system of student assistance that has previously existed. The Democrats have always complained about the fact that the Austudy scheme has been below the poverty line. This bill does nothing to change that. I move:At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate condemns the Howard Government's perpetuation of a student allowance which is not a living allowance and is of the view that rent assistance should now be, and should always have been, made accessible to Austudy recipients".The Melbourne Economic and Social Research Institute sets the poverty line for December 1997 for a single person, and this includes housing, at $200.37 per week. The new Austudy payment is set at a maximum basic rate of $265.50 per fortnight, or $132.75 per week. The at-home rate is set at $247.80 per fortnight, or $123.90 per week. In December 1997 the unemployment benefit was $160.75 per week. The rent assistance available to these people was averaged by the Melbourne Economic and Social Research Institute at $37.40. That brings the total benefits available to an unemployed adult to $198.15, and that is just $2.22 shy of the poverty line. I should acknowledge that pensioners are indeed above the poverty line. Without the rent assistance available to the unemployed or even to a common youth allowance student, the recipients of the new Austudy payments will be a lot more than simply $2 shy of the poverty line. The Democrats have put on record, a number of times now, our concern with the common youth allowance scheme. We made attempts in the last discussion on this legislation to alleviate some of the worst aspects of the bill. We will be doing the same specifically in relation to the rent assistance issue during the committee stage of this bill. We believe very strongly that this government and, indeed, former governments of a Labor persuasion, stand condemned on the issue of student assistance.We acknowledge the words of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. He may have promised that no child need live in poverty, yet he and his successors, whether it is Keating or whether it is Howard, have stood back and effectively condemned hundreds of thousands of students to poverty as a result of the meagre benefits that they have been able to access. We will be supporting the changes to rent assistance in line with the request by the National Union of Students. We urge all parties, especially the opposition, to support those amendments regarding rent assistance.10:41:002624Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—In speaking to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill, I pick up the Democrats' proposition that the Labor Party ought to be condemned for its record on student assistance when it was in government. Once again we hear from the Democrats a sanctimonious, turgid response which is completely irrelevant to the facts, as of course is well-known to this parliament. There was a 164 per cent increase in student income support measures under the Labor government, which is an historic all-time high. We hear from the Democrats this hypocritical response where they seek to distance themselves from what I believe to be quite extraordinary achievements of the Labor government in higher education.It is important to remind the Senate that between 1983 and 1995 there was a 73 per cent increase in the number of students in higher education. The number of students commencing higher education increased by 91 per cent over that period. University participation rates increased from 37 per thousand in the 17- to 64-year-old population cohort in 1984 to 51 per thousand in 1994. Those are a few figures that I haveavailable. While those figures are a little dated, it does indicate to me that the Labor Party's record in higher education is one that we ought to be rightly proud of. I quite frankly find it extraordinary that the Democrats persist in putting these positions which are completely at odds with the facts. There are a whole series of indices which highlight that the Labor Party has a very good record when it comes to the question of higher education in this country.In terms of this bill, what you have is a bill being introduced to complete the administra tive arrangements for the introduction of the common youth allowance. It establishes Austudy payments within the Social Security Act and provides income support for students commencing study at the age of 25 or over. This bill is about administrative arrangements, but if it were merely about administrative arrangements one could expect that the impact on students would be negligible. Of course the facts are somewhat different. What you will see as a result of these changes is that many students will be significantly worse off.In moving students from the education portfolio to the social security portfolio, the government is subjecting those students to a harsher income test which will leave some of them $62 a fortnight worse off. Currently, students can earn $6,000 of personal income before their Austudy entitlement is reduced. After that, their entitlement declines by 50c for each dollar of additional income. This bill proposes that only the first $80 a fortnight of additional income be reduced at the 50c rate. After that, the reduction will be 70c in the dollar. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard tables which outline the figures as the Labor Party has calculated them.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Is leave granted?BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Leave will not be withheld, but I did ask Senator Carr to do me the courtesy of giving me a copy. That was an hour ago, and I think it is very strange that he did not observe the courtesy and honour his acknowledgment that he would do that. These are tables of figures produced by the ALP. There is no other certification on them as to where they come from. It is not the way this chamber operates. I find it unacceptable, and he deserves a reprimand.Leave granted.The tables read as follows—Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998Estimated impact of changes to income tests/new tapering arrangementsIndependent studentsStudent IncomeCurrent F/N rateProposed F/N rateLoss$pa$$$6,000265265-9,000207200710,0001881731511,0001691462312,0001501193113,000131923914,0001116546 15,00092385416,000731162Current cut-off of entitlement occurs at income of $17,839Cut-off under proposed arrangements: below $16,500Independent students with assessable partner (no child)Partner incomeCurrent F/N rateProposed F/N rateLoss$pa$$$14,750265265-16,000241232917,0002222051718,0002031782519,0001831513221,000145974823,000107436425,00068-68Current cut-off of entitlement occurs at partner income of $26,589Cut-off under proposed arrangements: below $25,000Note: figures are approximateAW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I thank the Minister for Social Security for granting that leave. She will notice that the tables highlight that, for many students of independent status, the loss in income as a result of the government's measures ranges, on our estimates, from $7 for those with a student income of $9,000 through to $62 for those with a student income of $16,000. Similar measures will apply to the income of partners of Austudy recipients. Students with an assessable partner and no child will lose some $68 a fortnight if their partner earns $25,000 a year. These are not very large sums of money in terms of income per annum, but they are considerable sums of money per fortnight, if you are a student trying to make ends meet on these very low levels of payment. It is these very simple and easy to demonstrate measures that do disadvantage students so dramatically that the government is, of course, highly conscious of.In a briefing paper produced on 25 March 1998 entitled `Youth allowance media strategy', the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) was advised that there were serious problems emerging with the youth allowance highlighting serious community concerns on a range of issues. It was, of course, pointed out to the minister that:. . . welfare groups such as ACOSS and Youth Action groups such as NUS—and others—have expressed their opposition to parts of the initiative. However, opposition has also come from church groups and organisations with religious affiliations such as Centacare. Vocal opposition from religious groups are a concern for the successful introduction of this initiative as they will have credibility with middle Australia as well as those families affected by the Parental Income Test.As we understand, Ms Wheatley from the youth and student communication team in the Department of Social Security argued to the minister that:We can expect more vocal opposition from families after July 1 when families of young unemployed people start to feel the effect of the Parental Income Test. We can expect disaffected families to air their grievances through the media. She went on to list a range of concerns that were being highlighted by the department, including the fact that unemployed persons over 18 will be financially dependent on their families until they are 21. She expressed the concern that the youth allowance will cause more family disputes and encourage family breakdown. The view was expressed that the youth allowance will cause young people to leave home and leave the security of family support, that it will cause more youth homelessness, and that $23,000 is not a lot of money before the youth allowance starts to cut out because of the parental income test.These are measures that have not picked up the questions that have been raised within this particular bill. Ms Wheatley's advice to the minister failed to highlight the number of other issues of great concern to the Australian public, including the way in which these measures are being introduced without supporting measures to ensure that people have adequate resources when they return to education, be it at school, TAFE college or university. Resourcing to schools is some $100 million short as a consequence of the various measures this government has taken to remove funding from the education system, particularly the public education system, of this country. Of course, these are desperately needed moneys and desperately needed resources to cope with the influx of students that will follow the introduction of these measures.The advice to the minister from Ms Wheatley failed to point out that students will have to be dependent upon their families for support up to the age of 25. This document also highlights the fact that the government proposed a series of deceptive media strategies aimed at trying to persuade people that the actions it was taking were in fact different from the measures actually proposed within these bills.It is suggested that there would be provided `a dedicated officer to monitor media and advise the Minister's Office of appropriate responses.' That is, the old propaganda tools would be provided to the minister, such as liaising with program producers and writing letters to the editor—that old manipulation trick that we have seen put into effect so many times. No doubt there is a whole string of people out there somewhere being organised by the department to ring into radio stations right now to make sure that the talkback programs are well seeded with the particular devious thoughts of this government. I have no doubt that we are seeing a great fertilisation of the public mood in this country to ensure that there is appropriate understanding of the actions this government is taking, which in fact leave 45,000 people worse off as a result.There are measures outlined in this briefing paper to the minister which highlight that this government is seeking to produce publicity products and to distribute information regarding the youth allowance to customers. This will be outlined in an action plan, as advised in the various sections of this document. The measures include:Identify geographical hotspots of young unemployed people and provide extra assistance to Customer Service Officers in these areas.Utilise Business Television to broadcast to community groups and regional media.Develop a Youth Allowance web site . . . And so it goes on. What they did was develop storylines for various TV programs to ensure the right spin was being put on these draconian measures which are doing nothing to assist young unemployed persons. For that matter, by this government's own admission, they are doing nothing to ensure there is a much deeper spread of educational opportunities in this country.What we see in this government's proposals is the introduction of an at-home rate for students 25 years and over living at home. This would mean a rate reduction of some $90 a fortnight for those on the maximum rate. This decision has been made on the extraordinary assumption that students in their late twenties or older and living at home are automatically receiving a substantial level of support from their parents.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You can earn $40,000 a year and get a seniors card.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—That is the whole issue summed up very nicely, Senator Conroy. What we have here is a government that works on the assumption that all the people in this country are nice, comfortable and middle class and that all the people can afford to support their kids, irrespective of their desires or aspirations. It is an assumption based upon this retrospective view of Australian society that sees everyone in the `Hyacinth set' that we so often see expressed by this minister.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Do you think Mr Bucket is eligible for a seniors card?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Perhaps we see the Keeping Up Appearances style of this government reflected in this legislation. Quite clearly, the ideological underpinning of this government's actions is to try to force the parents of this country to support their adult children at school, irrespective of whether they have the resources to do so. It is fundamentally unfair and unjust.What is unreasonable is demonstrated again and again by this government's actions with regard to providing support to Australians to ensure they get the most out of our public institutions and to ensure they are able to fulfil their total potential to contribute to our society. This is a measure, yet again, that will restrict access to publicly supported institutions like our education institutions. It is quite an extraordinary proposition, as Senator Neal pointed out, to suggest that elderly parents struggling to find their way in terms of nursing home fees will still be expected to support their adult children in study.We understand that, as a result of the pressure being applied by the ALP, the government is not proceeding with the introduction of a particularly harsh measure which would have seen up to $45 a week taken out of the at-home rate payments currently being made to some students. Nevertheless, the cuts to some students' payments due to the new income test will be introduced and they will be introduced in the middle of an academic year. As Senator Neal pointed out, these measures seem to reflect some of the problems with having a social security measure being taken on what is essentially an educational program. There is some difficulty here, as I see it, in getting social security payments measures to take into account the educational effect of particular measures that are being introduced by this government. What we have are changed circumstances being introduced in the middle of an academic year, so payments will be made on a different basis to what they were at the beginning of the academic year.What we are also concerned about is the fact that rent assistance will not be available to older students, as it will be to those receiving the youth allowance. This decision of the government is totally unjustified and implies that somehow, on turning 25, students no longer need a roof over their heads. Other measures in the bill, such as the harsher income tapering arrangements, are defended by the government representatives as being necessary because they are in line with what is happening under the youth allowance and with other measures in the Social Security Act. Here we see again the inconsistent approach to the issue of consistency across the Social Security Act. Keeping measures consistent seems to no longer apply, and failure to support older students in this way shows the shallowness of the government's professed commitment to help younger people complete their education.What has to be understood is that these measures are being introduced against the backdrop of some $514 million being taken out of student support measures. These are measures that go to questions such as the cessation of the school incidentals allowance for secondary students, the reduction in the maximum rent assistance payable to singles in shared accommodation, the introduction of a two-year waiting period for students newly arrived from overseas, the tightening of the Austudy actual means test, the raising of the age of independence, and the changes to the range of fringe benefits measures taken into account with other family payments and child-care assistance. What we have is a whole raft of measures which actually reduce assistance to students, and these measures have to be seen in that context.Finally, I would like to draw attention to the important omission from the bill in regard to the financial supplement loan scheme, which was set up by the Labor government in 1993. Under this scheme, students could earn $2 on a loan for every $1 of Austudy entitlement up to a maximum of $3,500. Repayments were not required for five years and only then if the recipient's level of income reached average weekly earnings. In 1996, some 68,000 students had taken advantage of these measures.The full details of the scheme will be set out in the Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill that is to come before the Senate, yet this bill provides only that a student financial supplement scheme be established and no details are provided in this piece of legislation. We are told that these are matters that will be dealt with by regulation and that the department has run out of time to get the details right in terms of introducing similar measures in this bill. To me, that is not good enough. I can only suggest that that is because of the serious cutbacks to the Department of Social Security, and I notice in the current budget that the department's running costs are to be reduced by a further 93 per cent. I can only suggest that this government is not able to meet its requirements to the parliament because of the reductions in the Public Service. It seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition that we have not got the details of these programs spelt out in legislation, yet we have a commitment from the minister that, as soon as the department has the time to do it, it will be done in the future.When we consider the overall impact of the government's common youth allowance—the extra burden it will place on parents of young unemployed, the impact on schools of an additional 27,000 16- and 17-year-olds entering the system, the penalties it imposes on students who work or whose partners work—we can see that the government is not serious about helping Australians complete their education and move into jobs.For me, the real issue here is that this government is winding back the role of government. It is trying to withdraw support from young people in this country and abandon its responsibility to those young people. It is a measure which must have long-term detrimental impacts for this country. It is a measure predicated on an assumption that the government does not have a responsibility to support young people, to ensure that they are fully participating in our society and are fully capable of enjoying the full benefits of public institutions and of making a full contribution in return to this society. For that this government ought to be condemned. I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time, these issues will become apparent. The issues that Ms Wheatley drew to the minister's attention will be ringing in the minister's ear—not only those issues, but the many other issues that Ms Wheatley has neglected to point out, simply because I do not think that the officer concerned, understandably, had the full experience of the range of issues, particularly on the educational front, that are quite apparent to all those with eyes to see.11:01:002629Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Goodness me, wasn't that a barrage!AW5CARRSenator Carr—Perhaps you enjoyed it.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I did not enjoy it, really, and the reason I did not enjoy it is that it gives one a clearer understanding of why it is important that there be a good, strong information campaign to the young people of Australia and to their families as to the positive purpose and the positive outcomes that will be achieved by the youth allowance reforms. If we were to leave the people of Australia under the misapprehension of what has been going over the airwaves this morning, then they would have every reason to think that this was something nasty in the woodshed.Of course, it is nothing of the sort. It is over $200 million of extra expenditure. It is not a savings measure; it is an important social policy reform which is intended to make sure that young people do not see the dole as an acceptable alternative to study. It is intended to make sure that those aged under 18 do not go on the dole; that they go into some form of skills acquisition. Is the Labor Party suggesting that that is not a worthwhile and important national goal? I would think not. But from the noise we have just heard, you would assume that there was something dreadful about requiring under 18- year-olds to be getting the skills which will actually allow them to get jobs.One of the most important initiatives that my colleague the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, has been pursuing in his portfolio is that of trying to make sure that young people in Australia are not illiterate and innumerate. Under the previous government, we found that that was all too often the case, so that people queuing up at Social Security in unacceptable numbers are illiterate. What chance do they have of getting a job in today's society when unskilled jobs have disappeared under the previous government and around the world? Consequently, if the young people of Australia are to have any hope of getting jobs, they should acquire skills. They should be encouraged to be studying and getting into training rather than being on the dole.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Why don't you provide the money to run the schools? You took $4 billion out of education.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Under your government, the Labor government, the encouragement financially was for young people to be on the dole because they were much better off on the dole than they were under Austudy. Apart from Senator Carr, I have heard some acknowledgment this morning by senators in the debate that some very positive initiatives have been introduced as part of this youth allowance reform. The rent assistance for the very first time has to be one of the most important initiatives. During the 13 years that Labor ran this country, they had every chance to increase the standard of living of students, and they did not. So we have had students living in poverty and, worse still, we have had young people in country areas not being able to go away to get an education because their low-income to middle-income parents could not afford to send them away.Now, we have the opportunity for families, especially those with several children, to be able to afford to send their young people away for further education, largely because the availability of rent assistance of up to $75 a fortnight per young person makes the difference. They have a chance of getting skills; they have a chance of getting an education.I noticed when Senator Carr was giving us the benefit of his wisdom a few minutes ago that he tended to focus on those going into tertiary education. Let me remind the Senate that one of the big problems this country faces now is because the previous government focused on that fortunate 30 per cent who did go on to tertiary education and ignored the 70 per cent who do not. As a result, there are not sufficient vocational education opportunities or traineeships.AW5CARRSenator Carr—So why have you cut the TAFE program?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—The new apprenticeships introduced by Dr Kemp all will go a long way towards improving the job prospects of young Australians. So don't bellow at me, Senator Carr.I want to address one issue which Senator Carr was very keen to get on the record—the issue of the personal income test for Austudy payment. What is not recognised is that the personal income test for Austudy payment is based on the allowance test used for all social security allowances, but it gives students access to a higher income-free area and an income bank, as is the case under the youth allowance. So it is better. Under the existing Austudy, by comparison—the one that Labor administered—a student's annual entitlement is worked out using a complex assessment process involving current and estimated future taxable income. Anybody who has been involved in Austudy applications would agree with me; it is something that some senators who spoke previously have acknowledged.Income above $6,000, under the current arrangements, reduces a student's fortnightly entitlement by 50c in the dollar. If a student has an increase in income part-way through a year, their entitlement may have to be recalculated and an overpayment raised. Students may be assessed under the actual means test if they or their partner are in a designated category.By contrast, Austudy is a fortnightly payment responsive to a student's circumstances in that fortnight. I thank Senator Neal for her recognition of what a major improvement this is. When a student has gross income above the income-free area of $230 in a fortnight, their entitlement for that fortnight may be reduced unless they have credits in the income bank. For income above the free area, a 50c in the dollar reduction applies for the first $80 with a 70c in the dollar reduction applying to income that exceeds the free area by more than $80. The actual means test does not apply to Austudy payment.We heard a lot of noise from Senator Carr, but the reality is that more than 98 per cent of the Austudy payment population aged 25 and over will not be affected by adopting the allowance personal income test because the majority of those students have nil or very low personal income. Out of a population of something like 43,000, we are talking about 860 who may be affected because they have income over $6,000. From the noise we heard from Senator Carr, you would have thought we were sending students into gross, grovelling poverty. You can see, Senator Carr, that that angst was grossly overplayed.The positives of the Austudy payment income test are that a student's income in the fortnight determines their rate of payment. That eliminates the possibility of an Austudy style overpayment, which led to enormous stress and strain and worry for students. It is a major improvement. Students who work over vacation periods can continue to be paid Austudy for periods in the year when they have little or no other income. Under the previous Austudy they may have been excluded from payment for the whole year because of their income. This is a major improvement. We did not hear Senator Carr acknowledging any of that.Under Austudy payment, the impact of assessing a student's gross income rather than taxable income is expected to be minor. The majority of students, as I have said, have nil or very low income and because Austudy payment is a fortnightly payment, the impact is limited to the fortnight in which expenditure is made. It is a great shame that Senator Carr did not do his homework effectively and was prepared to dishonestly represent the situation in order to frighten people for political purposes. It is not fair. It is clear that this government needs to have an important and effective information strategy to address the disinformation and the fear campaign that some people in the ALP think is going to get them back into government. I think they are rumbled and the people of Australia now know that fear campaigns from the ALP are not based on fact.Before I conclude, I would like to indicate that we accept the ALP requests for amendments. We undertake to put all the youth allowance related subordinate legislation in the Social Security Act as soon as drafting resources allow—it is not a question of delays in the Department of Social Security; it is pressure on drafting resources—and we expect that to be in the next sittings. As a government, we have undertaken to put the subordinate legislation into the Social Security Act when the drafting is concluded and it comes into the Senate. Of course, provided we win the next election, that commitment will be honoured. I can only say, if an election were to take place in the intervening time and we were not the successful government, I would be asking the Labor Party whether they were prepared to put it in legislation. We also accept the Greens amendments in relation to the liquid assets waiting period and we accept amendment No. 1 from the Democrats.Amendment not agreed to.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11:12:002631Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:That consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour.11:12:002631Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I understand that amendments were placed before the Table Office last night by the Labor opposition and that those amendments were prepared. Subsequently, we were advised, contrary to our initial request, that they would not be amendments but would have to be requests and also that a running sheet was not prepared.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills2632r4452632Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Senator Bolkus had moved by way of amendment:At the end of the motion, add ", and that consideration of the bill in committee of the whole be an order of the day for Tuesday, 7 April 1998".(Quorum formed)11:15:002632Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The amendment, if one looks at it, relates to an earlier period of time and, while it might have been relevant at that time, it is no longer relevant now. I think the amendment was such that it would have deferred consideration of the bill to about now—to some time in March. As a consequence, I do not think we need to go ahead with it and I seek leave to withdraw it. I think that puts us in a position where the minister may be about the only person left to speak in closing this debate.Leave granted.11:16:002632Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I think it is disappointing that, after an expression of support for the broad policy area of this bill, its passage appears not to be achievable in a manner acceptable to the government. In the spring sittings last year, the government and the other house considered a large number of amendments proposed by the Senate and were unable to agree to those amendments. On 5 December 1997, the Attorney-General said, and I quote:The government has indicated in the past its desire for the streamlining of the way in which government regulations are produced and scrutinised in order to ensure regulations are relevant, workable and effective and that any unnecessary regulatory burden on business and the community at large is removed. At the same time, the government has modelled the legislation to ensure that the government is able to maintain control of important programs for which it has a responsibility to the community. It has done so by providing minimum exemption from compliance with parts of the legislative package or by exempting parliamentary disallowance of certain limited instruments.It is important to remember that the reforms contained in this bill reflect a fundamental commitment of the government to the legislature and the legislative process. These reforms may not excite the interest of the masses but they should be welcomed by all parliamentarians. The Legislative Instruments Bill significantly increases the power of the parliament to scrutinise delegated legislation. However, this does not, nor should it, extend to parliament exercising executive power granted by parliamentary delegation. It is incredible that the Senate, the chamber most likely to benefit from these changes, now appears to be obstructing and delaying once more the commencement of these long-awaited changes.Over the recent recess, the government sought agreement with the Democrats to overcome a number of concerns expressed during the second reading debate. In particular, we sought to overcome the very real concerns regarding sunsetting that had been expressed and also the concerns about gender-specific language. The Attorney-General also said:One of the most significant issues to come out of the parliamentary consideration by the 1995 Labor chaired House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was the recommendation that sunsetting of all delegated legislation be provided for. This bill gives effect to that recommendation. Now the opposition is trying to move away from sunsetting, making spurious claims that the provisions allow the government to renege on continuing desirable delegated legislation following its sunsetting.In March the Attorney spent considerable time with Senator Murray or his office trying to overcome his serious concerns with sunsetting. The Attorney thought that those negotiations were very productive and would have resulted in amendments which the government could accept. To assist that process, we developed a mechanism which would ensure that instruments of importance to the parliament would not be sunsetted without the parliament having two opportunities to convince the rule maker that the instrument should be remade. We understood that the Democrats had accepted that approach and were prepared to support that amendment in this chamber. As I am advised, it now appears that our understanding was erroneous and that the Democrats were not serious in trying to seek resolution of the concerns to enable the passage of the bill.The latest draft of amendments put forward are entirely unacceptable and depart significantly from the approach that we had understood was being adopted following our discussions. For the reasons given to the Senate last year, the government is unable to accept the many recycled amendments that I understand are now being proposed by the opposition and the Greens. The government will again reject those amendments in the other house and the bill will not be returned to this chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.2633The bill.11:24:002633Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think that opposition amendments 1, 3, 20, 22 and 29 are identical to the amendments to be moved by the Democrats. I anticipate that the government will accept these amendments. They go to the issue of non-sexist language. I think that Senator Murray may want to move those, but before he does I place on record my disappointment at the way the government has handled this legislation. It is very much the sign of an arrogant government, a government which has not been prepared to negotiate meaningfully on matters which are in many ways procedural. We find ourselves now in a position where the Senate has basically been told for the last few months to take it or leave it in terms of the government's position. When this bill came before us a few months ago, I made it very clear that the opposition had predispositions and positions but we were prepared to negotiate with the government.I must say that I expected a lot better than what we have had from the Attorney-General over the last few months and I expected a lot better than the speech that the poor Minister for Justice had to read out just a few minutes ago, a speech which in no way acknowledged the concerns that senators had, a speech that in no way acknowledged that some of the positions being pursued now are positions which were being held very closely and guardedly and asserted very strongly by the present Attorney-General before the last election.This is a piece of legislation which has seen the Attorney take different positions in opposition and government. It has seen us in this place evolve positions during the last debate but, unfortunately, when the minister says that the Democrats have not taken the consultation process seriously she is saying that others have not taken it seriously either. That assertion is one that cannot be made validly with respect to this legislation. The assertion that can be made validly is that no matter how often the opposition went to the government with compromises and concessions—and I believe it is the same situation with the Democrats: it did nor matter how often they did it as well—we were told, `Well, we are not interested.'This is a government that wants to use this legislation for some bizarre, from left field purpose, as a trigger for a double dissolution. They are trigger happy—and it is something we do not understand. They have their big triggers, so why not be constructive on this? Is the Attorney not capable of a degree of lateral thinking? Is it not within his capacity or freedom to budge an inch? Is the Prime Minister sitting on him so much that his independence even in this area cannot be asserted? That is the conclusion that we come to. As I said, we have been prepared to make concessions in the context of this debate—and we will be putting up some concessions in the committee stage. But with respect to most amendments before us there is good reason why the government can budge and have been able to budge and no good reason for them to be saying to us, as they have in recent weeks, `We are not interested in talking to you, in making any concessions or trying to work our way through this legislation.'The one thing that really stings in this legislation, the one aspect of it which, I fear, is the main reason the government is subverting a meaningful process, is that they want to do through this legislation what they could not do through the Public Service reform legislation: they want to be able to remove—after a short period of time, with the sunset clause proposed—critical terms and conditions that relate to the Australian public sector. This is the ideological and zealotry position of the workplace relations minister and the Prime Minister. They could not do it through the Public Service reform legislation, so they are trying to do it through this one. In doing it through this one they are prepared to junk any meaningful amendment to the process of parliamentary procedures.This first batch of amendments, which I will leave to Senator Murray to move, relates to the use of non-sexist language. The amendments simply require that in the drafting of legislative instruments non-sexist language should be used unless there is a specific intention to distinguish between people on the basis of their gender. The government had indicated that they had no objection to such amendments in principle, noting, as they said, that it is current practice. In particular, the Attorney had noted that `since the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on clearer Commonwealth law drafters have been ensuring that gender neutral language is used in all new provisions and in any amendment of existing legislation.' So I hope that, in the coded language used by the minister just a few minutes a go, these amendments will now be acceptable to the government, because in essence the government are saying to us that this is already happening in practice. If it is happening in practice, there is no real reason for the government to refuse to accept a legislative requirement that these things must happen in practice.There are good reasons that this amendment should be supported, even though we are talking about something that is happening in practice, and the good reasons include the fact that, importantly, we are sending a message that non-sexist language is the way to go with respect to government legislation. The Senate does have an opportunity here—in fact, a responsibility—to make that principled statement. In particular, it should not be seen as of nuisance value to the government, since the government, as they say, are already doing what this amendment seeks to enshrine in legislation.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Murray, on a couple of occasions Senator Bolkus has mentioned amendments to be moved by you. We do not have a copy at the table at this stage of any Democrat amendments or Democrat-Green amendments, if that is what they are. Could you make us a little wiser as to whether you will be moving the amendments? Our running sheet indicates that they are opposition amendments.11:31:002634Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Yes, I can. I apologise for the fact that you have not got them because the assistant has given them to me.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I wonder if I can suggest that we move them jointly?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Yes, I can do that. My apologies—I was under the impression that they had been circulated.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray, we have a copy of the amendments supplied by Senator Bolkus. We did not know whether you were relying on those or whether you had a separate set of amendments.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—You will have them before you shortly. I wonder whether I could make some remarks before we proceed on that basis?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You certainly may.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Thank you. Firstly, I apologise to the committee for the late circulation of our amendments. They are late because of a last minute attempt to arrive at agreement with the government. They will be with you shortly. They are a short batch of amendments. I think, in starting this debate, we must refer to the remarks made by the minister concerning consultation and negotiation with the various parties and Independents that form the Senate. I cannot speak for the others, although I am sure that they have made their own efforts, but the Australian Democrats were—and still are—of the view that this bill is fundamentally a good and desirable bill except that it is flawed in a number of areas. One particular area is that of sunset regulations through the bill. It was on that that we sought to negotiate with the government.I acknowledge that both the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone) and the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) were helpful and cooperative in attempting to negotiate an appropriate outcome, as indeed were their advisers. The negotiations were conducted in good spirit, but at the end of the process neither we nor the government could come to an agreement. That is one of those facts of life and one has to be mature about it. I do not intend to punch the government in the throat about it, and I would assume that they do not intend the same, although I thought the minister did unnecessarily attack us.The fact is that we disagree on the route we want to go. I think that is regrettable but it represents our alternative viewpoints in these matters. The minister must seek to persuade the entire Senate as to her case and, if she is able to persuade the entire Senate, then she will get the bill through in the form which is acceptable to her. If she does not, then the government must either accept the Senate's view or reject it and lay the bill aside, or put it up as a double dissolution matter.This Senate has not lightly rejected any bills. Of the more than 340 bills that have been passed by the Senate, there have been only five packages of bills which were subject to a possible double dissolution trigger and one of those, at least, was eventually passed. This is the last of the four that were remaining.Madam Chair, if you have before you sheet No. 968, I would like to move the amendments. Do you have the sheet?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—We have the sheet but it is not on the running sheet. We do not have any way of identifying which clauses are the same as the clauses in the amendments to be moved by the opposition. I was wondering, Senator Murray, whether your assistant could have a look and indicate which of the clauses match those of the opposition. Senator Bolkus then could move those amendments, with your agreement, on behalf of the opposition and the Democrats and we could get those out of the way to start with.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I can identify them for you, if I may. On their sheet 910, my sheet 968, No. 1 is the same. On their page 2, No. 3 is distinct—it is not the same.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray, rather than take the time of the Senate, maybe it would be better if your adviser could go through them and give us a list of ones where there is concurrence between the Democrat and the opposition amendments.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I would be happy for the opposition to move those that they have now and then to move the remaining ones of mine which are left over from that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That would be the best way to do it; that would facilitate it. They can move those amendments where there is concurrence on behalf of the opposition and the Democrats.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I should point out that the ones that we have circulated, which are items 1 to 6 and item 10, were all approved with the government in our negotiations.11:37:002635Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—That raises two issues. I am prepared to move the opposition amendments. I gather from the running sheet provided by the Senate office that they are amendments Nos, 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 33. Senator Murray raised the point that, in respect of his amendments on this particular issue, there were discussions with the government and that the government was prepared to accept the wording of his amendments.I think we are in a difficult situation here. We do not know what the government's concerns are with the opposition amendments as opposed to the Democrats amendments—if, in fact, there are any concerns. We do not know what the differences are. We also do not know whether the Democrats are prepared to support the opposition amendments and, if they are, to what extent their further amendments are different from ours. It would be good to hear from both the government and the Democrats as to whether I should proceed with all of mine or where the differences are in respect of the Democrats amendments and the ones that I am proposing.11:38:002636Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—Could Senator Bolkus go through the amendments individually and briefly say what they are. I am finding it a little difficult to follow what the amendments are at the moment. It would make it easier for me if he could do that.11:38:002636Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I could start doing that. The first batch of amendments comprises those which go to the use of gender specific language. I was proceeding on the basis that the amendments that I would be moving at this particular time would be amendments Nos 1, 3, 20, 22 and 29. As we can see from the running sheet provided by the clerk's office, further amendments have been added. I do not want to proceed at this stage with suggested amendments Nos 12 and 14 because I anticipate that they are, in one sense, extraneous to the question of gender specific language.At this particular stage, I make the point that we are hampered in this debate. We have only just had the running sheet provided to us, so we still need to have a close look at what has been proposed. Also, we were only provided with the government's amendments that go to gender specific language at 11.23 a.m.—that is the time written on the amendments as circulated. We first got notice of it about 10 minutes ago. That raises another problem for us. They might have been given to other people earlier, but we were only given them in the last 10 minutes, so we need to digest what is in those amendments as well.I will go specifically to what is in amendments Nos 1, 3, 20 and 22. I say to the Senate and to Senator Colston that these amendments were originally moved by the Australian Democrats. They simply require that non-sexist language be used in the drafting of a legislative instrument. Amendments Nos 1 and 3 obviously are embroidery to the substantive point which is covered in amendments Nos 20, 22 and 29. That is all I can say at this stage, Senator Colston. I also now want to have another look at the other amendments batched together at this stage and see whether they also go to that particular subject of gender specific language.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—Minister, I am advised by the clerk that we do not have the government amendments here at the table.11:41:002636Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—The reason for that is that the government is not moving the amendments. As I am advised, one of my advisers had a discussion outside the chamber with Senator Bolkus's adviser and handed him a list of amendments that the government would be prepared to accept, but we are not going to move them. That was just to indicate to the opposition what we would accept. The reason why those amendments have not been circulated is because we are not moving them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Are you suggesting that you made an agreement outside that you would suggest an amendment to the amendment? Is that correct?7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—No. I understand that there was nothing more than a discussion, with one person saying to another, `If you want to know what the government will accept, look at this.' It was nothing more than that.11:42:002636Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—That just makes the position even more impossible. We have a situation where the government is saying, `Don't lay this on us but, when it comes to gender specific language, when it comes to sunset clauses, we know that we can move a bit but we are not prepared to do it ourselves. I was not aware that this was a sort of plain envelope approach coming from the government whereby the amendments were not attributable.It is an impossible situation. In the last 10 minutes or so we have been told, `Look at these. This might be a way through.' We have been trying to get meaningful discussions with the government on this for months. We have tried consistently to get a meaningful response to these issues from the Attorney-General's office. It is not good enough for the government to bowl this up, to maintain that it is not going to compromise on it, to use this as a double dissolution trigger mechanism but then, outside the chamber and behind closed doors, to suggest that maybe it is prepared to move. That makes the debate in here impossible.The Attorney has had a long time, with many initiatives and many approaches both from us and from the Democrats, to try to work a way through this. Then, at the death knock, we are told, `This might be a way through but we do not want to be pinned for this.' Is he afraid of the Prime Minister finding out that he is trying to move away from the inflexible position of the cabinet? Is that the motivation here? That makes it even more impossible.Senator Colston asked for a run-down of the amendments before us at the moment. Maybe the best thing to do is to proceed with those amendments and disregard the government's proposals, unless the government is prepared to proceed with them itself. Amendment No. 1 states that gender specific language means language that expresses bias in favour of one sex. That appears on document 910 of the opposition amendments.Amendment No. 2 is an amendment which I do not think is appropriate in this first batch because it goes to timing and disallowance and sunset clauses.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—So you are not moving No. 2?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I think at this particular stage—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—He hasn't got a clue.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Vanstone makes the point that I do not have a clue. Senator Vanstone, you are the one who has come in here with your advisers running around the back of this chamber peddling amendments that you do not know about yourself, and you reckon we do not have a clue.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, will you address your comments through the chair.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—We have been trying to get a compromise on this for weeks. The reason the chamber does not have a clue is that at the last moment the government, in all its incompetence, is trying to work a way through that it should have been working through some time ago. The chamber has been put in an impossible situation by the government. Were we to have other legislation to move to straight away, I would probably move for a deferral of this particular legislation.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, you foreshadowed that you would be moving a series of amendments. Maybe if you could go back and list them so that all senators know what is happening. We will start again. You are going to move amendment No. 1 and not No. 2. What about No. 3?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Madam Chairman, let us do this again. When I was speaking earlier, I had a list of amendments in mind—1, 3, 20, 22 and 29. The clerk's office has given us a running sheet which is a bit more comprehensive than that. Can I suggest that we do not want to move at this stage amendments Nos 12 and 14 which were listed on the running sheet.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Just going back to that running sheet, amendment No. 1 you will be moving and No. 2 you will not be moving.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I will not be moving half of those on the running sheet but I will be moving the other half. I wish to move amendments Nos 1 to 3, 8, 15, 17, 20, 22 and 29.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—But you just said you were not moving No. 2?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Yes, I know but I am now moving No. 2. It is more appropriate here than further down the list.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—No. 15 is not on the running sheet.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Harradine, the point I have been making is that the running sheet has also been brought in at the last moment. As a consequence of that, at the last minute we have had to look at the running sheet to see which amendments were appropriate to this particular part of the debate—the debate on the question of gender specific language. The amendments that I foreshadow moving in respect of gender specific language are Nos 1 to 3, 8, 15, 17, 20, 22 and 29.I have talked to this point before. We will be moving the other amendments later in the debate. It might be appropriate now for the Democrats to tell us which of their amendments either are in conflict with the amendments I have just foreshadowed or go even further than those amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Colston, is it clear to you, because you asked the question, that we are now talking about those amendments that Senator Bolkus has just foreshadowed? They are on sheet 910 of the opposition amendments.11:48:002638Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—Originally, the amendments to be moved were Nos 1, 3, 20, 22 and 29 and maybe No. 8 as well. But do I understand now that it is 1 to 3, 8, 15, 17, 20, 22 and 29?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is correct.11:49:002638Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I must say that, as a debate, this is not particularly enlightening. What I have identified—and I am waiting for the reference from my adviser—is that amendments Nos 1, 3, 4 and 10 on sheet 968 are the same as the opposition's. It would probably be easiest if those fell away. That would just leave the opposition to move theirs.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You do not need to move those, Senator Murray.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Our amendments Nos 1, 3, 4 and 10 are all the same as Labor's.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—In the ones that we are now considering, Nos 1 to 3 are the same. Senator Bolkus, are you in agreement that those two amendments should be moved by you on behalf of the opposition and the Democrats, and that the rest should be just moved by you?11:51:002638Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I am in agreement with the Democrats not pursuing theirs and, in a sense, co-sponsoring the amendments that I have moved.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Nos 1 to 3?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—That is right. But if we can go back to No. 2 again: I think I was right the first time and I think Senator Colston may also be right that that amendment should not be dealt with during the issue of gender specific language—it should be dealt with later on. Can I suggest also that, during the lunchbreak, it might be appropriate for the running sheet to be revisited by the clerk's office—probably in consultation with all parties—to get some better clarity as to the issues raised.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, I will clarify the situation: you will now be moving, on behalf of the Democrats and the opposition, amendments 1 and 3. You will then be moving Nos 8, 15, 17, 20, 22 and 29 on behalf of the opposition.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I was just going to get to that. We are going through this laboriously. It comes back to the first batch—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—You have an incapacity to organise yourself.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Vanstone says it is our incapacity to organise ourselves. Senator Vanstone, we had organised ourselves before two things happened: your advisers muddied the water with last-minute amendments that do not turn out to be amendments at all, which have taken a fair degree of time and attention over the last half hour or so and which have just served to confuse the process; and a running sheet which is totally inappropriate and does not cover the issue before us right now. They are the two matters that have intervened first thing this morning. The minister for insults may continue her insults, but they are not appropriate at this stage. We are trying to work through this in a more constructive way than she has been able to and the Attorney-General has been able to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, if you would address your comments through the chair and ignore the interjections, we may be able to move on.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—The minister for insults continues to try to frustrate this process. I think she should take a back-seat approach whilst we try to work out what the government is trying to put to us at the last minute and what the running sheet is trying to put to us as well. I think it is more appropriate at this stage to proceed with amendments Nos 1 and 3, 20, 22 and 29.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, we seem to have lost 15 and 17.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—We have lost 15 and 17 because on examination of the running sheet it is quite inappropriate for them to be put on the running sheet for this part of the debate. Amendments 15 and 17 relate to exceptions for consultants. Amendment 8 relates to the inclusion of environmental matters in a legislative instruments proposal. In respect of those amendments which go purely to gender specific language, we should go back to the ones I wanted to move and indicated I was moving in the first place and they are amendments 1, 3, 20, 22 and 29. The Democrats could have a look at those amendments and indicate whether they cover the areas contained in their amendments and whether they might be prepared to support them. I seek leave to move the amendments together.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I move:(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 3), after the definition of explanatory statement , insert: gender specific language means language that expresses bias in favour of one sex.(3) Clause 16, page 18 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add: (3) In promoting measures to ensure that legislative instruments are of a high standard, the Principal Legislative Counsel must ensure that legislative instruments do not contain gender-specific language unless it is necessary to identify persons by their sex.(20) Clause 42, page 43 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (4) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Principal Legislative Counsel must not register a legislative instrument if the instrument contains any gender specific language unless it is necessary to identify persons by their sex. (22) Clause 52, page 54 (after line 16), after subparagraph (vii), insert: (viia) whether gender specific language has been used in the instrument; and(29) Clause 71, page 79 (line 9), omit "Chairman", substitute "Chair".10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, you omitted amendment 8 in that round. Do you want to include amendment 8? XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—No, I do not.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You included amendment 8 the second last time. Let me clarify the situation now. You have moved on behalf of the Democrats and the opposition amendments 1 and 3, and on behalf of the opposition amendments 20, 22 and 29. The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Bolkus—amendments 1 and 3 moved on behalf of the opposition and Democrats and amendments 20, 22 and 29 moved on behalf of the opposition—be agreed to.11:54:002639Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—We have not heard any argument in support of these amendments. I would be interested to particularly hear a response from the government on these matters. I would be interested to know the implications. I recall on the last occasion we debated this legislation that the Australian Democrats moved an amendment which stated:relationship assumptions , in relation to the depiction of marriage-like relationships, means language that expresses bias in favour of relationships between persons of the opposite sex and which therefore treats relationships between persons of the same sex in a discriminatory manner.Well, blow me down! Can we be very clear on these particular issues and whether that matter is now on the table. Are we going to be debating in this committee stage the extraordinary proposition that there should be no discrimination between marriage-like relationships between persons of the same sex and marriages of persons of the opposite sex?Let us be quite open about it. What are we talking about here? I would be interested to hear what the minister says about the proposals that are being put forward now. First of all, I would like to hear what the proposals are and an explanation of them.11:56:002640Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—If I could assist you, Senator Harradine, by repeating some of the remarks I made whilst you were outside the chamber. Amendments 1 to 6 and 10 on sheet 968 were agreed between the Democrats and the government as appropriate gender issues to be raised. None of them refer to the issue you have raised. Each of them deals with the issue of how gender is to be addressed in legislative instruments and accords with the intentions that already exist now in the Acts Interpretation Act.That is the wording that we agreed on with the government in our previous negotiations. Our negotiations fell down on amendments 7, 8 and 9 and not on any other amendments. If you wish further clarification, amendments 1, 3, 4 and 10 on my sheet are exactly the same as the opposition's. The issue you raised is not before the chamber. The government and the Democrats have discussed these issues and have agreed to this wording. I hope that is helpful.11:58:002640Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Can I also say to Senator Harradine that I did go through the substantive issues earlier in the debate. It is probably worth while at this stage, given the tortuous nature of the last half an hour or so, to specifically go through the amendments.The issue you are concerned about is an issue that was discussed last time but was not accepted by the Senate last time. Amendment No. 1 spells out that gender specific language means language that expresses bias in favour of one sex. Amendment No. 3 basically states:(3) In promoting measures to ensure that legislative instruments are of high standard, the Principal Legislative Counsel must ensure that legislative instruments do not contain gender specific language unless it is necessary to identify persons by their sex.Amendment No. 20 on page 3 states:(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Principal Legislative Counsel must not register a legislative instrument if the instrument contains any gender specific language unless it is necessary to identify persons by their sex. Amendment No. 22 refers to gender specific language being used in the instrument. Amendment No. 29 omits `Chairman' and substitutes `Chair'. Basically, these amendments go to the issue of gender specific language. They do not go to any other issues that might have been canvassed in the first debate on this bill in the Senate. 11:59:002640Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I note for the convenience of those people who are insomniacs and may at some stage find themselves reading the Hansard in relation to this bill that the debate started at about a quarter past 11. I have not spoken in any substantive way on it at all. Senator Murray has spoken briefly, cogently and articulately, albeit I disagree with some of things he has said. All the rest of the time Senator Bolkus has been in here huffing and puffing, as you know, Madam Temporary Chairman, taking you through this amendment and that amendment, then he is moving it and then he is not. He accuses the government of not knowing what they are doing when he has spent roughly three-quarters of an hour—I will give him the benefit of the doubt—say, half an hour, indulging himself at taxpayers' expense trying to sort out what he should be doing.In his earlier remarks, to which I seek to respond, he made the rather unpleasant allegation that this government is an arrogant government. I had thought, and I still do think, that the previous Prime Minister exhibited more arrogance than I have ever seen ooze out of a politician in my entire life, and I do not think that will ever be duplicated. This government is not an arrogant government at all.I can put the position fairly simply here. Senator Murray, you say in relation to sheet No. 968 that amendments 1 to 6 and 10 were basically agreed with the government. There is one proviso to that which has not been mentioned—that is, the savings clauses need to be included. I understand that you were advised of that. If those savings clauses were included, those amendments would be acceptable. I understand that has been discussed with you. There has been some exchange between your office and the Attorney's. This sheet is dated 8 April at 5.34 p.m, although that may simply be a print-off time rather than the time it was given to you. I can, Senator Murray, if you want me to, read into the Hansard record those savings clauses. Perhaps you would like me to do that, would you?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I think that would be a good idea.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Okay. If at clause 42, page 43, after line 24, we add at the end of the clause—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—Senator Vanstone, we are now talking about Democrat amendment 4, I presume, clause 42, page 43.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—It is a bit difficult with some Democrat amendments and some opposition amendments. I put it to you this way: in relation to the package of gender amendments, whether you want to call them Senator Murray's amendments with his numbers or Senator Bolkus's amendments with his numbers—and I am not moving anything, so I do not need to tie it to one package or the other—I am simply for Senator Murray's edification outlining the additional changes that he might want to move if he wants to get the government's support for either his amendments or Senator Bolkus's amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Just for the clarification of the Senate, it is Democrat amendment 4 and opposition amendment 20. Amendment 20 has been moved by Senator Bolkus.12:03:002641Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—It would facilitate debate if the minister would address her suggestion to opposition amendment 20, which is the one before the chamber at the moment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It would assist us, Senator Vanstone. We are now talking about opposition amendment 20.12:04:002641Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The minister has actually picked up the correct inference. My adviser had indicated that Labor's amendment 20 is the same as amendment 4 on my sheet, but in fact that is not so. There is a qualifying `that, but for this subsection', which you are referring to, which is not in the Labor amendment. So amendments 4 and 20 are not exact replicas. I apologise for that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—They are not the same. Senator Bolkus has moved his amendment No. 20 and that is what we are discussing at the moment.12:04:002641Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Do I take it, Senator Murray, that I do not need to further elucidate that point?12:04:002641Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I certainly intend to move amendment 4 on my sheet as agreed between ourselves and the government.12:05:002641Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—To facilitate debate, I seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 20.Leave granted.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now have amendments 1 and 3, moved by Senator Bolkus on behalf of the Democrats and the opposition, and amendments 22 and 29. The question is that those amendments be agreed to.12:05:002641Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Perhaps Senator Murray might like to talk politely for a minute just to ascertain that the change he is making does fit in with what the government is looking at.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Some of this confusion apparently is because the running sheet was put together quite late. The clerk has advised me that has been one of the reasons for some of this confusion.12:06:002641Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I am glad you made that point because we had been coming in here proceeding on a batch of amendments which was expanded quite substantially by the late settled running sheet. I think the course of the last half an hour or so has wound us back to the position we were in when we first started in here.Senator Vanstone has made some comments about the confusion and about the government not moving amendments, having no amendments and whatever. What I would like to do is table the amendments which the government was floating. I think it is important for the continued debate on this for these amendments to be tabled. They have a time stamp of 11.23 a.m. on them and they do have the inscription that these amendments were to be moved on behalf of the government. We now know they are not to going to be moved on behalf of the government; they are just going to be floated in the back rooms. I think it is important for those of us who want to consider further amendments later on in terms of sunset clauses that this be before the Senate. I seek leave to table those amendments.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I hope by making that intervention the minister has been able to sort out where we should now go.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—The question is that amendments 1 and 3 moved by Senator Bolkus on behalf of the Democrats and the opposition and amendments 22 and 29 moved by Senator Bolkus on behalf of the opposition be agreed to.12:07:002642Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—In relation to Democrat amendment No. 4, I will come back to that because it relates to the whole package.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I'm listening to you very closely.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—You looked confused. Democrat amendment No. 4 is different to opposition amendment No. 20, which, I understand, Senator Bolkus, you have withdrawn. You are going to put Democrat amendment No. 4 in its place.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That's right, and you said you were supporting it.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I come back to the point that I then started on. I will address it to Democrat amendment No. 4. That would have been acceptable but for the savings clauses, and they are not on your running sheet, Senator Murray. It is not true to say that the government was happy with Democrat amendment No. 4 as it stands. As I am advised, you have been advised that, in order to make Democrat amendment No. 4 work able, after the inserted part which ends `necessary to identify persons by their sex.', you would then have to add another clause which would read `that the registration of an instrument that contains gender specific language is nonetheless a valid registration'.That would mean you would then have to make a consequential amendment in relation to clause 43, page 44, after line 17. I will not read in that consequential amendment because I think it will just confuse people's minds. On the basis of that addition and the consequential amendment that would need to be made, we could agree with your No. 4 or, for that matter, with opposition amendment No. 20, which has now been withdrawn. If I can put a summary position, the government could agree with opposition amendments 1, 3, 20, 22 and 29 with the addition of the clause that I read out attached to amendment No. 20 or Democrat amendment No. 4, if you want to call it that, with a subsequent consequential amendment. Without that, we cannot agree to any of them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Vanstone, we do not have amendment No. 20 before us at the moment. I just want to make that clear.12:10:002642Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Temporary Chair, I do think, however, that the minister's remarks are germane to the whole package that lie within this. Minister, our understanding of your proposed addition is to avoid the situation where the inadvertent use of gender specific language might result in a legislative instrument being made invalid, and we agree with that. We do not want to generate a problem on that basis. If your indication is that, as my understanding was previously, the government was going to support item 2 on our sheet 968, which is also a gender specific matter, we regard those two as joined. For instance, if you were, when we moved them, to move your amendment but simultaneously accept item 2 on our sheet, we are content to accept your approach.12:11:002642Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think that is not a bad compromise on behalf of the Democrats. It accepts the government's point that there might be inad vertent use of the language but it also requires that there be a reporting to parliament when there has been such inadvertent use. The bottom line is that the legislative instrument still has legal effect but the parliament is in a position to be both advised of any inadvertent use as a consequence of that and able to ensure rectification of it. I think it really overcomes any particular unforeseen consequence problem the government might have in respect of this measure.12:12:002643Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I come back to the matter that I raised previously, and I raised it quite deliberately. I am grateful to Senator Murray for explaining to the committee that those matters which were dealt with and rejected by the Senate will not be put forward now. That includes the definition of relationship assumptions. That was contained in the Australian Democrats proposal on the last occasion which defined those relationship assumptions in relation to the depiction of marriage-like relationships as meaning language that expresses bias in favour of relationships between persons of the opposite sex and which therefore treat relationships between persons of the same sex in a discriminatory manner. This whole question of discrimination is a very important one for society and for the parliament. It must be realised that you can have legitimate discrimination and be discriminatory. That depends entirely on the nature of the relationship.I raise this particularly because I want a response from the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Justice, in respect of it because very often these sorts of things come in through the backdoor. I will express later in this debate my considerable doubts about the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) in respect of another area, which I foreshadow now—that is, a deceptive statement made by the Attorney-General in respect of the classification of materials in the publication and video material area. There is absolute proof that he was wrong.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—Senator Harradine, using the phrase `deceptive statement' is not quite parliamentary, and maybe saying it was wrong would be better. It might be helpful if you withdrew that.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—No, I am not withdrawing it, Madam Chair, I am sorry, because it was a deceptive statement. Madam Chair, I think this is a very important matter to be debated. Obviously, if you insist that I withdraw it, out of courtesy to you as chair, I will do so, but I have the proof here that it was a deceptive statement. Perhaps I should say that it was a deceptive statement, not that the Attorney-General was deceptive, if I may just do that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I will certainly deal with this later on in this discussion when it comes to the question of examining legislative instruments. The worst part about it is that he has not revealed that to the other members of the state Attorneys-General committee, which deals with these matters, such that it seems that they have also been deceived. One of the big problems for this chamber, or, indeed, the federal parliament, is to adequately scrutinise regulations or legislative instruments that arise as a result of a federal arrangement which is arrived at behind closed doors.I would like the Minister representing the Attorney-General, and, indeed, representing the government in this place, to assure the committee that none of the proposals that have been put forward or will be supported by the government will in any way inferentially do what was proposed to be done by the amendment which was placed before the chamber by the Australian Democrats regarding relationship assumptions. It would be extraordinary, would it not, if this particular piece of legislation was used to attack the institution of marriage through the backdoor, as it were. As we all know, the Family Law Act itself defines marriage:. . . as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into . . . If the assumption clause that was proposed by the Democrats previously was in some way inferentially supported by the language that the government is prepared now to accept, that would be extraordinary because it propos es to treat relationships between persons of the same sex in the same way for the purposes of a marriage-like relationship as that of a marriage between a man and a woman. I just want to have that very clearly responded to by the government—that is, the government will not support anything that would have such a consequence or would be likely to lead to such a consequence.12:20:002644Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I will respond to Senator Harradine first. Senator Harradine, I do not accept the proposition that I understand you are putting—that is, the Democrats, by way of amendment, have sought in some way to discriminate. It is quite the opposite. In fact, I think their intention is to have non-discriminatory wording, and I do not believe that there are any amendments that specifically move towards what you say. Therefore, I have a different view.I think I understand what you are saying. I will not put words in your mouth, but I will paraphrase what I think you are saying. That is, you think that making something non-gender specific removes the opportunity to identify a female on the basis of whether she is married or not; that that is a consequence of non-gender specific legislation. That may be, although I am at a loss to think of an example of where that would apply.I will try to clear up this difficulty we have got with two separate sheets and with what we are doing, so if you can just bear with me, Madam Chairman. Because I am in the process of debating a point rather than putting specific motions and I am trying to clear up the difficulty we have got with having two separate sheets, of necessity, I therefore have to refer to some things on both sheets which might not necessarily be specifically before the chamber at the time.In terms of this gender specific issue and wanting to package it up, we were looking at opposition amendments 1, 3, 20, 22 and 29. As a consequence of me raising one particular point, Senator Murray referred to his amendment No. 4. As I understand the order of what happened, Senator Bolkus said he was happy to withdraw his amendment No. 20 and put in place Senator Murray's No. 4. That is the position we are at.The government would accept opposition 1 and 3, Democrat 3 and 4—and I think it is an oversight that Democrat 3 has not been mentioned—and opposition 22 and 29 if, at the end of Democrat 4, you inserted clause 5, which would read, `The registration of an instrument that contains gender specific language is nonetheless a valid registration,' and if, at the end of Democrat 3, you added clause 4 with the same wording.I just ask the committee's indulgence for a moment while I get some advice. I may have inadvertently created some confusion, but I think we are close to getting to the end of this.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That is a brave statement.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—If you will just bear with me, Senator Bolkus. After three-quarters of an hour of you, I think we can do it in about five minutes if you can just bring yourself—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Vanstone, direct your comments through the chair.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus had the indulgence of the chair and plenty of time to get to this point and if he could just contain himself for another few minutes, I think we can get there. We were, as I said, originally talking about opposition amendments 1, 3, 20, 22 and 29. Amendment 20 was withdrawn and Democrat 4 was moved in its place.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, we have not moved Democrat 4 yet.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—It has not been substituted?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—But there is an intention to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is right, Senator Vanstone.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Okay, that is what we are looking at getting to. I indicated that I thought you should have included Democrat 3 as well. I actually should have said you should have included Democrat 5.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Not 3.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Yes, not 3. So if we ended up in a position where we were looking at opposition 1 and 3, Democrat 4 and 5 and opposition 22 and 29, and if we added to Democrat 4 and 5 the clause that I was talking about, the government would agree with that as a package.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Murray, if the government's agreement to the amendments before us is conditional on Democrats 4 and 5 having the suggested amendments made to them—if that was how I heard the minister, that it was conditional—it may assist the committee if we were to deal with Democrat amendments 4 and 5 with the minister's suggested amendments, if you agreed to them, and then the amendments before us. Therefore, we could do that whole package almost in one go.12:28:002645Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Chair, thank you for your assistance. The minister was very clear with her response. As I indicated earlier, we would accept that, but we would wish to include Democrat amendment 2 as well. If you include amendment 2, we have a wrapped up situation.12:28:002645Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Whilst the minister is getting further advice, can I say that the amendment proposed by the government or suggested by the government—if we are splitting hairs—to Democrat amendment 4 is now being suggested to Democrat amendment 5 as well. I indicated that I was prepared to accept it in respect of Democrat 4 and I think Senator Murray accepted that as well. I can say at this stage that I think it is appropriate to accept it in respect of Democrat 5 as well.So to the extent of having a package, we have got opposition amendments 1, 3, 22 and 29 and Democrat amendments 4 and 5 with the suggested amendments by the minister. I also think it is important that Democrat amendment 2 be taken as part of this package. That is the amendment that adds a provision to ensure:. . . reporting to both Houses of the Parliament on any occasion when a rule-maker has been advised of the inappropriate use of gender-specific language.Basically, we say that gender specific language is not on. We indicate that, in those cases where it is used inadvertently, the instrument still has legislative force but we also say that, in order to accept that, there needs to be a reporting process to the parliament. As I said earlier, that is a fair balance. If the minister wants her rider to 4 to be accepted for 5 as well, that is something we accept. As I said, amendment 2 is an important amendment as well.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—Senator Murray, it would assist the committee if you were to seek leave to move your amendments 2, 4 and 5 together, if you agree to the amendments that the government is suggesting, so that they can be dealt with together with the amendments put by Senator Bolkus.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Madam Temporary Chairman, I will be guided by you, but I need clarification on item 2.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We have not got item 2 before us; so we need to move them together. The minister may be able to clarify the position.12:30:002645Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I think Senator Murray is right: sometimes we do not have things before us. But in this process we are trying to work out what to put before us. So we have to refer to some things that are not necessarily before us; the debate would be impossible otherwise.In relation to your item 2, Senator Murray, there is one problem. It is quite simple: if a rule-maker has asked for some rules to be made and `Mr' is in there, and the rule-maker is advised in the drafting process that that is inappropriate—this is in the drafting process, before it has even come out for public consideration; there might be many occasions in the chain from when something first starts before it gets to this place—that behaviour which is described in your amendment 2 could happen. It would be unacceptable any time this happens anywhere. Surely, what we are looking at is an end product—the point at which a piece of legislation is to proceed. You might be able to help me in that respect, but that is the query that has been raised with me by advisers.12:32:002646Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I propose to move an addition at the end of my amendment, when I move those amendments, which would cover that. I am not a draftsperson, but I recognise that what you want is that this only occurs when a legislative instrument is in force.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Yes.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—That is acceptable.12:33:002646Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—On that basis, just to clarify the government's position, if we are looking at opposition amendments 1 and 3, Democrat amendments 4 and 5 with the relevant additions, and opposition amendments 22 and 29, we could accommodate including in that Democrat amendment 2, subject to satisfactory wording being agreed. On that basis—if Senator Bolkus has not mentioned he disagrees with your views, Senator Murray—if we are that close, it might be worth saying that that is the package that we want to get; the only difference now is to find the wording that would be acceptable to the government on item 2.It may not be worth your while, Senator Murray, to move the amendments to your 4 and 5 that we request until we have come to an agreement on your No. 2. As I understand it, adding those two things is not acceptable unless you get that. Therefore, it might be sensible to shift to another portion of the debate while those matters are resolved. But if we could all agree that they are the matters that need to be resolved and contain it to that, I think we can pretty soon come back and wrap up this section.12:34:002646Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—That was something I was going to suggest. We need to find probably three or four words to add to the end of Democrat amendment No. 2. The words `in an instrument' may be sufficient, given the definition of an instrument in the bill—words to that effect. It is probably appropriate now that we agree to come back, maybe after lunch, with the agreed amendments to Demo crat amendments 4 and 5 and No. 2. But I caution at this stage that this is what the government, Democrats and opposition agree to; there might be some views from other senators which may also need to be taken into account. I think the idea of deferring this matter for refinement of the wording is a good idea.12:35:002646Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I have some confusion about Democrat amendment 4, and probably 5 as well; not with the wording of the amendment that has been submitted, but with the words that come after it. Amendment No. 4 reads:Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Principal Legislative Counsel must not register a legislative instrument that, but for this subsection, would be required to be registered under section 41, if the instrument contains any gender-specific language unless that language is necessary to identify persons by their sex.I do not know what wording has been suggested, but it has been suggested that there be another clause after that to say that, if there is gender-specific language, it does not mean that the instrument is invalid—or words to that effect. If it is the case that it is not invalid, wouldn't that instrument have to be registered as a legislative instrument?12:36:002646Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Senator Colston, I understand your point. With regard to the wording in Democrat amendments 4 and 5, in an ideal world it would never happen. A Principal Legislative Counsellor would never register a legislative instrument that, but for this subsection, would be required to be registered under section 41, if it contained any gender-specific language.With the deepest respect that I have for Principal Legislative Counsel, in the end they are human and they can make mistakes. The import of the suggested addition is to say, `Look, we've made this law which says that you should not do this.' Mistakes can happen—by accident rather than bloody-minded intention—in complex bills when amendments are being done. Native title is a good example where we heard the President rightly thanking Senate staff for staying back until three or four in the morning. Of necessity, things are sometimes done in shorter time frames than we might otherwise like and accidents can happen. All we are saying is that, in the event of such an accident, we do not want the whole instrument to be considered invalid.12:38:002647Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I follow that. In that case, if it is not invalid, should it not be registered as a legislative instrument, which is what amendment 4 is saying it should not be?12:38:002647Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Unless I am under a misunderstanding, it will already be registered. By the addition of a clause that you and I are debating, we are seeking to address a situation where Principal Legislative Counsel has inadvertently overlooked some gender-specific language in an instrument and the instrument has been registered. Someone says, `Uh, oh, Principal Legislative Counsel broke the law by registering this,' probably someone will say, `Put him in gaol, sack him,' or whatever, and someone else will say, probably for commercial convenience, and take it all the way to the High Court, `That instrument is invalid.' We want to cover that situation so that someone cannot take advantage of the accident of Principal Legislative Counsel registering something that does have a mistake, that is, gender-specific language in it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—As I understand it, there is an intent on the part of the committee to defer opposition amendment Nos 1, 3, 22 and 29 to a later hour in the day. Is that correct?12:40:002647Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Yes, and if it is of any assistance to you, since you might have come in part-way through, the reason is that the opposition have withdrawn one amendment and we are looking at adding to opposition amendments 1, 3, 22 and 29 some other Democrat amendments on which there needs to be some final settling.Motion (by Senator Vanstone) agreed to:That further consideration of the amendments be postponed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Does the committee wish to proceed, seeing it is so close to 12.45 p.m.?12:40:002647Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The next item is the issue of the power of the Attorney to issue a certificate to the effect that an instrument is not legislative in character. It is a big subject and one that will take us more than four minutes. To start on it now would probably be a waste of time. The suggestion that we should defer consideration of the bill to a later hour of the day is a good one.Progress reported.Matters of Public Interest264710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being nearly 12.45 p.m., I propose that we move to matters of public interest.264712:42:002647Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I would like to talk about some of the resource development projects in the north of Western Australia which I visited during the break and to report to the Senate about how these projects are proceeding. First of all, I would like to say a little about the Ord River stage 2 development. The Western Australian and Northern Territory governments announced in April that a joint venture between Wesfarmers and the Marubeni Corporation had been awarded a contract to further evaluate the Ord stage 2 proposal. Wesfarmers, as many senators will know, is a significant Western Australian company with thousands of shareholders and headquarters in Western Australia. Wesfarmers will hold 80 per cent of the joint venture. It is a company with a very grand history of involvement in agriculture in Western Australia and it is appropriate that it should be involved in stage 2 of the Ord development.The other partner in the joint venture is the Marubeni Corporation, which is one of Japan's leading trading firms and has a great deal of experience in the sugar industry, particularly in the development of sugar mills and refineries. The proposal for the second stage of the Ord is for an investment of some $300 million in an export oriented, raw sugar industry which will produce 400,000 tons of raw sugar per year. It will include the establishment of a sugar mill and development of storage facilities near the port of Wyndham on the far north coast of Western Australia.Under the plan, irrigated farmland in the Weaber, Knox Creek and Keep River plains will be developed to extend the Ord River scheme to nearly 65,000 hectares. This will take it over the border into the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government has been involved in the awarding of the contract to Wesfarmers and the Marubeni Corporation, because the second stage of the Ord is going to bring great economic development to the Northern Territory as well as to the north of Western Australia.It is proposed to set aside land for independent small farmers, thus allowing crop and land ownership diversity in this second stage development. The memorandum of understanding currently being discussed with the proponents is for a feasibility study of the project, so that all issues of controversy relating to the project can be dealt with. If the project is shown to be sound from a financial, economic, technical and environmental point of view, stage 2 will go ahead and this will lead to the development of a world scale sugar industry based around significant sugarcane plantings and a sugar mill on the Ord River.This will, as I have said, bring major economic development to east Kimberley. It is anticipated there will be some 500 jobs created in the area during the construction phase and a further 170 permanent jobs when the sugar mill is established. In addition, there will be 550 seasonal jobs during harvest time on the sugar plantations and a further 1,200 jobs created in local service industries. Hopefully, some of those jobs will go to indigenous people. It is hoped that indigenous people will take up some of the farmland in the second stage of the Ord and that Aboriginal communities in the north will benefit from this development.There will be new port and storage facilities at Wyndham and this will lead, in addition, to other jobs. The port of Wyndham will be greatly expanded. There will be dredging of the channel performed and much other infrastructure created in that town—which is one of the oldest towns in the north of Australia and which has gone through something of an economic recession in recent years with the closure of the meatworks there. So the development of stage 2 of the Ord will have a very strong and positive impact on the community of Kununurra and in Wyndham and the whole surrounding area of the north Kimberley, if it goes ahead.Unfortunately, it is an if—if it goes ahead—and the if, of course, is the question of native title. As it happens, there are three conflicting native title claims on the second stage of the Ord. It is a matter of great concern that, unless these claims are resolved, then this great project will be held up for who knows how long—perhaps many years—and this great development will not occur. I must say it is quite clear that if the development of Ord stage 2 is put on the backburner and deferred for years until the native title issues are resolved, the responsibility will lie with those on the opposition benches who blocked the passage of the government's native title legislation which would have enabled these claims to be resolved in a sensible and equitable way within a reasonable timeframe. If, in fact, this does not happen, then I am sure the people of Australia will know who to blame for it and they will certainly bear that in mind when they go to the polls, presumably in the latter part of this year.Just for the information of the Senate, there have been no new land releases at Kununurra made in the town or surrounding areas since the introduction of the Native Title Act in 1993, other than a single farming block—and that resulted in extensive litigation. A major residential subdivision involving 200 lots has been delayed due to the impact of native title. In addition, 22 light industrial lots, 10 horticultural lots, a commercial centre and a tourism site have not been able to go ahead due to the slow processes of the existing Native Title Act. As I have said, I am sure that the voters of Australia will bear these facts in mind when they go to the polls in the next federal election. It is quite clear that it is thanks to the opposition and the Democrats that developments—such as the Ord stage 2—have been delayed and that many other similar developments around Australia will be similarly delayed because the government amendments did not pass through the Senate.Two weeks ago, I visited Karratha and Dampier, where the Pilbara Development Commission informed me that in the next five years it is possible that some $20 billion of investment will be made in resource developments in that area. That is an enormous amount of money and it is going to be the major resource development area of Australia if those investments are made. The possible projects there include: expansion, by a factor of three times, of the liquefied natural gas projects off the north-west coast; the development of a petrochemical plant; and secondary downstream processing of iron ore—which has been a long-term objective of the Western Australian government and is something which we all, as Australians, should be encouraging to happen. We need to not just export iron ore but to develop it into other products and get some superadded benefit to this country from so doing. As I have said, it would seem that Karratha-Dampier is set to become one of the most important industrial areas of Australia, if all the projected development in the area goes ahead.Again, I am sorry to say that one of the major hindrances to the success of these resource and energy developments has been, and is, native title. The frustration of those in the north was evident on my recent visit when the Shire of Roebourne—the shire that covers Karratha and Dampier—informed me that around 2,500 building sites for workers' homes are being held up due to native title.The point is that unless accommodation can be built for the workers of these great projects they will become fly-in fly-out projects. That means that they will make almost no contribution to regional development, because fly-in fly-out means that workers come in for a period of two or four weeks and then they are flown back to Perth or to wherever they come from around Australia. They put no roots into the communities and make no contribution to the development of those communities.So while these projects could go ahead without land being available for worker accommodation it would be at the cost of a contribution to regional development. Once again, we come back to the issue of native title and to the fact that the mechanism which might have resolved the blockage in the provision of land for workers' homes in this area has been caused by the failure of the opposition parties to pass the government's native title amendments. And if regional development suffers as a result of this failure to be able to provide homes for the workers in the Karratha-Dampier area, the voters of Australia, I am sure, will remember that the opposition and their compatriots—the Democrats and the Greens—are to blame for failing to pass the government's Native Title Act amendments.264912:54:002649Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Recent speculation about the possibility of a double dissolution raises the issue of the most appropriate method of allocating short- and long-term Senate places after an election of the full Senate. The constitution provides that senators should have six-year terms and that half the Senate should retire at each ordinary Senate election. In the event of a double dissolution under section 57 of the constitution, the ordinary rotation of senators is disturbed and, following the election, the Senate is required to divide itself into short- and long-term senators. Although the constitution requires the Senate to divide itself in this fashion, it leaves the method of division into the two classes at the discretion of the Senate itself.The Senate has had to consider the issue of the most appropriate method of allocating short- and long-term places on seven occasions: once after the first Commonwealth election and then on the six occasions following double dissolutions. Traditionally, the method that the Senate has settled upon has been to divide senators on the basis of the order in which they were elected.After the first Commonwealth election in 1901, the Senate debated the most appropriate method of determining short- and long-term senators. Under the voting system used by most states—that is, single electorate block voting, which is effectively a winner-take-all system—the Senate was basically faced with two choices. The first was to follow the United States tradition of dividing senators into classes by lot. The second alternative was to allocate six-year terms to the three senators in each state who had been returned with the highest number of votes—and the Senate finally settled on this method.One state, however, had not chosen its senators by single electorate block voting. Tasmania had used a form of proportional representation—the Hare-Clark system. One of its senators pointed out in the Senate debate that under the proportional representation system it was almost impossible to say, in many cases, which candidates had received the highest number of votes without, in his words, `a thorough scrutiny of the ballot papers'. Because states had used different methods of election, senators were eager to stress that, whatever method was agreed to, it should not be regarded as a precedent binding future senates.Following the 1914 double dissolution, senators were divided in the same way. In 1948, the method of electing senators was changed, with parliament adopting a system of proportional representation. Following the 1951 double dissolution, the Senate agreed, without dissent, to divide senators in the order in which they were elected.In 1959, the Joint Committee of Constitutional Review recommended amending the constitution to provide for constitutional entrenchment of the method of allocating short- and long-term senators. The words were chosen carefully. The joint committee recommended allocating places to senators in `accord with their relative order of success.' The committee further noted that relative electoral success was different under first past the post and proportional representation.Following the double dissolutions of 1974, 1975 and 1983, senators were divided in the traditional manner. In each case, there was no dissent in relation to the method chosen. In 1984, the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended. Included was a new section 282. This section provided for the conduct of a recount with the quota that would have applied had a half Senate election been held after a double dissolution.At the time of debate on this bill, Senator Ray, on behalf of the then government, stressed that, if this procedure were to be used to allocate short- and long-term senators, it should be agreed to in advance of any double dissolution election. Late in 1986, Senator Ray made approaches to the then opposition seeking their consideration of adopting the method made possible following a section 282 recount. The then opposition ignored the overture. Following the 1987 double dissolution, the Senate resolved to use the traditional method to allocate short- and long-term Senate places.The coalition accused the ALP and the Australian Democrats of hypocrisy, stating that, having promoted a new system through the amendment to the Electoral Act, it ought to be used. Senator Ray, again on behalf of the then government, made it clear that, although the method provided for in section 282 was preferable for allocating places, the chamber had to agree in advance if the traditional method was not to be followed, because otherwise parties would adopt a wait and see approach and advocate the method that benefited them politically.Given that it is almost impossible to predict the outcome of Senate elections under proportional representation, and that even small differences in voting patterns can have a significant impact on the final result, the opposition believes that it is appropriate for the Senate to resolve, as much as it is able, the appropriate method of allocating short- and long-term senators.Since the inclusion of the provisions allowing a half Senate recount, it has been our view that this represents the fairest method of allocating short- and long-term Senate places. While proportional representation accurately distributes representation, it is a poor method of ranking senators according to voting strength. Any Senate candidate reaching a quota is ranked ahead of a senator elected by the distribution of a surplus from a candidate higher on the ticket.Thus, the traditional arrangement favours minor parties. It ensures that they will receive a long-term senator as soon as they achieve quota. In a double dissolution election, this means that, provided they get over 7.69 per cent of the vote, they will receive a long-term senator, whereas a party which attracted 44 per cent of the vote may only receive two long-term senators. Such a result is inconsistent with the principle of proportional representation.Order of election and voting strength are different concepts. Order of election simply reflects the order in which successful candidates reach quota. Voting strength more closely resembles proportional support for parties contesting the election.Although the half Senate recount method is not perfect, it is a more accurate measure of voting strength. It is a more accurate measure of the will of the electorate than is the traditional method.However, Mr Acting Deputy President, the Labor Party does not support determining the method of allocating places when the result is already known. I think such a practice encourages coalitions of self-interest to be built following each double dissolution election.If a decision is to be made on this issue, it should be made now. Although it is doubtful that this Senate, by resolution, can bind a future Senate, a continuing order of the Senate stipulating the method of allocation would require an absolute majority of senators in any new parliament to overturn it. Further, it would have persuasive effect, both in this chamber and amongst the public at large, if there were a concerted attempt to alter the system after the election.Because we acknowledge that matters affecting the election and terms of senators are sensitive ones, I have taken the opportunity of canvassing this issue in the Senate chamber today. The opposition has not had any discussions about this matter with other parties, but I do propose to present a notice of motion tomorrow to give effect to the proposal that I have put forward on behalf of the opposition here today.Further, Mr Acting Deputy President, for the information of senators, I propose to table a research paper prepared at our request by the Parliamentary Library which extensively outlines the historical antecedents to this debate. In accordance with the normal courtesies, I, of course, provide it to the minister at the table. I formally seek leave to table this document.Leave granted.265113:07:002651Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise today to honour the passing of a hero. To do this, I would like to use the words of two people who knew Len Howard. One is Associate Professor Phil Jennings, Past President of the Conservation Council of Western Australia and current board member of the Conservation Council, and the other is Dr Nick Dunlop from the Brand Greens in Western Australia.These were the words of Phil Jennings at Len's funeral: Len Howard was a remarkable man. He was the sort of person who left a lasting impression on you even if you only met him once. He was a person filled with love of life and a passion for peace and justice and the environment. Len stood for these principles long before they became fashionable and at a time in life when most people want to retire and slow down Len embarked on one of the greatest challenges in his life—trying to protect the State's largest inland waterway from inappropriate development.For more than 20 years, in fact almost up to the day he died, Len campaigned tirelessly to protect the Peel Inlet, Harvey Estuary and Lake Clifton. He had to fight some of the most powerful and influential developers in our society. He lost many battles but he won the most important one—the respect and support of the people of Mandurah.I first met Len in 1985 when he was already in his seventies. He was running a campaign to protect the Creery wetlands from a canal development. He invited me and a group of conservationists from Perth to visit the area to observe the samphire flats. His enthusiasm for the area was infectious and we all came away convinced that this was a very special site and one which must be conserved.Over the succeeding years I worked with Len on many issues including the Dawesville Cut, the Peel Regional Park, Port Mandurah, Point Grey and the Creery Wetlands and Lake Clifton. These were all tough issues. Our opponents were wealthy, influential and determined, but Len was a tireless campaigner. He never gave up and he never let go.I remember many phone calls from Len where he would begin by apologising for interrupting me and then go on to say he was just putting together a letter or a submission and needed some advice on how to word it or where to send it. I never minded helping him, I was full of admiration for the way he kept on going, relentlessly, when most other people had given the cause away.Sometimes we would talk about politics and the future and I was amazed at how idealistic he was and how relevant his ideas were to the issues of today. Len was not just a leader of the conservation movement. He had a deep commitment to peace and he attended most of the Palm Sunday Peace rallies in Perth in the eighties and nineties. He was also committed to justice and social reform and he was a long term supporter of socialism which he believed was the basis of a just and sustainable society.I will always remember Len as an outstanding grass roots campaigner. He motivated and inspired people with his commitment and vision. His passion for the environment affected those around him and they have taken up where he left off. That is perhaps his greatest contribution to society. The conservation movement in Mandurah today is strong and flourishing and it is full of wonderful, dedicated people who worked with Len on his many campaigns.It wasn't always that way. When Len and Doreen settled in Mandurah in 1974 it was a developer's paradise. Very few people raised any concerns in those days about waterfront developments or the state of the estuary. However Len realised that unrestrained development would destroy the beautiful estuary which attracted people to Mandurah and in 1976 he and Brian Devereux decided to do something about it. They formed the Peel Preservation Group.Len was always very modest about his work and he often told me how little he had managed to achieve. But the record of Len and the Peel Preservation Group is very impressive. The outstanding value of the Peel/Harvey/ Yalgorup System is now recognised by nearly everyone in the community and as a result the Government and the local Council have taken some steps to restore and protect it.Just over three years ago I attended a retirement function in Mandurah at which the members of the Peel Preservation Group thanked Len and Doreen for the numerous contributions they had made to the conservation of the Peel area. For Len it was a difficult decision to step down from the leadership of the PPG after 18 years at the helm, but old age and ill health were beginning to catch up with him. He said to me at the time that he was happy to step down knowing that the group was in good hands, but he said that he wanted to go on campaigning to stop Port Mandurah Stage 2 and the Lake Clifton development.And that he did. Over the last three years of his life, despite failing health, Len maintained a vigorous campaign to protect the stranded shoals and stromatolities in Lake Clifton. These tasks are unfinished, and the future of the Creery Wetlands still hangs in the balance, but I am sure that Len realised that his friends in the conservation movement would carry on the campaign he started more than 20 years ago.Len was a gentle man. He never advocated violence or threats against his opponents. He always tried to convince them through reason and evidence. He worked tirelessly for social change. His telephone bills must have been enormous. He spoke to everyone he could and tried to arouse public awareness about the issues. He had a great faith in human nature and never lost hope that the truth would prevail. He was at his best working with ordinary people. Informing and encouraging them, believing that real change in society comes directly from the people. He wrote endless press releases, submissions and letters to the editors of newspapers with the aim of reaching the widest possible audience. And he undoubtedly succeeded in winning the support of the people of Mandurah for conserving the environment of the Peel Region.In recognition of his work the Conservation Council awarded him the inaugural Bessie Rischbieth Award in 1994. This is the highest honour available to a conservationist and Len was the first person to receive it. Typically, in accepting the award, he said that he was deeply honoured by his selection but he was certain that there were others who deserved it more.We have all lost a friend and a leader who was an inspiration to us. I am sure that we all feel the loss very deeply today because we realise that Len is irreplaceable. But as time goes by we will also rejoice that we knew him and that we shared in his success.I have no doubt that his work will go on through the many people who worked with him and were inspired by him and I think that is what Len would have wanted most of all.I would like to finish with the words of Dr Nick Dunlop who wrote the following on behalf of the Brand Greens:On Thursday 16 April 1998 veteran wetlands campaigner, Green's member, candidate and friend, Len Howard, passed away. In the preceding fortnight he rang from Fremantle hospital about things that needed to be done to save samphire marshes and people he couldn't get in touch with. He didn't let on.Len discovered the conservation significance of what we now know is the Peel-Yalgorup Ramsar wetland system long before its values were recognised. He campaigned for more than 20 years with the Peel Preservation Group to protect the estuary and lakes from the ever growing threat of urban encroachment, canal developments, pollution and general neglect.Although in the last few years Len claimed that "the world was moving too fast" and "it was time to go to pasture", he never did. During the period he agreed to be drafted as a Green's candidate at the age of 80, won a landmark FOI case against the Federal Government and some environmental consultants, and relentlessly pursued the rescue of a productive marshland area from a canal development. The spectacle of a persistent, octogenarian, pensioner driving powerful developers, dubious consultants, self-serving councillors, journalists and government ministers to distraction was truly inspirational.The Peel-Yalgorup region is the most important waterbird habitat area in Western Australia. It is April and the sandpipers from north-east Asia have fattened on Len's precious Creery mud-flats. They have taken flight in purposeful flocks to cross the world and find breeding grounds on the tundra. Perhaps Len's gone with them this time.265313:16:002653Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—This session of the Senate is for senators to speak about matters of public interest. Nothing could be more in the public interest than the way in which political parties go about their own business in selecting candidates to offer themselves to the Australian public at times of election.We know—and it is very well known publicly—of the enormous problems the ALP has in its preselection battles. What happened in Victoria with the branch stacking and vote rigging is legend.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You're not serious!YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Conroy interjects and, of course, he is one of the principal branch stackers—so the media say. I perhaps would not say that had it not been for such confirmation from the media—Senator Conroy, Senator Ray and Senator Carr; it is just legend. You cannot pick up a paper any day without understanding, without knowing, the branch stacking, the rorting, in the Victorian ALP branch.In New South Wales it is not much better. At this very moment we have the spectacle of the various authorities investigating allegations of criminals actually giving gifts to ALP members of state parliament to get them to perform certain favours in the parliament.Who can forget that photograph of Peter Baldwin, when he was a Labor minister, coming out of a Labor meeting with blood streaming down his face where he had been set upon by other members of the ALP? They are the matters that we have come to accept as normal in the ALP in Victoria and New South Wales.It is with some regret that I recount that this ALP malaise has come to Queensland. Regrettably, the current state leader of the ALP, Mr Beattie, either is part of it or is incapable and too weak to do anything about it. As a matter of public interest, I want to raise in this chamber today the disgraceful goings-on of the Australian Labor Party branches in the town that I come from—that is, Townsville in North Queensland.Mr Acting Deputy President, you will remember that the government of Queensland changed when a Liberal candidate was elected at the Mundingburra by-election. That Liberal candidate enabled the Queensland coalition to take government. That by-election came around because there was an improper election in the original contest in Mundingburra, so determined by the Court of Disputed Returns.Following the Court of Disputed Returns overturning the Mundingburra result in the 1995 state election, the Liberal Party again re-endorsed Mr Frank Tanti. The man who ran for the Labor Party at that general election was a Mr Ken Davies, who was a minister in the Goss government. The Labor Party thought, for various factional reasons I think, that Mr Davies should be pushed aside in the by-election and they would get a glamour candidate to run in Mundingburra against Mr Frank Tanti.The glamour candidate chosen by the Labor Party backroom boys was none other than Tony Mooney, the popular mayor of Townsville. Tony is not a bad fellow, and I think he does a reasonably good job. But he was put into this particular contest after a very difficult preselection battle. So Mayor Tony Mooney became the glamour candidate for the Labor Party, causing a lot of ill feeling, I might say, in relation to the preselection. The defeated preselection candidate, Mr Ken Davies, subsequently made allegations of bribery. He told the world and anyone who wanted to listen that the Labor Party had actually offered him trips to tropical islands and other inducements so that he would not run in the by-election.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! Senator Conroy.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—But he chose to stand as an independent and, of course, he has suffered the penalty since then, and will suffer that for the rest of his life.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How about Parer? He's suffered.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, please.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—But we had the glamour candidate against Frank Tanti—good old battler Frank, a great friend of mine and a great representative for Mundingburra. Of course, Frank Tanti did the glamour candidate, the mayor of Townsville, like a dinner. But there was a lot of dissatisfaction in the branches of the ALP over that particular matter.So we then come to the other seats in Townsville. For those not familiar with the state scene up there, there is the seat of Mundingburra, now held by Mr Frank Tanti; there is the seat of Townsville, which was held by Mr Geoff Smith, a minister. Mr Smith announced that he was not going to stand again. I think he was given a bit of a shove and he moved on but Geoff is not a bad guy either. Then we have the preselection contest.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Who was the preselection contest between in the state seat of Townsville? Let me tell you: there was the former mayor of Townsville, Mr Mike Reynolds from the Left.Senator Conroy interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Not one of your guys, Senator Conroy. Actually, they need you up there because the Right gets done like a dinner every time in Queensland. But you distract me. We had Mr Mike Reynolds, the former mayor of Townsville. He is an interesting guy and, again, quite a nice fellow. He resigned for some reason. What was he going to do? He had been a lecturer at the university. Guess what happened? He was able to get himself a job, supported by the then federal Labor government, down here in Canberra. He moved here for a couple of years. He left Townsville and became a Canberra citizen.Of course the Queensland state government at the time, the Goss Labor government, made sure he kept his sinecure as chairman of the Townsville Port Authority, which was rather interesting because he was living and working in Canberra but he was still chairman of the Townsville Port Authority—and someone used to fly him up to Townsville every couple of weeks to attend to that. But that is an interesting sideline.Anyway, Mike Reynolds thought he might like to be the state candidate for Townsville, so he nominated. But the Right wanted to put someone in so, again, we had Tony Mooney, the popular mayor. He also thought that was his seat by divine right. So we had the preselection contest between Mike Reynolds, former mayor from the Left, and Tony Mooney, current mayor from the Right.As a result of that preselection, a lot of nasty comments went around. There were a lot of nasty rumours. There was a charge brought against Mayor Mooney's numbers man, Mr Andy Kehoe, for defrauding and rorting the electoral system.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—On the day of the court case, after pleading his innocence all the way through, Mr Kehoe meekly went in and said, `I plead guilty.' Some unkind people suggested that he did that because if the court case had run ahead there would have been all these allegations involving Mike Reynolds, the candidate, and Mayor Tony Mooney and why it was that Mike Reynolds happened to end up winning the preselection for that seat of Townsville. So there was a charge and there was a conviction of an ALP numbers man for rigging the vote of the state electorate of Townsville.But now we go on to the third of the seats in the Townsville area; I have mentioned Mundingburra and Townsville. The third seat is the state seat of Thuringowa. There have always been a lot of rumours involving that contest for preselection. The original preselection candidates, as I recall, were a bloke named Gillman and a former Townsville City Council alderman, Ms Karen Ehrmann.Right from the start, there were a lot of allegations about malpractice in the preselection. Karen Ehrmann from the Left won the preselection.Senator Conroy interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—There we are, Senator Conroy, you have been done over by Senator Faulkner's lot yet again. Karen Ehrmann from the Left won the preselection. Then the allegations started flowing. The ALP had a number of internal investigations where ALP members spilled their all about what happened. A lot of these documents came from ALP members to Frank Tanti's office and to other Liberal Party people in Townsville, and they have been read out in the state parliament. They are all there on the record.I will just mention a couple of them. I am reading an article in the Courier-Mail that said:Affidavits from several members of the ALP claimed that preselection ballot papers were taken, completed and lodged without the consent of residents.It said further:Ms Ehrmann had paid ALP membership fees in exchange for votes.Senator Conroy, you would know about that sort of thing in the Labor Party.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Oh dear, oh dear!YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—The Courier-Mail also reported about a couple who had claimed that a blank ballot paper had been collected from their home and that their membership fees had been paid in exchange for electoral support.There were allegations in this article that `ALP sources say that they are an indication of massive vote tampering across the state.' Nevertheless, in spite of all these allegations and rumours, and investigations by the state branch of the ALP of people who do not live in particular areas having a vote in the preselection; in cases when they did not even know they had voted—some of them did not even realise they were members of the ALP; I know this is not news to Senator Conroy who is obviously aware of these sorts of things, but this happened in my own city of Townsville—Ms Ehrmann was endorsed as the Labor candidate for Townsville.She was endorsed because the sitting member, Mr Ken McElligott—a nice fellow, Ken; in the past he has been a health minister and, as far as ALP politicians go, is quite a decent representative and a very decent man—got a bit annoyed with all of this vote rigging going on and thought it was time to move on. He is quoted as saying, and it is the sort of thing that Ken would say, `It's time to step aside and give young parliamentarians a go.' He was saying, `I've had it; it's time I moved on. We want to let young people in. I've had my day; let's get some young people in.'So Ken did that. And, as one would expect, like Keith De Lacy, the former Treasurer in Queensland who used to represent the seat of Cairns, for the last year they have done absolutely nothing. There is a decent coalition government in Queensland, but Keith De Lacy in the electorate of Cairns and Ken McElligott in the electorate of Thuringowa really have not done much. They have not been interested in their constituents; they are on a sort of pre-retirement leave. They did not appear in the press; there were no press releases. They didn't go to public functions as all politicians do, and, of course, the candidates were turning up instead—Ms Ehrmann.But, lo and behold, a few months ago, Ken McElligott suddenly reappeared on the scene. Suddenly he started to issue press releases again; suddenly he started to attend functions. We all thought, `There's something funny going on here. Perhaps there is some truth in those rumours that Ms Ehrmann was involved in vote rigging. Perhaps there is some truth in the rumours that the ALP in Townsville has followed Graham Richardson's dictum of `whatever it takes' to get their factional mates into parliament.'I have to say to you that, in spite of all of these rumours, Peter Beattie, the opposition leader, because he is simply too weak, went along with it. He would not do anything about these rumours, and they were rumours supported by affidavits from ALP members. Peter Beattie—absolutely useless, absolutely weak—refused to do anything about it.What he did do is that he said, as recently as a couple of days ago, that he was going to go along and launch Ms Ehrmann's campaign for the state electorate of Thuringowa and that he was going to do it this coming Saturday. He has said that he has confidence in Ms Ehrmann. Ms Ehrmann in fact said:I welcome the launch of my campaign by Peter Beattie. It is another slap in the face for the member for Mundingburra, Frank Tanti—I am not sure how she got to that—who has attempted to undermine me with lies and innuendos.And so it went on. So we have this guy who was too old to stay there retiring, Karen Ehrmann saying that she was going to be the candidate and Beattie saying she was going to be the candidate. And what happened yesterday?Last night, Karen Ehrmann received summonses for breaches related to vote rigging. And guess who is the bloke who popped up very early this morning to say that he would be the candidate? The previous member, who only a few short months ago had said it was time to step aside and give a young guy a go. Of course, the young guy who is having a go and who will win that seat is David Moore, the Liberal candidate. But again, the ALP—(Time expired)265613:31:002656Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The Australian public has seen considerable evidence of the closeness of the relationship between the Howard government, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and his staff, and the Patrick Stevedores company. It was described by Senator Faulkner yesterday as a symbiotic relationship, and so it is. Both Mr Reith and Patrick are wrapped up together, their futures inextricably linked. But how much do we know about Patrick Stevedores, the shadowy group so hell-bent on sacking their entire work force that they will do and say anything?It does not take much digging to come up with the real and nasty details about this group of corporate felons, because the legitimate business community of this country is so disgusted by the industrial and corporate tactics of this bunch that they have been freely talking to the Labor Party. So let us consider the history of the people from Patrick and the related companies, Lang Corp, Jamison Equities and Brencorp.I have spoken in this place a number of times regarding my understanding that the National Crime Authority are currently investigating the sale of $US105 million worth of Elders convertible bonds to BHP which generated a profit to the bond holders of $A78 million. I believe that there are strong grounds to say that Chris Corrigan and Peter Scanlon were the architects and executors of this sham transaction to defraud the shareholders and creditors of Elders and regulatory authorities.I believe there is a strong case that Peter Scanlon and Chris Corrigan conspired to defraud the shareholders of Elders of $78 million; secretly used Bankers Trust funds to fund the purchase of the convertible bonds; knew at all times the beneficial owners of the convertible bonds; failed to disclose the names of the beneficial owners to either Bankers Trust or the Elders shareholders; devised the scheme to defraud the shareholders of Elders; and in conjunction with Richard Wiesener executed the proposal. They are currently the subject of investigation by the National Crime Authority. Knowing this to be the case, John Howard and Peter Reith chose Peter Scanlon and Chris Corrigan as their partners to sack 1,400 waterside workers.When the NCA investigations of two payments from Elders to Mr Alan Hawkins, totalling $66.5 million, came to light, both John Elliott and Peter Scanlon denied that the transactions were shams and gave long, detailed accounts to the NCA under oath as to why the transactions had been made. Ken Jarrett and Peter Scanlon told the NCA that the transactions had been done with their knowledge on John Elliott's instructions and for a genuine reason.The evidence shows that the transactions were a sham and that by the end of the case the sham nature of the transactions was not even disputed by the accused. Peter Scanlon admitted on the day of his acquittal that the transactions were shams but claimed they had been used to discharge a debt genuinely and legitimately owed to Hawkins; one that he has never been able to produce paperwork for—says it got lost—but is a genuine transaction that they owed the debt on. Scanlon also claimed that the choice of a sham vehicle for discharging the debt had been the choice of Ken Jarrett alone.As the prosecution case statement makes clear, Peter Scanlon lied to the NCA in giving evidence about the payments to Hawkins; Peter Scanlon lied to further the conspiracy to defraud the shareholders of Elders; Peter Scanlon and John Elliott lied because they knew that if the NCA became aware of the true reasons of the payments to Hawkins that might attract attention to the true beneficial owners of this $US105 million parcel of convertible bonds. In June 1984, Elders made an issue of $US160 million of convertible bonds to raise capital and to enable executives to take up a financial interest that would be self-funded.In his statement to the court, Ken Jarrett, the then business associate intricately involved in this, said:The scheme to finance executive participation was proposed initially by Bankers Trust.The scheme to finance executive participation was proposed by Bankers Trust, whose chief executive at the time was Chris Corrigan.Of the $US160 million, $US105 million was taken up by the executives of Elders. Close Scanlon associate Richard Wiesener organised the placement to conceal executive participation. Funding was provided by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Bankers Trust and Credit Agricole. The interest payments on the borrowed funds used to purchase the convertible bonds was met by Elders, not by the beneficial owners who incurred no risk. BHP purchased the $US105 million parcel of Elders convertible bonds on 10 and 11 April 1985, which produced a profit to the beneficial owners of $78 million.In his statement to the court Ken Jarrett again said—and I quote:I was later told by Elliott that my share had been reduced in favour of Scanlon because Scanlon felt he deserved more than his original allocation for the pivotal role he had played in generating the profit.According to Peter Stussi, an accounts manager with Bank Cantrade in Switzerland, he recalls significant deposits coming in to a number of bank accounts at the time when the convertible bonds were sold in 1986. Ken Jarrett told the NCA that after the profits were placed in the bank accounts the nominees names that operated the bank account with fictitious directors was changed and Peter Stussi has confirmed these events. Peter Scanlon and John Elliott went to Switzerland on a number of occasions to discuss the operation of these accounts. This is despite the fact that both Elliott and Scanlon maintain they do not know the beneficial owners of those bank accounts.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Why would you believe him?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Believe Elliott? You would have to be pretty much a mug. The names of the beneficial owners of the profits from the sale of the convertible bonds is currently a matter of investigation for the NCA. The role of Bankers Trust was critical. The concept for the convertible bonds issue and the interest rate conditions attached to the bond issue were developed by Rowan Ross and David Ryan of Bankers Trust who reported direct to chief executive Chris Corrigan. Richard Wiesener acted for the three shelf companies incorporated in the Bahamas: AMST, Bartex Securities and West Fin Company who, he said, did not want to use their own money to pay for the Eurobonds and that his clients did not want to be identified. Funding of the convertible bonds was organised by BT who provided some of the funds along with Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank and Credit Agricole. BT organised the interest rate exposure with Wiesener. John Elliott and Peter Scanlon shifting the interest rate credit risk to Elders rather than to the bond holders.There appears to have been no disclosure of this risk to Elders shareholders and in this case the non-disclosure would be grossly improper. This manoeuvre enabled BT to argue that it did not have to check who the beneficial owner of the companies located in the Bahamas were because Elders was underwriting the credit risk albeit without their own shareholders' knowledge. BT's lawyers requested a letter of confirmation that was produced by Richard Wiesener. The National Crime Authority have a copy of this letter. When Chris Corrigan got the letter from Richard Wiesener saying that Wiesener's clients were not Elders directors, Chris Corrigan used this letter as an excuse to avoid carrying out a probity check that would have disclosed the real identity of those to whom BT was lending the money.BT received large commissions as a consequence of this illegal and improper transaction. The purchase of the Elders convertible bonds and their ultimate sale at a profit of $78 million would not have been possible without Chris Corrigan. During this period Chris Corrigan gained Scanlon's confidence, and it is not surprising that he subsequently appointed Scanlon as head of Langcorp.Let us turn from Corrigan's and Scanlon's involvement with John Elliott and Harlin/Elders to involvement with another of the `big six' of the 1980s corporate scam cases. Records from the ASC show that Peter Scanlon was a director of the Linter Group during the 1980s. Linter Group is well known as the corporate scam vehicle of one Abraham Goldberg now in exile in Poland and still being sought by corporate regulators in this country over losses at least as great as those incurred by Christopher Skase. Greater than $750 million.Allegedly during the 1980s Abe Goldberg took over a number of valuable Australian textile brands such as Speedo, Bradmill, King Gee and Exacto. He stripped those assets of all value and left them as shells of debt. Goldberg is alleged to have exported many millions of dollars through a number of complex company deals, including through companies in Monaco—which rings a bell again—and is now living high on the hog on those stolen shareholder funds. And what role did Peter Scanlon play in this? He was a member of the central company board and if he was fulfilling his duties as a director he should have known exactly what Goldberg was up to. What is more, anyone who has ever seen Peter Scanlon operate in Harlin, Elders, AFP Investments or Langcorp know that Scanlon is not a passive director. He is very active directing and controlling corporate strategy, take-overs, financing, shareholdings and money trails. In fact, it is well known that Abe Goldberg was impressed by Scanlon's corporate strategies. Colleen Ryan and Karen Maley wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 30 April 1994 that:Former close associates talk about how Goldberg was enthralled by the glamour and the financial wizardry of the AFP crew that included Wiesener, Scanlon, John Gerahty. Goldberg did not stick to his knitting. He was entranced by the entrepreneurs.And the entrepreneurs were also entranced with Abe Goldberg and his tactics. Scanlon has used Goldberg-like asset stripping techniques on the Patrick Stevedores labour hire companies, the only difference being the desired end result, an easy sacking of the work force.Similarly, another close Goldberg associate had a $55 million debt repaid by Goldberg immediately before the Linter Group empire went under. There are clear similarities with the behaviour of Patrick's bankers 15 minutes before liquidation of the labour hire companies late at night.But Peter Scanlon did not leave his Linter experience behind when he left the board. He took with him at least seven former directors and officers of Linter Group into his own companies. ASC records indicate that the following names show up on both Linter Group records and those of Scanlon com panies such as AFP Investment Corp Ltd, Jamison Equity Ltd, Brencorp Pty Ltd and Patrick Stevedores companies, including the labour hire companies: David Fitzsimons, Basil Sellers, Ronald Melgaard, William Gerahty, Robin Crawford, David Vaux and Evan Williams.Clearly those former close associates of Abe Goldberg had important and valuable skills for Peter Scanlon's future corporate shenanigans. Peter Scanlon and Chris Corrigan stand condemned for their past corporate malpractices, for their personal history and their associates left over from their Elders and Linter involvement. These two have considerable form and the legitimate business community have been deafening in their lack of support for Langcorp's corporate manoeuvrings.It is now clear that Peter Reith is a conniving co-conspirator with corporate crooks.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Order! I ask you to withdraw that. It is a reflection on the minister in the other chamber.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I withdraw.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Peter Reith head hunted the corporate world for the worst remaining corporate crooks from the 1980s who he knew would not hesitate to break the law in order to achieve his ends—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! That is a reflection on Minister Reith. I ask you to withdraw it. It imputes a motive to him. I ask you to withdraw it. Withdraw it, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I withdraw.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The Howard government stands condemned for having hitched their wagon so closely to corporate fiends such as Scanlan and Corrigan. Does the government now say they knew of the history of Corrigan and Scanlan and willingly formed a partnership with these men on the waterfront? Or did they dupe you, pulled the wool over your eyes so easily? Whatever the case, we could easily say the Howard government deserves everything they get, which so far has been abject failure and derision. Unfortunately, Australia did not deserve the debacle this government has produced on the nation's waterfronts through its disastrous partnership with Chris Corrigan and Peter Scanlan.265913:46:002659Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Chair, that was an extraordinary speech. Accusations have been cobbled together and it is the worse conspiracy theory I have ever heard. I would like to pull the speech to pieces bit by bit, but perhaps at another time.I rise to refer to speeches and warnings issued by Mr Graeme Samuel, President of the National Competition Council, as reported in the press in recent months. I ask: by what authority is Mr Samuel able to threaten the public, industries, the professions and, in fact, every inhabitant of the states, that schools, hospitals and police funding will be unavailable from state coffers because of the lack of competition reforms?Mr Samuel, I point out to you that the NCC is not a policy maker. You are beyond the reach of the electorate but the electorate expects us, the politicians, to point out to you where you are wrong in no uncertain terms. Is it not deliberate scare mongering to assume the loss of hospitals, schools and police? Surely these utterances exceed any of the functions or responsibilities given to him or his council under any legislation.To quote from the NCC annual report, the responsibility of the NCC is to assess whether jurisdictions—the states and territories—have made satisfactory progress in implementing their reform commitments and to make recommendations to the Commonwealth Treasurer about national competition policy payments to the states and territories.Mr Samuel in his public utterances has overstepped the mark and is pre-empting and prejudicing reviews which state governments are undertaking. Under the 1995 NCP agreement, the state and territory governments in relation to the legislation review agreed to review and, where appropriate, to reform all laws which restrict competition and ensure that any new restrictions provide a net community benefit. The three tranches are assessed on 1 July 1997, 1999 and 2001, with payments to state and territory governments of around $16 billion over the period 2005 to 2006.Coming out as he has this year, the tone of his comments can only be construed as threats to the states ahead of the delivery of their reviews, as bully boy tactics to the states, to the affected industries and to the professions concerned. He has left no-one out: liquor regulations, newsagents, chemists—the backbone of many small communities. Your call for deregulation destroys them. You transfer their business to large supermarkets in neighbouring towns and destroy the smaller town with its pub, newsagent and chemist serving the local community.What sort of communities are we going to end up with? There will be no enterprise, no opportunity for small business people. There is a loss of competition from small business. He makes no mention of the valid consideration that national competition policy gives to social factors as part of the public benefit consideration.Mr Samuel last week gave a speech in Adelaide to shake up the professional groups and local governments. He has also attacked statutory marketing reforms. His complaints are extraordinary. He maintains that there should not be any industry representatives on review panels, that the council is opposed to the appointment of industry representatives. He says that `there is a risk of the review panel being captured by vested interest.' How else is the relevant total picture of an industry to be given if it is not by someone involved in it? Maybe when it comes to the implementation of competition policy, an interested party could also be defined as economists who have a direct interest in the implementation of their current pure ideology.Mr Samuel is particularly critical of the review into the sugar, rice and barley industries. In February he made accusations of political expediency affecting decisions. The sugar industry working party review was a total industry review. It had 74 recommendations, one being the retention of the single desk marketing of the Queensland Sugar Corporation. It was a decision agreed by the growers, the millers, the refiners and also the end-users who are the customers of the single desk seller. This one desk selling, which allows the forward selling of sugar, has driven this industry to be hugely successful. It is a $2 billion export industry today. Where is the increased productivity when one mill is set against the other, driving the price down to international buyers?In the circumstances, accusations of political expediency are outrageous. Surely the purpose of reforms is not to destroy industries and destroy communities which depend on these industries. What about consideration of the job losses and the lack of replacement jobs in country Australia? What about industry being the sole economic base of many rural areas. Where are these factors taken into consideration in Mr Samuel's pre-determined judgments? What about consideration of the reality of the markets that primary industries have to sell into?The state government reviews of the dairy industries are due this year in New South Wales and Queensland. State governments are legitimately allowed to take into consideration the public benefit test. State governments are elected by the people and are in a far better position to know the public benefits of an industry arrangement than a council sitting in Melbourne. Is it the responsibility of elected state governments to govern and consider the needs of other constituents and the wellbeing of the state as part of their elected role as representatives and deliverers of good government to their people?Mr Samuel is forgetting the public benefit test when he makes his threat of withholding the loot. Where are the assessments that have followed the deregulation of certain industries such as the egg industry where the consumer has not received lower prices, the producer has received lower prices with the price benefit picked up by the retailer because they have huge market power?The same will happen with the dairy industry with the producer screwed down by the large processors and the supermarket chains. Only the big can survive as big chains tender to big processors who are the only ones who can meet these contracts. What about the closure of smaller processing plants, whether dairy or sugar, which are the mainstay of rural economies?Recent years have seen the growth of the big—and you have to be big to compete in a marketplace dominated by the big. Where are the assessments that follow from deregulation of primary industries when in Australia the reality is they must sell to a domestic market controlled by three large retailers? The three large supermarket chains control nearly 80 per cent of the domestic retail grocery market. These retailers are provided with their own protection. Their monopoly power is beyond any intervention of the Hilmer competition reforms. Hilmer competition rules maintain competition still exists with three large grocery buyers. In reality there is no competition for the sellers.The Hilmer reforms give the three large retailers their own market arrangements and they receive their own form of protection. Every beef producer, pork producer, egg producer, vegetable and fruit grower has the same story of being captive to the three large retail buyers where they are 80 per cent of grocery retail market.Domestic prices are set by them. Control over product specifications are set by them with expensive penalties the discretion of their buyers if product specifications are not met. All power rests with the buyer. The absolute right to have a buyer for your product depends on playing exactly to the rules of the big chains—rules that can be changed at any time by the buyer. Ask any pork producer or a beef producer struggling to survive in the totally deregulated selling environment. The sellers are economic captives of the near monopoly powers of the three large retailers. Beef producers have been selling below the cost of production for the past three years. Supermarkets control 40 per cent of all retail beef sales in Australia. The supermarkets set the price for the wholesale market and the supermarkets take advantage of the strength of their enterprise and deal with the producers.The consequences are that the production side continues to collapse, not being able to survive at these prices. Production and quality decline as breeders' stock is disposed of and producers struggle to maintain some sort of viability. Services are closed, their investment value is lost and vital export earnings are lost to the nation.Is this the whole picture that Mr Samuel should allow the states to consider—vital factors such as the survival of industries in rural areas and their processing plants when considering the public benefit of arrangements like the Queensland Sugar Corporation or the Rice Marketing Board?Mr Samuel's comments are unveiled threats. I say to Mr Samuel: let the state governments and their elected representatives play the game and you can keep the score. If you want to be a politician stand for the position or stay out of politics. Mr Samuel, let the process work as it should with the state governments. Your threats should not prevent state governments from doing their job and looking at social and regional issues and considering the public benefit factor in any competition reform decisions.Questions Without Notice266126612661Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the minister to the statement made by Mr Costello in June 1995 when he said:. . . the first thing we'll do is we'll have to deal with the current account deficit.Is this how the government deals with the current account deficit—by creating a record deficit of $31 billion and a record foreign debt of $222 billion? When will the government deal with the current account deficit rather than increase it? Does the minister stand by Mr Costello's further statement that:. . . you can't have high growth in this country when you've got a current account deficit that runs over this country month after month with $2b deficits. Does the government stand by the Treasurer's statement when it is running deficits on an average of $2.5 billion month after month?2662Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Cook, that is astonishing after what has virtually been universally acclaimed as a superb budget. Some of the journalists have referred to it as a great budget—a budget in tune with the times. I have to say, Senator Cook, there is no greater endorsement for the quality of this budget than that which comes from looking at the doleful faces on the Labor Party and the appalling leadership that you have received over the last two years. We are well aware that there is a crisis in Asia, and we are well aware that the effect of that crisis is to impact on the balance of payments. Equally, Senator Cook, it has been pointed out by others—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your remarks should be addressed to the chair, not directly to the questioner.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I was pointing out to Senator Cook that the budget papers very clearly explain the nature of the current account deficit, and the fact that this is a different type of current account deficit to the blow-outs that were experienced under the Labor Party. Those blow-outs, as you will be aware, were driven by very high domestic demand, high inflation and asset price explosion. It is very clear, and we have acknowledged this in the budget papers, that where there is a major downturn in Asia—where many of our major export markets are—this clearly will have an impact on exports, and it will clearly have an impact on the current account deficit.The answer to Senator Cook is best given today by the enormous plaudits that the Treasurer has received for this budget: a budget which is responsible; a budget which is in tune with the times; and a budget which reflects the tough measures—which we have acknowledged—which we have had to take to repair the massive fiscal deficit which was left to this country by Labor. I suggest that the Labor Party, rather than trying to make mean and spiteful comments about a great budget, would be better off to draw the lesson—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—We asked you a question about debt and you won't answer.WW4Senator KEMP—You ask me about debt. Foreign debt, as we know, exploded under the Labor Party. There is no question that under the Labor Party, with the massive deficits under the treasurership of Mr Keating, there was an explosion of foreign debt and no-one has argued that. That is one of the problems that this government has had to cope with, and one of the problems that we are coping with particularly well. I suggest to the Labor party: go back and read the press this morning; go back and read the transcripts of the TV commentators; look at the enormous range of very positive comments that this government is receiving for its very responsible behaviour. You would be better served, rather than with the sort of nitpicking that Senator Cook is indulging in.2662Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note your answer, Minister, but I also note that Mr Howard, Mr Costello and Mr Fischer have been saying in recent months that the Australian economy is fireproofed from the Asian contagion. It is interesting that you should raise that excuse now. Minister, can you explain why your prediction for the current account deficit is 5.25 per cent of GDP as compared with the prediction of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Macfarlane, who has it at six per cent? Is the difference between your prediction and that of Mr Macfarlane due to methodology; is it due to different judgments or is it just a case of political expediency?2662Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Cook, I think if you read the budget papers carefully you will see that the 5.25 per cent is a year figure—an average figure. Mr Macfarlane may have been referring to a different time period. It could well be a timing factor, but I think the projections by the Reserve Bank and the projections by the Treasury are broadly consistent. I urge people in the Labor Party, if they have any doubts about this budget, to read very carefully the press comments this morning. You will see, once again, that the Labor Party is completely out of kilter with national sentiment.26632663Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The coalition government was elected on a platform to be economically responsible, to reduce debt, to increase savings and to assist families and small business. Will the government leader inform the Senate how last night's budget builds upon outstanding progress already made by the Howard government and how the budget has restored confidence to the Australian economy which was so badly undermined by 13 years of Labor government?2663Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Certainly. This budget again demonstrates that this is a government of economic and fiscal credibility, which is in stark contrast to the former Labor government which is now in opposition. It demonstrates again that the government in office, the Howard government, is the only alternative in Australian politics which has a policy of economic responsibility.That has been recognised overwhelmingly, as Senator Kemp said, Madam President, but I will just remind you of two organisations and their expressions last night. The Business Council of Australia said:This is a Budget that is absolutely right for the times. Most importantly, the Howard Government has honoured its promise to the Australian people by delivering a Budget surplus.The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:This is a good Budget which leaves the Australian economy stronger and more resilient. This is a Budget which will help the Australian economy onto a more productive path to the future. The Government, having set out on this path two years ago, has stayed on course. The benefits are now there for all to see.What are these benefits? Labor's $10.3 billion black hole has now been turned into a $2.7 billion surplus. We now have record low interest rates of about 6.5 per cent, saving the average Australian home buyer $320 a month, or $3,800 per year.Small business overdraft interest rates are now down to 7.7 per cent, perhaps the lowest ever. Compare that with Labor's achievement of over 20 per cent—over 20 per cent with Labor and down to 7.7 per cent with the coalition. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in eight years—that is, since the Labor recession that Mr Keating said we had to have. And that has all been achieved without tax increases—no increases in income tax, no increases in company tax, and no new increases in wholesale sales tax.Compare the leadership. Look at the record of the alternative Prime Minister. When Mr Beazley was minister for employment, one million Australians were out of work and there was an 11.2 per cent unemployment rate. When he was minister for finance, there was a $10.3 billion budget deficit—record high budget deficits. Government debt grew to nearly $80 billion over five years. What a record to stand by and to put yourself up on as an alternative Prime Minister in this country. There is the contrast. If Labor were back in government, what would you have? You would have billions of dollars of debt again.Senator Cook interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—We would be dangerously exposed to things such as the Asian crisis, Senator Cook. There would be higher interest rates, higher unemployment and higher taxes because that is the way that Labor does business. That is its record. What is so disappointing is that, although Mr Gareth Evans has owned up and said, `Yes, we did leave this huge debt,' Senator Cook continues to deny it.Before the election, Senator Cook denied that there was a deficit. He assured the Australian people that the budget would be in surplus. Since the election, he has denied that there was a deficit. It is time for Senator Cook to rise to his feet and say, `I misled the people before the election and I have misled the people since the election.' Only then will Senator Cook start to have the credibility to justify his asking his first question.2663Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate inform the Senate of community reaction to last night's budget?2663Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, that would take the whole hour of question time, but I will give you just a few more examples. The Institute of Chartered Accounts said:The Treasurer's Budget, which delivers an underlying surplus of $2.7 billion during the next financial year, is a responsible and encouraging reaction to the present economic situation.On tourism, the Tourism Council of Australia commented:A record increase in funding for tourism in tonight's Budget is good news for the industry.Opposition senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—The Minerals Council said:The Federal Government should be congratulated. The fiscal management performance is good news.The housing industry said:The Federal Government's commitment to a substantial budget surplus has to be welcomed as the right defence for Australia against the Asian problems.Please note that, Senator Cook. On aged care, what did the Council on the Ageing say, Senator Cook? It said:Health care is one of the most important public policy issues for older people. The government's focus on this area in the budget is welcome.(Time expired)26642664Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. In the first Howard budget, the Treasurer forecast employment growth of 1½ per cent; the outcome was 1¼ per cent. Last year, the forecast for employment growth was two per cent; the outcome was again 1¼ per cent. So, in the last two budgets, the government got it wrong to the tune of tens of thousands of jobs. Can the minister explain how the government can predict higher employment growth from 1998 to 1999 when economic growth for the corresponding period is predicted to fall by three-quarters of a per cent?2664Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think we should put a few figures on the record here, Senator Mackay, which might give a slightly different spin to the effort you just made. The context of your question comes after recent figures on employment growth in the Australian economy of over 50,000. That is a really remarkable figure and one that, again, was widely welcomed in the community. Senator Mackay, you seemed to be saying that there was a fall in growth this year. Is that what you said?9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—No, I didn't say that!WW4Senator KEMP—You said—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp!WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I am trying to get some clarification from Senator Mackay because I did think she said that there was a fall in growth this year. Growth is rising this year, Senator Mackay. Haven't you read the budget figures?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Address the chair, please. Don't shout across the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—I am intrigued by a question asked by a Labor Party senator that indicates to this chamber that growth is going to fall this year. I just think it is absolutely astonishing.Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—That is right, growth is predicted at three per cent. Senator Mackay said that growth was falling.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—No, I did not!WW4Senator KEMP—All I am saying to Senator Mackay is: be very careful when you take questions from the questions committee.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are far too many interjections. Senator Mackay, you will have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question if you wish.WW4Senator KEMP—As Senator Mackay will be aware, the figures in the budget papers show that the unemployment rate at the end of next year is predicted to come down to 7¾ per cent, which is a further fall on the current figures. These are the lowest figures in the unemployment area for a long time.Contrary to what you are saying, Senator Mackay, this government has a very proud record in this area, and a record which we are continuing to work hard on. If I can refresh your memory, unemployment under Labor rose to—was it 11.2 per cent? Does anyone here know who the minister for employment was under Labor when the unemployment level rose to 11.2 per cent? Absolutely dead silence. I can tell you, Madam President, the minister for employment was Mr Kim Beazley. Mr Beazley presided over an unemployment figure of 11.2 per cent. What an absolutely splendid record!We now have a Labor Party senator standing up here and purporting to criticise this government's record. Senator Mackay, don't you realise that the unemployment rate has come down under this government? Don't you realise that the unemployment rate is predicted to further decline?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, address the chair, please.WW4Senator KEMP—I was just asking some rhetorical questions, because there was an implication in the question from Senator Mackay that this government was somehow failing on this front. The truth of the matter is that this government is making great progress on this front. This is what the budget figures say. Just to repeat an earlier comment: the economy is not going to suffer a fall in growth this year; the economy is growing at three per cent.2665Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The Treasurer last night predicted a fall in growth of three quarters of a per cent. That is what I said. Just so you understand that. My supplementary question is: has the minister ordered, given that the forecasts have been so appallingly—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I raise a point of order: the honourable senator opposite is not addressing her remarks through the chair. I would hope that she would be asked to do so.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Mackay, phrase your question correctly, please, to comply with the standing orders.9L6Senator MACKAY—My supplementary question is: given that the government's reviews with regard to unemployment have been so wrong in the last two budgets and given that the Treasurer last night actually predicted a fall in growth of three quarters of a per cent, Minister, have you ordered a review of the employment growth forecasts given the flawed predictions of the last two budgets?2665Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think what we should do is order a review of the questions committee in the Labor Party for putting up such an absurd question. I repeat: growth next year is forecast at three per cent. Don't you understand, Senator Mackay, that under this government the unemployment rate has fallen and continues to fall?Above all, Senator Mackay does not seem to understand that, under her party, the Labor Party, unemployment rose to 11.2 per cent and that the employment minister at the time was Mr Kim Beazley. As a result of our policies, the unemployment rate is falling and is predicted to continue to fall. Senator Mackay, I think that just shows how much this government is fully on track. (Time expired)26652665Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is also addressed to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to last night's budget which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the Australian community. Will the Assistant Treasurer outline the achievements and benefits from tackling Labor's massive $10.3 billion debt legacy?2665Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Lightfoot for his question. It is a particularly appropriate question in view of the sorts of comments that we have been receiving from the Labor Party during question time and following the very successful launch of the latest budget. Overwhelmingly, there is good fiscal news contained in last night's budget. As the Treasurer said:We are back in the black. We are back on track.This budget shows an underlying budget surplus of $2.7 billion, which brings the Commonwealth back into the black for the first time in almost a decade. I am very pleased to report that the government has delivered on its promise to have a return to surplus in the first parliamentary term, further projected surpluses over the period 2001-02 and is on track to more than halve the debt ratio, the Commonwealth general government net debt, by the turn of the century.By moving the budget into surplus we are now repaying the debt burden inherited from the previous government. By the end of 1998-99 we will have repaid around $31 billion in net debt from the levels—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Million or billion?WW4Senator KEMP—Why do you not listen, Senator Ray. We will have repaid around $31 billion in net debt from the levels of almost $96 billion we inherited—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You said million.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Ray, that debt of $96 billion we inherited from the Labor Party. That was the figure.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. You have called one opposition senator to order—perhaps fairly, I do not know—for not addressing remarks through the chair. I see no evidence at all that any government—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have called Senator Kemp to order several times today for the same reason.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Perhaps you have. If you have, I suggest you do it again on this occasion. On three occasions he was addressing Senator Ray and not you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have called Senator Kemp to order several times today. Perhaps you are not concentrating, Senator. I call Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—On the point of order, Madam President—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order—WW4Senator KEMP—I am talking now. Sit down.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, resume your seat. Do you have something further to say, Senator Faulkner?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I would ask you to rule on my point order, Madam President, which is that on three occasions Senator Kemp made no attempt to address Senator Ray through you. I believe you should—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I had called him to order just as you stood up.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, you did not call him to order on this occasion, but I am glad that you will continue to do so. That is good.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I might say as a general comment that you made your statement very clearly. You called me to order, as you said. I think the judgment will be that I returned to order. On the point of order: I point out that there is an awful lot of noise coming from the other side, led by the Labor Party leader, Senator Faulkner. There are occasions when the interjections are of such a level that one is inclined to respond to them. If you call this side to order, which you are perfectly entitled to do, can I urge you to make sure that when those on the other side do not behave in a parliamentary fashion they are also called to order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Yes. Senator Lightfoot?WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator LIGHTFOOT—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Assistant Treasurer—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I haven't finished my answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I call Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I was under the impression that you were calling Senator Lightfoot for a point of order. The government's budget repair and improved economy means many things for all Australians. It will mean—and let me list a few examples, Madam President—that the Commonwealth is living within its means. A strong economy is able to withstand the financial instability in Asia. Australia has the lowest inflation outcomes since the early 1960s. Australia has the lowest bank mortgage interest rates since 1970. For the average Australian home buyer this represents a saving of some $320 per month. They are $3,800 per year better off. I know my colleague is very keen to ask a supplementary question so I look forward to hearing it. (Time expired)2666Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question of the Assistant Treasurer. What has been the reaction to the first balanced budget in almost a decade?2667Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am pleased to say that the government's responsible budget has been very widely welcomed. For example, Lynn Ralph, the CEO of the Investment and Financial Services Association, said:The budget reflects a continuation of responsible fiscal management.John Murray, the Executive Director of Masters Builders Australia, said:The budget was to be welcomed for its economically responsible approach and reasonably realistic outcomes, particularly the $2.7 billion surplus.Richard Seddon, the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Manufacturers, said:The Treasurer has brought down a disciplined and fiscally responsible budget.They are just a selection of the vast range of very positive comments about this budget. I have to say that on this issue the Labor Party is completely isolated. (Time expired)26672667Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Did not the Treasurer mislead Australians last night when he proclaimed in several media interviews that the 1998-99 projected growth rate of three per cent for the Australian economy will be the highest in Asia. Is it not true that the OECD's April economic outlook No. 63 forecast for Asia shows China growing at 7.2 per cent this year and 7.5 per cent next year, Taiwan up 5.9 per cent this year and 6.25 per cent next year, Singapore at 3.5 per cent this year and 5.2 per cent next year and the Philippines at four per cent in 1999? Will the Treasurer now correct his statement or does he regard China, Taiwan, Singapore and the Philippines as non-Asian countries?2667Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am afraid the questions are going from bad to worse. The context of the comment made by the Treasurer was that your colleague Mr Gary Evans was very critical of the growth rate in this budget, which surprised us because most Australians welcome it. I think he was asked whether he could name any country that was growing at a faster rate and my impression was that he went blank. I think the question was asked of the shadow Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer utterly failed to respond. That was the context in which I heard the comment. It seems to me that you should put that to the shadow Treasurer.Senator Cook is very keen to get comments corrected today—that is, could you correct the comments you made last year and the year before? There was a very famous comment by Senator Cook. If my memory serves me in a correct fashion, and Senator Cook will undoubtedly rise if it does not, in November 1995 Senator Cook indicated that the budget was in surplus and would continue in surplus. Senator Cook, just a few months later we discovered there was a $10.3 billion deficit left to us by the Labor Party.Senator Cook, you have to come to this debate with clean hands. That is what you have to do. The truth of the matter is that if you want to go around and see if you can get everyone to correct every comment they have ever made I think it would be a very good start if you now did the same. I can report to the Senate—and there are a few new senators here—that Senator Cook was a very senior minister in the Keating government. There were days when we weighed very heavily every word he uttered because he was a senior minister.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, Senator Robert Ray is calling out again. I do not know whether you can do anything about it. I do not wish to respond because if I do respond I get ticked off. But that was a very famous quote by Senator Cook, it has to be said, when he predicted that the budget was in surplus and would continue in surplus. In fact, the budget was running full steam into a major deficit. That was the real problem this government had to cope with. That was the problem that we had to deal with when we got into government.We were left with this $10.3 billion black hole—and I might say that I have been a little bit critical of the shadow Treasurer from time to time as people in this chamber will know—which the shadow Treasurer conceded on Sunday. Seeing as the shadow Treasurer was prepared to concede and confess the truth of the performance of the Labor Party in relation to the budget deficit, I think it is now time for you, Senator Cook, to stand up—and we are all waiting on this side of the chamber for Senator Cook to stand up—and correct the Senate record when you said in November 1995 that the budget was in surplus and would continue in surplus.2668Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I might say, Senator Kemp, your recitation of the events of last night are wrong. You should go and review the tape. You will find the Treasurer did say what I said.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, you are debating the matter. You should be asking a question.RF4Senator COOK—Thank you, Madam President. If that is your way of saying that the Treasurer got it wrong, I will accept your apology. Minister, do you agree that in order to bring down unemployment the Australian economy needs to grow, as several economists contend, at between four and 4½ per cent? Why then has the government constructed a budget which delivers only three per cent growth for this financial year?2668Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We were all waiting breathless on this side to see whether Senator Cook was going to give himself some of the medicine which he was requesting from others. He ducked that issue. No apology from Senator Cook. The Treasurer has done an absolutely outstanding job. That is widely recognised by the community. Again, you got the figuring wrong, Senator Cook. The unemployment rate is continuing to fall. This is what we forecast in the budget.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You have to grow at four per cent.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Cook said that you have to grow at four per cent to get the unemployment rate to fall. The budget papers show that the unemployment rate will continue to fall to 7¾ per cent. That is what the budget papers show. The question was based on a faulty assumption. We are waiting on this side of the chamber for Senator Cook to do the right thing—stand up and correct the extremely misleading statement that he made in November 1995 as a former senior minister in the Keating government. (Time expired)26682668Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that last night's budget papers revealed that the outcome for 1997-98 will be $3.2 billion better than was forecast last year, excluding unfunded new spending? Doesn't this mean that the black hole that the government has traded on relentlessly was $3 billion smaller than they said it would be?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting during the question.8U4Senator LEES—In turn, doesn't this mean that $3 billion of cuts in the last two budgets did not need to be made and that the pain inflicted on those waiting in our public hospital systems, on older Australians, on young people, on the unemployed and on those on low incomes was mostly unnecessary? Finally, following the concessions from both Treasury and the Reserve Bank that the cuts in 1996 had a worse reverse effect on the economy and unemployment than government forecast, isn't it the case that more Australians would be in work now if those $3 billion of socially and economically destructive cuts had never been made?2668Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I do not know quite where to start with your question. As I was making notes I said, `Gosh, this is wrong and that is wrong.' Let me just go through it, Senator. First of all, I think you reflected on whether there was a budget black hole. Is that right?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, direct your remarks correctly.WW4Senator KEMP—Isn't it astonishing that four days ago the shadow Treasurer, Mr Gary Evans, got on the TV and admitted that there was a black hole. Here we have the Labor Party who has resisted this for a very long period of time—8U4LEESSenator Lees—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I asked the minister a question based on the budget figures, not on any comments by a Labor Party shadow minister. It is a point related to relevance. Could he please answer the question asked?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It was quite a wide ranging question. I will direct the minister to the question, but he is entitled to answer it as he wishes.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President, for that ruling. It is true that it was a very broad ranging question. What I was trying to build the case for, Senator Lees, was that I thought there was now virtually universal consensus certainly between the Labor Party and the coalition that there was a major deficit left to us. The budget papers show there was a major deficit left to us. I would have thought that there was no argument about that.But to construct a question on what I would have to say is a totally false assumption that somehow Australia was not faced with an economic problem and that somehow Australia did not have to deal with a very serious crisis when we came to government, Senator, if that is the position of the Democrats, I do not think that anyone really agrees with you. I really do not think that. As I said, I quoted the Labor Party because the Labor Party are the group that have most resisted the idea that there was a deficit. Now the Labor Party have conceded that there was a deficit. Of course they had to. There was no argument. The budget papers showed that. Why would you argue? Of course they tried to do that for a couple of years. Senator, there was a major problem to deal with. The question is: how do you deal with this in a responsible manner and a manner which will leave the economy in a better position to enjoy sustainable growth? The fact of the matter is that you have to take some pretty tough decisions. I think that is what the Australian community respects about this government as an economic manager. We are a government which takes some pretty tough decisions. We had to do that, Senator. What we have been able to do as a result of this is to see very strong benefits flowing towards the wider Australian community.You only have to look at the figures I quoted in reference to an excellent question I received from Senator Ross Lightfoot in relation to the effect of the cuts in interest rates on home mortgage rates and the savings that the average family receives. You only have to see the employment growth that we are now enjoying. We are getting people back into real jobs. Again, that is another area. As a result of this, we have been able to deliver substantial benefits in this budget in the health area and to retired people. Senator, I listened carefully to your questions because I respect your questions. Your question was based on a totally false assumption that there was no budget deficit to deal with. This is fantasy land stuff. It is not accurate. The reason the government is enjoying support, Senator Lees, is that we have been able to take strong action in this area.2669Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. With respect, as the minister did not answer my question, I will try again. Minister, there is no doubt there was a deficit. I am simply asking you: is it not the case that it was $3 billion smaller than you forecast and than you prepared your responses for?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Democrats is asking a question direct to the minister rather than through you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have no intention of pulling everyone up every time, but I shall persist in trying to get standing order 186 adhered to in the chamber. I hope that people will gradually learn to do so.8U4Senator LEES—Thank you, Madam President. I will try again through you. Is it not the case, as the minister's answer implied, that of course we had a deficit but that it was $3 billion less than forecast—in other words, we have had $3 billion worth of cuts and harsh measures that were unnecessary and that those people in Australia who are least able to withstand those cuts have effectively suffered for nothing?2669Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again, I have to say that it is an astonishingly misconceived question. Senator, as a result of all the things that we have done, we have been able to deliver a substantial budget surplus at last. It is a budget surplus which people believe is responsible and is an appropriate setting for the state of the economy as we find it now. If you want to take off $3 billion here and $3 billion there, you affect the whole budget outcome. Can I also say in relation to this that a lot of tough decisions were made including, I might say, the imposition of a superannuation surcharge—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Tax, tax!WW4Senator KEMP—Surcharge, which the Labor Party opposed. (Time expired)26702670Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware that between budget night 1997 and last night the Howard government added around $8.4 billion to budget outlays over a four-year period? Will the minister guarantee that the government will not have a comparable spending blow-out this year which would severely erode its surplus?2670Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Again, I am absolutely astonished by the questions—a Labor Party senator standing up and attempting to lecture this government on fiscal responsibility. I would have to say that now I have seen everything. Senator, let me just take you through a couple of key figures. There is no argument now in the community generally. I know the Labor Party do not like it, and we have seen the nitpicking which has gone on today. The Democrats are a bit upset about something which I cannot quite work out. The truth of the matter is that everybody believes that this is a very responsible budget and a budget in tune with the times.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—That's not true!WW4Senator KEMP—You don't, Senator Collins, but everybody else does. In this budget, as in previous budgets, this government has been very responsible in containing outlays, which we had to do because we promised we would not raise taxes. Therefore, to keep this promise, and in order to deal with the massive budget deficit which most people think was there—Senator Lees does not, but most people do—we had to deal with the growth in outlays.Just to put Senator Bishop's comments into a bit of perspective, the growth in outlays this year is in the order of 0.6 per cent, and that is in contrast to a more typical growth in outlays figure which occurred under the Labor government of four to five per cent. That is why I started off my answer by saying it was astonishing that Senator Bishop got up in this chamber and attempted to lecture this government on fiscal responsibility and blow-outs.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are you going to give the guarantee?WW4Senator KEMP—I am afraid Senator Faulkner has got into his bad habits again, Madam President. I do not know whether you appreciate it, but we are continuing to get a whole range of comments from Senator Faulkner while the question is being answered. I do not know whether you would take some action on this, but it would be appreciated, Madam President. I was trying to put Senator Bishop's comments into context.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Are you going to give the guarantee?Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Bishop spoke about a blow-out. I am saying that, if he looks at the budget figures carefully, he will see there is a very low growth in outlays—it is heading towards zero. Some blow-out! It is incredible. Contrast this with the sorts of expenditures that occurred under the Labor government which, as I said, were more likely in the order of four to five per cent real growth each year. In the last five budgets Labor chalked up deficits in the order of $70 billion.Senator, you do not have to lecture this government on fiscal responsibility. You have to speak to your own people and make sure that their promises—the election promises—are not made one week and reversed the next. Remember, we got down to only two core promises. All the other comments we have received from the Labor Party have been about increasing expenditure here and there.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Don't you talk about core promises.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, your voice is far too loud.WW4Senator KEMP—We have heard comments from the Labor Party about increasing expenditure in this area and in that area. The truth of the matter is that, when it came to the crunch, the shadow Treasurer had to go on TV and say, `None of these promises are operative.' (Time expired)2671Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. When the minister was asked the extent of additional budget outlays late in the last session of the Senate, he had no idea. How then can the Australian people place any credence at all in the fiscal position when the government has considerable form in panicking about the policy bushfires it has created in so many areas?2671Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I just think this is astonishing. All these figures are detailed, Senator. If you want to look at the growth in spending in particular areas and new measures, they are all there in the budget papers, in the midyear review. I do not know what you are going on about.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You don't know what time of day it is.WW4Senator KEMP—I must say that there was a stage when the interjections from the other side were quite funny, but they are getting worse and worse.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I don't remember that.WW4Senator KEMP—It was when Bob Collins was here. Occasionally you would get quite a good comment. This government is acting in a responsible fashion. We have seen a lack of responsibility on behalf of the Labor Party. They were going around making promise after promise to increase spending. Of course, when those figures started to mount up, all those promises had to be immediately dumped, with egg all over the collective face of the Australian Labor Party. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors267110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of former New South Wales Senator, Michael Baume. I wish you a happy and pleasant return to this country and to the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice267126712671Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. On 12 August 1997, Dr Peter Bridgewater, the government's Supervising Scientist, wrote to the Alligator Rivers Advisory Committee in relation to the Jabiluka Uranium Mine and said, in part:If ERA were to proceed with the Jabiluka mill alternative, I would recommend, in the strongest possible terms to the Minister for the Environment, that ERA be required to prepare a new Environmental Impact Statement as required by the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. Statements by ERA have indicated that it believes that a new EIS would be required in order to proceed with the Jabiluka mill alternative.Given this statement by the government's senior uranium mining scientist, the person responsible for the protection of Kakadu National Park from uranium mining, why has the government dismissed this advice and instead allowed ERA to proceed with a much less stringent public environmental review of the on-site mill alternative for the proposed Jabiluka Uranium Mine?2671Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—In response to Senator Margetts, the Jabiluka mill alternative was proposed in the EIS as a feasible mine development strategy should a situation develop where milling at Ranger was no longer an option, in accordance with Minister Hill's recommendations. Senator Margetts will be aware that, of all the options available, both from an environmental and economic point of view, certainly the milling at Ranger would be the most desirable.In accordance with Minister Hill's recommendations, I required ERA to provide further information to the Commonwealth if ERA wished to develop this Jabiluka mill alternative. On 22 April 1998, Energy Resources of Australia was designated as the proponent under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 in relation to the Jabiluka mill option of the Jabiluka development proposal.Senator Hill has now determined that a public environment report—a PER—will be required for the Jabiluka mill. The PER will enable further public and government scrutiny of the additional information provided by ERA which relates to specific impacts of milling Jabiluka ore on-site. It is consistent with Senator Hill's recommendation that further environmental assessment should be required if the preferred option of milling at Ranger did not proceed.It must be remembered that the EIS addressed the mining operations and the proposed haul road as well as the Ranger milling option, and these aspects of the proposal have already been given environmental clearance by Senator Hill. ERA have not notified the Commonwealth of which milling option will be progressed. It is likely that they will make this decision in light of ongoing and continuing discussions with Aboriginal interests associated with the Jabiluka project. I consider there would be no impediment to ERA progressing development of mining operations common to both options subject to requirements I placed on the company, the issue of the appropriate Northern Territory authorisations and their commercial judgment. We all recognise the importance of the biophysical, cultural and social significance of the location of the mine, and I have advised ERA that I expect the company to demonstrate that stringent environment, heritage and safeguard requirements have been met before I consider issuing an export permit.I will just respond briefly to the comment about Dr Bridgewater. I think the comment made by Senator Margetts is probably correct, but I might also say that, when Senator Hill decided there would be a public environment report, this in itself was supported by Dr Bridgewater.2672Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that ERA has said that it plans to begin construction at any time, has it now become government policy to allow highly sensitive mining projects to proceed before legally required environmental review processes are completed? Will the Minister for Resources and Energy be tabling the full advice from the Minister for the Environment and the reasons why such decisions will be made? Senator Parer has indicated that there has been ongo ing and continuing discussions with Aboriginal interests. Is the minister aware that the traditional owners of that area are asking in all possible terms that an EIS take place before a proposal were considered for milling at Jabiluka?2672Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—I thought when I answered that question in a lot of detail that in fact I did give Senator Margetts the response she wanted—that where the environmental work has been going out, subject to Northern Territory agreements and so on, there is nothing to prevent them from going ahead in accordance with those approvals already received. What we are looking at now is an alternative process for the milling of uranium at Jabiluka, rather than the Ranger option. That will require a public environment report and, until that happens, they cannot go with the Jabiluka milling option.26722672Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to the statement in the budget where it says:The increase in the capital stock is contributing to an improved productivity performance. . . How can this be so when the difference between GDP growth and employment growth is narrowing, implying a fall off in productivity performance? According to your budget, what is productivity performance doing? Is it increasing or decreasing?2672Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I would have thought one of the things this government has put great emphasis on is improving the productivity performance of the Australian economy. That is why we have taken action across a very wide range of areas.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Up or down?WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Conroy, we seek for productivity to increase, and productivity is increasing. Productivity is responding, we believe, to a variety of things. Let me just highlight for your information some of the moves that this government has made to improve the productivity performance of this economy. There have been labour market reforms and we have encouraged wage increases to be more closely related to productivity. That is just one of the areas we believe is very important. Peter Reith must take great credit for work in this area—for example, with the Workplace Relations Bill, which he was able to get through the Senate with the assistance of the Democrats and in particular Senator Kernot.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Up or down?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Conroy! Seven times since you asked your question you have interjected. I regard that as being—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—He has not come close to explaining once.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I regard that as being persistently in breach of the standing orders. I call Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President, and I think you are quite accurate. You attempt to give Senator Conroy a serious answer to his question—B36NEALSenator Neal—Answer the question.WW4Senator KEMP—He asked me, `Is productivity increasing?' and I am saying, `Yes, productivity is increasing.' That is what the question was. Don't you people ever listen to the question? Then I thought I would help Senator Conroy a bit by explaining some of the things we have done to improve productivity. I indicated the Workplace Relations Bill and the encouragement we are making for more flexible labour markets, which improve productivity.Equally, one of the things all senators will be very much aware of is the importance of reform on the waterfront to improve productivity. I am intrigued that Labor Party senators stand up and pretend to be worried about productivity. Let me tell you that this government believes in productivity. It has put in place a number of very important measures to increase productivity in this economy, and productivity is rising.Senator Conroy, don't you get up and talk about productivity with your party's position on the waterfront. What the Labor Party are attempting to do on the waterfront is to prevent productivity rising. The Labor Party have identified with the Maritime Union. They are supporting them and are determined to prevent substantial productivity improvements on the waterfront. So, Senator Conroy, don't you get up and lecture this party on productivity, with your waterfront policies of protecting the monopoly of the waterside workers and with your labour market policies of protecting the powers of the unions.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That is out of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should address your remarks through the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I am aware of that but, as you can understand, occasionally one is provoked.Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner!WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. I am glad you drew attention to Senator Faulkner and the constant sledging which occurs from Senator Faulkner while one is attempting to answer a question. I say to Senator Conroy that productivity is critical to the economy. Improvements in productivity lead to real improvements in living standards. This government has been concerned to improve productivity performance in this economy, and we are achieving it.(Time expired)2673Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, the question was about the difference between your claim and what your budget figures show, which is that GDP growth and employment growth are narrowing, which implies a fall in productivity. If, as is claimed, capital stock will contribute to improved productivity performance this year, what contribution, if any, did it make last year?2673Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You would have to be very careful in accepting any figures from Senator Conroy. The one thing Senator Conroy has distinguished himself in, according to the Sunday program, is fixing the numbers in Labor Party branches. Senator Conroy, you are not too hot on budget papers.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp!WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Again, I regret that I was distract ed. There are a variety of ways to measure productivity—output, per head and in a variety of other ways. If the Labor Party wants to be credible on issues of productivity, it had better get behind this government and support the major productivity increases that we are seeking on the Australian waterfront.26742674Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. Last night's budget included significant boosts to health care in a number of areas. Will the minister outline the specific initiatives for public hospitals, preventative health, indigenous health and any other measures which assist Australians and their families?2674Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It gives me great pleasure to respond to Senator Payne's question and inform the Senate about the positive initiatives this government is undertaking in building a stronger health system. Madam President, as you know, last night a budget was delivered which some commentators have said has put this country in a better position than it has been in for at least 25 years in relation to the economy. As part of that budget last night, we have introduced extra funding in relation to health care.The Howard government will make available an extra $2.9 billion for public hospitals over the next five years. That is a 15 per cent increase in real terms in Commonwealth spending, to a total of $30.2 billion. The budget measures represent a genuine balance between maintaining the government's commitment to achieving reform across health and family services and directing additional resources to key areas to continue to improve health and social outcomes.The major focus in this portfolio has been on improving access to health services for rural and regional Australia, including the establishment of a rural multi-purpose health and family services network, worth $24.3 million over four years; more support for older Australians to stay in their homes through the $269 million `staying at home' initiative; from next year, free annual influen za vaccines for all Australians aged over 65 years, a package worth more than $20 million a year; improved access to Medicare refunds through another 200 pharmacies, at a cost of $10.2 million; and $165 million for the National Health and Medical Research Council.I digress for a moment to note that, under the Labor Party's forward projections in their last budget, the National Health and Medical Research Council would have had no funds for new research. I invite the Labor Party to look at their forward projections. There were no funding increases. We are giving a record level of funding for the NHMRC.Other measures include $95.5 million over five years for demand reduction and harm minimisation initiatives as part of the government's national illicit drug strategy; assisting 100 overseas trained doctors to gain skills in Australia in return for working in rural and remote areas for five years—ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Oh!VW4Senator HERRON—`Oh!', Senator Crowley said. That is a new initiative. The Labor government had 13 years to do something about it, and they did nothing.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Rubbish!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw!VW4Senator HERRON—There will be another $6.1 million over three years for the implementation of tobacco harm minimisation initiatives. More specifically, this government has made a major commitment to addressing the unacceptable level of disadvantage suffered by Australia's indigenous people. In the health area, the government will spend an extra $72 million over the next four years, including $30.5 million as part of the public and preventative health package. This is to address the urgent health needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.Under the Labor Party, the health problems of Aboriginal people got worse; they went backwards. We are injecting a major, massive increase of $72 million over the next four years. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have urgent health needs and we are addressing them.In a two-pronged attack, more than $22.6 million over four years will be spent on addressing the unacceptably high level of infectious disease in Australia's indigenous population. The funding also includes a national immunisation program specifically targeting respiratory illnesses, including influenza. An extra $7.9 million will be spent on capital works to maintain health clinics and facilities in remote indigenous communities. There are many other initiatives that I would like to expound on. I would welcome a further question from Senator Payne so that I can spell out further initiatives.(Time expired)2675Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I noted particularly the minister's response on research initiatives and indigenous health care. Are there any other aspects of the budget initiatives that the minister could outline to assist Australians and their families?2675Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Payne.Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner!VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Faulkner may be interested to know that, under the Labor government, Professor Feachem did a study in relation to HIV and STD in the Northern Territory in particular, and appealed for more funds to be spent. What did the Labor Party do?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Nothing, absolutely nothing.VW4Senator HERRON—Nothing; they did nothing about it. We are putting money into that. We are also putting $7.9 million into capital works to maintain health clinics and facilities in remote indigenous communities. Labor had 13 years to address the many problems that were allowed to fester under the management of many of the same old faces over there. We hear about all the things they would have done if they had been given a few more years.Labor not only completely failed indigenous Australians; they failed all Australians. We were left, as you know, with a $10.3 billion deficit which we have managed to clean up in two years. We are taking a new approach to health and it is the right approach. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous267515:07:002675Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—During the last session, the Senate resolved that I table a report by independent auditors, chartered accountants and management consultants, Arthur Andersen, on the submission by the ABC on the cost of funding the national broadcaster's digital transition entitled Evaluation of the ABC's digitisation strategy. I did not table the document at the time on the basis that it was a confidential report obtained by the government for the purpose of consideration of issues related to the budget. As the budget has now been released, I consider it appropriate that the document be tabled. I hereby table the relevant report.Questions Without Notice2675267515:08:002675Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) and the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to questions without notice asked by Senators Chapman and Senator Lightfoot today, relating to the 1998-99 Budget.The surplus that has been trumpeted here today in the answers to those questions was built on the back of cuts to health, nursing homes, education, child care, jobs and industry support. The sad thing about those cuts is that, whilst this budget puts some pennies back, it leaves the pounds away. This is a cut that has been borne by families, by workers and by the Australian community, and there is no real gain for them in this budget. The pity is that it was not necessary. Those cuts did not need to occur. Left to the parameters that we set as we went out of government, the budget would have grown, with the changes that we had announced, to being in surplus at this time. That is important to keep in mind when we debate what has so far allegedly been achieved by the Treasurer.Today we are not so much debating a budget as we are talking about a May economic statement. We know that the real pain and the real issues are down the track, lurking in wait for the Australian electorate as the government announces its so-called tax reform package, a tax reform package that will almost certainly include a goods and services tax—a regressive tax—which will be applied to all Australians irrespective of income. That will be another thimble and pea trick. It will offer tax cuts to middle Australia bought on the backs of all Australians. It will give back less than it takes from the pockets of ordinary Australians.We know too that the budget surplus that has been trumpeted here today is a surplus that will remain intact for as long as it suits the government. They will use and plunder that surplus when it comes to giving give aways and pork barrelling to those wish-list groups that it favours in the Australian electorate. That is the truth about this budget. Brace yourselves for an election campaign. Brace yourselves for a fist full of dollars election campaign. Brace yourselves for a thimble and pea trick.The government tells us a number of things about this budget but it also interestingly omits to say a number of things that are important. To get a real picture of the outcome, you need to know that this budget forecasts that export growth will decline. It forecasts that investment levels in the Australian economy will fall. It forecasts that consumer spending for the next year will be down. It forecasts that investment in housing will also drop considerably. It announces in its forward projections that business investment will fall and it discloses in its report that research and development investment in Australia has fallen through the floor. It does those things on the back of a forecast that national savings, the much trumpeted element of this budget, is in fact in decline as well.Unemployment in this budget is just unbelievable. It is stuck in any case, according to the projections, at a very rubbery eight per cent, not underpinned by the economic growth that the economy needs to sustain the figure. It is a most unbelievable forecast. As well, we know in this budget that the current account deficit for the nation is reeling out of control and has virtually doubled in the last two years from $17 billion to now being a projected current account deficit of $31 billion and that foreign debt has leapt by $26 billion to now rank at the highest in the history of this nation—$222 billion. That is $26 billion above the level of when the now government, when in opposition, rolled its so-called `debt truck' around Australia to declaim the previous government. Under this government, it has risen by $26 billion.It ought to be remembered that the cuts made in the earlier budgets took $36 billion out of public health; it has only put $2 billion back. In the previous budget, $500 million were taken out of nursing homes; nothing goes back. Cuts of $800 were made to child care; not a cent goes back. Cuts of $3 billion were made to universities; nothing goes back. The jobs programs were cut by $1.8 billion, while youth employment has risen unemployment by 27.1 per cent: a give and take budget. Now wait for the big whammy—the goods and services tax.In the election that the Prime Minister announced to his party room yesterday, you can be sure of one thing from Labor; you will not have a goods and services tax. You can be sure of one thing from the government; you will have a goods and services tax and, while it will be coated by lucrative tax cuts, look at what you really save. Australia will be the loser. (Time expired)15:13:002676Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—What humbug we have heard from Senator Cook today. We hear it every time he gets up in the Senate on some matter he wishes to raise in response to questions that have been asked and answers given during question time, but today certainly takes the cake.The most important priority of a federal government is to maintain a nation's finances in a sound position. Governments cannot do anything else unless the nation's finances are sound. All the other demands that are made on government for initiatives here and action there are dependent on the country and in particular the government finances themselves being in a sound position.But that is a dictum that was completely ignored by the Labor Party when they were in government because the philosophy of the Labor Party was to spend, to borrow and to tax—nothing else; no responsibility at all as far as financial management was concerned. Let us hear what Mr Gary Evans, the shadow Treasurer said yesterday when he was interviewed on 4QR, in answer to a question that was put in this form:I can't help but asking if you could have done all these marvellous things with the economy.These are, of course, the things that the Liberal-National government have done in the last two years—delivered a surplus and reduced unemployment to the lowest rate since 1990 at 8 per cent. `Why didn't you?' the interviewer says to Gary Evans. This is the shadow Treasurer's response, and I quote:Well, we were—I mean, we ran into the problem of the recession of 1989-90 and 1990-91 with high interest rates and all the rest—that we all remember with a shudder. What he forgot to say, of course, was that it was a deliberately induced recession by the then Treasurer, Mr Keating, who described it as the `recession we had to have.' It was deliberately induced by raising interest rates through the roof and sending small business and home owners through the floor. Small business overdraft rates were 17 to 20 per cent during that period—that is the sort of financial management we saw under the Labor Party, which absolutely sent our economy through the floor.Over the last two years this government has acted responsibly to restore sound financial management and to lay the basis for economic growth in this country. As a result of that, we have in the budget delivered last night a $2.7 billion budget surplus projected for the 1998-1999 financial year. That is important, not only because it provides a sound basis for the private sector to develop and grow and provide jobs and all the other benefits for the community, but also because it allows us to pay off that other dreadful legacy of the Labor government—our massively accumulated government debt. There was something of the order of $97 billion accumulated under 13 years of Labor—about $80 billion of which was accumulated during their last five years in office.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—A disgrace. A national disgrace.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—An absolute disgrace in terms of economic management—that is right, Senator Lightfoot. Now, because we are generating a surplus, we can start to pay that debt off. Already, we will have succeeded, by the end of 1998-99, in paying off some $31 billion of that debt. With further privatisation of Telstra, over the next three or four years beyond that, we will have that debt down to $23 billion dollars—a massive turnaround and a massive success on the part of a Liberal-National Party government. That not only restores international confidence in the Australian economy but also, most importantly, it frees up money in the annual budget so our budgetary position on an annual basis is even better.Under Labor, of course, more was being paid out each year by the government in interest than they were spending on defence or education because of the massive debt that they had accumulated. We will get that down to $23 billion and this will free up $5 billion or $6 billion a year out of the annual budget for either further tax reductions and benefits thereby to the Australian community or, if areas of need are identified, provide extra expenditure in those areas of need. The Labor Party fails to recognise this basic fundamental of economic management. As I said, their whole approach is to spend and worry about it later. They will either borrow the money to cover the spending or they will raise taxes to cover the spending; but they do not analyse things properly, they do not get to the nub of issues as far as sound financial management is concerned.Now we have got the lowest home mortgage rates that Australia has experienced since 1970, falling from 10.5 per cent down to 6.5 per cent—worth $3,800 a year for the average home buyer. These are the benefits delivered by this government over the last—(Time expired)15:19:002678Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—In the context of the questions that Senator Kemp answered on the budget, there has been a great deal of focus on the budget surplus of $2.7 billion. There has also been a great deal of focus in past years on how that has been achieved. We all know of the massive cuts to state funding, health, education, aged care, child care and many more areas. Suffice it to say, it was not necessary to cut to that degree and to the extent to which you did. But the focus on the budget surplus and the contribution to the level of government debt is only part of a very important story. Senator Cook quite rightly raised the issue of what is an extremely worrying figure in respect of the current account deficit.Senator Cook also raised the issue of total foreign debt, which is also of great concern, given that it has increased by some $26 billion. I looked through budget paper No. 1 in an attempt to find some reference to total foreign debt, particularly given that this government asked question after question on the subject during their period in opposition—in fact, they had a debt truck roaming the country. And surprise, surprise! There is no reference whatsoever to total foreign debt in budget paper No. 1. But, of course, there is extensive reference to the current account deficit and the need for saving—not just government saving, but an increase in total national savings.If we look at the table on page 1.12 we see the government's projections are for a decrease in private saving and a decrease in gross national saving. In the context of our current account deficit, which is increasing rapidly, this is an extremely worrying economic trend. It is one that Mr Costello and Senator Kemp quite conveniently attempt to evade as much as possible.If we look at the budget papers on 3.11, in respect of private saving—which the government argues should increase—there is a reference to a prospect and a suggestion of factors that improve the outlook for private saving. There is a reference to the superannuation guarantee—that was an important Labor initiative. There is a reference to the savings rebate—and that, if anything, has cut private saving. There is a reference to tax reform and the prospect that it has the potential to enhance private saving—that, presumably, is a reference to the foreshadowed introduction of a goods and services tax. The argument is that, if you tax consumption through a goods and services tax—sorry, it is now called a BIBIT or a BOBIT; the government is not anxious to use the name GST—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Do you blame us?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—BOBIT or BIBIT: it will be interesting to see which one you use in the election period. The argument is that if you tax consumption through a GST saving will go up. There is absolutely no evidence that that will happen. I must say that the next paragraph did surprise me. It says:Finally, quite apart from these policy influences, demographic change over the next decade or so is likely to see a rise in the proportion of the population age groups which historically have been high savers and a decline in younger, low-saving age cohorts.That is in Budget Paper No. 1 at 3.11. We all know that this country faces an ageing population, and I would have thought it was common knowledge that an ageing population with a increasing proportion who are retired are net dis-savers. So how on earth that can be referred to as a factor that will lead to a very important increase in private saving is beyond me.Lastly, in Budget Paper No. 1 at 2.7, there is continual reference to Japan:The outlook for Japan is a matter of concern. Not only is Japan heavily exposed to regional developments, its domestic economy is experiencing substantial weaknesses and shows no sign of an early turnaround.Well, thank goodness, because we know why Japan has significant economic problems: it introduced a GST at a rate of three per cent some five years ago and it increased that goods and services tax to a rate of five per cent last April. It has absolutely flattened the economy.There is extensive reference to the strength of the US. What is one outstanding feature of the economy of the United States? It does not have a goods and services tax.15:24:002679Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I am delighted that Senator Cook is still here, because we are eternal optimists on this side of the chamber and we are quite sure that at some stage in the future Senator Cook will try to redeem his economic credentials by eventually apologising for misleading this chamber just prior to the 1996 election by saying that the government's budget was in surplus. Senator Cook, we do actually live in hope that the longer you stay in the chamber—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you like to address the chair, please?EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Yes, Madam Deputy President, I most certainly would. On this side of the chamber we are optimistic enough to think that the longer Senator Cook stays in this chamber, the more chance there is that he might admit that he made a terrible mistake and that he did mislead this chamber by saying that the previous government had a budget that was in surplus prior to the 1996 election when we know that in fact they left us with an enormous deficit.Senator Cook talks about the surplus we are creating being built on the spending cuts to a range of people. In fact, the surplus this government has brought forward is even more marvellous because it has been built on the back of your enormous deficit. If Senator Cook and Senator Sherry want to claim some economic credentials in this chamber, people only have to look at their efforts over the previous time they were in government to see that they have none at all. Nobody believes what the members of the opposition say with respect to this budget.If you really want to get some accurate comment about the budget that was put down by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) last night, you really need to have a look at some third party endorsements from people outside of this place who actually make comments about the budget with some authority. We only need to go as far as the Business Council of Australia and its president, Stan Wallis, who is well regarded by people on the other side of this chamber. He says:This is a budget that is absolutely right for the times. More importantly, the Howard government has honoured its promise to the Australian people by delivering a budget surplus.That is something that Senator Cook could never claim. He could never claim to have honoured his promise, because he promised that the budget was in surplus when in fact it was in deficit. Mr Wallis also said that this budget makes sure that we can keep a check on interest rates and inflation. Anybody who remembers the Hawke-Keating period of government will know how devastating high interest rates were to businesses in Australia.The National Farmers Federation themselves have commented this morning that `the drop of 2.5 per cent in interest rates since March 1996 that has applied to most farmers has been worth $450 million in reduced interest payments for farmers.' On top of that, the provisional tax uplift factor has been further reduced. When the previous government was in place, the provisional tax uplift factor was 10 per cent, and now we have guaranteed that this will be reduced a further percentage point—and this will provide major savings to farmers as well.Let us go to the comments of some other people. People have talked about the effect on tourism. The chairman of the Tourism Task Force, Mr John Brown, said that the money that has been allocated could not have come at a better time; that the minister, Andrew Thomson, deserves the applause of the industry and its one million workers for this budget result.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Is that the former Labor Party minister?EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I am not sure if it is the former Labor Party minister, but the name, John Brown, is very familiar. The housing industry says that the government's commitment to a substantial budget surplus is `the right defence for Australia against the Asian economic fallout.' Then you can go to those people who really count, older Australians, the National President of the Association of Independent Retirees, Maureen Kingston, says that she is `delighted that the government has listened to the voice of independent retirees who have endeavoured to provide their own income in retirement and made sure that they are not a burden on this government when it comes to providing an income in retirement for their own good.' (Time expired)15:29:002680Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I also wish to take note of the answers to questions on the budget. Those on Senator Ferguson's side certainly are eternal optimists. Today's performance seemed to be an example that if you assert the same proposition strongly and often enough, some people eventually will believe you. But people are concerned with both the social costs and the methods of achieving this surplus. None of that was addressed today by the government.If we look at the costs of this surplus over the term of this government, we come up with figures, contrary to Senator Payne's question about the boost in health, showing a decline of $1.62 billion spending in health. We have a decline of around $400 million spending in aged and community care at the same time as the nursing home debacle; we have a decline of $1.5 billion in employment programs; we have a decline of around $3 billion in education; and we have a decline of around $800 million in child care. People in the community are concerned about these things. People want their services back from this government.It is incredible that in this budget, as was canvassed during question time with some of the questions, at a time when we have a GDP growth forecast declining from 3¾ per cent down to three per cent, the government predicts that employment growth will increase from its forecast of 1¼ per cent to 1¾ per cent. This is simply incredible, even with the low participation rate, where the government has been driving 100,000 people out of the job market to achieve the still unacceptable level of unemployment remaining—and predicted to remain—at around eight per cent.I am reminded of this government member's position at the time of Working Nation. We were criticised about the nature of some of our employment programs during Working Nation. At least these people were still in the job market. This government is driving people out of the job market to reduce their unemployment levels—it is incredible.At the same time, we have this government claiming the benefits of low inflation rates and the benefits for people in home ownership. What we did not hear today is that there is a decline in the home ownership growth; it is contracting. Why is it contracting? Because to own a home and to pay off a mortgage you need a job, and this government is not concerned about employment. Employment is a non-core promise; it is not important.At this stage we need to be concentrating on growth. We need a higher level of growth if we are going to do anything about unemployment. We cannot get ourselves into a position where we solve our balance of payments problems unless we start looking at issues such as skills, infrastructure, innovation and net exports. We need to be doing more than just the 1½ pages of comments on the millennium bug. Sure, it is an important problem, but we need to be doing far more in relation to Australian industry than that and additional assistance to tourism. We will not generate employment for our future work force.Let us look at what the budget did do for Australian industry. There is nothing in the budget to relieve the pain that Australian industry is going through at the moment. Instead, the government has delivered the following: a $300,000 cut to the anti-dumping system at a time when manufacturers are facing unprecedented international pressure with the Asian economic crisis; and a major underspend of R&D START program. In the 1998-99 period, there will be a further 2.36 shortfall according to the budget papers. Where is innovation?Not one cent has been set aside, despite the Prime Minister's promises, for the textiles, clothing and footwear industry assistance package. It must not have been a core promise. There is a continuing decline in support for manufacturers from $542 million in the 1997-98 period to $405 million in 2001-2002. There is the abolition of the shipbuilding bounty in 1998-99. There is a collapse in support for information technology. This area, where the government has claimed major initiatives, is going from $84 million to only $6 million over four years. (Time expired)15:34:002681McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I would also like to join this debate in regard to the budget. Like Senator Ferguson, I am also bewildered that the day after the budget is delivered back on track in the black with a reduction of the $10.5 billion deficit, the opposition happen to bring out as its lead attack in the first question, Senator Cook. Senator Cook, as we all know—Senator Ferguson made the point—has no credibility to discuss budget surpluses or budget matters at all, when he was party to the cover-up of the previous government's $10.5 billion deficit.Even his shadow minister, Mr Gareth Evans, has come clean on the matter. He has told us, `Yes, there was a $10.5 billion deficit.' So why doesn't Senator Cook, before he makes comments on this government's budget, come in here and apologise for his cover-up? Then we may turn our attention to some of his questions. He came in and quoted the Treasurer's past comments in 1995. He quoted them quite correctly because they were good comments in relation to the current account.The current account deficit of this government is far apart and different from the previous government's. The difference is that your current account deficit was a higher percentage of GDP—6½ per cent and rising and dangerously rising—while our current account deficit is in fact falling.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It's getting worse.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—It is around the five per cent mark, Senator Sherry. That is the difference. But more than that; the current account deficit has taken—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What about foreign debt?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I will get on to foreign debt. The current account deficit has been affected of course by the Asian economic crisis. So it is not an import-driven current account deficit as it was in your time, affecting interest rates and affecting the inflation rate. Rather, we have—and how could we avoid it—a current account deficit affected by our exports. That is the second difference.The third one is, as the Treasurer has said, if you had a current account deficit problem— we do not deny that it is an ongoing problem that does require management—then what is the first thing you do? What is the first advice you would get? It would be to bring your budget into surplus, and that is exactly what we did and that is exactly what you did not do. That is the answer to the current account deficit and it is very similar in relation to the foreign debt.The foreign debt has levelled out. It has not jumped from $30 billion in 1983 when you first entered government to around the $200 billion mark—that was the jump in your 13 years. It has increased slightly; it has in fact levelled out. How do you tackle foreign debt of this level? You introduce a surplus budget; you get your own government expenditure and revenue into order. And that is what we have done.In fact, the foreign debt has also decreased as a percentage of GDP. They are very good figures. They have been achieved with no tax increases and on time, as has been said, even with the Asian economic firestorm which is engulfing the whole world. As a result, we have the lowest interest rate since pre-Whitlam days. We have the lowest inflation rate since pre-Whitlam days. We have the first true, underlying surplus since pre-Whitlam days. And we have the lowest unemployment rate since the recession. That is still an ongoing problem that requires management, but it has been wound back since the worst days of your government. We will not stop there—that was the first leg of our journey. The second leg of our journey is to reduce debt.I want to pick up two points with regard to Senator Cook's hackneyed comment that this surplus has been achieved on the back of cuts in health and social security. They were fair and necessary cuts, and the market and the community judged them as such. Also, Senator Cook should speak to former Senator Kernot about this, because she says that the reforms introduced by this government, particularly in the social security area, will not be changed if the Labor Party gets into government. That is an endorsement of our changes and it utterly contradicts what Sena tor Cook and Senator Jacinta Collins are trying to sell here today.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.268210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:2682116DX5Margetts Sen DeeTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.We are dismayed at the continuing destruction of old growth and wilderness forests around Australia, despite the National Forest Policy Statement jointly signed by the Commonwealth and all States except Tasmania.Intensive logging, most often to feed a voracious woodchip industry is underway or planned for many high conservation value forests. These forests should be protected by the commitments of the Commonwealth and State Governments under the NFPS.These forests include:Coolangubra Wilderness and other areas of the S.E. Forests of NSW along with rainforest and other N.E. areas of NSW including Wingham, Mistake, Richmond Range, Chaelundi, North Washpool, Barrington and Dorrigo.The Southern Highlands, Great Western Tiers and Tarkine Wilderness of Tasmania.The Karri and Jarrah forests of S.W. Western Australia.The Errinundra Plateau and other areas of the East Gippsland forests of Victoria.The rainforests of the Proserpine region of Queensland.We request that the Government act urgently to protect our precious forests by utilising the Commonwealth's legal and constitutional powers, including:Refusal of export woodchip licencesPowers to control corporationsProtection of areas listed on the register of the National EstateProtection and effective funding of areas identified for their World Heritage values.Genuine and effective action by the Government to protect these and other old growth and wilderness forests is critical. A comprehensive plantation strategy rather than exploiting native forests is the way forward for a truly environmentally responsible timber industry. We further request that the Government take effective action without further delay.Senator MargettsDX5Senator Margetts(from 116 citizens)26828710000VICE-CHAIRMANTo the Honourable the President and Senators of the Senate assembled in Parliament.The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that we, as residents of the State of Victoria, urge the government to:reject moves to cut the funding of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and instead maintain funding in real terms.recognise and maintain the role of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a comprehensive, mainstream and independent media organisation, and not just a complementary service to commercial media.recognise the ABC Charter as a valuable instrument for the expression of Australian cultural life that should not be devalued as a result of economic and political considerations.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.The President10000The President(from 87 citizens)26827WW4Kemp Sen RodTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal; and3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points. Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Senator KempWW4Senator Kemp(from seven citizens)2683814DX5Margetts Sen DeeTo the Honourable the President of the Senate and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled.The Petition of the citizens of Australia brings to the attention of the Senate the Federal Government's plan to make major cuts to Legal Aid funds.The Federal Government plans to cut $40 million annually from Legal Aid funding.Last year, 250,000 people were assisted nationally. However, if these cuts go ahead, many Australians will be denied access to a wide range of services, and only the well-off will be able to access the justice system.The undersigned petitioners therefore ask the Senate to call on the Federal Government to protect every Australian's right to equal access to the justice system by continuing to fund Legal Aid at its pre-election level.Senator MargettsDX5Senator Margetts(from 814 citizens)2683160DX5Margetts Sen DeeTo 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.Senator MargettsDX5Senator Margetts(from 160 citizens)2683307DX5Margetts Sen DeeTo Honourable Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:That we support the co-existence of Native Title and Pastoral Leases, as upheld in the recent Wik judgment of the High Court, and believe that further restriction of Aboriginal people's access to their traditional lands will seriously diminish our nation.Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should call on the Federal Government to:1. Endorse publicly and unequivocally the High Court's native title decisions as just and correct decisions;2. To stand firm in resisting any tampering with the Native Title Act or the Racial Discrimination Act, and3. To endorse negotiation as the process which will make co-existence workable for all parties. Senator MargettsDX5Senator Margetts(from 307 citizens)2684785K4Faulkner Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement.2. 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.3. 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.4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be held.Senator Faulkner5K4Senator Faulkner(from 78 citizens)268421910000VICE-CHAIRMANTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned recognises the potentially disastrous effects of the Youth Allowance Bill recently passed by Parliament. Introduction of the Youth Allowance will reduce participation in Higher Education as a result of economic hardship.We ask that you review the eligibility requirements, and the levels of income available to recipients with a view to raising the levels of income support comparable to the 1997/98 unemployment allowances.The President10000The President(from 219 citizens)Petitions received.Notices268426842684Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator O'Chee and on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name for today 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 198626842684Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for the establishment and administration of a scheme to guarantee the payment of wages and certain other liabilities owed to employees in the event of employer insolvency, and for related purposes. Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 [No. 2] .26842684Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator O'Chee, 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 he will withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No 1 standing in his name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No 400 and made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning these regulations.Leave granted.The correspondence reads as follows—Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment)Statutory Rules 1997 No 40011 March 1998The Hon Trish Worth MPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family ServicesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Parliamentary SecretaryI refer to the following amendments of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 398Regulations 13.2 to 13.4 add further sets of fees to Schedule 9 of the Principal Regulations. While the Explanatory Statement accurately describes the effect of these provisions, it does not provide information on the basis on which the fees have been set. Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 399New subregulation 16J(1) requires the Secretary to consider an application for a drug to be designated an orphan drug but does not specify that this task should be carried out within any particular time. In this context, s.60(4) of the enabling Act and subregulation 48(4) of the Principal Regulations provide that a failure to reconsider within 60 days is taken to be a confirmation of the original decision. The Committee suggests that a similar provision may be appropriate in this case.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 400The definition of mainstream media in r.5B is unclear. For one thing, it refers to any magazine or newspaper for consumers but does not indicate what class of person is included within the notion of consumers. Does it refer to the consumers of therapeutic goods or to consumers of other products? The definition might also be regarded as unnecessarily broad as it would, for instance, apparently encompass a magazine for consumers containing only a range of competitions.New rr.5K and 5L permit the Secretary to vary the conditions of an approval, or to withdraw an approval. The Committee notes that those decisions are subject to review by ministerial and AAT review. Subregulation 5M(6), however, provides that a request for a review of the Secretary's decision does not affect the operation of that decision. Neither rr.5K or 5L prevent the Secretary from issuing a notice of variation or withdrawal with immediate effect, which could have unfair financial implications for the intending advertiser of the relevant product.Regulation 19 provides for the fees that are to be charged on an application for approval of an advertisement, but the Explanatory Statement does not indicate the basis on which those fees have been set. Furthermore, paragraph (c) of the regulation refers to an advertorial, which is presumably something other than an advertisement, and for which there is no warrant in the regulations for charging fees since advertorials do not need approval under r.5F.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 Nos 398-401The Committee notes that these four sets of Regulations were all made on the same day. This would appear to be a duplication of effort.All four sets of regulations provide for important matters affecting the general administration of therapeutic goods. These appear to be of sufficient importance that it may be more appropriate to address them through amendment of the enabling Act, where the changes would be subject to full parliamentary debate. In this context one of the Committee's terms of reference is to ensure that legislative instruments do not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment.The Committee notes that both the enabling Act and the Regulations provide for eventual review of decisions by the AAT. The Committee would appreciate your assurance that the present four sets of regulations will not affect adversely the conduct or the outcome of any case presently before the AAT by a person challenging a decision under the legislation.The Committee would be grateful for your advice on the above matters.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairman23 MAR 1998Senator W G O'CheeChairmanSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeI refer to your letter of 11 March 1998 relating to Statutory Rules 1997 Nos 398-401. The following information is provided in response to the matters raised in your correspondence.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules1997 No 398"Regulations 13.2 to 13.4 add further sets of fees to Schedule 9 of the Principal Regulation. While the Explanatory Statement accurately describes the effect of these provisions, it does not provide information on the basis on which the fees have been set.". The fees have been set in line with the Government's decision for the Therapeutic Goods Administration [TGA] to move to 100% cost recovery of its activities. These new fees represent the role of the TGA in carrying out evaluation and certification on behalf of the European Commission under the Mutual Recognition Agreement between Australia and the European Commission. It will enable Australian Manufacturers to mark their products so they can be sold without further evaluation in European countries.. 13.2 Introduces a new fee [$5,660] for the review of data submitted by the sponsor of a therapeutic device to establish that software meets specifications. This fee is consistent with the fee already included in Schedule 9 Item 6 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations at p.76 for the review of other categories of data.. 13.3(a) Introduces a new fee [$2,465] for the evaluation of overseas reports and summary data for therapeutic devices. This fee is consistent with the fee for the review of data under Schedule 9 Item 5(A) of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations.. 13.3(b) Introduces a new fee [$1,070] for the evaluation of overseas reports or data submitted in support of an application where the sponsor submits more than one application at the same time and the data submitted is sufficiently common to allow simultaneous evaluation of each of the applications. This fee is in line with the fee applicable under Therapeutic Goods Regulation 45(11)(a).. 13.4 Introduces a new fee [$2,800] for the evaluation of data submitted to support changes to software for an existing registered device. This fee is consistent with the charge for review of biocompatibility data as specified in Item 7(a)(c).Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 399"New subregulation 16J(1) required the Secretary to consider an application for a drug to be designated an orphan drug but does not specify that this task should be carried out within any particular time. In this context, s. 60(4) of the enabling Act and subregulation 48(4) of the Principal Regulations provide that a failure to reconsider within 60 days is taken to be a confirmation of the original decision. The Committee suggests that a similar provision may be appropriate in this case.". This regulation relates to the new orphan drugs program which is modelled on the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Orphan Drugs Program. The arrangements to apply to the Australian program have been agreed between the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association [APMA] and the Therapeutic Goods Administration [TGA].. The time taken to evaluate products seeking `orphan' status is as yet unknown and is affected to a significant degree by the time it takes to obtain relevant data from the FDA.. The APMA and TGA have agreed to review the implementation of the program at the end of the first twelve months of operation [ie. December 1998] with a view to incorporating appropriate statutory time frames for evaluation in the regulations.Therapeutic Goods Regulation (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 400"The definition of mainstream media in r.5B is unclear. For one thing, it refers to any magazine or newspaper for consumers but does not indicate what class of person is included within the notion of consumers. Does it refer to the consumers of therapeutic goods or to consumers of other products? The definition might also be regarded as unnecessarily broad as it would, for instance, apparently encompass a magazine for consumers containing only a range of competitions.". The Macquarie Dictionary definition of `consumer' is "one who or that which consumes" and "one who uses a commodity or service". In this context the commodity or services is therapeutic goods.. A `consumer' is anyone who may consume therapeutic goods other than health professionals. Regulation 4 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations defines health professionals as a class of people to whom advertisements may be directed without being subject to this part of the Regulations.. The definition of "mainstream media" in the Regulations parallels the arrangements used by the Australian Publishers Bureau when clearing print media advertisements.. The definition was included to ensure that arrangements for the clearance of print media advertisements are the same as those previously applied by the Media Council of Australia and the Australian Publishers Bureau.. The Media Council of Australia—which comprised all major print and broadcast media proprietors—administered the arrangements for the development and ongoing maintenance of the code of advertising for therapeutic goods up until the end of 1996."New rr.5K and 5L permit the Secretary to vary the conditions of an approval, or to withdraw an approval. The Committee notes that those decisions are subject to review by ministerial and AAT review. Subregulation 5M(6), however, provides that a request for a review of the Secretary's decision does not affect the operation of that decision. Neither rr.5K or 5L prevent the Secretary from issuing a notice of variation of withdrawal with immediate effect, which could have unfair financial implications for the intending advertiser of the relevant product.". If an advertisement fails to comply with the conditions of approval, the Secretary has the right to withdraw or vary that approval.. This regulation recognises the inappropriateness of allowing a breach to continue [which, for example may harm public health] whilst an appeal against a decision was initiated. . The Nutritional Foods Association of Australia and the Proprietary Medicines Association of Australia both agreed that it would not be appropriate to allow breaches of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code to continue whilst an appeal is under way."Regulation 19 provides for the fees that are to be charged on an application for approval of an advertisement, but the Explanatory Statement does not indicate the basis on which those fees have been set. Furthermore, paragraph (c) of the regulation refers to an advertorial, which is presumably something other than an advertisement, and for which there is no warrant in the regulations for charging fees since advertorials do not need approval under r.5F.". The fees and charges specified in these Regulations are identical to those charged by the Australian Publishers Bureau for the clearance of advertisements under the previous arrangements auspiced by the Media Council of Australia.. TGA is aware that the term `advertorial' at Item 17(c) of Schedule 9 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations already exists within the definition of advertisement in the Therapeutic Goods Act. Schedule 9 will, as a matter of course, be updated before the end of the financial year to reflect new fees and charges, and at this time the word `advertorials' will also be removed from the schedule.. An `advertorial' is a form of advertising. As the guidelines for Advertising Therapeutic Goods to the Public explain, "Advertorial is a term used by advertisers and publishers to describe the situation where what might appear to be bona fide editorial comment, is in fact an advertisement for a particular product".Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 Nos 398-401"The Committee notes that these four sets of Regulations were all made on the same day. This would appear to be a duplication of effort.""All four sets of regulations provide for important matters affecting the general administration of therapeutic goods. These appear to be of sufficient importance that it may be more appropriate to address them through amendment of the enabling Act where the changes would be subject to full parliamentary debate. In this context one of the Committee's terms of reference is to ensure that legislative instruments do not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment.". Three of the four regulations [398, 400 and 401] all refer to similar subject matter contained within the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.. Regulation 400 underpins the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code in regulation. This measure was undertaken at the request of industry. The Nutritional Foods Association of Australia and the Proprietary Medicines Association of Australia wrote to the Government in October 1997 requesting that the Code be underpinned in regulation as a matter of priority. This request was undertaken.. The Committee's attention is drawn to the fact that the arrangements now provided for in the regulations have been in place since 1977. The effect of including these arrangements in regulations will be to provide greater transparency and accountability, including rights of appeal.. At the same time, certain other measures required clarification. These were intentionally presented as separate regulations [398 and 401] to distinguish them from the pre-existing Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. It would not be appropriate to amend the enabling Act because these are amendments to existing regulations."The Committee notes that both the enabling Act and the Regulations provide for eventual reviews of decisions by the AAT. The Committee would appreciate your assurance that the present four sets of regulations will not affect adversely the conduct or the outcome of any case presently before the AAT by a person challenging a decision under the legislation.". The current Regulations clarify the existing law. There is currently a definition of `drugs' in the Therapeutic Goods Regulations under Regulation 2 as follows:"drugs" means:(a) therapeutic goods that are presented to achieve, or are likely to achieve, their principal intended action by pharmacological, chemical, immunological or metabolic means in or on the body of a person or an animal". Any claim in an advertisement that a product coming within the definition of `drug' is `drug-free' would therefore be inconsistent with the terms of the existing legislation.. The changes effected by the four (4) sets of Regulation should not adversely affect the conduct or outcome of any case presently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.. There is only one relevant case presently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that relates to the subject matter of Statutory Rule 401. A challenge has been mounted against the decision of a delegate of the Secretary to issue a notice under Regulation 7 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations to prevent a person publishing an advertisement that drugs are `drug free'. This matter is still before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and action taken to amend the Regula tions should not affect the ability of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review the delegate's actions to determine whether the issue of the notice should have occurred. Similarly, the amendments to the regulations should not affect the outcome of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the matter.. However, the new regulations will, as of the date of the amendment, preclude any advertisement from being published with a claim that drugs are `drug free'.Yours sincerelyTRISH WORTHParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services30 March 1998The Hon. Trish Worth MPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family ServicesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Parliamentary SecretaryI refer to your letter of 23 March 1998 relating to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 Nos 398—401.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 398Your advice in respect of the basis of fees met the concerns of the Committee. I point out, however, that if the Explanatory Statement for these Regulations had included the usual and long-established practice of providing this information then it would not have been necessary for the Committee to write on this matter.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 197 No 399Your advice that the Regulations would be amended to provide a statutory time frame for decisions on orphan drugs following a review of the program by the APMA and TGA met the concerns of the Committee. It would be appreciated if you could write to the Committee as soon as the review is completed.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 400The Committee wrote to you about the clarity of drafting of these Regulations. Following your reply the Committee remains concerned about the quality of drafting and would appreciate your advice that you have asked the APMA and TGA review to address particularly this question and to suggest changes which would make the Regulations easier to understand and apply by those affected by them. The Committee suggests that if a body with the expertise and experience of the Committee has difficulty with the drafting then those people directly affected, who would not usually be lawyers, would have similar difficulties.In this context the Committee notes that the last reprint of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations appears to have been on 8 March 1995 and was 86 pages long. Since then there have been 15 separate amendments of the Regulations amounting to 112 pages, not including Statutory Rules 1996 No 25, which was disallowed by the House of Representatives on 10 September 1996. At present, therefore, amendments of the Regulations are longer than the reprinted Regulations themselves. This must be confusing for users, who would find it difficult to know whether they are complying with the law. The Committee would appreciate your advice that you have asked for a reprint to be produced as a matter of priority.The Committee also wrote to you about provisions under which the Secretary may withdraw or vary an approval. These decisions are subject to merits review but may take effect immediately, with what the Committee suggested could be unfair results. Your reply referred to the inappropriate consequences of allowing breaches to continue while an appeal is initiated. The Committee suggest, however, that the fundamental point is that there is a difference of opinion between the Secretary and the person affected about what is a breach. The decision of the AAT may well be that no breach has occurred. In such a case the advertiser may therefore lose business because the approval was wrongly withdrawn. Nevertheless, the Committee is prepared to accept the present position on the basis of an assurance from you that appropriate financial compensation will be paid to advertisers if the AAT decides in their favour.The Committee also wrote to you about fees in these Regulations and about an apparent invalid reference to advertorials . Your reply indicated that the fees and charges were the same as the previous arrangements. These fees are, however, now provided for in the Regulations and the Committee assumes that they are based on cost recovery, because there does not appear to be legal authority, for instance, for the fees to raise revenue. The Committee is grateful for your advice that the reference to advertorials will be deleted before the end of the present financial year.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 Nos 398—401The Committee asked about the need to make four separate sets of Regulations on the same day. Your reply advises that three of them (Nos 398, 400 and 401) all refer to similar subject matter but that they were intentionally presented separately. Your advice is that No 400 does not represent a change in the existing arrangements, except apparently for the right of review, but that Nos 398 and 401 do. Presumably No 399 also changes the existing law. The Committee does not press the point relating to duplication of effort but points out that sound public administration usually does not require the Governor-General to make four sets of statutory rules, with the same title, made under the same enabling Act, on the same day, with gazettal on the same day, amending the same Principal Regulations.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 Nos 398—401The Committee wrote to you suggesting that the four sets of Regulations are sufficiently important that it may be more appropriate to address the matters with which they deal through amendment of the enabling Act, when the changes would be subject to full parliamentary debate. The Committee advised you that one of its terms of reference is to ensure that legislative instruments do not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. Your reply dealt with this question briefly, advising that it would not be appropriate to amend the enabling Act because these are amendments of existing regulations.With great respect, your advice lacks merit. For the purposes of the Committee's terms of reference it is irrelevant whether an instrument amends an existing instrument. The Committee's mandate to ensure that legislative instruments do not contain matter more appropriate for an Act is an important safeguard for parliamentary propriety and one which the Committee is especially vigilant to enforce. The very first Report of the Committee in 1932 dealt with this aspect of its terms of reference and the Committee has received undertakings since that date from Ministers to place matters, initially included in legislative instruments, in Bills. The attitude of the Committee is this respect is expressed by a reported quotation from Sir Robert Garran, whose opinion was that the Committee was the most important in Parliament because "its duty was to see that Parliament ran the country with legislation not the Executive with regulations and ordinances", Senate Hansard, 17 August 1971, p.195. Sir Robert was a counsel who helped draft the Constitution and the first Commonwealth Solicitor-General.As you know, the subject matter of No 401 is contentious and is the subject of considerable public concern. The Committee has noted your further advice that you have established a committee of review to examine the issues contained in No 401, and that you intend to table the results of that review in Parliament. The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice that following this review the material in No 401 will be included in a Bill. Such a undertaking would enable the Committee to remove its notice of disallowance.The Committee's actions in respect of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations, like its actions in respect of all legislative instruments, are directed to protect personal rights and parliamentary propriety. The Committee does not deal with policy and does not have a view on the policy aspects of No 401. Its aim is to protect the rights of Parliament.Administrative Appeals Tribunal caseYou have advised that there is only one present AAT case that relates to the subject matter of No 401 and that the present Regulations should not affect the ability of the AAT to decide whether a notice should have been issued. Here again the Committee assumes that if the matter is decided against the delegate of the Secretary then suitable financial compensation will be paid.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairman11 May 1998Senator W G O'CheeChairman, Standing Committeeon Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 30 March 1998 regarding the Therapeutic Goods Statutory Rules 398—401.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 398Your advice in respect of the basis of fees met the concerns of the Committee. I point out, however, that if the Explanatory Statement for these Regulations had included the usual and long-established practice of providing this information then it would not have been necessary for the Committee to write on this matter.I am glad that the additional detail on fees and charges was useful and I acknowledge the benefit of more expansive information.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 399Your advice that the Regulations would be amended to provide a statutory time frame for decisions on orphan drugs following a review of the program by the APMA and TGA met the concerns of the Committee. It would be appreciated if you could write to the Committee as soon as the review is completed . I have asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration to write to the Committee when the review of this issue is completed.Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 400The Committee wrote to you about the clarity of drafting of these Regulations. . . . . . ..and would appreciate your advice that you have asked the APMA and TGA review to address particularly this question and to suggest changes which would make the Regulations easier to understand and apply by those affected by them.. . . the Committee notes that the last reprint of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations appears to have been on 8 March 1995 and was 86 pages long. Since then there have been 15 separate amendments of the Regulations amounting to 112 pages, not including Statutory Rules 1996 No 25, which was disallowed by the House of Representatives on 10 September 1996.At present, therefore, amendment of the Regulations are longer than the reprinted Regulations themselves. This must be confusing for users, who would find it difficult to know whether they are complying with the law. The Committee would appreciate your advice that you have asked for a reprint to he produced as a matter of priority.The Attorney General's Department is responsible for the reprinting of legislation and regulations. However, I have asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration to write to the Attorney General's Department to bring the concerns of your Committee to their attention and request an early reprint of the regulations. I have also asked the TGA to look at any possible changes to the regulations which would make them easier to understand and apply. The Government has also given a recent commitment to prepare a plain English guide to the Therapeutic Goods legislation to enable consumers, manufacturers and retailers to obtain clear and concise information about the regulation of therapeutic goods.The Committee also wrote to you about provisions under which the Secretary may withdraw or vary an approvaL These decisions are subject to merits review but may take effect immediately, with what the Committee suggested could be unfair results. Your reply referred to the inappropriate consequences of allowing breaches to continue while an appeal is initiated. The Committee suggest, however, that the fundamental points that there is a difference of opinion between the Secretary and the person affected about what is a breach. The decision of the AAT may well be that no breach has occurred. In such a case the advertiser may therefore lose business because the approval was wrongly withdrawn. Nevertheless, the Committee is prepared to accept the present position on the basis of an assurance from you that appropriate financial compensation will be paid to advertisers if the AAT decides in their favour.As you are aware, there has been a longstanding co-regulatory approach to the advertising of therapeutic goods in the broadcast media, and under the proposed new arrangements, industry will be responsible for pre-clearance of print advertisements to the public.The industry organisations, the Proprietary Medicines Association of Australia (PMAA) and the Nutritional Foods Association of Australia (NFAA) who will be responsible for granting approval for advertisements, requested that authority be given to the Secretary to withdraw or vary an approval in specific circumstances—such as where an advertisement has been granted approval based on false or incorrect information provided by the product sponsor/advertiser. This power granted to the Secretary is important for ensuring that the industry organisations can uphold their delegated powers under the law and properly administer the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. This power also ensures that there is consistency in application of the Code across the industry. Without this regulatory provision, a product sponsor who did not comply for example with the conditions for an advertisement but who was not an industry organisation member could continue to run the advertisement. Similar action by an industry organisation member would lead to significant sanctions.I would like to stress that the power of the Secretary to withdraw or alter approval for an advertisement, would only be used in exceptional circumstances and following discussions with sponsors and advertisers. Also, there is certainly no impediment to a sponsor/advertiser publishing another advertisement for the same product that does meet the requirements of the Code.To ensure that the system of coregulation for print advertising is working effectively, I have asked that the effectiveness of this arrangement be reviewed within 12 months of implementation of these regulations.In relation to the appeal of decisions by the Secretary, the arrangements proposed by the regulations are in accordance with normal appeal arrangements to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Under these arrangements a decision which is appealed against in the AAT remains in place until the AAT reverses the decision, or unless an applicant successfully applies to the AAT for a stay of the original decision until the AAT makes a decision on the matter.The AAT does not have the power to make orders awarding any compensation. An applicant would normally successfully seek compensation where, for example a tort has been committed—such as where the decision maker acted negligently or maliciously. But this must be established through the normal judicial process. The Australian Government Solicitor's office has confirmed that compensating successful applicants following an AAT appeal is not the current practice nor a desirable precedent given the extraordinary number of day-to-day administrative decisions are made and that may be potentially reviewed by the AAT. In addition, because the AAT has jurisdiction to review decisions on their merits, the AAT may arrive at a different decision to that of the original decision maker's, even where the latter's decision cannot be faulted at law. In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate to compensate an applicant where the original decision may be correct at law.The Committee also wrote to you about fees in these Regulations and about an apparent invalid reference to advertorials. Your reply indicated that the fees and charges were the same as the previous arrangements. These fees are, however, now provided for in the Regulations and the Committee assumes that they are based on cost recovery, because there does not appear to be legal authority, for instance, for the fees to raise revenue.The fees which are referred to in the regulations are based on cost recovery (in accordance with the Government's decision for the TGA to move to 100% cost recovery for its activities).Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 Nos 398-401The Committee wrote to you suggesting that the four sets of Regulations are sufficiently important that it may be more appropriate to address the matters with which they deal through amendment of the enabling Act, when the changes would be subject to full parliamentary debate. The Committee advised you that one of its terms of reference is to ensure that legislative instruments do not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. Your reply dealt with this question briefly, advising that it would not be appropriate to amend the enabling Act because these are amendments of existing regulations.With great respect, your advice lacks merit. For the purposes of the Committee's terms of reference it is irrelevant whether an instrument amends an existing instrument. The Committee's mandate to ensure that legislative instruments do not contain matter more appropriate for an Act is an important safeguard for parliamentary propriety and which the Committee is especially vigilant to enforce.When the Parliament relatively recently passed the Therapeutic Goods Act in 1991, it made provision for certain matters to be detailed in regulations. It is the Government's belief that the current amendments presently before the Senate, which prescribe requirements for the advertising of therapeutic goods, are necessary and convenient to give effect to the Act.Section 63(2)(a) of the Therapeutic Goods Act provides for minor amendments through regulation in relation to committees and paragraph 63(2)(c) of the Act provides for the Governor General to make regulations for advertising of therapeutic goods.While I acknowledge that there has been some controversy over the amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations, the majority of the controversy has resulted from misinformation about the effects of the amendments. In fact none of the proposed amendments affect consumers' access to therapeutic goods and they will not affect the status quo in relation to the advertising of these products. As the amendments were not intended to introduce significant change to current arrangements, the amendments were made to the regulations covering these activities.As you know, the subject matter of No 401 is contentious and is the subject of considerable public concern. The Committee has noted your further advice that you have established a committee of review to examine the issues contained in No 401. Its aim is to protect the rights of Parliament.I acknowledge the apparent complexity of the legislation and the uncertainty caused by the prohibition of the use of the term `drug free'.The special Committee to consider the use of the term `drug free' is mandated to examine whether the use of the term drug free is appropriate when advertising certain medicinal products, and what alternatives might be used to accurately promote such products. I cannot preempt the deliberations of the Committee but I have asked the Committee to report to me by 8th May 1998. As you are aware, the findings of the Committee will be tabled in Parliament along with the Government's response to the recommendations.The Committee has continued its work despite the disallowance of Statutory Rule 401 by a resolution of the Senate on 31 March 1998.Administrative Appeals Tribunal caseYou have advised that there is only one present AAT case that relates to the subject matter of No 401 and that the present Regulations should not affect the ability of the AAT to decide whether a notice should have been issued Here again the Committee assumes that if the matter is decided against the delegate of the Secretary then suitable financial compensation will be paid.I am advised that the advertiser in question has apparently continued to use the term `drug free' in advertisements despite (a) notification by the TGA in October 1996 that this was in breach of Thera peutic Goods Regulation No.7; and (b) losing the appeal against the initial decision.In these circumstances it would appear difficult to quantify any loss of business.Thank you again for your detailed comments and I trust that this letter has helped clarify a number of outstanding issues. Please contact me if you require any additional information.Yours sincerelyTRISH WORTHParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services26922692Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the request of Senator Ian Campbell, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the role the Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) fulfils in performing a vital medical service covering 7 150 000 square kilometres or 80 per cent of the Australian continent, and (ii) that the RFDS was established on 15 May 1928, and celebrates its 70th year of operation on 15 May 1998; and(b) commends the RFDS and all associated with it for the invaluable contribution made to our nation over this significant period of time.26922692Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—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 25 May 1998:(a) by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston): (i) any document identifying by locality, town or suburb, the location of the reductions in the number of Telstra employees, and (ii) any document generated by the Department of Communication and the Arts or commissioned by the department from any person or corporation about the pricing of the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, or the costs associated with the float of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra; and(b) by the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Kemp): (i) all documents identifying the estimates of probable return from the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, and the detailed breakdown of the $580 million estimated cost of the sale, and (ii) all documents identifying the costs incurred in the sale of the first third of Telstra by the Government or any department of Government.26922692Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to make consequential amendments related to the enactment of the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 1998 , and for other purposes. Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 .26922692Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums. Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 .26922692Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 15 000 people attended a meeting in the week beginning 3 May 1998 at Werribee to protest about the establishment of a toxic waste dump in the area, (ii) the Premier of Victoria (Mr Kennett) gave an undertaking in 1986 that the State Government would not allow a toxic waste disposal to be built at Werribee, (iii) on 12 May 1998, local governments around Melbourne called on the State Government to reject the proposal, (iv) CSR Limited, the proponent of the dump, has a record of substantial environmental abuse and, as such, is not an appropriate company to manage such an environmentally-sensitive proposal as a toxic dump, (v) the proposed dump threatens the livelihood of market gardeners in the area, who currently produce 80 per cent of Melbourne's vegetables, (vi) the dump will, according to the proponent's consultants, leak at least 21 million litres of fugitive leachate in its first 15 years of operation, (vii) the proposal ignores the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) waste management policy, which requires proper storage of prescribed waste for monitoring and later retrieval for recycling, and (viii) there are no provisions for dust emissions or fire impacts; and(b) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) take a proactive role in this issue and put in place a national prescribed waste plan to manage and minimise the toxic material being disposed to landfill, (ii) develop measures which would assist the EPA to meet its objective of phasing out altogether the need to dispose of such material, and (iii) put in place a prescribed waste levy system similar to that imposed on domestic waste to fund such a plan.26932693Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) on 15 May 1998, Australia celebrates 70 years of the Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) overcoming the isolation and sheer logistical difficulty of this vast continent with a commitment that is unwavering, (ii) it is 70 years since Dr George Simpson chose the first flying doctor's base at Cloncurry, from which the first flight departed in May 1928, (iii) this fledgling service survived the Great Depression and other setbacks until, in 1933, Reverend John Flynn established the Australian Aerial Medical Service, later becoming the RFDS, (iv) John Flynn began with a simple idea, to give people in the outback access to a general practitioner and a flying emergency room, (v) this noble goal has not changed in the intervening years, (vi) to the 400 000 people who are part of the Flying Doctors' territory, the service it provides is not only medical but also an emotional support, and (vii) the RFDS is a non-profit, non-denominational organisation that is completely independent in its administration;(b) commends the 312 doctors, flight nurses, pilots and radio operators who occupy thirteen bases which cover an area of 6 900 000 square kilometres for their unstinting dedication to those in their care; and(c) expresses its confidence that the deep-rooted sense of an Australian community which underpins the ideals of the RFDS will help it continue to be a symbol of Australian determination and ingenuity and to make a significant contribution to medical treatment in the 20th century.26932693Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) alleged on 3 March 1998 that: (a) the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) grant awarded to Woodhouse Pastoral Company (the company) was for the private benefit of the Baillieu family and was a `rort', (b) Richard Percy Clive Baillieu was the current secretary, and that he and Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu were involved in this `rort', and (c) John Madden Baillieu was Chairman of EL & C Baillieu when the company was awarded the NHT grant, (ii) the NHT grant to the company is to protect the largest area of remnant grey box and bull oak woodland south of the Great Dividing Range, (iii) the woodland in question is listed on the National Estate for its ecological significance, containing a number of rare and threatened species, including 5 per cent of the known Australian population of swift parrots, (iv) this 270 hectares of woodland is half an hour from the centre of Melbourne in an area where its value for residential development would be tens of millions of dollars and the owner is prepared to place a covenant on the title to protect this precious bush in perpetuity, (v) a condition of the NHT grant is that the company provide $29 500 from its own funds to augment the NHT contribution, (vi) the public investment of $52 900 for fencing, the removal of invasive non-native species and the re-establishment of corridors of vegetation to link this bush to other nearby remnants, represents extraordinary value, (vii) the Department of the Environment has assessed this project as among the best bushcare projects in Victoria, (viii) the Trust for Nature in Victoria, an independent statutory authority set up to protect remnant native bush on private land, stated the NHT grant was a `fantastic deal' for Australia, (ix) Richard Percy Clive Baillieu died in 1941, (x) Maurice Howard Lawrence Baillieu died in 1961, (xi) John Madden Baillieu resigned as Chairman of EL & C Baillieu nearly 3 years ago, before the NHT was established, (xii) the Auditor-General's report no. 42 of 1997-98 on the Natural Heritage Trust found that `the 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', (xiii) evidence would support the eligibility of the company for this NHT grant because the 270 hectare site is listed on the National Estate, the project is supported by the Victorian Trust for Nature and the site is one of the few remaining relatively large areas of natural vegetation on the basalt plains west of Melbourne, and (xiv) it is 72 days since Senator Faulkner made his incorrect statements; and(b) calls on Senator Faulkner to apologise immediately and unreservedly to the Baillieu family for the hurt and damage to the family caused by his incorrect statements.Committees26942694269415:52:002694Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the sixth report of 1998 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—REPORT NO. 6 OF 19981. The Committee met on 12 May 1998.2. The committee resolved:That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateCommonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs4 June 1998Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 (see appendices 2 and 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional10 August 1998 Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyRural and Regional Affairs and Transport22 June 1998Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyRural and Regional Affairs and Transport22 June 19983. The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998. Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998. Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998. Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998. Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998. Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998.The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 31 March 1998). Australian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 7 April 1998). Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998. Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 12 May 1998). Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998. Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. Income Tax (Untainting Tax) Bill 1998. National Measurement Amendment Bill 1998. Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998. Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998.5. The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 (see appendix 6) and the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 (see appendix 6) , agreed that the provisions of the bills should be referred, but did not reach a decision on the committee to which the bills should be referred or the reporting date.(Paul Calvert)Chair13 May 1998Appendix 1Name of bill:Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Consideration needs to be given to the fact that the Bill seeks to remove the guidance provided by Part III of the Disability Services Act; AAT appeal rights and the training allowance. There may be implications regarding workers compensation insurance for people placed in employment under the scheme. The potential effects of opening up the disability services employment and rehabilitation market to private enterprise need further consideration especially in relation to services in regional and remote areas. The way that the corporatised CRS is to interact with flex services needs to be examined, specifically the charging of fees for service to both employers and job seekers. Issues of accountability and the regulatory environment of the scheme need further examination.Possible submissions or evidence from:Disability Services Australia, ACROD, Job Support, Disability Action, CRS, Disability Division—Department of Health and Family Services, CPSUCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Community Affairs Legislation CommitteePossible reporting date:4 June 1998(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member Appendix 2Name of bill:Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Provides for the reorganisation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, aspects of which are likely to be highly contentious. Explore the impact of the change to the structure and operation of the Commission and the implications of its new role on the effective delivery of human rights to all Australians.Possible submission or evidence from:Attorney General's DepartmentHuman Rights and Equal Opportunity CommissionFederation of Community Legal CentresWomen's Electoral LobbyAustralian Law Reform CommissionCommittee to which bill is to be referredLegal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteePossible reporting date:As soon as practicable.(signed)Vicki BourneWhip/Selection of Bill Committee memberAppendix 3Name of bill:Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Appropriateness of new structure for the CommissionAppropriateness of removal of specialist CommissionersAppropriateness of controls exercised by the Attorney-General of the Commissioners power to engage in litigation and the effect of this on the independence of the Commission.Possible submissions or evidence from:HREOC, all community legal centres, WEL, disability discrimination groups, ATSIC, Law Council, FECCACommittee to which bill is to be referred:Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.Possible hearing date:July-August 1998 Possible reporting date:10 December 1998(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 4Name of bill:Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:the ability of the Parliament to scrutinise the activities of the Maritime Industry Finance Company;the possibility that payments under Section 17 of the Bill may be made directly or indirectly for redundancies of people unlawfully dismissed, whose employment is terminated in a way inconsistent with the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Award or other industrial agreements, or whose employment is terminated as a result of corporate restructuring;payments being made under Section 17 of the Bill being directly or indirectly a substitute for appropriate redundancy provisions by employers of stevedoring labour;the effect of the levy on Bass Strait trade;the imposition of the levy on cargo and vehicles not handled by major stevedoring service providers and for official purposes;and the imposition of the levy on stevedoring companies who do not wish to access payments made under any scheme related to the BillPossible submissions or evidence from:Stevedoring companies, shipping lines, unions, users of port services and other interested parties.Committee to which bill is to be referred:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References CommitteePossible hearing date:ASAP (29 May)Possible reporting date:25 June 1998(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 5Name of bill:Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:the ability of the Parliament to scrutinise the activities of the Maritime Industry Finance Company;the possibility that payments under Section 17 of the Bill may be made directly or indirectly for redundancies of people unlawfully dismissed, whose employment is terminated in a way inconsistent with the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Award or other industrial agreements, or whose employment is terminated as a result of corporate restructuring;payments being made under Section 17 of the Bill being directly or indirectly a substitute for appropriate redundancy provisions by employers of stevedoring labour;the effect of the levy on Bass Strait trade;the imposition of the levy on cargo and vehicles not handled by major stevedoring service providers and for official purposes;and the imposition of the levy on stevedoring companies who do not wish to access payments made under any scheme related to the BillPossible submissions or evidence from:Stevedoring companies, shipping lines, unions, users of port services and other interested parties.Committee to which bill is to be referred:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References CommitteePossible hearing date:ASAP (29 May)Possible reporting date:25 June 1998(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 6Name of bill:Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:1. That the provisions of the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 be referred to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Reference Committee for inquiry and report by 2 November 1998 with particular reference to the following matters:i. the capacity of the Australian broadcasting industry; the Australian manufacturing industry; and Australian consumers to be adequately prepared for the commencement of digital broadcasting on 1 January 2001;ii. the need for an appropriate "phase-in" period during which both an analogue and digital signal will be transmitted, and the determination of the length of that simulcast period;iii. the costs to broadcasters and consumers associated with the migration into a digital broadcasting environment;iv. the appropriateness of extending the ban on the allocation of new commercial television licences until 2008;v. the provision of additional spectrum to the existing free-to-air television broadcasters, and the use of this additional spectrum;vi. content requirements, including minimum Australian content requirements and the mandating of minimum High Definition Television levels;vii. the particular needs and concerns of regional television networks;viii. the special requirements for the national broadcasters, that is the ABC and SBS;xi. the technical standards required to ensure inter alia that Australia's broadcasting environment complies with world best practice, and that the Australian manufacturing industry is well-placed to benefit from the opportunities that will emerge from the transition to digital equipment and software;x. the unique consumer and standards issues associated with the migration into a digital radio broadcasting environment, and in particular the determination of a phase-out period; andxi. any other relevant matter, incidental to the above.2. That the committee advertise for submissions in the media, and conduct public hearings as and where it deems appropriate.Possible submissions or evidence from:Commercial television operators, pay television operators, national broadcasters (ABC and SBS), radio broadcasters, manufacturing industry organisations, consumer groups and any other interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred:Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee.Possible reporting date:2 November 1998(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to make a brief statement in respect of this report.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I have not moved the usual motion for the adoption of the committee's report at this stage, but I intend to do so by leave after the tabling and consideration of committee reports tomorrow morning. I understand that agreement has been reached on this course of action. The delay results from the inability of the committee to make a recommendation in respect of the referral of the provisions of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 and the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and that time for further negotiations is required.15:52:002698Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—by leave—I do not know with whom these agreements have been made, but they have not been made with me. It is obviously a matter about which I am very interested. When this matter comes on tomorrow I will be seeking to have a decision on the reporting date deferred until two sittings days hence.15:53:002698Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—by leave—I apologise to Senator Harradine if he was not consulted about this. It was done at the request of the opposition following the impasse at the Selection of Bills Committee yesterday and partly because Senator Schacht, who handles the matter for the opposition, is a pair and away from parliament today. He wished to be in the chamber for the debate on how we handle the reference of the bill. He will not be back in parliament until tomorrow as he is dealing with a personal matter in Adelaide. We sought deferral for a day so that the chamber gets a chance to debate it, but while Senator Schacht is here. We initiated the request and the government agreed. It was also hoped that there might be some chance of reaching an agreement in the mean time. The delay was brought about by our seeking that indulgence for Senator Schacht. I apologise if some of the minor parties and Independents were not consulted about that.15:54:002698Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—I confirm what Senator Evans has said. I convey to Senator Harradine that attempts were made to contact his office regarding this matter. What I have said today means that it has been put off until tomorrow to allow further negotiations and allow for Senator Harradine to be consulted.Business26982698Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 5 (relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee) and No. 6 (the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional and Transport References Committee) standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2698Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1110 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the National Human Rights Register, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2698Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Lees) agreed to:That business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2, 3 and 4 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, relating to the disallowance of declarations made under the Telecommunications Act 1997, be postponed till 26 May 1998. 2699Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1107 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to human cloning and genetic engineering, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2699Motion (by Senator Lundy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1099 standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today, relating to copyright, be postponed till 25 May 1998.2699Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 923 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to introduction of the Captioning for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bill 1998, be postponed till 25 May 1998.2699Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of 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.2699Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, 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 28 May 1998.Miscellaneous2699Motion (by Senator Denman) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the recent protests held in Tasmania on 31 March 1998 over the Howard Government's failure to meet the needs of Tasmanians with intellectual disabilities, (ii) that intellectual disability support services in Tasmania have substantial waiting lists and are struggling to satisfy demand, and (iii) that current funding is insufficient to maintain existing services let alone provide for those unmet needs in the community; and(b) calls on the Commonwealth Government to provide more funding of services for the intellectually disabled so that such services can be maintained, expanded and improved in Tasmania.Miscellaneous2699Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous2699Motion (by Senator Murray) proposed: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. Question put:16:04:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous270016:11:002700Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—My motion is similar to the last one but not as expansive. We thought we would tie them in together. If we have a division, I would advise people not to leave so they can come back in. I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1106 standing in my name for today relating to the order for production of documents be taken as a formal motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this being taken as a formal motion?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Yes, Madam President. 270116:12:002701Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Pursuant to contingent notice and at the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Faulkner moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 1106.Briefly, there are two motions today for the discovery of certain documents. Mine is a much more specific motion. It only refers to focus group research undertaken by this government. The government has basically given, over time, four reasons for the non-production of documents: firstly, commercial-in-confidence; secondly, advice to government; thirdly, that there may be some threats to the security of individuals; and I would anticipate a fourth one that there are currently certain court proceedings in the Federal Court. May I say, Madam President, that none of those four objections could possibly apply to this far more restricted return to order.Firstly, it is certainly not commercial-in-confidence to get focus group research. Secondly, it is not advice to government, otherwise this government would not have produced and forwarded to an estimates committee and to myself two sets of research in the last six months—namely, the focus group research into regional forest agreements and, secondly, focus group research into the testing of the Wik ads. On both occasions, the government, by way of request—one by way of request of an estimates committee and one by way of request of freedom of information—has supplied that material.The third ground, which generally and broadly covers the ACIL documents that Minister Alston has referred to on occasion, is that he is worried about the threat to security of people involved in these reports. No such prohibition applies simply to getting the results of focus group research. Finally, that focus group research has absolutely no relevance at the moment, and never will, to conspiracy proceedings in the Federal Court. I think there is an arguable case for the government to produce this focus group research, and to do it urgently.It is made a little more poignant, however, when you look at to whom the focus group research was given. It was given to a company run by Mr Mark Textor. Mr Mark Textor of course is the Liberal Party pollster. I would like to know and I would like to be assured by the production of this material that he was not doing research that was useful to the Liberal Party. I suspect not. I suspect that, once these documents are handed over, if this motion is eventually carried and if we go through all of the proceedings and they actually hand over the focus group research, there is not going to be any dynamite in it. It will show, however, that the government used taxpayers' money and employed the Liberal Party pollster to let them know what the community attitudes were on the waterfront issues before they in fact launched their general strategy.I can remember in government on many occasions the present government members demanding the production of opinion polling research. On many occasions it was handed over, on some it was not. Similarly, once we reverse our roles, we demand the opinion poll research. Sometimes it is handed over, sometimes it is not. But on this occasion I believe it should be because all the objections to the production of the rest of the ACIL documents are not relevant to the production of the specific documents.They will show a government quite happy to spend $42,000 of taxpayers' money employing a Liberal Party pollster—and, on occasions, I might add, a push pollster—to do their research before they in fact developed a strategy on the waterfront. I would have liked to have included in my motion the report by Mr Jonathan Gaul, another member of the Liberal Party glitterati, who was also paid to provide a communications strategy, but I did not include it here because at least it possibly would have been barred to me under the question of advice to government.So, in summary, I believe this motion is urgent. I believe it should be carried. I would hope that at some stage we might be able to cut to the chase and not go through another 25 minutes of debate and, if that is carried, another 25 or 30 minutes of precedence debate and then the substance of the motion, because I do not think any of that debate will change anyone's vote on this particular matter. I would hope that at some stage we might get an indication from people around the chamber so we can cut to the chase, have a vote and win or lose it.Question resolved in the affirmative.2702Motion (by Senator Robert Ray, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1106 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.2702Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) proposed: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. Question put.16:22:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Patterson, K. C. L.Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.* denotes teller(Senator O'Chee did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the negative.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous270216:25:002702Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I seek leave to ask that the earlier vote on my motion 1100 be recommitted because one of the senators was unable to hear the bells.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I 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.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, can we be informed who missed the division and why? That is the usual courtesy that is extended.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Crowley, do you wish to say something?16:25:002703Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Yes, I do. I seek leave to make a brief statement.Leave granted.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Senator Campbell, I was very prepared to seek leave to make a statement, but I was advised that that was no longer necessary and, in the interests of timeliness, I was not going to do it. I very much want to apologise to the Senate. I was wearing my beeper. I was actually up meeting students, as I think you can say, Madam President. The first time I heard the beeper or felt it go off, I immediately left to come to the chamber, only to meet a number of senators returning from the chamber. I went straight to the whip and apologised, and I apologise again to the Senate for missing the division. It is not my habit, as all of you would know, to miss divisions and I will certainly make sure my beeper is checked. I am advised that it is not the only beeper that has been faulty at this time. Once again, I do beg the Senate's pardon and ask your tolerance. Question put: That the motion (Senator Murray's ) be agreed to.16:31:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Schacht, C. C. Patterson, K. C. L.* denotes teller(Senator O'Chee did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the affirmative.Committees270427042704Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Abetz) agreed to: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.Matters of Public Importance27042704UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—The President has received a letter from Senator Forshaw proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The failure of the Howard Government to adequately fund the public hospital and health care system in Australia. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.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 clocks accordingly.16:36:002704Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I can certainly say, with confidence, to the Senate that this matter of public importance is supported not only by members of the opposition but, indeed, by many members and leaders of the coalition parties around this country, because what they know—what the premiers and ministers for health in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory know—is that the health system, the public hospital system in this country, is fast approaching a crisis.What the people know is that this government has inadequately funded the public hospital system during the two years since it came into office.The people of Australia will recall that at the last election John Howard promised to maintain Medicare and to look after ordinary Australians. Yet in two years that promise has been broken time and time again. In two budgets, this government has almost destroyed the public hospital system in this country. It has wrought such havoc on the public hospital system that, at the last premiers conference, five premiers from the coalition parties—which John Howard and Mr Fischer represent in this parliament—together with the leader of the Northern Territory walked out of the premiers conference because of the inadequate proposals by this government for future health funding in this country. It was an historic first.These were not Labor Party premiers who did this. Only one of the premiers—Bob Carr—is a Labor premier. All of the others represent the parties that make up the federal government in this country, and they walked out. Why did they walk out? They walked out because they knew that this government was not living up to its promise and, furthermore, was continuing to drive nails into what could well be the coffin of public hospital and public health in this country unless remedial action is taken quickly.Over the last two years, the government has reduced funding for health care in this country by $3.6 billion. It reduced funding to public hospitals by $800 million. Funding reductions were forced upon the states by this government's fetish for reducing the deficit. That was the first ingredient of that $3.6 billion. Secondly, it abolished the public health dental program established by the previous Labor government—a program costing some $400 million. Thirdly, it cut a total of $1.4 billion out of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, forcing up the prices of many necessary drugs and also removing many important drugs from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.A further $1 billion funding for Medicare was cut as a result of the government's refusal to adjust the Medicare rebate. That has now been belatedly recognised in last night's budget but, nevertheless, it has been criticised by the AMA as a drop in the bucket compared to what is required for public health funding in this country at the moment. On top of those $3.6 billion worth of cuts in federal government funding to the states for public health, and particularly for the public hospitals system, we have also seen a continuation in the decline of health insurance even though the government put $1.7 billion into trying to prop the system up.There has been further pressure on the public hospitals systems in the states as a result of changes to nursing homes. As a result of this government's insane desire to force the elderly to sell their homes so as to pay huge accommodation bonds to get into nursing homes, or to pay huge increases in charges for nursing homes, greater pressure has been applied to the public hospital system as people are staying in public hospitals when they should be in other forms of aged care, such as nursing homes. This is a form of cost shifting back to the states. Yet this govern ment penalised the states last year by withholding $81 million, supposedly for alleged cost shifting by the states. That has not been proven. Last week it was admitted in evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs that the Commonwealth suspected there was cost shifting by the states. They do not have any real proof. Nevertheless, they decided they would not write out the cheque for $81 million to give to the states as they originally were committed to do.The record of this government over the past two years has been massive reduction, as I have said, of around $3.6 billion in funding for public hospitals and associated programs which are administered by the states but which—as has been recognised for many years—require a significant federal contribution. It has been the case that the states—if you track back over the last five years or so—have had to increase their spending on health by around 22 per cent.The federal government increase has only been of the order of 16 per cent. The significant difference relates to the last two years under the coalition government when they have slashed their proportion of health funding that was otherwise required. I notice the minister is in the chamber. He will probably again try to distort the picture of what the government's offer is, as he did in question time.The government claim that they are increasing the funding for health by $2.9 billion. I am not allowed to use the term `lie' because it is unparliamentary; but Huckleberry Finn used to say, about his sometime colleague Tom Sawyer, that he `stretched the imagination', sometimes a bit, sometimes a lot—and then there were what he called `whoppers'. And this is one of the whoppers of all time—this claim by the government that they are increasing funding by $2.9 billion or 15 per cent.The real increase in this budget—which has been on the table for the states for the last six months but was rejected by the states—is of the order of 1.1 per cent. That was made clear in evidence to the Senate committee last week. For instance, $300 million of this $2.9 billion results from a statistical recalculation of the forward estimates—due to changes in the forecast for the wage cost index. Of this $2.9 billion, $479 million is for mental and palliative care programs—but that is really just a continuation of existing programs; it is not new money. It is not a real increase; it is a carrying-on of previous programs. An amount of $682 million is said to be for quality and access programs—but there is no indication of how those funds will be distributed, they are at the discretion of the Commonwealth and there is no guarantee that all states and territories will receive a share.More importantly, none of these funds are available to meet ongoing service delivery costs. They are one-off payments to the states for particular `quality and access' programs. Further, there is $500 million of this $2.9 billion which is one-off project funding for what is called `systems restructuring in accordance with the Commonwealth priorities'. Again, this is not for the basic services of treating public patients in public hospitals.We have ended up with a position whereby around 1.4 million Australians will be unfunded for public hospital treatment over the course of the next five years. They are not just my words. If you do not necessarily believe me then listen to what your own five state ministers are saying, because last night they put out a press release. The ministers—Dean Brown, Liberal from South Australia; Kevin Prince, Liberal from Western Australia; Robert Knowles, health minister, Liberal from Victoria; Peter McKay, Liberal from Tasmania; Dr Andrew Refshauge from New South Wales—he's Labor; and Denis Burke, Country Liberal Party, from the Northern Territory,—expressed amazement that the federal budget does not contain one extra dollar for the nation's hospitals, despite being billed by federal Treasurer Peter Costello as a `big winner for health'. The press release says:"This budget will barely help us keep up with the growing demand for heart surgery alone," the Ministers said.I have not got time to read this press release, Madam Acting Deputy President, but I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Rob KnowlesHealth MinisterVictoriaDr Andrew RefshaugeHealth MinisterNSWPeter McKayHealth MinisterTasmaniaDean BrownHuman Services MinisterSouth AustraliaKevin PrinceHealth MinisterWestern AustraliaDenis BurkeMinister for Health, Family and Children's ServicesNorthern TerritoryTuesday 12 May 1998FEDERAL BUDGET IGNORES THE PLIGHT OF THE NATIONAL HOSPITAL SYSTEMState and Territory Health Ministers today expressed amazement that the federal budget does not contain one extra dollar for the nation's hospitals, despite being billed by Federal Treasurer Peter Costello as a `big winner' for health.`This budget will barely help us keep up with the growing demand for heart surgery alone,' the Ministers said.The States have conservative figures showing that the current Medicare offer will leave more than 1.43 million patients unfunded over five years, and this budget will be absolutely no comfort for them as they face longer waits for treatment.`We welcome the initiative to give GPs additional funding, but this is only half the equation. We need immediate and significant financial recognition of the strain faced by our nation's hospitals due to declining private health insurance, an ageing population and high-cost technology.'The ministers disputed again the Federal Government's claim that the new Medicare offer contains $2.9 billion of new funding.`As a group, we have sat in meetings with Minister Wooldridge where he denied that figure, and certainly our combined top bureaucrats cannot find that money in the bottom line.'`The reality is that there is only $69 million of new money over five years—not enough to run the nation's hospitals for a day, let alone the whole term of the Medicare system.'`The truth is that the Federal Government made an explicit promise at the last election to maintain Medicare as an accessible, quality service for Australians, and now they must put adequate money into the system to keep that promise.' The Health Ministers have been fighting for increased funding for hospitals for more than six months now, in the negotiations of the new Medicare agreement.`Yet all we have received in return is a budget which totally ignores conditions in our hospitals, and insults that we have ripped State funding from our hospitals. There is not one jurisdiction that is not paying significantly more for its hospitals now than it was five years ago.'`The Federal Government seems to think the Medicare negotiations are just a political game, in which they can push and pull figures at will.'Media EnquiriesVictoria: Serena Williams on 0412 683 876Tasmania: Ian Colvin on 0417 576 378NSW: Julian Brophy on 0419 013 645NT: Loralei Fong Lim on 0419 85 2421WA: Mark Thompson on 015 655 252 (pager 9482 4648)SA: Peter Green on 0419 814 820656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—They conclude by saying:The Health Ministers have been fighting for increased funding for hospitals for more than six months now . . . Yet all we have received in return is a budget which totally ignores conditions in our hospitals and insults that we have ripped State funding from our hospitals—(Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Before calling Senator Herron, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of former Senator Shirley Walters—welcome back.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!16:49:002707Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I take a great deal of pleasure in responding to Senator Forshaw's motion. I am delighted that Senator Shirley Walters and Dr David Walters are in the public gallery, because Senator Walters would recognise the blatant hypocrisy of what we have just heard from the opposition. They have got form—they were 13 years in government. I have been here for eight years and for six of those years I tried to tell them what was wrong with the public hospital system. Do you think they took any notice? Not at all.It is very simple: when they came into government 13 years ago there was a balance—50 per cent of people went to public hospitals and 50 per cent to private hospitals. Sixty per cent of people were actually privately insured. The first thing they did when they were in government was to pull the rug out from under private health insurance. It is no wonder, because I have got lovely quotes here from over the last 13 years. You will have to forgive me, Madam Acting Deputy President, but this is Paul Keating on 11 March 1993:That is where Medicare is fair as it pushes out the private doctors and private insurance—they will rip the sick apart.That was their Prime Minister, and he pulled the rug out from private health insurance. It is no wonder that private health insurance went down the tube.But you can go later than that. Carmen Lawrence in parliament on 30 August 1994 said:We are going to make sure that those premiums come down, that people get value for money and that it will not be at the expense of the public health system.That was the Labor Party's own health minister. But there is more. On 15 April 1994:The government has an obligation to provide quality health care for every citizen. If people want more than that, in the form of private rooms or choice of specialist or access to cosmetic surgery or whatever it is, they pay for it.So they pulled the rug out from under the private hospital system and, of course, people are forced into the public hospital system.Who provides the health system in the states? The states do. The states are responsible for health care within the public hospital system. They are being overwhelmed by the number of people who are accessing it, not only because of growth of population but also because of the ageing population. The demands of the ageing population are putting enormous difficulties onto the public hospital systems of this country.It did not happen in the last two years, Senator Forshaw; it had been going on for 13 years under your government and we are trying to clean up the mess. We inherited a $10.3 billion deficit, as you know, and we have had to cope with bringing the budget into surplus and, at the same time, trying to address the problems in the public hospital system. We have pumped money into private health insurance to try to restore that balance. I can forecast confidently, as I have done before, that it will plateau. It has still been falling, but it plateaued in the December quarter. There has been a slight rise in the March quarter, but I expect that it will now plateau because it has plateaued in my own state of Queensland for the last 13 years because we have had a different system there.Senator Forshaw has come in with crocodile tears and said that this government is not doing enough for the public hospital system, while disbelieving the evidence of his own eyes, because that is all you can do in relation to the figures in the budget. They are true, and the offer to the states has been increased by 15 per cent over five years. The figures are in the budget papers. I invite Senator Forshaw to have a look at them. If he disbelieves the evidence of his own eyes, he is just caught up in the hypocrisy that he produced for us just now. The Commonwealth's offer is a very generous one.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Your figures are shonky.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—It provides an additional $2.9 billion for hospital funding over the next five years, with real growth over the five years of 14.9 per cent. It is in the budget figures. Senator Forshaw ignores them.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—The states reckon the figures are crook.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—The states are persisting in their claims. I have the Crowley file here. Would you like the Crowley file?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I have the Dean Brown file, I have the Peter McKay file—these are state health ministers.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I will drag out the Crowley file for you soon. I have not got it, because I do not like quoting people who are still here, but the fact is that she consistently said that the states are always bleeding for more funds because it is their responsibility.Senator Forshaw's argument falls down because the Queensland government has accepted the Medicare agreement. That blows him out of the water. There is a state that has accepted the Commonwealth government's offer. The ACT government were first cab off the rank and have accepted it already. So two of them have already accepted it. The reality is that even if they do not accept it we have guaranteed that they will get the funding that we have offered to them. If they do not sign up, as you know, they will not get the additional funding which has been offered to them to help with waiting lists—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It is a bribe.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—They will still get the funding. Does Senator Forshaw really think that the states are going to say, `We don't want any more money'? Senator Forshaw, they have done it forever. They have always done that. Of course, they always say that they could have better health care provision from the public hospital system. They are persisting in their claim that they need an additional $1.1 billion a year. That means an increase in Commonwealth funding of 20 per cent. Have you ever heard of an ambit claim, Senator Forshaw? I am sure he has, Madam Acting Deputy President, as he comes from the union movement. They are ambit claims. Of course we recognise that. That is what it is all about. In view of the form of the Labor Party over a 13-year period, what Senator Forshaw is saying is the essence of hypocrisy.Senator Forshaw suggested that they are dodgy figures. I point out that the states' own submission to the Senate inquiry into the agreement legislation included a graph showing data from a range of sources on relative Commonwealth and state spending over the life of the present agreements. I am happy to table that. It gives the lie to what he just said. This graph shows up the hypocrisy of the so-called dodgy figures, because the states' own graph confirms the Commonwealth figures. It clearly demonstrates that the states reduced their funding in 1993-94 and in 1994-95 while Commonwealth funding increased sharply.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I acknowledge that.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Senator Forshaw says graciously that they acknowledge that. But I am pointing out that he does not believe them. He does not believe the states' own graph, because that was the essence of his argument before. The graph clearly demon strates the difference between the Commonwealth's record of continuously increasing spending and the states' record of ripping money out of health. Senator Forshaw's suggestion that the Commonwealth had dropped its plan for a one per cent annual cut or efficiency dividend on palliative care and mental health funding is completely untrue. There never was such a plan.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I know that this might be ruled as a debating point, but I never said a word about a one per cent efficiency dividend in the entire speech. Senator Herron is actually getting today confused with the Hansard from last week's hearing.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—There is no point of order. It is a debating point.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Madam Acting Deputy President, he said that within the Hansard . I accept his statement on that. I did not know—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I didn't say anything about it today at all—not a word.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I accept that. I was not here at the beginning of Senator Forshaw's speech, and I apologise for—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You are thinking of last week's Hansard from a different hearing, you goat.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Madam Acting Deputy President, I ask him to withdraw that .10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, would you please withdraw that.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I withdraw the word `goat'.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—Senator Forshaw has acknowledged that in another hearing he made that assertion.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I think you had better check the record completely, Senator Herron, before you start making accusations.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I can understand Senator Forshaw getting a bit touchy, because after all he has not got a feather to fly with. After 13 years of the Labor Party putting the public hospital system into the state that it is now in, he is making these assertions when the agreement had nothing to do with us over the last two years, because it is the Labor Party's five-year agreement which is being renegotiated now—and Senator Forshaw should be aware that the Medicare agreements last for five years. We are offering a 15 per cent increase. So he uses this motion to say that they are dodgy figures. I am pointing out that there are no dodgy figures. On the states' own admission they cut their spending in the past. Now they are trying to make up the difference by getting it from the Commonwealth. There is nothing new.So I come back to the original point that it was the Labor Party—for example, by taking out the bed day subsidy—that produced the major crisis in private hospital funding. And with the ageing population, the increase in technology, the increasing cost of running a public hospital system, there is no magic wand. It will take us years to fix the system, but we are taking the right steps. We are subsidising private health insurance, so if we can get back to that magic figure of 50 per cent of people going to private hospitals—it is only 20 per cent now and the rest are dependent on the public hospital system—then we will have a system that will work in this country. People accept that Medicare is essential. We believe it is too. We believe that people have a right to access Medicare, but to try to lump onto the present government the problems of the public hospital system is just blatant hypocrisy, and it is time that Senator Forshaw took his medicine, realised that his own government produced this effect and withdrew his motion. (Time expired)16:59:002709Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—It was most interesting to listen to the minister. I will not accuse him of using rubbery figures, but I will accuse him of using selective figures because he likes to completely ignore the cuts that were made to health over the past two years; indeed, these cuts are forecast to go through for five years. As he seems to have misplaced them, I would like to read them onto the record. Public hospitals were cut by this government in 1997-98 by $76.8 million; in 1998-99, there will be $78.9 million in cuts to the public hospitals; for 1999-2000, the projected cuts are $82.6; the next year, $85.5; and in 2001-2002, $88.5 million.Then you have to look at all the other cuts to health—dental services, $112.8 million this year going on through to $120.6 million by the year 2001-2002. The actual cuts to Medicare—that includes the cuts to GPs—are $375.9 million in 1997-98; in 1998-99, $247.9 million; 1999-2000, $276 million and so it goes on up to $321.2 million. In PBS and other cuts, $136.0 million last year and $247.9 million this year.It does not stop there, because they also cut the grants to the states. If you look at what percentage of their total grants the states spend on health, you can get a calculation that for 1997-98 the cut to health was $213 million and $100 million this year. That gives us a figure of approximately $1 billion this year, and it grows, so that we have a total of $6 billion in cuts to health.Then we can talk about the small increase we got this year, but effectively what that means is that the government is putting back about $345 million. In other words, they have cut $1 billion and they have put back about 34c in the dollar. And the minister comes into this place and says, `We should be happy with that; we should be jumping up and down like some of the newspaper headlines are,' suggesting that the health budget is wonderful. I suggest that the minister and some of those journalists go and visit hospitals as I have been doing over the last few weeks.I want to make some comments—and this has been reported in the Advertiser—as to the state of some of the hospitals in South Australia. Flinders Medical Centre is facing a $2 million budget blow-out after patient admissions went up by 2,000 on their average admissions. The only thing I think I can agree with Senator Herron on is that the budget cuts in health began under the Labor government. As Senator Herron said, it is the current Medicare agreement that has partly got us to this crisis. But, as a result of previous cuts, staff numbers at Flinders have been cut by 250, or 10 per cent, since 1994-95.It is suspected—we have not seen the final figures—that the Women and Children's Hospital in Adelaide will be slightly over its $113 million budget because of extra demand. Funding has been cut by $20 million in the past five years. For the Royal Adelaide Hospital, staff have been cut from 3½ thousand to 2½ thousand over the last 10 years due to the cutbacks. While staff are said to be just coping they would certainly be able to do more if funding were available. With Whyalla Hospital and Health Service, the budget has blown out by $1.3 million. Staff, however, are already down from 430 five years ago to 287 now. And so it goes on.I visit hospitals in rural South Australia and in rural Victoria and talk to the CEOs and every single one of them is running a hospital on the limit—on the absolute knife edge. They are in a situation where there is absolutely nothing to spare and nothing to cut. They have contracted out everything they can possibly contract out, in many cases finding they have saved very little money at all. All the contracting out has done is further demoralise an already pressured staff.So we come back to the basic conclusions that the health ministers have come to, that they put very eloquently before the Senate committee last week. It is the Commonwealth which holds the purse strings; it is the states that have to run the hospital system; and the states have no other major revenue raising source. They are already stretching gambling to the limit, which this government has now admitted is a problem and is going to look into. There is no other place for the money that is needed to run our hospitals to come from but from the Commonwealth government.What the Democrats asked for in this budget, as we had a $3 billion deficit that really was not there—the black hole was a lot smaller than this government had led us to believe; in other words, $3 billion worth of cuts should never have been made—was that the first port of call was to put the $1 billion back into health. That was the absolute minimum that the health ministers themselves asked for. In other words, basically to help them fund their hospitals and to fund all those other health services that will help keep people out of hospital. If you put pressure on dental services; if you put pressure on community health services; if you put pressure on doctors so they stop bulk-billing; where do people end up? They end up in accident and emergency at all hours of the night.So you find, as I found when my youngest daughter had to go into Accident and Emergency in a large Sydney hospital, a wait of hours. As she needed acute care, she was able to jump the queue but the queue was four or five hours long. She then needed a bed, only to find that there weren't any. So, after being resuscitated, she was left lying in Accident and Emergency for many, many hours. This is the story no matter which public hospital you visit.I suggest that Senator Herron in this place and the minister in the other place spend some time visiting a couple of dozen public hospitals and talking to staff, talking to nurses in particular, talking to the CEOs, having a chat to the interns and the registrars and talking to the specialists to get a proper picture of what is actually happening. If they do not believe they should fund it, then they must suggest to the states where the states are going to get the money from to fund our public hospital system. As any state will tell you—and I must suggest here that probably Tasmania is in a slightly worse position than even South Australia—they are running to the limit and it cannot go on.17:06:002711Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) agree that the funding of hospitals is hopelessly inadequate, but I also agree with Senator Lees that it is not only the funding of hospitals, but also the priorities in relation to the funding of health care that are hopelessly inadequate. You cannot continue to leave provision of health to the pointy end—to the emergency end—of medicine and assume that you will be able to cope with inadequate levels of funding.The longer term prospects of health must include preventative health. The longer term concept of health must include adequate funding of community-based health services so that those people who are prospective victims of strokes, heart problems, asthma and so on do not continually end up at the most expensive pointy end of medicine—that is, in hospitals rather than in prevention.It is quite clear that Dr Wooldridge's miserly offer under the Australian health care agreement has been rejected by the majority of the states. The states have been forced to accept more responsibility for health programs, without adequate financial compensation. The inadequacy of funding is a testimony to this government's attitude towards its role in providing essential services to improve the quality of life of all Australians.We know that the issue of competition policy comes into this as well. We have a situation where there is no specific exemption for health under competition policy on a national basis; that is, in the end, where they can be, all health services will be outsourced. Under competition policy, so much will have to be written into the contracts that, before we know it, not just the current staffing that is being outsourced—the catering and all those things which make it more and more difficult for patients and patient outcomes—but health outcomes in many more ways as well will be subject to the bottom line dollar, which we all know is not the way we would choose for best patient outcomes.The benchmarks of efficiency and productivity do not factor into quality of patient care as hospitals are already understaffed and increasingly subject to financial strain. It undermines and lessens our grip and focus on quality of health. So the issues are not just about funding, they are about policies which impact on the proper decision making of hospitals.In the absence of guarantees or details of exemptions, we also have to look at the possible impact on health funding of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The future adequacy of health funding must be seen in terms of potential international obligations under the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. International investors may be able to require access to health service provision and government funding. (Time expired)17:09:002711Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I think the people on the other side—the members of the Labor Party, and also Senator Margetts and Senator Lees—are suffering from retrospective hindsight blindness. This is obvious if you look at the Labor Party's record on health. The Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) very adequately went through Labor's record in the House in March last year.When the Medicare agreements were being set up last time there was an argy-bargy. The then Labor minister for health was having an argument with what were then mostly Labor states about the fact there was not enough funding. It went on and on and they were not going to sign. This happens every time we have Medicare agreements: the states and the Commonwealth pull to and fro about funding.We had a system of public hospitals under Labor whereby the Commonwealth had put in more money in the last Medicare agreement but had no capacity whatsoever to have control over the states just taking the money out. The government knew this. When the Minister for Health and Family Services was speaking in the House last year, he said:The Leader of the Opposition when Minister for Finance walked around the country, wailed and bleated and said how awful it was, but what have they done? Nothing.The Labor government's agreement with the states was such that it had very little control over it. In the budget last night, the government's commitment is to pay in full the offer made to the states on the Australian health care agreements at the 20 March Premiers Conference, and it includes a total of almost $2.2 billion additional funding over the next five years.The Commonwealth has also decided to meet the full costs of public hospital services provided to entitled veterans, giving the states access to an additional $750 million over the next five years—that is, the gold card for eligible veterans who have served in the Australian armed forces, who are over 70 years, and who have faced hostile forces. They are entitled to a gold card which, for those veterans who may be listening, is not only for their hospital costs but means that they do not have to pay the Medicare levy if they are currently paying it. It also gives them access to services such as dental, physiotherapy, podiatry, chiropractic, et cetera.Not only does the gold card give those veterans access to private hospitals, but it also takes many of those veterans out of the public health system and thus opens up more beds and more opportunities for people who are not veterans—so it has a double effect. There is $750 million for that alone over the next five years. These amounts are additional to the forward estimates based on the costs of existing agreements. In total, the Commonwealth will be funding the states with $30.2 billion over the next five years to assist them in providing health services.As well as increasing base funding, the Commonwealth offer includes a continuation of the mental health and palliative care programs which were due to end in 1997-98; funding for improving the quality of services; and $500 million for a national development fund to support projects and programs to reform the acute health system. So there is $500 million for a national development fund to support projects and programs to reform the acute health system. In addition to the funding set out in the budget, the Commonwealth proposal would provide states with an additional $83 million to compensate for each percentage point drop in the private health insurance participation rate should that occur.When Labor was in government the number of doctors in rural areas declined. Labor bleated about it, but what did it do? Nothing. Our minister for health has put in place training programs and incentives to get young doctors to think about going into rural areas. He has brought in a lot of innovation to encourage medical practitioners to move into rural areas. But under Labor there was no particular focus, no training focus, to meet the needs of people in rural areas. Under Labor, private health insurance was bleeding without stopping. During the election campaign in 1993, then Labor minister Graham Richardson said:Unfortunately, again, Labor aren't recognising the big problem. It is still a huge problem, by the way, that people are deserting private health insurance at the rate they are, a much faster rate than anyone in the Government's been predicting and it just goes on and on. Did they do anything about it? Did they try to encourage people to go into private health insurance? No. Carmen Lawrence, the then minister for health, and the Prime Minister did not have private health insurance. They did not set an example, nor would they agree to a surcharge for high income earners. After the budget in 1996, Graham Richardson said:When I left—the Labor Party—as the Labor Party had always been a bit biased against private health insurance . . . That really sums up everything. He goes on to say:One idea I had which had no chance of ever being accepted by my caucus or cabinet colleagues was to charge an increased Medicare levy for high-income earners who refused to take out private insurance. I was never comfortable with the thought of wealthy people elbowing battlers out of queues in public hospitals.Senator Crowley, when she was representing the minister for health in this chamber, used to say, `Oh, no, it is only young people that are leaving private health insurance. They don't actually add to the hospital queues.' But then we had Graham Richardson saying, `Yes, they did.'So Labor did nothing about that. We have brought in incentives for people on low incomes to take out private health insurance—a carrot—and we have a stick for those on high incomes who fail to take out private health insurance.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—How well is it working?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—The question is: is it working? When the Labor Party was in government, there was a haemorrhaging out of private health insurance to the point where it was not going to be viable. We have stemmed that haemorrhaging. Just wait until after the taxation returns go in and people on high incomes realise that they will have to pay an increased Medicare levy, because you will find that some of them will revert to taking out private health insurance.Opposition senators interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I want to hear from Labor what they are going to do about it. They can bleat all they like about it, but it has had no effect until they do something about it and have some sort of policy. The opposition have no policies at all—it is a policy free zone opposite—and, when they do have a policy, they have a policy for 24 hours and then change their minds.The major focus of this year's budget in health has been on improving access to health services for rural and regional Australia, including the establishment of a rural multipurpose health and family services network, costing $24 million over four years; and on more support for older people to stay in their homes through the `staying at home' initiative, costing $269 million over four years. That is important for people in small rural areas where it is not necessarily viable to have an aged care facility or where people—or families—choose to stay at home but need assistance.We have announced essential investment in preventive health measures including a focus on environmental health, injury prevention, cancer control, anti-smoking initiatives, men's health and funding for special vaccination programs for elderly Australians. There is a saving because every person over 65 will be given the opportunity to have a flu vaccination, as was recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council and taken up by the minister.The budget also contains enhancement of health infrastructure in the indigenous communities. What happened when Senator Graham Richardson went out to indigenous communities and tried to turn the tap on? `Oh dear,' he said, `This is terrible.' And what happened? Nothing. What have we seen Senator Herron do? We have seen the army brought in to establish some of that infrastructure, and we have seen 35 new Aboriginal health services develop. (Time expired)17:18:002713Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak on this matter of public importance to put aside what the government is saying, because this is not about ambit claims argy-bargy. One only has to look at the submission that was made by the state and territory governments—that is, the states except Queensland and the territories except the ACT—to the recent Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing on the issue of health care agreements. In the executive summary of the submission put forward by the states—they are holding out against the federal government because of the general meanness of the federal government—they say this:Basically, there are two broad areas of fundamental concern. Firstly, the Commonwealth's funding offer falls well below that considered necessary to cover required service levels.So that is the first thing that concerns the states that are holding out against the federal government and their miserable approach—the offer does not cover required service levels. They go on:Secondly, the legislation and draft agreements do not address the structural reforms required for the health system.Then we get to the question of: what is really an issue here? The states and Northern Territory are seeking an additional $1.1 billion per year to the base; whereas the Commonwealth responded with an extra $2.9 billion over the five years of the new agreement. The difference between that is not an ambit claim. If you have been in negotiations and if you know the difference, it is certainly not about argy-bargy and it is certainly not about ambit claims—it is a substantial difference indeed. This is highlighted further in their submission, when they say:Based on these figures, and given the complexities of health funding, a very conservative estimate is that the Commonwealth's offer is more in the vicinity of an additional $69 million over five years on a national basis.So it is not what the coalition is painting it to be at all: it is not a matter of argy-bargy and it is not a matter of ambit. They go on:This breakdown of the Commonwealth's funding offer demonstrates the magnitude of the funding shortfall when compared to the States' and Northern Territory's claim for an additional $1.1 billion in the base. Similarly, the Commonwealth's claim of a real 15.4% increase over five years is significantly overstated, with the real amount being about 1.1%.They are the words of the state governments and the Northern Territory government who are still at odds with the Commonwealth government over the funding of the health system. Clearly, from what they were saying in their submission to the Senate legislation committee, there are insufficient funds. But there are two noticeable absentees from that particular statement that was made on behalf of the states and the territories—the ACT government and the state government in Queensland. One would have to ask: why are they absent? They are absent for the same reason in both instances—for purely venal political reasons. The ACT capitulated early because it suited their electoral purposes, and then the Queensland government, facing an election just around the corner, felt it was very comfortable to capitulate as well.Let us look at the history of what unfolded which will show how the other states and territory governments are not being unreasonable. Let us just look at the Queensland attitude tracking back through a few clippings. In the Courier-Mail on 12 March, an article headed `State threat to renege on federal funding deal' states:The Borbidge Government will argue that this final instalment in a three-year plan to help financial recovery is not necessary because the Howard Government's Budget is probably now in surplus.It goes on to say:His defiant approach—that being the Premier of Queensland—is the latest shot in the lead-up to next week's Premiers' Conference, which is likely to be a heated affair because of ill-feeling over health funding.We have the build-up. Whilst one might say there is a certain amount of argy-bargy there, it is more than just staking an ambit claim. We then go on to an article in the Financial Review of 20 March which states:Queensland Premier Mr Rob Borbidge was scathing about the health funding offer saying it was even less than an offer made late last year, which he said was "a dud".The article goes on to say:The most recent offer was the "son of a dud", he said. Mr Howard yesterday described Mr Borbidge's comments as "unhelpful".We went from `a dud' to the `son of a dud'. What they ultimately accepted is indescribable in normal terms in this parliament. Then we move on to 26 March. What do we find on that date? We find the headline `States back call for health fund inquiry'. Mr Borbidge is seen in a bit of a conciliatory light there. The article stated:A spokesman for the Queensland Premier indicated that Mr Borbidge saw merit in a funding review.It was not capitulation at that stage; it was merit in a funding review that was ultimately undertaken.Then we turn to the Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Kennett was reported as speaking strongly against the federal government. His support was echoed by the Queensland Minister for Health, Mr Mike Horan. It is report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 April that Queensland had capitulated. We found that Queensland had capitulated because there was an election around the corner.The government can claim no victories here. What they have are two very peripheral victories at best—that is, signing up the ACT government who faced an election and signing up the Queensland government who are similarly facing an election. This is not about redressing the health situation. In Queensland alone the extra minimal funding will do nothing to put a dent in the fact that 12,000 Queenslanders are waiting longer than is medically acceptable for elective surgery. Nothing that came down in the budget last night will do anything to redress that situation either.17:25:002715Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I find this debate put forward by the Labor Party yet again to be absolutely and utterly amazing. The Labor Party ran a failed health system. Instead of coming in here and trumpeting what they now think should and should not be done they should in fact be hanging their heads in shame for what they did to the health system over 13 years in government.When the Labor Party came into office in December 1983 some 64 per cent of Australians were privately insured. When they left office there were 34 per cent of Australians privately insured. That is nothing short of disgraceful. During that time, the Labor Party government did not compensate the states one cent for the reduction in private health insur ance and therefore an increase in the utilisation of public hospitals. Yet they have the gall to come into this chamber day after day grizzling about health care funding. They should be hanging their heads in shame. They are the ones who created the problem. The difference is that the coalition government is the one that is taking the responsibility to solve the problem created by them.Prior to the Labor Party devastating the health system, one who was privately insured was able to go into hospital and pay absolutely nothing because the health fund picked up the tab. Equally, if you were not privately insured you were able to walk into a public hospital and get the treatment that you needed without waiting and without charge. Who picked up the tab for that? The taxpayer. What the Labor did was wreck a perfectly good system where those who were in genuine need were looked after and those who could pay for their own private health insurance did so. Yet they are the ones complaining about the situation today.We have the responsibility to try to turn this around. That is no mean feat. The fact remains that the Commonwealth is trying to do this in consultation with the states. Coming from Western Australia, I am the first to admit that the Commonwealth is not providing everything that the states want. But I think there are many people who are equally prepared to admit that the Commonwealth is trying to make ends meet. The budget that we saw presented last night is a responsible budget. That comes in on top of not only the devastation that the Labor Party left us with in terms of health funding but also the $10 billion deficit they left for every man, woman and child in Australia. We have turned that around in two short years and those in the Labor Party still come in here and complain.The Commonwealth's proposals for health care funding have tried to accommodate the main principles and directions that were agreed to by the health ministers in Cairns in May 1997. They may not meet every single solitary red cent that the states want. I do not blame the state for seeking more. The states were duded very seriously by the previous Labor government. They were unfunded in the previous five-year Medicare agreement. Understandably now they are turning around and saying that they want more money.The fact remains that those principles that were laid down at the health ministers meeting in Cairns in May last year have been listened to and compromises have been reached with the Commonwealth. The first principle was that funding be based more clearly on identified outputs and outcomes, including quality, rather than inputs. The Commonwealth's proposal very much reflects those sentiments.The second principle was that information across the health system be based on patients rather than providers both for improved policy analysis and management and for individual case planning. This is reflected in the Commonwealth's proposal both for reporting and for a national development fund to assist investment in the information systems. Separately, the Commonwealth changes to the Health Insurance Commission offer the opportunity for the states to consider linkages with that infrastructure to support improved care and policy analysis.The third principle was an improved capacity to manage the health system as a whole, including in particular across the boundaries between primary and acute care. The Commonwealth proposal addresses those in a number of different ways. The fourth principle of investment options to facilitate structural change to reduce cost pressures on acute care and allow better step down care and day surgery is reflected in particular in the proposed national development fund.One of the problems that we have had to confront is that the Labor Party has refused to fund various things such as the veterans. We have taken the veterans out of the equation by giving veterans the gold card which, in effect, gives the states $150 million extra each year. At the moment the states subsidise the cost of veterans in public hospitals by $150 million a year or $750 million over five years. We have removed that from the equation.Additionally, it is hard to believe that the Labor Party can come in here bleating about costing when on mental health and palliative care the previous government cared so little about either that they did not include funding in the forward estimates for the 1998-99 years as part of the 1995-96 budget. That budget was brought down by the then Treasurer and the then Minister for Finance, Mr Beazley.17:32:002716Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—There is one clear thing about last night's budget—that is, it will not create one additional hospital bed or employ one extra nurse as a result of its announcements. As the health ministers in all states, except Queensland and the Northern Territory, said last night in their response to the budget, it did not contain one extra dollar for the nation's hospitals. They have identified, like most objective observers, that the $2.5 billion of new funding this government claims it is putting into the public health system over the next five years is a sham.The budget contains a raft of previously committed projects and funding and in reality only adds up to $69 million of new funding over five years or only a 1.1 per cent increase. As the ministers noted, it is not enough money to run the nation's hospitals for a day, let alone the whole term of the Medicare agreement. In their press conference they said, `This budget will barely help us keep up with the growing demand for heart surgery alone.' This, I might add, came from a majority of conservative premiers.Regrettably, my home state of Queensland has sold out to the public health interests of its citizens and signed a new Medicare agreement several weeks ago in order to finalise the matter before the upcoming Queensland election. In effect, the Borbidge government and its health minister, Mike Horan, have accepted a package which in the words of the federal Minister for Health and Family Services, Mr Wooldridge, is no different to the offer put to the Queensland government at the premiers conference in March.This is a deal which Premier Borbidge said at the time of the conference was not as good for Queensland as it was for other states and that there was no support for the Medicare offer from any government. This is the same premier who orchestrated the walkout at the premiers conference when he said, `If there is no agreement in terms of a better deal, there is no agreement on anything else. We will be going home early.' Premier Borbidge also called the offer at the time `mean-spirited' and an `insult'. A person would be entitled to ask: what has changed the mind of the Queensland government when the offer it accepted late last month is the same one it rejected at the premiers conference? The answer is not hard to find.Could it be that Queensland received an extra $65 million out of the $120 million one-off funding aimed at inducing state and territories to sign the new agreements before the end of June, $25 million of which would have been shared amongst the other states had they signed? An unkind person may see this as nothing more than a bribe. I probably would not, but an unkind person would. Or is it simply that Queensland has sold out to put the issue to rest before the state election, which has been widely tipped in early June?Unfortunately, there will be no rest for the patients and employees of the state's public hospital system. They will be forced to endure a hospital system which is on the brink of collapse. Today's Courier-Mail highlights a case where a mother had to give birth on the path outside the Bundaberg Hospital as nobody was answering the night bell. The child had to be covered with gravel from the path in order to keep it warm. It is not as if Bundaberg is a small rural community; it is a major provincial city in Queensland. The hospital was locked. There was nobody there. Fortunately the mother did not have complications, otherwise it could have been a dire situation for the whole family.The Queensland government has accepted an offer which has done nothing to address the effect the decline in private health insurance is having on the public system. It has not tackled the statistic which sees Queensland as a state which has a lower number of people in private health cover than the national rate of 32 per cent. It does not address the shortfall of health programs which see Queensland as one of the most under serviced states in terms of health and community service funding. It does nothing to ease the plight of more than 12,000 Queenslanders already waiting longer than medically advis able for surgery. It does nothing to ease the problems of the state's biggest hospital, the Royal Brisbane, which has a severe budgetary crisis according to a Queensland health report.Queensland's public health system will pay the penalty for Premier Borbidge's weakness and inability to stand firm with the other states and negotiate hard for what they are rightfully entitled to receive from the Commonwealth. Queenslanders and indeed all Australians expect their governments both state and federal to provide the essential requirements for their basic health care needs.The Howard government and now the Borbidge government have made a farce of the public health system, amongst other things. They have eroded the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by introducing the manifestly unfair and medically dangerous therapeutic group premium and treated the Medicare system as a farce. Earlier on, Senator Knowles was talking about people leaving private health insurance. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—The time for the debate on the matter of public importance has expired.Notices271727172717Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—by leave—At the request of Senator Watson, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation on the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 be extended to 26 May 1998.Miscellaneous2717271727172717Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Sandy Macdonald, I present additional information received from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee relating to the additional estimates supplementary hearings for 1997-98.Committees2718271827182718Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the fifth report of 1998 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 6 1998 , dated 13 May 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous2718271827182718Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Tierney, I present additional information received by the Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee, together with certain transcripts of evidence relating to the additional estimates supplementary hearings for 1997-98.Bills2718r465Billsr466Billsr467Billsr469Billsr471Billsr462Billsr473Billsr475Billsr477Billsr479Billsr48127182718Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Ferguson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 and 10 related bills, together with submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees2718271827182718Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I present the government's response to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling. I seek leave to incorporate the response in Hansard and to move a motion in relation to the document.Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON URANIUM MINING AND MILLING IN AUSTRALIAConclusion/Recommendation 1. On the basis of available evidence, the uranium mining and milling industry will be sufficiently viable financially to be able to meet its environmental, health and safety, and security responsibilities fully.ResponseThe Government notes this conclusion.Conclusion/Recommendation 2. The Committee supports the cautious approach which was favoured by the Fox Report and the need for continuing, dedicated research into all aspects of uranium mining and utilisation.ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation, and comments that there is a range of Australian and international agencies with appropriate expertise. In particular, attention is drawn to Commonwealth and State legislation relating to environmental protection and nuclear and radiation safety, and nuclear safeguards. Australia is at the forefront of minimising the environmental impacts of uranium mining.Conclusion/Recommendation 3. Although there is little evidence of unnecessary overlap or duplication between Commonwealth and relevant state/territory authorities, it believes that there is scope for improvement in handling of proposals to mine uranium, and in subsequent evaluation of achievement of environmental goals.ResponseThe Government notes the recommendation. The Government will continue to work with State/Territory authorities to ensure the cooperative approaches to environmental protection are continued and enhanced as appropriate. The Government is currently in the process of developing a more effective framework for inter-governmental relations on the environment.Conclusion/Recommendation 4. Uranium mining, where it is permitted, should only occur under the strictest conditions for the protection of the environment.ResponseThe Government accepts this recommendation and notes projects may only operate under best practicable technology. Consistent with its policy commitment, the Government considers proposals for the development of new uranium mines. Projects need to satisfy stringent assessments of their potential environmental and heritage impacts including full consultations with Aboriginal interests involved to ensure their views are taken into account and their legal rights are not diminished. The Government recognises the States and Northern Territory have the prime role in the regulation of uranium mining to protect the environment, and notes the Commonwealth has a key role in assessing the environmental impacts of new proposals.The Government also considers that the Commonwealth has a responsibility and interest in relation to the assessment and approval of uranium mining and milling operations as they involve matters of national environmental significance. The Government is currently considering, with State and Territory Governments, processes for handling Commonwealth responsibility and interest in relation to matters of national environmental significance.Conclusion/Recommendation 5. The concept of the social impact study could offer a viable framework within which a number of the issues arising in the context of major development projects (such as mining) can be identified, analysed and discussed.ResponseThe Government notes the conclusion. Consideration of social issues is a normal part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process, and as such these issues are addressed by the project proponent in documentation for public review such as Environmental Impact Statements. However, the Government also recognises that special circumstances existed in the context of development in the Kakadu Region. It initiated the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study (KRSIS) as a separate study which investigated the effects of development, such as tourism and mining, on Aboriginal communities in the region. Reports flowing from the KRSIS are currently under consideration by stakeholders. The KRSIS process could form the framework for future consideration of the regional social impact of development, particularly where indigenous people are concerned.Conclusion/Recommendation 6. There should be a full public evaluation of rehabilitation and remedial work at Radium Hill and the former tailings dam at Port Pirie, with periodical reappraisal.ResponseManagement of the former Radium Hill uranium mine site and former tailings dam site at Port Pirie in South Australia is the responsibility of the South Australian Government. The Government notes the South Australian Government's advice that it regularly inspects these sites and minor repair and remedial work is carried out if required. The Government notes that the South Australian Government is of the view that these measures are adequate and that a full public evaluation with periodical reappraisal is not warranted.Conclusion/Recommendation 7. Tailings management is among the most serious challenges facing the uranium mining industry, industry regulators and their scientific advisers.ResponseThe Government notes Australia is at the forefront of applying best practicable technology for tailings management at uranium mines appropriate to the environment in which the mine is situated. Management of tailings is a key issue which is considered on a case-by-case basis in development of new mines as environmental impacts are considered. The application of "best practicable technology" requires regular review in line with improvements in knowledge.Conclusion/Recommendation 8. Research is integral to constructive regulation of mining and to minimising the impact of mining activity upon the environment.ResponseThe Government notes the conclusion and refers to its response to recommendation 2. The site specific nature of any mine and its receiving environment need to be understood in order to optimise environmental management; it is not always sufficient to apply generic information, or information from other minesites.Conclusion/Recommendation 9. The high level of scrutiny which the uranium industry receives is warranted in that it responds to the sensitivity associated with uranium mining and has contributed materially to minimising adverse effects on the environment.ResponseThe Government accepts that there are special considerations in relation to uranium mining.Conclusion/Recommendation 10. The regulatory structure should ensure that the results of research are promptly reflected in enhanced standards.ResponseThe Government agrees regulatory standards should be kept under constant review and amended as appropriate to reflect the results of research. The Government subscribes to the "precautionary principle" in this regard and in its Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment. The Government also refers to its response to Recommendation 18 concerning the adoption of international standards.Conclusion/Recommendation 11. New administrative arrangements are necessary to ensure high levels of performance, full utilisation of Australia's experience in uranium mining since the 1970s, rapid adoption of world best practice and vigorous public accountability nationally and locally.ResponseThe Government notes this recommendation for new arrangements. While existing administrative arrangements have contributed to high levels of environmental protection, as evidenced by uranium mines developed and operated under current arrangements, the Government is prepared to consider improvements where this leads to greater effectiveness and efficiency. In this regard note the Government's response to Recommendations 3 and 4.Existing arrangements already contribute to a high level of public accountability. The Government notes the level of public scrutiny in the Alligator Rivers Region, due to the environmental sensitivity of the region and this scrutiny is continually enhanced. The Government believes consultative arrangements at mines in other regions are a matter to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example in the case of Olympic Dam in South Australia, periodic environmental audits are being conducted, with the results to be publicly available, and the Government has facilitated the establishment of a Community Consultative Forum which will maintain a regular flow of information to the public about the environmental performance at Olympic Dam.Conclusion/Recommendation 12. A new Commonwealth Uranium Authority (CUA) should be established without delay with responsibility for—- approvals to mine;- direction of environmental impact studies;- supervision of plans and programs to ensure impact of mines on the environment is minimised;- triennial audits of environmental performance at mines (or at such shorter intervals as may be necessary);- review, audit and evaluation of health and safety measures at the mines and other locations where nuclear materials are stored.ResponseThe Government does not accept this recommendation. The States and Northern Territory have the prime responsibility for regulation of mining as well as health and safety, and this is the appropriate level of Government to administer these responsibilities. Existing environmental impact assessment procedures already deal with approvals to mine, direction of impact studies and supervision of plans and programs requiring minimisation of environmental impacts. Uranium mine developments are subject to joint State/Commonwealth assessment. In addition, environmental and health and safety audits are already provided for under existing arrangements (industry/state governments and Northern Territory/Commonwealth). The Government does not believe the proposed CUA offers any advantage over current arrangements. Note also the response to Recommendation 3.Conclusion/Recommendation 13. The CUA, providing its high standards are met, may delegate tasks to State and Territory government authorities.ResponseThe Government rejects the need for a CUA for reasons already covered, but accepts the key role of State and Territory authorities towards attainment of high environmental standards. Conclusion/Recommendation 14. National coordination provided by the CUA should be complemented at each mine by a consultative committee composed of representatives of proprietors, governments, unions, conservation and local interests.ResponseWhile rejecting the need for the CUA, the Government notes the recommendation regarding consultative arrangements. The Government considers, as stated under the response to Recommendation 11, that consultative arrangements between mine operators and the local community are desirable such as those already in place in the Alligator Rivers Region and being established at Olympic Dam.Conclusion/Recommendation 15. Government Senators, on the basis that the Committee's inquiry found that present federal arrangements have proven to be satisfactory and suitable, are unconvinced that a new national authority is either a necessary or effective mechanism for achievement of the goals for whose accomplishment it is being created. They believe, however, that the proposed consultative committees have merit in their own right and will furnish the additional scrutiny of uranium mining which in part motivates the proposal for the new Authority. In terms of consequential recommendations about collaboration between the proposed CUA and the Supervising Scientist, they do not see any reason for an enlarged role for the Supervising Scientist but they agree that the expertise of the organisation should be more generally available on a fee-for-service basis.ResponseThe Government agrees with the conclusion/recommendation and considers that consultative committees are appropriate and must include representation by indigenous claimants and titleholders. The Government considers that the principles of contestability should apply in accessing appropriate expertise and that any services provided by the Supervising Scientist should be as appropriate on a fee-for-service basis.Conclusion/Recommendation 16. The Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region is an essential component of the framework which has materially contributed to minimising the effects of mining on an environmentally important part of Australia. The value of its research role is indisputable.The Supervising Scientist should be encouraged to develop, in response to demand, a broad expertise in environmental aspects of uranium mining and milling. It is of positive value for Australia to have a scientific body with a com prehensive expertise in the environmental impacts of uranium mining and milling, and a body where such skills and expertise may be acquired, fostered and developed.ResponseThe Government notes that the Supervising Scientist has had an important role in contributing to the protection of the environment in relation to the operation of the Ranger and Nabarlek uranium mines and recognises that this should continue in respect of proposals for Jabiluka and any other proposed mines in the region.In relation to the development of expertise, the Government points to its response to Recommendation 15. An extensive body of expertise exists in relation to uranium mining issues, and the principles of contestability should apply in accessing appropriate expertise from government, academic and private sector providers.Conclusion/Recommendation 17. The proposed CUA and the Supervising Scientist should collaborate constructively in ensuring that the good practice which now prevails is maintained and improved; that world best practice standards are, as a matter of course, promptly applied in all uranium mines in Australia; and that through public accountability mechanisms the Australian public are informed about the quality of the environmental performance at uranium mines.ResponseAs considered earlier, the Government does not see the need for a new Commonwealth Uranium Authority and considers current administrative arrangements adequately provide for best practice.Conclusion/Recommendation 18. The results of verified research on health and safety of employees must be applied without delay. The Select Committee is especially critical of the long, drawn-out delay in adoption of the latest international standards concerning radiation exposure. Present practices whilst satisfactory must be seen as minimum standards.ResponseIn September 1997, the Government announced the formation of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). ARPANSA will provide advice on all matters concerned with the safety of radiation and nuclear activities and will promote the development of uniform national regulatory approaches to the control of radiation-related activities.It should be noted that radiation protection activities in uranium mining and milling lie almost entirely in the domain of State and Territory jurisdiction. The Commonwealth role through ARPANSA is mostly to assist the States and Territories towards the application of common standards and requirements. This is achieved by way of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 which provides for the joint development of regulatory codes with supporting guideline material which ultimately become mandatory requirements under the appropriate State or Territory laws.National regulatory codes have been developed to cover the radiation protection of workers and the public during the operation of mines and mills.Australia has always been one of the first countries to adopt the latest international standards. The National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission adopted the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommended dose limits in 1995, making Australia one of the first countries to do so (see also Recommendations 20 and 22).Conclusion/Recommendation 19. As a basis for ensuring employee health and safety, data collection and analysis needs to be standardised on a national basis in the development of the National Radiation Dose Register.ResponseThe Government supports a common means of reporting the dose results to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency which will be responsible for developing and maintaining the National Radiation Dose Register.However, the Government disagrees with the standardisation of methods for data collection and analysis throughout Australia. Different monitoring methods are not only beneficial but essential for the current and proposed uranium facilities and other worksites (eg health care which involves production of radiation) in Australia. For example, in the case of uranium mines the monitoring approach for radon progeny in an underground mine will be different from the approach required for an open cut operation (due to the different magnitude of results, different unattached fraction, etc). The key issue is that all data collection and analysis is undertaken in compliance with the latest recommendations of the applicable peak bodies.Also, standardisation would stifle research into more advanced monitoring approaches and would then delay the implementation of any improvements in radiation monitoring.Conclusion/Recommendation 20. Determination of appropriate career dose limits should be a research priority for government health authorities and mining companies.ResponseThe Government believes the protection of workers from the health effects of radiation is of paramount importance.The Government draws attention to the research carried out into the effects of radiation by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). These are based on extensive studies of exposed human populations, by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.The ICRP reached the judgement that dose limits should be set such that the total occupational dose received during a full working life would not exceed about 1 Sievert, received moderately uniformly year by year (but tempered by the principle that doses should be as low as reasonably achievable). This translates to an average annual dose of 20 mSv per year. For practical purposes ICRP expressed this limit as 100 mSv over 5 consecutive years with a maximum of 50 mSv in any one year, rather than specifying a career dose limit. The averaging period is a compromise between requiring employers to maintain exposure records over many years and insisting that doses are kept below 20 mSv in any year.Conclusion/Recommendation 21. Employees in uranium mines and mills should be fully briefed personally on radiation and related hazards. Mining companies should meet the costs of briefings.ResponseThe Government notes that under existing State and Territory legislation it is a requirement for companies to fully brief their workforce on radiation-related hazards associated with mining and milling of uranium.The Government also recognises that there is a case for special culturally appropriate interpretation and translation of information concerning potential hazards for any indigenous or other employees from non-English speaking backgrounds, proposing to become part of the uranium mining or milling workforce.Conclusion/Recommendation 22. Current health and safety standards (especially as exemplified at Ranger) should be regarded as minimum standards.ResponseThe Government believes that the health and safety standards which should be regarded as a minimum for radiological protection are those which have been recommended and adopted by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Occupation and Health Safety Commission. These standards were developed in parallel and with full knowledge of the ICRP's recommendations (see response to Recommendation 20). The Government notes that existing mines are operating within these minimum standards and it is expected that any future mines would have to also operate within these standards.The Government recognises that there is a specific need to consider assessment criteria based on ICRP for indigenous people's exposure given that they live on the land, drink the water and are specifically exposed to possible contaminants for longer periods. The critical pathways for their exposure to contaminants should be determined on the basis of indigenous lifestyle in consultation with local indigenous people.Conclusion/Recommendation 23. Mining companies and regulatory authorities should actively pursue the "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle in radiation matters and report on the extent that they succeed in operating well below prescribed levels.ResponseThe Government's view is that the principle of ALARA is an essential part of dose optimisation and it supports mining companies and regulators actively pursuing this objective and reporting on the extent to which they meet this objective in line with advances in best practicable technology available. The Government also notes that radiation is just one of many potential occupational hazards.Conclusion/Recommendation 24. A uniform method of measuring, calculating and recording dose limits should be adopted and applied.ResponseThe Government supports a common means of reporting the dose results to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency which will be responsible for developing and maintaining the National Radiation Dose Register.However, the Government refers back to its position stated in responses to Recommendation 19, that it disagrees with the standardisation of methods for measuring and calculating doses throughout Australia. The Government also refers to its response to Recommendation 20 which recognises the thorough deliberation given by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in relation to career dose limits, and the incorporation of this research into Australian standards.Conclusion/Recommendation 25. The matter of career dosage has not been examined sufficiently thoroughly by scientific and medical authorities. The Australian Radiation Laboratory should take the lead in consultation with mining companies and unions.Health authorities should examine a means of compensation for employees who exceed a career dose limit (when determined) prior to retirement age.ResponseThe Government refers to its response to Recommendation 20 regarding career dose limits. As stated earlier, both ICRP and Australian authorities express the dose limits of average annual doses accumulated over a specified period. Australian recommendations do allow the regulator to permit an extension of the averaging period to a maximum of ten years in exceptional circumstances. This should ensure that the annual average of 20 mSv will not be exceeded over the long term and the Government believes that the question of compensation will not therefore arise.Conclusion/Recommendation 26. All mines should consult the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (ERISS) on methodologies and technologies for identifying and monitoring background radiation at mine sites and in the region where the mine is located.ResponseThe Government notes the contribution ERISS has made to research in the Alligator Rivers Region, and agrees that ERISS is one of a number of bodies at the Commonwealth and State level with expertise on background radiation which could be consulted by mines. Importantly, the Government considers that the principles of contestability should apply when mines access appropriate expertise in this area.Conclusion/Recommendation 27. Governments, mining companies and Aboriginal organisations should consider negotiation of comprehensive statements of agreement within which partnerships can develop to consolidate economic and social benefits within a context of respect for indigenous culture, customs and ways of life.ResponseThe Government's policy is that where Aboriginal interests are involved, the Government is committed to ensuring full and appropriate consultation with affected Aboriginal communities with their views being taken into account in accordance with applicable law. Aboriginal and cultural issues are considered in the Environmental Impact Statement process for new projects. The Government believes these matters are most appropriately considered on a case-by-case basis by relevant stakeholders.Conclusion/Recommendation 28. The Committee is concerned that resources assigned for safeguards programs and developments are not keeping pace with developments in the nuclear industry. ResponseThe Government disagrees that the resources assigned for safeguards are not keeping pace with developments in the nuclear industry. Maintenance and development of the nuclear safeguards system at multilateral and bilateral levels is central to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime.The Government will continue to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure resources are available to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the IAEA safeguards system. The Government does not accept that there is a simple arithmetical relationship between the quantities of nuclear material in the international nuclear fuel cycle and the costs of safeguards activities.Equally, the Government is fully aware of the need to ensure that Australia can monitor and evaluate developments in the international nuclear industry and assess the implications of those developments for national non-proliferation and safeguards policy approaches. The Government will continue to ensure the availability of sufficient resources for these purposes, including for the Australian Safeguards Office.Conclusion/Recommendation 29. The safeguards system needs constant attention to work. Australia has a long record of contributing to the vitality of safeguards, international and national. It is a record which should be maintained.ResponseThe Government accepts this recommendation and supports a continuing Australian commitment to the long term maintenance and development of the international and national nuclear safeguards system.Australia has a long record of contributing to the development of the nuclear safeguards system, reflecting the dual objectives of enhancing Australia's security by limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and increasing Australia's prosperity through support for international and bilateral nuclear safeguards which provide the indispensable basis for uranium exports.In recent years Australia has been a prominent advocate of measures, recently agreed in the IAEA, to strengthen international safeguards in the light of the discovery after the Gulf War of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program.Separately, through the Australian Safeguards Office, Australia has for many years operated a supplementary safeguards support program covering research and development projects, regional training programs and other activities, such as participation in international experts' meetings and advisory groups, in support of IAEA safeguards. Conclusion/Recommendation 30. The Senate Procedure Committee should examine the implications of globalisation for parliamentary scrutiny of government, administration and public policy.ResponseThe Government notes the conclusion/recommendation.Conclusion/Recommendation 31. Safeguards practices must continue to develop, and such development should continue in a calm and rational manner. The risks which nuclear power involves are less likely to engender unjustified apprehension or insecurity if addressed calmly, cautiously, deliberately and expeditiously.ResponseThe Government endorses this finding. Because nuclear energy has both peaceful and military uses it is subject to far higher standards of scrutiny, safeguards and safety than any other industry. The Government has traditionally taken a cautious approach to the formulation of policy in this area and, for example, has pioneered strict non-proliferation approaches to questions of nuclear supply in ways which enhanced the international regime.The Government provides many sources of information on these issues, for example through the Australian Safeguards Office's Annual Report, inquiries into the nuclear industry and information regularly provided by officers from relevant Government agencies, as a contribution to balanced and informed public debate.Dissenting ReportIn preparing its response to the Senate Select Committee Report the Government has taken into account the dissenting report by Senators Lees and Margetts. The Government recognises the concerns that motivate these Senators in regard to their position on uranium mining and the nuclear fuel cycle.The dissenting report's main recommendation follows:". . . this minority report recommends against the expansion of the uranium industry, opposes all new uranium mining proposals in Australia and recommends the cancellation of all export licenses for uranium mining and the refusal of any new export licenses for further uranium mines in Australia."(pp. 43-44)The Government considers that the dissenting report's call to close down the industry ignores both the economic benefits of the industry to Australia, the sound environmental record of existing uranium mining projects in Australia and the stringent environmental, heritage, safety and safeguards arrangements in place. It also ignores the likelihood of taxpayers needing to pay substantial compensation to mining companies for on-payment to investors in the event of the Government cancelling existing export approvals.The minority report also concludes:"Should the Government decide to continue permitting the export of Australian uranium, then the other recommendations contained in this minority report should be implemented to minimise the adverse effects of Australia's uranium mining."(p.44)The Government considers that the recommendations do not take adequate account of the stringent environmental, heritage, safety and safeguards arrangements in place.The Government firmly believes it is possible to have a safe and environmentally responsible uranium mining industry in Australia and considers that its responses to the recommendations of the majority report justify this.RD4Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILL—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.17:41:002725Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As the deputy chair, I was obviously very much involved with the Senate Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling. I found it an extremely difficult time. I would hope that many of the committees I work on in future are not as difficult in terms of the working relationships and the walls of opposition that tended to exist within that committee structure. But, given that I was on that committee, I would like to suggest that the response is quite interesting, though hardly surprising. Much of what was written in the majority report was in fact saying what a fine job is being done already, world's best practice, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, and how everything is being done almost as well as it can be done. Many of the recommendations are similar. There was one very strange recommendation. Recommendation 1 states:On the basis of available evidence, the uranium mining and milling industry will be sufficiently viable financially to be able to meet its environmental, health and safety, and security responsibilities fully.The response was:The government notes this conclusion.Terrific! Most of it is about how, as I say, the roles of government are being adequately dealt with so far. The fact that there are processes means that those processes must be adequately handled and therefore the so-called world's best practice is being maintained. We talk about Australia being in the forefront of applying best practice technology for tailings management at uranium mines appropriate to the environment in which the mine is situated. That is basically saying that Australia is best at operating mines in Australia. Terrific! Very useful information. The one thing I thought was particularly useful was recommendation No. 12. This was interesting because this appears to be the big win that the Labor Party seemed to have negotiated in relation to this inquiry. Remember that a lot of people within the ALP over time have had great concerns in relation to uranium mining and milling, great concerns about what the future will be for uranium mining and milling. The big trade-off in relation to this report was that there was to be a recommendation for a new Commonwealth uranium authority. As recommendation No. 12 states:A new Commonwealth Uranium Authority (CUA) should be established without delay with responsibility for—- approvals to mine;- direction of environmental impact studies;- supervision of plans and programs to ensure impact of mines on the environment is minimised;- triennial audits of environmental performance at mines (or at such shorter intervals as may be necessary);- review, audit and evaluation of health and safety measures at the mines and other locations where nuclear materials are stored.Surprise, surprise! Response:The government does not accept this recommendation.Obviously the states and the Northern Territory are doing such a wonderful job that it is really not necessary. Any other recommendations that involved any potential Commonwealth uranium authority got the same kind of response.One thing I did find interesting was that, under recommendation No. 15, there was a desire by the Commonwealth government not to be involved with any expansion of the role of the Supervising Scientist, but:. . . they do not see any reason for an enlarged role for the Supervising Scientist but they agree that the expertise of the organisation should be more generally available on a fee-for-service basis.You do not enlarge the role, but you allow the Office of the Supervising Scientist to tout for business. What does this mean? You do not enlarge them and they are allowed to find some of their own funding—what a surprise! What does that mean in the longer term? If I were to gaze into a crystal ball, I would say that in the longer term there will be a lot of pressure put on the government so that the industry no longer will have to pay for their own supervision, no longer will have to pay for that tiny level of assurance that the community expect from the government on their behalf to be required of industry. Keep your eyes on the ball because within a very short time we will see that kind of pressure.If the OSS do get extra contracts, they will have to do it within their resources, I imagine, because they do not want an expanded role. Over time, the government will say, `See, you've got enough funding so we'll start reducing or removing the levy associated with industry.' I just think that is a potential, a crystal ball gaze.We have some other very interesting recommendations in the majority report. Under recommendation 20, it says:. Determination of appropriate career dose limits should be a research priority for government health authorities and mining companies.I would think the public would think this is the very least that government should do. It should make sure that in the information that is provided, the assurances that are given by companies, by private corporations and by proponents, about the safety of radiation doses and uranium doses—and that includes issues like the proposed Jabiluka mine—that the underground miners will be aware that they will be, we believe, experiencing unsafe levels of radiation from very high rate on-sources and aware of the inability of companies to actually reduce those to any levels that are considered in any way safe.The committee is saying that there needs to be a determination of appropriate career dose limits, a research priority. At the moment, the companies themselves can come up with what they think is a safe level, and that has been the problem in a number of the reports, whether it is about Roxby Downs or other places. It is the company that has been saying what it thinks is safe, and there have been disagreements between the company and organisations like the Australian Radiation Laboratories which are set up to manage and comment on these things. Under the response to recommendation 20, we see that:The Government believes the protection of workers from the health effects of radiation is of paramount importance.Motherhood and apple pie. It continues:The Government draws attention to the research carried out into the effects of radiation by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). These are based on extensive studies of exposed human populations . . . . . . . . . . . .This translates to an average annual dose of 20 mSv per year. For practical purposes ICRP expressed this limit as 100 Msv over 5 consecutive years with a maximum of 50 Msv in any one year, rather than specifying a career dose limit.What does that mean for workers and their feeling of safety over time? We are saying that we will take whatever seems to be easier, and we as a government are not going to take the responsibility of making sure that these doses are in fact reasonable, not safe, under the career limits. We are moving around people so that we have an average situation. I do not think that is particularly safe anyway. If they have been exposed to high levels of radiation, that is a bad thing in itself and we should be making sure that every exposure to workers is as low as can be made possible, and that is not what is happening at the moment. I think that is a great pity.It is hardly surprising that the government did not accept my minority report. It says:The Government considers that the dissenting report's call to close down the industry ignores both the economic benefits of the industry to Australia,—those benefits were never proved—the sound environmental record of existing uranium mining projects in Australia—remember we were saying that the fact these processes exist means that they must obviously be done well—and the stringent environmental, heritage, safety and safeguards arrangements in place—despite the quite clear evidence that was given on a number of occasions that many of these standards were not being adhered to and that, when there were problems, it took a long time to find out information and even longer to get action in these cases. I think it is a concern. I think we have a head in the sand attitude to uranium mining—and I did not mean that as a pun. I really do think that, if Australia wishes to continue to mine and mill uranium, this kind of response simply is not good enough.17:50:002727Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—It is not surprising that Senator Margetts would reject the response of the government and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling because, of course, she had a minority report, a dissenting report, to the majority report of that committee when that report was tabled. The interesting thing about the minority report was that it really was a facade in that it sought to create a lot of differences and raise a lot of issues of significance that really were not significant when you thoroughly examined those issues.The differences between Senator Margetts and Senator Lees and the rest of the committee really were not what I would call significant differences on a number of the substantive issues that were investigated. The real difference was that Senator Margetts and Senator Lees came with a predetermined position of blanket opposition to uranium mining. With that predetermined position, they then sought to create issues where issues really did not exist in terms of the committee's investigation and the committee's report.In contrast to Senator Margetts, I strongly welcome the government's response to our report. It ought to be emphasised that the report was undertaken on the basis of signifi cant and conscientious work by those members of the committee who regularly participated in the work of the committee in the true spirit of inquiry and investigation. The basis of the work of the committee was attendance at the hearings, investigations and on-site visits, detailed reading of the evidence presented in submissions and careful examination of the evidence presented at our public hearings. The majority of the committee addressed real problems, not hypothetical problems, and we looked for constructive answers. That certainly has been recognised in the government's response to our report which was tabled today, in which the government, by and large, accepted the majority of the committee's recommendations and findings.The report and the consequent government response represent a significant failure for the anti-uranium lobby, and that was reflected right through the conduct of this inquiry. They were complacent and they failed to provide rigorous analysis of the evidence, and that was because they were significantly out of date. The anti-uranium lobby that participated—both as members of this committee and as those who presented their submissions to this committee—were locked in the arguments of the 1970s. They had not updated their information and they had not updated their knowledge. That has been reflected in the minority report and, quite properly, it has been reflected in the response the government has provided to the report which was handed down by the majority of the committee.The perspective of those who were engaged in opposing uranium mining was essentially a political perspective. They looked for evidence that supported their arguments, rather than assessing the evidence on the broad base of the information that was provided. Indeed, they did not look at all at what was reasonable and supportable in the evidence; they only looked for evidence which supported their side of the case.Another aspect of the minority in this inquiry was that their interest was always limited to looking for the bad news. As I said, they did not look at the broad evidence that was provided to the committee; they only looked for the limited news that was bad and that suited their particular case—and that was when they bothered to turn up. I have to exclude Senator Margetts from that criticism because Senator Margetts generally did attend our public hearings and inspections, although she did miss a number of the private meetings of the committee. Her colleague in the minority report was notable by her absence for most of that inquiry. As I said, those who opposed uranium mining were very limited in their application.What I would argue is that policy decisions that governments have to take cannot be governed by one side of the story. You have to take into account all of the evidence that is presented and then reach a balanced conclusion based on that evidence and make a choice between the options that are presented.The positive thing about uranium mining in Australia over the last 20 years of its operation is that it has built up a very favourable credit ledger, and that was clearly shown in the evidence presented to the committee. It has built up a favourable credit ledger with regard to economic gains for Australia and with regard to the fact that mining and milling have been conducted with minimal impact on the environment. That was particularly attested to by the evidence of the Supervising Scientist with regard to mining in the Kakadu region.Uranium mining has also built up a very strong credit balance with regard to the high and increasingly stricter health and safety standards in the conduct of mining, and the similarly strict standards in ensuring that Australian uranium is used for civil purposes alone and is not diverted for military use. That is a substantial achievement on the part of the Australian uranium mining industry, and it was that creditable record that led the committee to come down with the recommendations we have put to government. Those recommendations were supported by five of the seven committee members, including the members of the major opposition, the Labor Party. Again, that is why we have seen the government respond to those recommendations in the favourable way it has.In contrast to that, the dissenting report—which the government has quite correctly rejected in its response to our report today—really represents the tombstone of the anti-uranium industry because, as I said, it was based on a limited analysis of the evidence that was put before the committee and a predetermined view which looked only for evidence supporting that case and ignored the broad range of evidence presented to us. The balanced evidence presented to us from across the range of protagonists certainly indicated all of the positive aspects of uranium mining, to which I have referred. That evidence, on balance, led the committee to conclude there was no reason why uranium mining should not continue or expand in Australia.I would say that the anti-uranium campaign in this country is certainly dead and remains only to be buried. It is not only that the numbers are not there in the community to support the anti-uranium position; the main point is that the evidence is not there to support their position. There is no evidence to support the arguments they put. In the light of modern experience, the facts simply do not stand up and say that we should oppose uranium mining in this country. There have been, as I said, 20 years of uranium mining in this country and a significant credit balance has been built up over that period by the industry. In contrast, the doomsayers of the industry simply do not have evidence to support their case on the basis of that 20 years experience. The 20 years experience has been a positive vindication for the decision that was taken back in the 1970s to allow uranium mining to proceed based on the findings of the then Fox inquiry.One of the key conclusions which the select committee reached was that the findings of the Fox inquiry had been vindicated by the evidence of that 20 years experience of mining. Indeed, to the extent that there had been any impact from uranium mining on Australia, the expectations of the Fox inquiry had not been realised, in terms of any potential damage caused to the Australian environment.The Fox inquiry overstated the possibility of damage to the Australian environment as a result of uranium mining. All the evidence that has built up over the 20 years since that inquiry, and since uranium mining has been actively undertaken in this country, shows that even the fairly minimal damage that was expected by the findings of the Fox inquiry had not been fulfilled and there had been no long-term damage to the Australian environment at all as a result of this activity being undertaken.I welcome the government's response to this report. It vindicates the findings of the report. It vindicates the positive nature of this industry for Australia, provided that all the safeguards are retained, which the committee recommended and which have always operated to the very highest standards in this country, and which the government has indicated in its response that it will be maintaining.(Time expired)18:00:002729Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I think it is an excellent report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.2729272910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Pursuant to standing order 38, I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Funding Australia's defence , together with submissions, Hansard record of proceedings and minutes of evidence which were presented to the Temporary Chair of Committees, Senator Murphy, on 8 May 1998. In accordance with the terms of the order the publication of the documents was authorised.Ordered that the report be printed.18:02:002729MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.In February 1997, the Senate referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade an inquiry into the future expenditure requirements of the Department of Defence in the immediate future. The committee found that there were two problem areas in relation to funding. Firstly, there was a shortfall in present funds and, secondly, there was a huge problem looming in about 10 or 15 years from the present time. In other words, there was a shortfall both in day-to-day funding for the Department of Defence and in the longer term.It is informative to look at the history of how defence funding got into the position it is in. It has been subject to decline for many years. It has been popular to talk about a peace dividend after the ending of the Cold War in the 1989-90 period. The Australian community certainly have had a peace dividend in so far as they have seen their defence expenditure considerably reduced. For example, in the early 1980s, 2.8 per cent of GDP went to defence, or roughly 10 per cent of all federal government outlays. In the budget brought down last night, 1.9 per cent of GDP now goes to defence, and only 8.7 per cent of all federal government outlays.The Labor years were when this decline really took place. For many years there were successive cuts in defence outlays in real terms, for a few years the vote stayed the same, and on one or two occasions the vote went up marginally. But there was, overall, a very significant reduction in the amount of money going to defence. That was accompanied, of course, by a significant reduction in the number of members employed in the Defence Force, both uniformed and civilian. In rough terms, in the last 10 years, something like 16,000 employees—11,000 in uniform and about 5,000 in civilian employment—were removed from the Department of Defence.At the same time, in real terms, federal outlays kept going up. During that period federal budgets have grown significantly. Nearly all departments have benefited from this increase in growth. For example, Social Security's percentage has gone up from about 27.2 per cent of federal outlays 10 years ago to 40.1 per cent in the budget last year.Compounded with this shrinking budget, the country requires more and more from its defence forces. You have only to think of the deployments that the Australian Defence Force has undertaken in support of United Nations activity in the last 10 years to realise that. A lot of equipment which had been bought for the Vietnam War has become obsolete. Again, if we go back to the early 1980s, something like 17 per cent of the defence vote—a much larger defence vote, relatively speaking, in those days—went on new capital equipment. For more than 10 years now, about 28 per cent of the defence vote has gone on new capital equipment. So the budget has shrunk but the proportion for new equipment has increased. As a consequence, expenditure for personnel numbers, exercise times, ammunition, war stores, flying hours, steaming time and the rest of it, has diminished to cope with it.Side by side with this, there has been a rapid expansion in the expenditure on regional defence forces. We will not discuss what has happened in China, but there has been a very great expansion in China's defence budget. Even countries like the five original ASEAN states have increased in real terms by 75 per cent their expenditure on defence in the last 10 years. While that has come to a bit of a halt at the moment, with the Asian currency crisis, clearly that will resume in a year or two when they get through their financial problems.This government, coming into power, accepted the forward estimates prepared by the Labor government in their last budget. That means they have not changed the forward estimates. Those forward estimates did involve, despite the popular view that there has been no cut in defence, a reduction of 0.5 per cent in real terms in the first budget brought down by this government, in accordance with the Labor estimates, and the maintenance of no reduction in real terms in the budget last year and in the one brought down last night. Those figures, as the defence committee showed, were inadequate.In order to cope with the shrinking budget, the Department of Defence instituted a large number of reviews. The force structure review has led to a significant reduction in personnel. The defence logistic reform program has handled the logistic side, getting rid of the three major stores depots for the three separate services. In the commercial support program—the CSP—the department tried to seek out all avenues where work could be performed more competitively in the supply of services or in maintenance from civilian contractors and that has produced great savings, in excess of $300 million a year. Most importantly, the review which was commissioned last year by the present minister, the defence efficiency review—the DER—was followed by the defence support program—the DSP—which will incorporate the findings of the efficiency review and will, in the longer term, produce very significant savings.We have reached the stage where the salami cannot be cut any thinner. We have certainly reached a critical stage with respect to numbers in the Defence Force. You really cannot maintain training with battalions that are at only half strength. You cannot exercise a battalion with a shortage of one rifle company or take part in exercises, as the Labor Party tried to do, with only four men in a section when you need 10. There are problems today with respect to ammunition supplies, exercise times, flying hours, steaming hours and track miles.Above all, one of the things that came out of the exercises and the deployments that we made with the United States is a critical shortage of communications equipment. The great change in military affairs that has taken place in the last decade is related to the development of electronics—the electromagnetic spectrum—particularly in relation to communications: satellite communications, high speed encrypted communications, data transfer, intelligence gathering, and the rest of it.As was shown in the Tandem Thrust exercise—which is probably the biggest exercise we have held since the end of the Second World War involving American forces in Australia—elements of the ADF had significant problems with interoperability with the American forces in relation to communications. Of course, that is one of the problems we are having with the elements we have deployed in Kuwait at the present time—the SAS and, to a lesser extent, the RAAF. Those shortcomings can be overcome and coped with in the short term, but if we are going to operate effectively ourselves and with our allies we simply have to put more money into communications.The committee recommended that there be a 1½ to 2½ per cent growth in real terms in the defence vote for the next five years—starting after this budget because it was not practicable to involve this budget. That is modest and affordable growth and will go some way to addressing the shortcomings that the Defence Force suffers from at the present time.The really worrying issue for the Department of Defence is the huge block obsolescence which will occur in about 2010 or 2015. Significant equipment blocks like the FA18s, the F111s, the FFGs—the DDGs will be gone by then—the army's armour and artillery, and, above all, the technology the army needs on the modern battlefield, will need to be replaced. There never has been a time in our history when such a large block of expenditure will be required over a period of around five to 10 years.There is no way that by incrementally increasing the defence vote at this stage we can accommodate that, because we are talking about an expenditure which, while it cannot be precisely defined at the moment, is of the magnitude of between $15 billion to $25 billion. It is a huge amount of money on top of the annual operating expenses.The committee recommended that parliament must turn its mind to accommodating that expenditure in that time frame of about 10 years hence. We will have to make that expenditure to maintain our independence and our own security. It is a situation that all countries will face. The huge cost of operating in that age is something Australia can do, but we cannot do it unless we turn our minds to it seriously at this stage and make it affordable.18:12:002731Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It is interesting that we have had two reports to deal with today: one on uranium mining and milling and one on defence. It is no accident that I am speaking on both because one of the four principles of the Greens is peace and disarmament. That includes working towards a world that re moves weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the uranium cycle is an important concern for many of the people working in that direction, and it certainly is not dead. The other issue is peace, in the true sense of the word. It is a vital part of the pillars of Green politics.From my point of view, this means keeping a watching brief on the issues of defence and defence spending, looking to see whether or not what defence is doing is reasonable, firstly in the terms of whether we are working towards a more peaceful world and also in terms of accountability. Taxpayers' money is used in defence and it is reasonable to assume that the reasons for defence spending of money are supportable and that they are spending it in a way that makes reasonable use of that money.In my dissenting report to Funding Australia's defence, I argued that the majority report failed in a number of ways. I argued that it failed in its scope because, for reasons of time, resources and so on, it was considered that the committee could not look at the issue of security, so we did not deal with the issue of defending what from whom, or why. We were not able to look at what the issues of security are within Australia.The defence subcommittee was to inquire into and report on the level of funding required to ensure that the Australian defence force is equipped, trained and maintained to a level necessary to provide for the defence of Australia, as principally defined by strategic guidance. So we do not look at security issues here. If you separate, as I have argued, defence from security, you get to a situation where the committee in effect asks Defence what they want. Defence comes up with a shopping list and says, `How much can you give us?' Then we get down to a measure of efficiency, which is broadly defined as `bang for your buck'.I quoted a spokesperson from the Department of Defence in the transcript as saying:The starting point of any consideration of adequacy of defence spending is how much capability you are getting for every dollar that is going into the system. That seems to be Defence's measure of adequacy: bang for your buck; what can we get?The irony is, that over time—because of the nature of defence budgets which work differently from other budgets—it has been possible for the heads of departments within Defence to be able to save on personnel. This has been going on for a while—save on personnel, outsource, get rid of serving forces and put those savings into more materiel; basically, more war toys, fewer people. Then they come to parliament, put up their hands and say, `We have not got enough people to run our submarines, or our frigates, or our cruisers. Give us some more money.' We have to start saying that it is the responsibility of Defence to use their resources effectively. If they are saving money on personnel and those things that support personnel and people are not choosing to stay in the services, then they must start asking themselves why this is happening.We have got to start asking why Defence has a budget which is not able to be scrutinised on a line by line basis, as are other budgets. There is no real reason why this should not be the case. Much of the detail on purchasing plans is available to private industry, whose main object is to make dollars for themselves. They get more access, I argue, in a regular and integrated way to defence spending and defence spending plans than do members of parliament. As a member of the defence subcommittee I say that on a regular basis. It has got nothing to do with secrecy, it has got nothing to do with national security; it has got something to do with protecting the position of Defence from the kind of scrutiny that other departments have to undergo.It is interesting to look at the recommendations of the major committee. There is some recognition of major horrific examples of overspending and inefficiency and worse in relation to the JORN project and the Collins class submarines budget overruns—with 95 per cent of the project paid for and no real delivery. Yet the majority report recommends—wait for it—a five-year forward defence budget commitment. There is some recognition that Defence are not pulling up their socks in terms of accountability; but we are going to hand them five years guaranteed spending in advance.No matter what may happen—a change of government or extra information—we are going to give them this kind of guarantee, along with less scrutiny and less accountability than they have now. We are also proposing to give them up to a 2.5 per cent annual real increase—no matter what happens to the rest of our community—in defence funding. Of course, social security has risen during that time—funnily enough, when more people are unemployed it becomes necessary to pay more social security. If the aim of government were really to reduce unemployment, maybe we would have to pay less in social security. But I do not think those kinds of straight comparisons are particularly useful without the detail.We have to start looking at why both major parties favour throwing more money at large procurement projects without proper accountability. We have to consider that we may have a situation in 10 years time or so where the major materiel—the major lumpy investments of defence—are no longer useable. We have to start thinking about what we are using them for. What was our strategy 10, 15 or 20 years ago in the Cold War scenario? Do we automatically have to replace military equipment for use in a similar scenario? Do we have to have the highest-tech frigates, the highest-tech submarines for a superpower regional engagement scenario in the next century? The answer, I would say, has not been provided in this report. The rationale for doing things in that way has not been provided in this report. Some people who have concerns about that strategy of the government wrote to the committee. They believe that it is fairly meaningless to come out with a list of what defence needs are and how much should be spent over how much time without any consideration being given to or there being any understanding of the rationale for Australia's security.I have argued that the real security issues of Australia that concern Australians are things like what happens when we will no longer be able to get fresh water. What happens when our air is polluted to the point where we can no longer operate in the same way we are now? What happens in cases of climate change, droughts, floods and famines? We also have a situation, I believe, associated with globalisation or global warring—that is, we have a situation where the new security threats within our region are mostly within countries not between countries. I refer to security threats caused by inequalities; security threats caused by such things as IMF packages which set one group of people against another in search of scapegoats. We have seen that in Indonesia and in other countries in the region. We have seen it in Boznia Herzegovina. We have seen it in Africa. We have seen huge horrific examples of the impact of globalisation.How are we going to arm ourselves against that sort of impact? What are we doing to reduce the security threats of that level of globalisation? The answer is not covered in the majority report. The answer is not even conceived of within the majority report. I really believe that if we are going to be serious about Australia's security—let alone Australia's defence—we have got to start looking at those issues seriously for the future.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents27332733273310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Pursuant to standing order 166, I present Auditor-General's reports Nos 40 and 41 of 1997-98 as listed on today's Order of Business which were presented to the President on 17 and 21 April 1998. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the documents was authorised.Committees27332733273310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing order 166, I present the government's response to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on Australia-China Relations which was presented to the Temporary Chairman of Committees, Senator Hogg, on 14 April 1998. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the document was authorised.Miscellaneous273310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present responses from the Premier of Tasmania (Mr Rundle, MHA), the ACT Minister for Urban Services (Mr Smyth, MLA) and the Premier of South Australia (Mr Olsen) to the resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1998 concerning duck hunting.Miscellaneous273310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present a response from the Managing Partner of Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers to the resolution of the Senate of 30 March 1998 concerning youth suicide.Miscellaneous273310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present a letter from the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly conveying the text of a resolution of the Assembly concerning the vacancy in the representation of the Northern Territory caused by the resignation of former Senator Bob Collins.Miscellaneous273310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present a response from the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Carr, to a resolution of the Senate of 1 April 1998 concerning the Grafton meatworks.Bills2733Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws:Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998Productivity Commission Bill 1996 Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1996Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1997Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other Deductions) Bill 1997Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1997Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Bill 1997Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2]Commonwealth Places (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Collection) Bill 1998Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Imposition) Bill 1998Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1997International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1998Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997Medicare Levy Consequential Amendment (Trust Loss) Bill 1997National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Bill 1998National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Bill 1998National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Bill 1998Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1998Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Bill 1997Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997Committees2734273410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Economics Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator O'Brien to replace Senator Collins for the week commencing 9 June 1998Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund—Joint Statutory Committee— Appointed: Senator Reynolds Discharged: Senator BolkusRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Murray for the consideration of the provisions of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and a related bill.Miscellaneous273410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating Senator Cook to be a member of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust.Motion (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Senate appoint Senator Cook as a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust on and from this day in place of Senator Bob Collins.Bills2735r465Billsr466Billsr467Billsr481Billsr479Billsr475Bills2735r473Billsr469Billsr471Billsr477Billsr4622735Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.273518:27:002735Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY BILL 1998I rise today to introduce a package of landmark legislation to fundamentally reform the Australian Financial Sector. The reforms follow the policy announced in response to the 1997 Financial Systems Inquiry chaired by Mr Stan Wallis.This series of bills puts in place a structure designed to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the Australian financial system while preserving its integrity, security and fairness.Once implemented, Australia will have a stronger regulatory regime designed to better respond to developments in the finance sector, including globalisation and technological change and the needs of businesses and consumers.Once implemented, Australia will be a world leader with best practice, leading edge financial sector regulation. These reforms to the financial system, together with the wide ranging reform of Australia's corporate laws to be delivered under the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program, provide a launching pad for this Government's drive to make Australia a leading business centre in the Asia-Pacific region.In September last year, the Government announced its response to the Financial System Inquiry which found that Australia's financial system faces rapid change as a result of technological innovation, increasing globalisation and changing business and consumer needs. To ensure that Australia secures the enormous potential benefits of these changes and keeps up with the continuing rapid pace of financial system innovation, our regulatory arrangements must be modernised. By encouraging our financial system to achieve world best practice in an increasingly competitive international market for financial services, we will see the sector contributing strongly to employment and growth prospects of the entire Australian economy. The changes will help provide not just more jobs but better jobs for Australians.The Government has accepted the Inquiry's recommendations that measures consistent with the basic goals of financial system safety and stability be introduced to better focus regulation on its underlying objectives, to ensure that regulatory arrangements minimise restraints on new entry and competition, and to ensure that regulation applies in a competitively neutral way across existing and newly emerging market sectors.A central part of the reform approach is the creation of a new organisational framework for the regulation of the financial system which is objectives based, in place of the current institutionally based structure.There are three fundamental regulatory objectives for government intervention in the financial system. The first is the maintenance of financial stability, including through ensuring a safe and reliable payments system. This goal, which has close links with the price stability objective of monetary policy, is to be the regulatory focus of the Reserve Bank of Australia.The second goal is the provision of specialised regulation of conduct, disclosure and dispute resolution for financial service providers and financial markets. This regulatory objective is to be pursued across the financial system by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which will be based on the Australian Securities Commission.The third objective is the prudential supervision of those parts of the financial system which require more intense regulation for safety and stability reasons. Australia presently has several agencies providing this form of regulation in a structure that is increasingly outdated and inefficient. To provide more efficient and competitively neutral regulation across all of the prudentially regulated sectors, the Government will establish a single prudential regulatory authority replacing all of the existing institutionally-based agencies.This bill, the first in a series of financial sector legislative reforms, establishes this single agency, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, or APRA.APRA will be the prudential regulator of banks and other deposit-taking institutions, life and general insurance companies, superannuation funds and retirement income accounts. APRA will have comprehensive powers, including for licensing and regulation of the institutions authorised to provide these financial services. In recognition of likely continuing change in the financial system, provision is made for regulations to accommodate future changes in APRA's regulatory coverage.In the case of superannuation and retirement savings accounts, APRA will also be responsible for regulation designed to achieve retirement income objectives. This reflects the close association between regulation for that purpose and prudential regulation in these sectors. While APRA will initially take regulatory responsibility for all superannuation funds, it is anticipated that this responsibility in respect of most excluded superannuation funds will later pass to the Australian Taxation Office.Provision is made for APRA to be accountable through an independent Board and to operate under a charter that ensures that the safety objectives of prudential regulation are balanced with efficiency, competition, contestibility and competitive neutrality considerations.The bill sets out the framework for APRA's operation. This bill establishes the powers and functions of APRA while other legislation in this package of bills will provide for the laws and regulations to be administered by APRA in relation to each sector.APRA will be an independent regulator, but, like the Reserve Bank, will be subject to an overriding policy determination power of the Treasurer in the very rare event of unreconciled disagreement with the Government of the day. As a Commonwealth authority, it will be accountable to the Government and the Parliament, as provided for under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. In addition, the bill provides for additional reporting requirements in APRA's annual report, including a report on any investigations on prudential matters under section 61 of the Banking Act 1959. Any reports presented to Parliament by APRA may, of course, be referred by Parliament to a Committee, such as the House of Representa tives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, for detailed examination. APRA will also be expected to appear before Parliamentary committees on request.APRA will be governed by a nine member Board, whose terms and conditions of appointment will be subject to determination by the Remuneration Tribunal. To ensure that there is a close relationship between APRA, the Reserve Bank and ASIC, two of APRA's Board members will come from the Reserve Bank and one from ASIC.The bill provides for the duties and statutory appointment of the Chief Executive Officer who will also be an APRA board member.It also provides for the powers of the Board to set terms and conditions of APRA staff. It is envisaged that in the first instance the bulk of APRA's staff will come from the Insurance and Superannuation Commission (ISC) and the Reserve Bank supervision area, together with the staff of State-based regulatory agencies when they join the regulatory scheme.Provision is made for the funding of APRA from monies appropriated following the collection of levies paid by regulated financial institutions, and from charges for certain services. APRA is to have powers to borrow monies, but these are intended only to facilitate its day-to-day operations.Secrecy provisions in the bill will ensure the protection of information and documentation obtained as part of the regulation process but allow for effective information exchange between the financial sector regulatory bodies, including the Reserve Bank and ASIC.The Government envisages that APRA will become fully operational, at the Commonwealth level, on 1 July 1998 or as soon as possible thereafter. In this context, this bill provides for the changeover of responsibilities for prudential supervision of the financial sector at the Commonwealth level.Transfers of staff and responsibilities for State-based institutions may require separate legislation at a later date, once final agreement has been reached with the States and Territories.As the Treasurer announced on 17 March 1998, the headquarters of APRA will be based in Sydney to ensure that a close relationship is maintained with the Reserve Bank, which will continue to have responsibility for the overall stability of the financial system. This will facilitate close communication and operational cooperation between these two bodies.In addition, the Government expects a presence to be retained by APRA in the major State capitals and, at least for some considerable time, Canberra, which is the current base of the ISC. I conclude by noting that this bill provides a centrepiece of the proposed new regulatory structure, a specialised regulatory agency focused on clear regulatory purposes. As the single prudential regulator, APRA will be able to provide flexible, efficient, coordinated and consistent regulation across the financial sector, particularly for financial service conglomerates which now make up the major part of the financial system. It will be in a position to achieve regulatory excellence, provide broader and more enriching career opportunities for its staff, and develop close and comprehensive links with the whole financial system.Consistent with the need for regulatory flexibility, APRA is provided with comprehensive powers, including over licensing, and generally will develop financial standards based on its own policy making capacities within the framework of laws established for it.This should ensure that APRA is adaptable and responsive to the changes occurring in the financial system, and that its regulatory work always balances the objectives of financial safety, efficiency, competition, contestability and competitive neutrality.I commend the bill to the Senate.AUTHORISED DEPOSIT-TAKING INSTITUTIONS SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1998The purpose of this bill, as well as the other levy bills which form part of this legislative package, is to impose levies on those industries that will be prudentially regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). These levies will fund both APRA and the cost of additional consumer protection functions in the financial system undertaken by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Essentially, the levies will ensure that the cost of regulation is met by those who benefit from it.These bills allow for a levy to be charged on the entity being supervised according to a percentage of the assets held by the entity, subject to minimum and maximum levy amounts. The rates, thresholds and limits will be determined by the Treasurer.This will ensure that the levy paid by each class of entity reflects the actual cost of supervising those entities and the benefits to entities and their customers of supervision.At present, the different regulatory authorities have separate funding mechanisms, which have significant disparities between the nature and level of funding associated with them. These funding disparities can act to create significant cost disad vantages for one category of financial institution vis-à-vis another.The Government's aim is to establish an administratively simple and uniform scheme based on the principle of full cost recovery from the institutional categories that are regulated. Separate provision is made for charges for direct services provided (such as licenses), but the major part of the cost of supervision will be met by an annual levy sufficient to cover the costs of its operations. It will be broadly similar in nature to the financial charges that building societies, credit unions, insurance companies and superannuation funds already pay. The banks at present are effectively `charged' through interest forgone on non-callable deposits held by the Reserve Bank.With the exception of the banks, the net financial effect on the institutions will be small; some institutions may fare better and some worse, and existing cross subsidies favouring some sectors will be removed.Separate levy bills have been drafted for each industry. This will provide the flexibility to determine the levy on each industry according to the actual cost of regulating that particular industry.This bill provides for a levy to be paid by the banks for the first time. The banks will, however, no longer forego a much greater amount of income on non-callable deposits. It is envisaged that once the deposit-taking institutions currently regulated by the States and Territories come within APRA's jurisdiction, then they too will transfer from their existing cost recovery regime and be subject to the levy provisions of this bill.This bill will commence on 1 July 1999 or when the supervision of non-bank deposit-taking institutions is transferred from the States. The other levy bills will commence on the same day as the Australian Prudential Regulations Authority (APRA).I commend the bill to the Senate.AUTHORISED NON-OPERATING HOLDING COMPANIES SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1998The purpose of this bill is to impose a levy on authorised non-operating holding companies, consistent with the approach I outlined when I introduced the Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998.I commend the bill to the Senate.SUPERANNUATION SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1998The purpose of this bill is to impose a levy on non-excluded superannuation funds, consistent with the approach I outlined when I introduced the Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998.I commend the bill to the Senate.RETIREMENT SAVINGS ACCOUNT PROVIDERS SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1998The purpose of this bill is to impose a levy on providers of Retirement Savings Accounts, consistent with the approach I outlined when I introduced the Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998.I commend the bill to the Senate.LIFE INSURANCE SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1998The purpose of this bill is to impose a levy on the life insurance industry, consistent with the approach I outlined when I introduced the Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998.I commend the bill to the Senate.GENERAL INSURANCE SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1998The purpose of this bill is to impose a levy on the general insurance industry, consistent with the approach I outlined when I introduced the Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998.I commend the bill to the Senate.FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SUPERVISORY LEVIES COLLECTION BILL 1998SENATE SECOND READINGThe purpose of this bill is to enable the collection of the levies imposed by each of the separate levy bills I have already introduced into the House.I commend the bill to the Senate.FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM (AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1998This omnibus bill deals with amendments to a number of Acts to give effect to the new regulatory framework for the financial system being introduced, consistent with the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry. These include:. the establishment of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which is based on the Australian Securities Commission;. amendments to the Banking Act to establish the new regulatory regime in the banking and deposit-taking sector to be administered by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA);. the establishment of the Payments System Board within the Reserve Bank;. the splitting of the responsibility for relevant insurance and superannuation legislation between APRA and ASIC; and. transitional provisions relating to the establishment of the new regulatory bodies and the associated regulatory reforms.The Australian Securities and Investments CommissionThe bill renames the Australian Securities Commission as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and will result in ASIC being the pre-eminent consumer protection and market integrity regulator across the financial system. In addition to the current corporate regulatory functions of the Australian Securities Commission, ASIC will in the first instance be taking on consumer protection and market integrity in the areas of insurance, superannuation and aspects of banking and the payments system, and ultimately across the full financial system.Under the current system, responsibility for consumer protection functions in the financial system is split along institutional lines between a number of Commonwealth and State entities. If this situation is not addressed, globalisation, technological advances and innovations in financial products and distribution mechanisms will result in an increasing incidence of regulatory gaps and inconsistencies which are not conducive to efficient competition in financial markets.Responsibility for consumer protection and market integrity vested in a single entity will enable ASIC to adopt a functional and objective-based regulatory approach, thereby promoting competitive neutrality and permitting better comparability by consumers of different financial products and services. The amalgamation of consumer protection functions in a single regulator is supported by industry and consumer groups. There will, of course, be close co-operation between ASIC and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.The functions relating to insurance and superannuation were previously exercised by the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, a position which will be abolished with the commencement of this bill. The consumer protection functions relating to aspects of banking and the payments system were previously exercised by the Australian Payments System Council, which is also to be disbanded.Included in the functions transferred from the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to ASIC by this bill are functions under the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993, the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984.In addition, there are some Acts currently administered by the Insurance and Superannuation Commission (ISC) which contain both prudential and market integrity and disclosure requirements and as such will need to be split between the two regulators, APRA and ASIC.ASIC will take on regulatory responsibility for parts of the Life Insurance Act 1995, the Insurance Act 1973, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997.While the bill effectively transfers responsibility for administration of existing laws from the ISC to ASIC and APRA, it does not, except to a very limited extent, seek to alter the substantive rules applying in this area. In this regard, the task of rationalising and harmonising the financial system regulatory framework with that applying under the Corporations Law will be undertaken as part of the second stage of implementation of the Financial System Reforms in conjunction with the implementation of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program reforms relating to financial markets and investment products.In particular, the reforms will introduce a single licensing regime for financial market intermediaries as well as a consistent and comparable disclosure regime for financial instruments.In accordance with the Corporations Agreement, the Ministerial Council for Corporations has been consulted and has approved the relevant amendments to the Australian Securities Commission Act 1989 and the Corporations Law.Banking Act AmendmentsThe package of amendments to the Banking Act 1959 will:. establish a single licensing and prudential regulatory regime for deposit-taking institutions by providing for authorities under the Act to be issued both to banks and non-bank deposit-taking institutions;. strengthen and clarify depositor protection powers;. facilitate the regulation and hence use of non-operating holding company structures by financial conglomerates containing a bank or deposit-taking institution; and. strengthen the regulatory powers of APRA as the prudential regulator, giving it powers to make standards and enforce directions broadly similar to those now provided under the Financial Institutions Code (applying to credit unions and building societies).The proposed single licensing regime will facilitate increased effective competition, reduce regulatory inconsistencies between institutions conducting essentially the same deposit-taking business and improve efficiency. Over time, consumers should benefit from increased choice, improved quality and lower cost products and services.Facilitating the use of non-operating holding company structures will allow conglomerates greater commercial freedom in selecting their appropriate business structure, thereby potentially lowering business costs, increasing transparency and reducing barriers to entry, with ongoing benefits both to investors and consumers of financial services. The stability and safety of the financial system will not be compromised by these reforms due to the enhanced powers provided to the prudential regulator.The three key ingredients to ensuring financial stability and depositor protection are:. strong prudential regulation to lessen risks;. effective intervention to prevent or manage a crisis; and. depositor preference to ensure confidence.APRA will be able to make standards on prudential matters in relation to banks, deposit-taking institutions and non-operating holding companies of banks or deposit-taking institutions. The standards making power provides APRA with regulatory independence and is flexible, certain and able to be used very quickly in the event of a crisis to prevent contagion effects in the financial system.The standards themselves will not be directly enforceable.APRA will, however, have a power to give a direction to any licensed non-operating holding company, deposit-taker, or foreign bank branch, if they fail to comply with a prudential standard, regulation or where this is otherwise necessary in the interests of depositors. Failure to comply with such a direction will be an offence. The directions power is intended to facilitate early intervention by APRA to prevent a crisis from emerging and is similar to that now provided to State and Territory regulators of credit unions and building societies under the Financial Institutions Code.Intervention powers to manage a crisis will also be improved. The amendments proposed in this bill both clarify the mechanisms by which the prudential regulator may take control of a troubled deposit-taking institution, and allow the prudential regulator to appoint an administrator for that purpose. While these statutory management powers provide the means for control in a crisis, they will also enhance APRA's capacity to act in a preventative capacity by using less direct strategies, such as facilitating the takeover of a troubled institution or its business by other sound institutions. In Australia and elsewhere, such action has provided the most common response in practice to financial distress in deposit-taking entities.These intervention powers are further supplemented by a new power clarifying that APRA may initiate the wind-up of an institution that is insolvent and cannot be restored to solvency within a reasonable period. Such action may prevent further losses from accruing and would therefore be in the best interests of depositors.Again, State Supervisory Authorities already have the clear power to wind-up building societies and credit unions.Depositor preference is manifest both in depositor priority on winding-up and in APRA's duty to exercise its powers within Division 2 of the Banking Act in the interests of depositors. These are existing, longstanding provisions in the Act. While depositor preference can mean disadvantage for other creditors, APRA's intervention powers, particularly the proposed new early intervention powers, also lessen the risks faced by such other creditors, both by reducing the likelihood of insolvency and increasing the options for resolution in the event of insolvency.The bill also provides for the abolition of the requirement for banks to hold non-callable deposits with the Reserve Bank. These requirements no longer serve a prudential purpose but have been used to impose a form of regulatory charge. In light of the proposed imposition of levies on all industries that will supervised by APRA and consistent with the intention to remove non-neutral treatment of deposit-taking entities, the non-callable deposit requirements will be abolished consequent on the transfer to the Commonwealth of regulatory responsibility for credit unions and building societies. Payments System BoardThis bill introduces legislation amending the Reserve Bank Act 1959 to establish the Payments System Board (PSB) within the Reserve Bank.The PSB will be independent of the Bank's main Board, which will no longer have powers to make payment system policies for the Bank. Rather, the PSB will operate as the policy making Board of the Bank in relation to payments system matters. In particular it will be responsible for ensuring that the Bank's powers are utilised so as to improve the efficiency of the payments system, to promote competition in the market for payment services and to control risk in the financial system.The PSB will operate on a basis that is very similar to that applying to the main board of the Reserve Bank. For example, similar procedures will apply for the resolution of any disagreement between the policies of the Government and the PSB.The Governor of the Reserve Bank will chair the PSB. It will also include another Reserve Bank member, one from APRA and up to five others.The PSB and the Reserve Bank will be given explicit regulatory powers in the payments system. These powers will be conferred under the Payment Systems and Netting Bill and the Payment Systems (Regulation) Bill, the latter of which I will introduce shortly.Other AmendmentsTo prevent excessive compliance costs on building societies and credit unions, the bill also amends the Financial Corporations Act 1974 to exempt these institutions from the data reporting requirements under that Act when they are regulated under the Banking Act 1959.The bill also transfers to the Governor of the Reserve Bank the Treasurer's present powers with respect to categorising registered corporations and exempting corporations.The transitional provisions in the bill preserve the effect of decisions made before the commencement of APRA, including by preserving existing approvals, transferring work in progress to APRA and facilitating the effective transfer of the prudential regulation of building societies and credit unions to the Commonwealth, subject to agreement.There are also transitional provisions protecting the accrued entitlements of ISC and Reserve Bank staff transferring across to APRA. The accrued entitlements of the ISC staff will be largely protected through the transfer provisions of section 81C of the Public Service Act 1922. The bill also gives the Treasurer the power to transfer the assets and liabilities of the ISC to APRA or ASIC.Finally, the bill provides for the repeal of certain Acts, including the Banks (Shareholdings) Act 1972 which is replaced by the consolidated Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Bill which I will shortly introduce, and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Act 1987 consequent on the establishment of APRA.I commend the bill to the Senate.PAYMENT SYSTEMS (REGULATION) BILL 1998This bill details the proposed new regulatory framework for the payments system which is being introduced consistent with the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry. Amendments to the Reserve Bank Act 1959, as provided for in the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, provide for the creation of the Payments System Board (PSB) within the Reserve Bank to provide for policy making in relation to the payments system and to increase the accountability of the Reserve Bank in relation to its role in the payments system.The payments system plays a central role in the financial system. The Government has decided to strengthen, and make more transparent and accountable, the regulation of the payments system undertaken by the Reserve Bank. Until now, the Reserve Bank has played a substantial regulatory role in the payments system as a direct participant and through the use of its banking powers.Payments system regulation is to be separated from the prudential regulation of banks because an increasing number of non-bank participants in the payments system are emerging to increase competition in the system. More direct means for achieving effective regulation are required for this purpose. Such direct means are also necessary to ensure that the payments system retains its high standard of safety while adapting to the demands of new technologies and globalisation in the payments system.The Reserve Bank will be the regulator of the system, given the importance of the payments system to the overall stability of the financial system and given the central role of the Reserve Bank itself in the core areas of the payments system, particularly settlement. As with all the other reforms I have announced, this decision highlights the Government's commitment to encouraging innovation and competition while not, in any way, jeopardising the stability and soundness of the financial system.The payments system covers payment instruments (such as cash, cheques, and smart cards), their delivery, the exchange or clearance of payment messages, and the final settlement of value between intermediaries providing payment services. This bill proposes a new regulatory framework for the payments system. While existing industry self-regulatory arrangements will be retained wherever these are performing satisfactorily, the bill provides powers to the Reserve Bank to enable it to undertake more direct regulation by designating payment systems as subject to the law where it is considered in the public interest to do so.Once a payment system is designated, the bill provides that it may be subject to the imposition of rules of access for participants on commercial terms, the determination of standards, the giving of enforceable directions, or the voluntary arbitration of disputes on technical standards. The development of access regimes and standards will be undertaken, as far as possible, in conjunction and consultation with the private sector.This approach ensures that formal regulation will only be imposed on the payments system to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the public interest.The bill also provides for a comprehensive regime of prudential regulation of the store-of-value backing purchased payment facilities. This will apply to all forms of such facilities, including stored value cards, travellers cheques and internet cash facilities. These are all arrangements whereby payment is made for an instrument which can be used for making subsequent payments with the value available recorded or stored on the instrument. Ultimately, the value is redeemable from the holder of the store of value created by the original purchase of the stored value. Confidence in such systems depends on confidence that the store-of-value is safe.The bill provides that the holder of the store-of-value must either be an institution regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) under the Banking Act (in which case there is no requirement for further regulation) or otherwise be authorised by the Reserve Bank (in which case further regulation may be required). The bill provides powers for the Reserve Bank to impose necessary regulation.It also enables the Reserve Bank to grant an exemption from the requirement for an authority where it is considered appropriate to do so.I commend the bill to the Senate.FINANCIAL SECTOR (SHAREHOLDINGS) BILL 1998This bill streamlines the existing legislation and rules governing ownership and acquisitions in the financial system, consistent with the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry. It will replace the Banks (Shareholdings) Act 1972 and the relevant parts of the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991.The streamlined provisions will be particularly useful for corporate groups which contain more than one licensed entity. Common rules will apply to each class of licence, simplifying regulatory applications and their assessment. Moreover, provision is made for authorisations applying to the non-operating holding companies of financial conglomerates to flow through to all of the members of the corporate group.The bill subjects all prudentially regulated financial sector companies to:. a 15 per cent shareholding limit by any one person (and their associates); or. such higher percentage as the Treasurer may determine as being in the national interest.This provides for simpler procedures than existing laws, a common threshold (which is also that applied under foreign investment policy and law) and harmonises the treatment of different licence classes. The laws are the administrative responsibility of the Treasurer, but provision is made for delegation to APRA. Delegations may be made, for example, in relation to small financial institutions.At the same time, the effectiveness of the laws is strengthened along the lines adopted in other recent shareholding restriction provisions. Provision is made for the Treasurer to declare a person to have `practical control', that is, the power to control the policies and operations of the financial institution, regardless of the size of their shareholding. Under such a declaration the person must relinquish practical control.The bill also provides for the imposition of conditions on approvals of stakes higher than 15 percent, for the Treasurer to apply to the Federal Court for remedial orders in respect of unacceptable shareholding or practical control situations, for fees to be imposed in respect of applications and for information to be obtained by the Treasurer from applicants.The law relating to financial sector shareholdings is applied for prudential, competition and other national interest purposes. Acquisitions and mergers in the financial sector, as for other economic sectors, separately and additionally remain subject to competition regulation under the Trade Practices laws and to foreign investment policy and laws.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Chris Evans) adjourned.Bills2742r453Billsr464Billsr482Billsr400Billsr421Billsr4602742Bills received from the House of Representatives.2742Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.274218:29:002742Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum and correction relating to the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 1) 1998 and a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PENSION BONUS SCHEME) BILL 1998Madam President, by introducing the Pension Bonus Scheme, this bill fulfils another government election commitment. This scheme, which complements other government measures for the aged, is designed to provide an incentive for older Australians to remain in the workforce. The scheme is voluntary and each person can choose to enter the scheme based on their particular circumstances and preferences. By choosing to work longer, people can add to their individual savings for retirement.The scheme will apply to people who qualify for age pension (or equivalent Veterans' Affairs payments) but who delay their retirement and keep working. Eligible customers will receive a tax free lump sum bonus payment when they stop working, in addition to commencing to receive their ongoing age pension or Veterans' Affairs equivalent. This measure, by offering people an incentive to keep working, will assist in reducing the ratio of retired people to working people and will increase the financial well-being of older Australians. This will be particularly helpful for women and small family business owners.The Scheme will provide for the payment of a lump sum bonus, the amount of which will increase more than proportionally with the number of years that a person delays claiming age pension. The amount of the bonus payable is calculated by multiplying the annual basic rate of age pension payable to the person at grant by the bonus percentage (9.4 per cent for each year). This amount is then multiplied by the number of years worked (up to a maximum of 5 years). By way of illustration, a single person who delays retirement and continues to work for 5 years and is subsequently granted age pension at the maximum rate would receive a tax free lump payments of $21,250 (using the current rate of $9042.80 per annum). If that person had delayed retirement for 3 years instead of 5 years, the bonus payment would be $7,560.20. For a couple who continue to work for five years and subsequently are granted age pension at the maximum rate the combined payment would be $35,450 tax free.Madam President, a person must be registered as a member of the scheme in order to qualify for a bonus payment. Generally, registration will occur when a person qualifies for age pension (currently 65 years for men and 61 years for women) or the relevant Department of Veterans' Affairs payment. During the registration process, potential members will be required to provide information relevant to the operation of the scheme. The objective of the registration process is to ensure that people receive advice about the scheme, allowing them to make an informed choice about whether to participate in the scheme. It will also provide them with information on how to comply with the scheme's requirements.In the usual case, registered members who satisfy the `work test' will begin to accrue bonus periods. Members of the scheme who are 75 years or more can no longer accrue bonus periods. For single people this requires them to undertake gainful work (defined as work for financial gain or reward) for an average of 20 hours per week over 48 weeks per year (a minimum of 960 hours a year). In addition, two-thirds (ie 640) of those 960 hours must relate to work undertaken in Australia. For members of a couple, it will be possible for registered members to rely on work undertaken by their partners to satisfy the work test provided their partners are also members of the scheme. To satisfy the 960 hours requirement, members will have the choice of working longer hours over a short period in each year of deferment or working a longer period with fewer hours per week. To be paid a bonus, a person must accrue between 1 and 5 bonus year periods while deferring age pension. Domestic duties in relation to the person's place of residence as well as management of family financial investments will not be treated as gainful work for the purposes of the scheme. The operation of the work test provisions will be closely monitored to ensure that contrived arrangements are not put in place to circumvent the intent of the legislation. If necessary, further legislative amendment will be taken to sure that the integrity of the scheme is not compromised.The scheme reflects the principles already contained in the current provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 relating to preclusion periods. Accordingly, where a person has disposed of assets in excess of the disposal limits or where a lump sum compensation payment is made to the person, the person will not be able to accrue a bonus for the relevant preclusion period. Similarly, a person cannot accrue a bonus if the person receives carer pension (or an equivalent Veterans' Affairs payment) or in certain other limited situations. At the end of any of these preclusion periods the person will again be able to accrue bonus periods.To assist members in gauging whether they are satisfying the scheme's requirements, they will be able to request from Centrelink an evidentiary certificate which states that they have satisfied the work test over a particular period. Members will be able to rely on this certificate as evidence that the work test had been satisfied for that period. Members will be required to keep certain documents (for example their group certificates and income tax returns) and maintain a work record. This work record will contain information relevant to the work test (such as the days and number of hours worked in a particular period and the names of employers). This record will enable members to monitor for themselves whether they are meeting the work test. It will also provide Centrelink with sufficient information to advise members effectively and provide information essential to the determination of a person's entitlement to the bonus.This scheme provides the opportunity for people to add to their individual savings for retirement. Further, it creates choice and flexibility in decisions regarding retirement from the workforce and accessing the age pension.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum.STUDENT AND YOUTH ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1998The bill will make a number of amendments to Part 4A of the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973 which provides for the AUSTUDY/ABSTUDY Financial Supplement scheme. The scheme was introduced on 1 January 1993 to give tertiary students greater flexibility in meeting their financial needs. The Financial Supplement is a loan which is available mainly to tertiary students studying approved courses and eligible to get AUSTUDY or ABSTUDY. These students can trade in $1 of AUSTUDY or ABSTUDY (up to a maximum of $3,500) to get $2 as a Financial Supplement loan. The loans are funded by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia under an Agreement with the Commonwealth government and are paid on a fortnightly basis.Financial Supplement loans are repayable through the taxation system from 1 July in the fifth year after the year to which the loan relates. A person who has a Financial Supplement debt may repay his or her loan to the Commonwealth Bank before that time if he or she wishes to do so. The compulsory repayment arrangements are income contingent. That is, Madam President, repayments will not commence until a person's taxable income reaches a minimum amount prescribed in the legislation. The amount of the annual repayment is either 2, 3 or 4 percent of taxable income depending on whether the person's taxable income exceeds the minimum, intermediate or maximum prescribed amount respectively. The minimum prescribed amount is set at the annual equivalent of Average Weekly Earnings.Madam President, most notable of the amendments to be made by the bill is the introduction of a 14 day cooling off period for Financial Supplement applications. This will give students who have applied for a Financial Supplement loan a period of time to reconsider their circumstances and, if they so decide, withdraw their application without penalty. The proposed amendments will be a significant improvement on the current arrangement under which a student can withdraw his or her application, but only before receiving any Financial Supplement payments. A student who does not wish to take advantage of the cooling off period will be able to waive his or her right to withdraw the application. This will enable students who are sure about their decision to apply for a Financial Supplement loan to commence receiving payments sooner.The bill also inserts the prescribed amounts for the year of income ending on 30 June 1998 which will determine the amount of a person's accumulated Financial Supplement debt that must be repaid in respect of that year. As 1997-98 is the first assessable year in respect of Financial Supplement debts, this amendment must be in place before the Australian Taxation Office commences collection of these debts on 1 July 1998.The bill will also make a number of minor amendments to bring the legislation into line with the program's administrative arrangements.Legislation is currently before the parliament to establish the new social security payment, the Youth Allowance, in the Social Security Act 1991. The Youth Allowance will be an integrated income support payment for young people which will be available regardless of whether a person is in education, in training, unemployed or sick. It will replace a number of payments currently available under the Social Security Act 1991 or the Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973, including AUSTUDY. The legislation also makes provision for a new austudy payment for students aged 25 and over.The measures in the Student and Youth Assistance Amendment bill apply to AUSTUDY and ABSTUDY beneficiaries who either have a Financial Supplement loan or who are eligible to obtain one. Subject to the passage of the Youth Allowance legislation, the government will move appropriate amendments to the bill to reflect the impending repeal of the AUSTUDY scheme.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate.TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 1998When the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill was introduced in April 1996 the opening lines of the Second Reading Speech were:"This Bill is about the Government delivering on its promises."In marked contrast to the approach taken by the former Government in the cases of the Commonwealth Bank, Federal Airports Corporation and QANTAS we have sufficient regard for the electorate to be up-front about our intentions."We made crystal clear in our election policy that if elected we would introduce into Parliament at the earliest opportunity legislation to sell one-third of the Commonwealth's equity in Telstra by way of a share float."We delivered on that promise, resulting in an outstandingly successful public share offer that has been universally applauded in the community, and which was overwhelmingly supported by the ordinary investors—the mums and dads of Australia. And by the employees of Telstra itself.We are again delivering on our promises. We promised that there would be no further sell-down of the Commonwealth interest without the Government first getting a mandate from the people at a Federal Election.Here is the proof of our words. We have faith in the good judgement of the Australian people. We are spelling out the legislative basis on which a further sale will take place so they can make fully-informed choices at the polls. This Bill clearly provides that, when enacted, the act can only be proclaimed to come into effect on a date after the next Federal Election.The Australian people's reaction to the float in November last year is ample evidence of their enthusiasm to invest in and benefit directly from the continuing growth of one of Australia's largest companies. Over half a million Australians acquired shares for the first time and 92 per cent of Telstra's employees invested in their company.The Telstra float has brought about unprecedented levels of share ownership in the Australian community. Share ownership in Australia has soared to over 40 per cent of the adult population. More than 5.5 million adult Australians are participating through direct share ownership and through managed funds. Direct share ownership levels are above most other major Western economies, including the United Kingdom and Canada.The further sale will broaden and deepen that commitment to investing and sharing in the nation's future growth. The democratisation of share ownership in Australia will, itself, prove to be an engine for economic growth.The benefits will not be restricted to those who take up the opportunity to invest. All Australians will benefit from the uses this Government will make of the proceeds of the further sale of shares. The vast bulk of the proceeds will be used to retire the debt accumulated by past governments. Combined with the proceeds of the initial sale this will bring about a halving from the June 1996 level of government debt. In addition there will be an opportunity for some of the proceeds to be directed to providing a social bonus. Offering the remaining Commonwealth holding in Telstra for sale is a further element of a broader telecommunications policy—a policy aimed at giving Australians a world class telecommunications industry in terms of technology, pricing, quality of service and the capacity to sustain support for national competitive advantage across a wide range of industry sectors. It is also another forward step in the march towards the new millennium.The Opposition can lay claim to have taken the first small step with the enactment of telecommunications legislation in 1989 which established an independent regulator, some very limited competition in defined areas and price controls on reserved services.The Labor Government also took further halting steps in 1991 and 1992 in opening the telecommunications market to a private national facilities-based network competitor, incorporating the merged Telecom and OTC as a Corporations Law company and licensing three mobile telecommunications operators. Back then Labor certainly recognised the merits of privatisation in its sale of AUSSAT to form a nucleus for Optus.Whatever the rhetoric at the time, the incorporation of what is now Telstra under Corporations Law was an explicit recognition that Telstra was and is first and foremost a business. The Universal Service Obligation was placed in the separate Telecommunications Act where it belongs, because it properly applied to the whole industry and not just one company.This Government has quickened the pace with the 1997 Telecommunications Act, which established a comprehensive framework for an open, competitive telecommunications market and with the sale of one-third of the equity in Telstra last November. We are moving in the direction set by Labor's initial steps, but more quickly and confidently because we have less baggage to carry.What we are saying is that the business of government is not to be in business. The business of government is to set the framework within which business operates. It is for government to set the conditions under which companies compete, to establish and police safeguards for consumers and to place service obligations on the companies. And to do so free of any need to consider the effect on a government investment in the industry.Ownership of a telephone company is not a substitute for a comprehensive and transparent legislative framework, which clearly establishes rights and obligations. It is flying in the face of experience in Australia and overseas to claim that it is. Indeed, contemporary experience shows that governmental pursuit of competition and consumer benefits can actually be hindered by ownership responsibilities and obligations.For pro-competitive countries like the United States, Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand private ownership coupled with robust government-imposed consumer and competition safeguards are the norm. The shared attributes of their respective telecommunications regimes are: transparent and independent regulation, universal service obligations, easy market entry, powerful laws on anti-competitive conduct, a comprehensive and broad access regime, record-keeping rules, tariffing requirements, carrier preselection, number portability, and non-discriminatory access to underlying resources like spectrum, numbers and rights of way. Australia's regulatory framework also has all these attributes.Key Community and Regulatory SafeguardsThis Bill reaffirms the Government's commitment to the comprehensive community and regulatory safeguards already enacted in legislation. These include:(a) a clear universal service obligation to ensure that standard telephone services and payphones are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business, as required by Part 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1997;(b) continued access to untimed local calls which is required by Part 8 of the Telecommunications Act 1997;(c) the customer service guarantee imposed by Part 9 of the Telecommunications Act 1997;(d) special benefits for rural and regional customers of carriage service providers under section 226 of the Telecommunications Act 1997;(e) a price-cap regime established in Part 6 of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991; and(f) a flexible regulatory structure designed to stimulate competition in the telecommunications market and thus deliver cheaper prices, and new and improved services, to Australian residential and business telecommunications users, as set out in the Telecommunications Act 1997 and Parts XIB and XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974.Let me emphasise that these key community and regulatory safeguards each place legal obligations on service providers or legally protect the rights of consumers. They are the law. To claim that these obligations and/or rights can somehow be eroded by the sale of shares in Telstra is quite misleading. Where the claim is made by Members of this Parliament it is both dishonest and a cop-out. The only way these obligations on service providers and rights of consumers can be eroded or removed is if this Parliament permits it. This Government will certainly not be permitting it.This Government is committed to the maintenance, enforcement and, where necessary, enhancement of these obligations and rights.Within this legislative framework the Government has included a number of specific measures to ensure that Australians living in rural and remote regions share in the benefits of improved and cheaper communications.The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts will shortly approve Telstra's Universal Service Plan which provides for reduced maximum connection times and greater general transparency and accountability.Local Call Price Parity MeasureA Ministerial Determination under the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 came into effect on 31 December 1997 to enable lower prices for untimed local calls in markets with competition to also be shared by consumers in markets without competition.Under the determination, the weighted average untimed local call price for residential/charity customers in rural Australia in 1998 is not to exceed the weighted average local call price for residential/charity customers in metropolitan Australia in 1997—a similar rule applies to untimed local call prices for business customers.It is anticipated that the areas between which pricing parity is to be achieved may be refined in any future price control determination as it becomes clearer which are the competitive markets attracting lower untimed local call prices.Rebate Scheme for Remote CustomersThe Telecommunications Act 1997 required the Minister to take all reasonable steps to put regulations in place by 1 January 1998 to give remote customers benefits comparable to untimed local calls available to customers in standard zones. The comparison has regard to the ability to make calls to essential business and community services on an untimed basis.From 1 January 1998, some 17,000 telephone customers in remote parts of Australia who have no access to untimed local calls are entitled to a benefit in the form of a rebate of up to $160 in 1998 against each customer's pastoral call charges on their telephone bills. Telstra's pastoral rate of 25 cents for 4.5 minutes applies to calls made to the customer's community service town and within the extended charging zone.This is an interim arrangement for 1998. The Telstra network does not presently have the capacity to cope with the anticipated increase in demand which would derive from the extension of untimed local calls in all remote areas. The Government has requested Telstra to report by 30 June 1998 on a review to determine whether the scheme can be improved in 1999 and beyond. This process will continue as part of this Government's genuine commitment to improving telecommunications services in the bush, regardless of Telstra's ownership.Draft regulations to enforce the scheme have been prepared and consultations are being held with relevant carriage service providers Although Telstra is currently the carriage service provider for these customers, the regulations will apply to all carriage service providers. Telstra has developed an implementation program to commence shortly, with backdating to 1 January 1998.Telstra is aiming to effectively achieve full digitisation of its local exchange lines by the end of 1998. Telstra's carrier licence includes a condition requiring that Telstra makes available to at least 96 per cent of the Australian population by 31 December 1998, a carriage service that provides digital data capability broadly comparable to that provided by a 64 kilobits per second ISDN channel. Telstra has indicated that it is on track to meet this licence condition.The Government is proceeding to phaseout the analogue AMPS mobile phone network by 1 January 2000, because it is locked in contractually by Labor's 1992 decision. This Government is, however, concerned that mobile phone users in regional Australia do not lose out.We will introduce a package of measures designed to ensure that all areas of regional Australia which currently receive mobile coverage will continue to have reasonably equivalent coverage after 2000.The Australian Communications Authority will report by 30 June 1998 on the likely extent of any short fall in coverage. In those areas where the Australian Communications Authority finds that there would be no reasonably equivalent coverage, either the AMPS service will be retained by agreement with the carriers, or the Government will impose network rollout obligations on existing GSM network operators to provide replacement coverage.When we introduced the legislation for the one-third sale in April 1996 we included the Customer Service Guarantee which requires all carriage service providers, not just Telstra, to meet standards established by the Australian Communications Authority for connection times, fault repairs and keeping of appointments. Enforcement has to date been through establishing a legal entitlement to compensation for the customer when a breach of the standards occurs. This usually takes the form of a rebate on the customer's bill.Telstra, for example, paid out some $166,000 in February in respect of some 3700 complaints. Customer Service Guarantee Scheme: Proposed ActionThe Government places a very high priority on the need to maintain and improve quality of service. To give further effect to this priority, it is now proposed that the Customer Service Guarantee be augmented so that not only do customers receive rebates for poor service but also the regulator is able to require carriage service providers to take remedial action to correct any systemic problems in meeting Customer Service Guarantee scheme performance standards.To achieve this, the Telecommunications Act 1997 will be amended to enable the Australian Communications Authority to give directions to carriage service providers requiring them to take action to ensure that Customer Service Guarantee performance standards are met.Failure to comply with such a direction will be enforceable under the act and may incur penalties of up to $10 million. Exercise of the new direction power will be at the discretion of the Australian Communications Authority (after consultation with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman) or at the direction of the Minister.The fundamentals of the Customer Service Guarantee scheme remain unchanged, and oversight of individual complaints remains with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. However, the amendment will give the Australian Communications Authority (and the Minister) power to require action by service providers in relation to systemic problems which become apparent through complaints of breaches of Customer Service Guarantee scheme standards.In addition, there are two issues being dealt with in a revised direction from the Minister to the Australian Communications Authority:- requiring the Australian Communications Authority to ensure service providers better inform and promote to customers their legal rights under the Customer Service Guarantee scheme and put more effort into training of front-line staff- setting a sunset date for the current standards at 12 months from their commencement (ie 1 January 1999) and asking the Australian Communications Authority to work with the Australian Communications Industry Forum and others in reviewing the standards before that date with a view to tighter standards where practicable.Australian OwnershipTelstra has a vital continuing strategic role in the national economy. Australia's long term national interest therefore demands that it not simply be sold off to the highest bidder but that it remains an Australian owned and Australian controlled Corporation.Accordingly the Bill amends the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 to continue the pre-existing policy which:. restricts aggregate foreign ownership to a 35 per cent ownership stake in Telstra; and. restricts individual foreign ownership to a 5 per cent ownership stake in Telstra.We are retaining the provisions enacted for the initial sale which:. impose related offence, anti-avoidance and enforcement provisions;. ensure that the Telstra's head office, base of operations and incorporation remains in Australia and that its Chairman and the majority of its directors are Australian citizens; and. enable remedial action to be taken where there has been a contravention of the ownership limits and other requirements, including applications by Telstra or the Minister for Federal Court injunctions and special provisions for prosecution of offences.These provisions will not be affected by changes in Telstra's ownership.Industry Development PlansGovernment ownership is not a prerequisite for Telstra to sustain its commercial support for Australian industry.Telstra and all other licensed telecommunications carriers are required under the Telecommunications Act 1997 to produce industry development plans for the development in Australia of industries involved in the manufacture, development and supply of facilities relating to carrier business; and research and development activities relating to such industries. This requirement is aimed at the promotion of long-term strategic relationships between carriers and suppliers.In 1998 Telstra proposes to spend up to $4.4 billion under its Industry Development Plan. Typically, Telstra's direct spend with Australian small to medium enterprises has been about 30 per cent of the total spend.I note that the Leader of the Opposition has recently questioned the efficacy of these arrangements. Well, they are his arrangements, developed and introduced by him. We supported them. They work. We will continue them while he abandons his own former achievements for imagined short term political point scoring.The licence requirement for industry development plans will continue after full privatisation.Shareholder OversightThe performance of Telstra, its Board and management is subject to the scrutiny of its private shareholders, whose assessments are reflected in share prices. Telstra has been the subject of more intense—and better informed—media and market comment and analysis in the last 12 months than it has experienced in its entire history.While the Commonwealth retains a majority interest in the company it will retain special provisions to monitor financial performance and prospects. The Bill provides for the Minister to nominate a date at which the Commonwealth ceases to have a majority interest. At that time the special privileges that the Commonwealth has over other shareholders in terms of access to information, except in connection with a sale process, will be removed.At the same time the special power contained in Part 3 of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 for the Minister to give directions to Telstra will be repealed. When the Commonwealth ceases to have the majority it would be inappropriate and unfair for it to promote its interests separately from and at the expense of the bulk of shareholders. There are now ample powers properly available under the regulatory legislation to ensure that public interest obligations of all carriers are properly delivered. For example the Australian Communications Authority has a general power under section 581 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 to give directions in relation to its telecommunications functions to Telstra and other carriage service providers.With regard to the Government's regulatory role, Telstra will continue to operate under the same framework of consumer and competition safeguards and community service obligations as will apply to all other carriers. That does not need Government ownership to make it work. It does so by force of law.Sale ProvisionsThe sale provisions enacted for the sale of one-third of the Commonwealth's equity interests in Telstra proved effective and robust and are being retained substantially for the further sale. These include:. appropriation from consolidated revenue for costs incurred in the sale process;. providing for Telstra to assist in the sale process, as it did so effectively in the previous sale;. enabling the Commonwealth to use information obtained from Telstra for the purposes of the sale;. enabling the offer document for the sale of equity in Telstra to be registered under the Corporations Law; and. continuing formal exemptions from stamp duty (although this bill provides a power to make regulations to specify exceptions to the general exemption from State and Territory stamp duty and other taxes in relation to the sale).The existing act provides the flexibility necessary to facilitate whatever detailed arrangements for the sale process are decided by the Government.The mechanism through which the Commonwealth's equity in Telstra can be transferred to investors—"Telstra Sale Scheme"—is defined very broadly, to include not only conventional single tranche sales, but sales effected through a number of tranches, or through single tranche sales with instalment purchase arrangements as well as through the use of other market instruments.The act includes measures to ensure Telstra, and its directors, will, and can, cooperate with the sale process. The bill clarifies these measures. This removes any legal risk that the Telstra Board could be in conflict with the Corporations Law by cooperating in the sale of the Commonwealth's equity in Telstra. Moreover, the act enables Telstra to receive fair reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in providing assistance. It is the Government's intention to meet those costs in the forthcoming sale processes in order to avoid detriment to the interests of the existing minority shareholders.The existing act also includes a provision to enable the Commonwealth to "opt in" to Chapter 7 of the Corporations Law and thereby allow a prospectus to be registered by the Australian Securities Commission. This means that the Commonwealth subjects the sale of its equity in Telstra to the same rigorous scrutiny that private sector entities face when they seek to raise or sell equity. This approach was adopted for the one-third sale and the Commonwealth's conduct of that sale has been widely praised.Ancillary LegislationAn examination has been made of legislation affecting Telstra to determine whether amendments are necessary or desirable prior to the further privatisation and the associated ending of Commonwealth control. Where appropriate, transitional or savings provisions have been inserted. The object is to bring Telstra to a position under the law similar to that of any privately-owned comparable company. It should derive no special benefit because of its historical public sector status nor should it carry any unnecessary burdens.The bill makes it clear that, when further Commonwealth equity is sold Telstra employees will cease to be eligible employees for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976. This provision has been included for the sake of transparency. The affected employees will have the option of preserving their rights in the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme or rolling-over to another superannuation scheme.Consistent with the approach taken in previous privatisations, transitional provisions have been included to deal with such matters as: long service leave; retirement benefits; maternity leave; and safety, rehabilitation and compensation.The bill also contains minor technical amendments to several provisions, makes minor consequential changes and removes certain spent provisions. Importantly, the bill inserts a new Part 2AA on anti avoidance containing provisions to prevent Telstra from engaging in a scheme for the sole or dominant purpose of avoiding the application of any provision of the act.SummaryThis bill is a clear indicator of the Government's intent to do all in its power to deliver on its election promises. It will enable the implementation of a policy which has been clearly enunciated and which can be debated in the next election campaign. It will provide substantial benefits to all Australians by strengthening the economy through the retirement of debt. It will further enhance the development of a flexible, modern and competitive telecommunications industry in this country.The Opposition can hardly claim that there is some national interest to be protected by retaining the company in full public ownership—the former Prime Minister made clear in June 1994 on national television that there was no essential significance in the ownership of Telstra so long as it was subject to the competitive disciplines of the market.The current Deputy Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the initial legislation that separated regulation of the industry from government ownership of Telstra. The current Leader developed that further when he licensed Optus and privatised AUSSAT, helping to achieve what he called the `net gain' from privatisation. I quote his words on `net gain' from a speech to the National Press Club on 24 August 1994, "Potentially better services and lower prices for consumers; stronger enterprises and greater competition in our economy; and in the broader sense, making government funds available for new policy".Enactment of this bill will continue the process of subjecting Telstra to market disciplines in the knowledge that the safeguards necessary to protect national and consumer interests are already fully provided in this and other legislation.TAX LAW IMPROVEMENT BILL (No. 1) 1998The Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 1) 1998 is the third instalment of legislation that is progressively replacing the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.Last year Parliament enacted the first two instalments of rewritten law. The first instalment established the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 as the main income tax law. It has a new more logical structure, a flexible and user-friendly numbering system and is written in plain language appropriate to its audience.The 1997 Act now contains the core provisions of the law and most of the rules that apply generally, such as the provisions about assessable income and deductions. It also includes some other more specialised rules covering such topics as mining and primary production deductions.The main feature of this Bill is the rewritten rules about capital gains and losses, colloquially known as the capital gains tax, or simply CGT.Capital gains taxFrom its inception in 1985, the CGT provisions have been compromised by the unnecessarily complex approach that was taken to their presentation and expression. The aim of CGT is to tax as income gains made on the disposal of assets and on the receipt of certain capital amounts.Although CGT applies to many transactions that do not involve the disposal of assets, the existing law squeezes them into its uneasy structure by treating each of them as though they did involve such a disposal. This has left a complex and extremely confusing system of artificial deeming provisions that can confound even experienced professional advisers.The rewrite does away with this `deeming approach' and replaces it with statements which directly describe in clear words the transactions that come within the coverage of CGT.The key to the rewrite is the breaking up of the law to identify each `CGT event' . The concept of disposal is to be limited to where there actually is a change in ownership of an asset from one person to another. Other kinds of transactions that can give rise to a CGT liability are brought together so that the reader can be confident that all circumstances that can give rise to a capital gain or loss are comprehensively listed.By bringing together in a coherent way material that is scattered throughout the old law and by doing away with unnecessary text, the rewrite supports a more readily gained understanding by taxpayers of the CGT consequences of their decisions.Other areas rewritten A range of other rules with specialised application have also been rewritten and included in the Bill. These cover the treatment of company bad debts, intellectual property, horticultural plants, expenditure on protecting the environment and on environmental impact statements, the averaging of primary producers' liabilities and evening out the effects of above-average special professional income.Minor policy changesThe rewritten rules include minor policy changes which will help to make the law simpler, clearer and less burdensome for taxpayers. They will do this by:. replacing impractical rules with ones which facilitate compliance;. simplifying rules which are unnecessarily complex;. deleting unnecessary rules;. removing anomalies; and .clarifying ambiguities.Revenue impactThe measures in the Bill are expected to have a small overall cost to revenue but this is well justified by the better compliance that should flow from the clarification of obligations. None of its individual proposals will have a measurable revenue effect.Date of effect The Government intends that the Bill will apply from the beginning of the 1998-99 income year.Joint Committee of Public Accounts and AuditThe Government appreciates the work of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in reviewing the Bill, and its ensuing Report 356.The Joint Committee's ongoing involvement in the review of the Tax Law Improvement Project has been important in ensuring the quality of the rewrite and public confidence in the rewrite process.The Government has accepted all of the Committee's recommendations for technical changes to the Bill. The Government has also made changes to the Explanatory Memorandum along the lines recommended by the Committee.The Government is considering other recommendations in Report 356 that go to wider policy matters, and will provide responses on those other matters as soon as possible.The explanatory memorandum includes summaries of all the rewritten areas of the law and explanations of the minor changes to the law that the Bill contains.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Chris Evans) adjourned.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Committees2751275110000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—A message has been received from the House of Representatives notifying variations in the membership of the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and the Joint Statutory Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.The message read as follows: Message no. 575, dated 11 May 1998— Corporations and Securities—Joint Statutory Committee, Mr Anthony in place of the Speaker. Migration—Joint Standing Committee, Mr Hicks in place of the Speaker. Australian Security Intelligence Organization—Joint Statutory Committee, Mr McArthur in place of Mr Zammit.Bills2751r454Consideration resumed.2751The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee will note that some of the amendments to this bill have been circulated as requests. This is because they expand entitlements which are now to be funded from the standing appropriation of the Social Security Act.18:32:002751Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments and a further supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government requests for amendments to be moved to this bill. These memoranda were circulated in the chamber on 13 May 1998.18:33:002751Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Government amendments Nos 1 and 2 relate to the exemp tion for youth allowance recipients aged under 18 from the requirement to be in full-time education or training. Under an amendment the opposition successfully moved in the debate on the main youth allowance bill, the Social Security Act would grant the exemption if a person `is in case management approved by the secretary or, where no case management place is available to the person, is suitable for and agrees to undertake case management'.The problem with this amendment is that case management is defined in the Employment Services Act 1994 which ceased to have effect from 1 May 1998. Rather, a new and different service known as intensive assistance is being provided to job seekers under the employment services market reforms.To deal with this problem, our proposal is to seek to vary the opposition's amendment by extending the exemption to young people receiving or approved for Commonwealth-funded intensive assistance for job seekers. This amendment does not change the intention of the opposition's amendment; rather, it simply changes it to reflect the new realities in the employment services market.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Minister, you did not formally move the amendments, and you need to seek leave to move them together.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I seek leave to move the amendments together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted?B36NEALSenator Neal—There is a matter which I want you to clarify before the amendments are moved.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You can do that after the amendments have been moved.B36NEALSenator Neal—I do not really want to grant leave unless I can clarify something.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—In that case, we will separate the two amendments.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 32), at the end of the clause, add: (11) Schedule 14 commences immediately after the commencement of subsection 543A(2A) of the Social Security Act 1991 (inserted in that Act by the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Act 1998 ).18:35:002752Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Minister, the effect of the amendment that you have just moved seems to me quite clear in relation to amendment No. 2. I am somewhat uncertain about amendment No. 1, in that I am not really sure exactly how that operates. Is that just an administrative necessity to give effect to amendment 2 or does it have a different effect?18:35:002752Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It is simply a commencement date for it.18:35:002752Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I understand it relates to the commencement date, but does it defer the commencement date to 1 January 1999? Is that the effect of it?18:35:002752Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the senator's question is that the requirement to be in case management would start on 1 January. This is substituting the requirement to be in intensive assistance at the same time.18:35:002752Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—That is what I thought it was, but I did not have the act in front of me so I could not check. That being the case, the opposition is not opposed to these amendments.Amendment agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Newman) agreed to:(2) Page 334 (after line 3), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 14—Amendment of the Social Security Act 1991 relating to minimum age for youth allowance1 Paragraph 543A(2A)(p)Repeal the paragraph, substitute:(p) is receiving Commonwealth funded intensive assistance for jobseekers or State, Territory or community provided case management approved by the Secretary or, where no intensive assistance or case management place is available to the person, is suitable for and agrees to undertake intensive assistance or case management; or10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to government request No. 4, which deals with schedule 9.18:36:002752Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(4) Schedule 9, page 227 (after line 3), after Part 4, insert:Part 4A—Amendment relating to child disability allowance106A After subparagraph 953(b)(iii)Insert: (iiia) the child receiving youth allowance; orThis amendment is beneficial. It is designed to remedy a minor unintended consequence. It relates to qualification for child disability allowance. The intention is that a disabled young person who previously received Austudy but who will now receive youth allowance can still be a person in respect ofwhom CDA is payable. Due to an oversight in the youth allowance bill, such a child would have missed out on CDA and this amendment remedies the oversight. There are no financial implications from the amendment; it is merely a technical correction to make sure the new youth allowance package of legislation operates as it was intended and within the extent of the original costings for the bill.18:37:002752Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition will be supporting this amendment. I am interested in the minister saying that there are no financial implications. I would have thought that if, previously, without this amendment, the parents of children receiving Austudy could not receive the child disability allowance then there would have been some savings. There must, accordingly, be a change by allowing them to receive both again.18:38:002752Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—They could receive both before. It was assumed by all of us that they were still going to do that and then it was found that they had been disen franchised as to the CDA. The costings had been expected to be the same.18:38:002753Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—So there has been a change, but it was never calculated because the effect of it was not realised.Request agreed to.18:38:002753Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:The House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 90 (lines 8 to 19), omit point 1067L-B2, substitute:Person who is not a long term income support student1067L-B2 If the person is not a long term income support student (see section 1067K), work out whether the person: (a) is a member of a couple (see section 4); and (b) has a dependent child (see subsections 5(2) to (9)).The person's maximum basic rate is the amount in column 3 of the table that corresponds to the person's situation as described in column 2 of the table.Table BA—Maximum basic rates (persons who are not long term income support students)Column 1 ItemColumn 2 Person's situationColumn 3 Rate1Does not have a dependent child$265.502Has a dependent child and is not a member of a couple$347.803Has a dependent child and is a member of a couple$291.60Note: The rates in column 3 are indexed annually in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).Opposition request No. 1, which has been circulated, has the following effect. Under the government's proposed point 1067L-B2, a person who is not a long-term income support student, who does not have a dependent child and who lives at home, has a maximum Austudy payment of $174 per fortnight. Such a student in exactly the same circumstances but who does not live at home has a maximum rate of $265.50 per fortnight. The effect of our request for removing paragraph (a) of proposed point 1067L-B2, which refers to a student living at home, removes the lesser level of payment. Essentially, the effect of our request would be to allow that person over the age of 25 years living at home to receive the same maximum payment as a person living away from home. I understand that the government has already indicated that it will not oppose the request.18:40:002753Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats are supporting the amendment before us, but we have comparable amendments, as I believe do the Greens (WA). A number of us have pointed out in the chamber that the at-home rate anomaly in relation to the Austudy payment should be changed. I noted the comments by Senator Carr earlier in this debate today when he said that the at-home rate in this circumstance was a retrospective view.While I agree with the ALP's position and will be supporting it, I think it was interesting that he noted that it was a retrospective view. The government was not necessarily harking back to an earlier era—be it the 1950s, the 1960s or even the 1970s—but I believe that the change was actually instituted in the 1990s by the former government. However, the Democrats will be supporting the amendment before us.18:41:002753Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is going to be further debate on the issue of 24- and 25-year-olds later on. I think some deals have been done and some compromises have been reached in the course of preparing for this debate. In the end, we might have a situation where we have discrimination on the basis of star signs—with Sagittarians not getting assistance and Capricorns getting assistance. Perhaps we will have equal opportunity cases based on unfair discrimination based on star signs, with one month or one day making all the difference between one person and another.The reality is not particularly good. The debate will define itself a little later on but, in effect, quite a lot of people will miss out. A number of people in our society will continue to say that the deals that have been reached as a result of this legislation were unfair in the main, however, we will agree to this particular amendment.Request agreed to.18:43:002754Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—It may help the chamber to know at this stage that the next six amendments—one from the Democrats and five from the opposition—are agreed to by the government.18:43:002754Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—We have not withdrawn or moved our amendments, so I can still speak to them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is correct.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—The Greens requests Nos 1 and 2 on sheet 979 attempted to remove the distinction between living at home and living away from home for the purposes of determining the maximum rate of payment for a person over the age of 25. Later amendments sought to achieve this for the new 25-and-over Austudy payment. Currently, about 1,000 students aged over 25 live with their parents.The current Austudy system, quite sensibly, makes no demarcation between over-25s living away home and those remaining at home. The current maximum rate for these students—providing they are not long-term income support students, in which case they receive more—is $265.39. However, under the provisions of this consequential bill, from 1 July their payment will be reduced to $174.80 literally overnight. Most of these people have no idea that such a change is coming. In fact, no-one apart from a few people in the Department of Social Security knew this themselves until March this year. A lot of people, obviously tightly budgeting on their existing meagre payments, would find themselves kicked in the teeth as a result of that $90 per fortnight reduction, which would cause confusion, anxiety and real financial hardship. But this government itself obviously recognises that those aged over 25 years are financially independent from their parents. The Greens (WA) argued vigorously during the debate on the youth allowance bill that people should be considered independent at 18 for the purpose of student assistance, as they are under just about every other law in society. Nevertheless, even using the government's definition of `independence at the age of 25', the logic of applying a different rate of payment to those who happen to live at home is entirely inconsistent.Let us look at whom we are considering whacking with this reduction in payment. For many of those people their parents may be elderly. They might be on an age pension or living on superannuation payments. Perhaps they can put their hands in their pockets—I do not think so. What sense is there in reducing the amount they can contribute to the family home? We might have a situation where they will have to go cap in hand to elderly parents as of 1 July. We would like to amend this bill to remove the artificial distinction between over-25s living at home and those living away from home as well as amending the `yet to be proclaimed' youth allowance bill. It might well be the case that we do not have to move our `break glass in case of emergency' grandfathering amendments. We will look carefully at the outcomes of this bill to see whether that is going to be necessary.18:47:002754Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On that point I might ask the minister what rationale the government puts forward for making the distinction to which Senator Margetts just referred—the notion that people over 25 would somehow not be eligible and those under 25 would be in relation to access to the living allowance. I am wondering if there is information that the government can show to the chamber that somehow a single adult over the age of 25 is not deserving of a living allowance. Why is there that distinction in the ages?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—Senator Stott Despoja, would you care to move Democrat amendment No. 1? I think the minister might respond to queries at the end of the process.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—That is fine. I am happy to move amendment No. 1 on sheet 982. I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 14 (line 4), at the end of subsection (4), add "but the Secretary may approve, in particular cases, an allowable study time of up to four times the minimum period in which it is possible to complete the course as a full-time student".I understand the minister is going to indicate support for the amendment; is that right?18:48:002755Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The request that was just passed by the chamber was in virtually the same form as the Democrats-GWA amendment, which I would have thought was no longer relevant.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—We are not talking about the requests; we are talking about the amendments. We are on to the next page.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Therefore you need to move your amendment, don't you?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Stott Despoja, my understanding was the question that you asked of the minister related to the previous requests and not to your current amendment.18:49:002755Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Yes, that is right. In the same way that Senator Margetts commented on the issue of the age distinction and the at-home rate, I was asking a question in the committee stage. You then asked me to move my amendment, which does relate to a different issue, and I just moved that. I am happy to wait for an answer to my question on a much broader issue in another stage of the committee process. I am looking for clarification from the minister that she would be supporting it, and then I would like to briefly address that amendment.Progress reported.Documents2755275518:51:002755Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.Looking through this document, I see it is a report prepared by Justice Peter Gray and is his last report as Aboriginal Land Commissioner. I note in correspondence at the back of this report that the manner of His Honour's sending off from his work as a commissioner was not as gracious as it may have been. There was a difference between him and the government about the interpretation of a particular section of the relevant act. That is a pity because Justice Gray is a person of great legal ability—he is a great judge—and of undoubted integrity. It is a pity that there was that hiccup, if you like, in his final days as Aboriginal Land Commissioner.Mr Justice Gray was respected highly when he was a barrister at the Melbourne bar. I know he was highly respected as a judge. I commend him on the work he did in the Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner.I note that this report was produced by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. That body has not fared as well out of the budget as it might. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was established on the initiative of the Hon. Gerry Hand when he was minister for Aboriginal affairs.The concept he had of ATSIC was that it should take the initiative as far as possible—and consistent with the constitution and the sort of nation we are—in developing Aboriginal policy. This body is less than 10 years old. I would suggest that it still needs time to take on board all that needs to be taken on board to make it a near perfect body. To start to take certain powers away from it at this stage I think is poor policy. It is not the sort of policy that this body deserves to have applied to it. In any event, that is what has happened. There are two concerns that this report raised. The first is that Mr Justice Gray was sent away—I am not saying that his commission was in any way cut off—perhaps less graciously than he might have been. The second is that we must give the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission the full support that it deserves and the time it needs to mature into the sort of body it is going to become if it is not stymied in its efforts.Question resolved in the affirmative.275618:56:002756Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.It would be a shame to see this document go through without being noted. It is an attractively set out document. It sets out the strategic direction for the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The headings in the documents are: `Goal 1: Documents', `Goal 2: Partnerships', and `Goal 3: People's Movement'. It also shows the members of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. It shows the strength of that body and the need for us as a parliament to take account of what it does. It is proper that we take account of this document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.275618:58:002756Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report sets out the results of the 29th meeting of UNESCO and Australia's participation in that conference. A common frame of reference before this particular conference was the issue of globalty—that is an interesting new word. In particular, the conference called attention to the hundreds of millions of humans who are being denied access to education.I think it is particularly appropriate to focus on education tonight as students all over the country are participating in a candlelight vigil to protest against funding cuts. I would also like to draw to the attention of the Senate the weight of international agreement on the rights and responsibilities of education. The Director-General of UNESCO, Frederico Mayor, commenting on 50 years of education, stated:The real and urgent threats to peace and international security are exclusion, poverty and underdevelopment and all the woes that accompany them. Yet, yesterday as today, education is among the best responses—sometimes the only response that society has to offer: education for all, education for development, education for justice and liberty and peace.I have spoken on many occasions about the government induced decline in the value of Australian education. Here I would like to set out the basic obligations that I believe Australia has as a member of the global family and the obligations we have undertaken for education locally and globally. Fifty years after UNESCO was established is an appropriate time to reflect on what has been achieved and restate the fundamental education right. This is particularly important after another budget which has not redressed the savage cuts we have seen to education across Australia.In addition, the government has pursued us all with the need for change and flexibility. In some cases they have actually imposed change upon our community. In every situation education is the best means and preparation for dealing with unknown challenges. Unfortunately, this government has not maintained the same commitment to education, and that is education at all levels from primary, secondary and post secondary, right through to adult education and retraining.Australia does have an accepted commitment to education as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration made education a right for everyone. By this declaration we recognise: firstly, that education shall be free, that at least in the elementary and fundamental stages, elementary education shall be compulsory, that technical and professional education shall be made generally available and that higher education should be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit; and, secondly, that education shall be directed to the full devel opment of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.UNESCO was established to put these very rights into effect. In 1946 the constitution of UNESCO actually proclaimed:The State Parties [believe] in full and equal opportunities for education for all.. . . . . . . . .Give fresh impulse to popular education and to the spread of culture . . . by instituting collaboration among the nations to advance the ideal of equality of educational opportunities without regard to race, sex or any distinctions, economic or social.These are visionary statements and they are worthy of fulfilment. There is a range of international agreements that have reasserted the basic rights to education. They include among many—and I have at least nine, but I do not think I can speak fast enough to include them—declarations such as the Declaration of the Right of the Child adopted by the General Assembly in November 1959, which actually states:The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory.There are a number of other international covenants and conventions on the rights of various groups, including children, but I will not read them out. There is a significant array of international consensus on the issue of education.The message to the government, any government, is clear: education is and should be a top priority. It should not be massively cut in the way that we have seen in recent budgets, including massive cuts to university operating grants, cuts which total around six per cent over four years. If we factor in NTU wage claims, those cuts are much more excessive than that, and a number of cuts have seen a sharp decline in education in this country. Cuts to student assistance, like Austudy and Abstudy, have made it more difficult for many people to undertake or to continue study.The irony is that many of these cuts need not have taken place, as we have seen in the last 24 hours. The budget surplus is indeed plentiful and we are looking at something like $3 billion worth of cuts which should never have been made, and many groups should not have been affected as adversely and as negatively as they have been, including the education sector. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, as I could speak on this issue for a longer period of time. But I do wish to commend to honourable senators the UNESCO report; it is one worth reading.Leave granted; debate adjourned.275719:03:002757Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.It is an important day for issues of peace and disarmament, as I mentioned earlier. We have been asked today to respond to the multilateral treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty, signed in September 1996. I was reminded of the fact that it is very relevant to what has happened in the last few days or what has been reported to have happened in the last few days in relation to underground testing from India. Nobody will put their hand up and say that what India has undertaken is acceptable in this day and age.I am very concerned, however, at the role Australia may have taken in what has happened over the last few days. The role goes back to the situation at that time in 1996 when Australia was involved in various negotiations on peace and disarmament, including not just the comprehensive test ban treaty but the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I looked back to question 190 that I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill, on 31 October 1996. Part of that question states:Does the current CTBT text contain an entry into force provision that requires all 44 named countries, including India, Pakistan and Israel, to sign the treaty before it enters into force . . . The answer states:The CTBT adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and opened for signature on 24 September 1996 will enter into force 180 days after the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification by all 44 states listed in the treaty, including the five nuclear weapon states and India, Pakistan and Israel, but in no case earlier than two years after the treaty's opening for signature.I also asked:. . . has India refused to sign the treaty due to the lack of a timetable for disarmament or timetable for negotiations for disarmament.What was referred to there was the timetable for those nuclear weapon states, those that consider themselves different from anywhere else that they can insist the rest of the world not develop nuclear weapons or not move toward the development of nuclear weapons but are quite happy to get heavy handed with other countries, including Iraq, if they feel it is right for them to do so and are also quite happy to hold on to their own arsenal and weapons of mass destruction.In this particular case—did India refuse to sign due to that lack of a timetable for disarmament?—the answer was yes. If we have a situation where 44 named countries have to sign before the treaty becomes operative, that means that we have a comprehensive test ban treaty which cannot become operative until those other countries like the United States, Britain and France agree to actually move towards their own disarmament and not sit in their own nuclear towers and insist that everyone else in the world move towards weapons of mass destruction.The role that Australia played, I believe, was to play the game of the major weapons powers, to talk countries from the non-aligned countries, including Indonesia, into signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty even though it meant the comprehensive test ban treaty therefore was in danger of becoming inoperative, and that is exactly what we see. We can today say that India never signed the comprehensive test ban treaty. That is true. I am not saying that what they did was right; it is not and it was not. However, it could have been foreseen.I believe Australia played a role that we cannot afford to be proud of. I think we have to move in the future not only towards having Canberra conventions but also towards trying to make sure that those nuclear weapon states in the world really do move towards getting rid of their own weapons of mass destruction so that we can start putting pressure on the peripheral states and the threshold states to do the same.19:08:002758Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to add some remarks to those already spoken by Senator Margetts. The issue of nuclear weapons is obviously a very difficult one. Indeed, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, as you would know, in the past it has been a very emotional issue indeed. It still is, although perhaps not as emotional as it once was. Clearly, the fewer weapons that there are in the world, whether nuclear or otherwise, the better it is. We have found with our own gun policy in Australia that the fewer guns there are the better it is. War is a very destructive exercise no matter how it is conducted. I see that Senator McGauran is in the chamber. He has recently seen places where there has been war, not with nuclear weapons but with more conventional ones. He would bear out that that leaves a most destructive legacy. There is criticism to be made, as Senator Margetts has said. I think it was Harold Macmillan who once said that it was better to jaw-jaw than war-war. That was a long time ago, probably before Senator Forshaw was conscious of what was going on in the world, and before you were too, Madam Acting Deputy President. Unfortunately, in terms of age, I can remember it quite clearly. Be that as it may, a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty is a good thing. With all its faults, it is a good thing. The more the world talks—we talk about a global village and about a globalisation of the economy, and all of that is true—about banning weapons and the more we talk about banning war the more likely it is that we will avoid it. A lot of the heat has gone out of the world since the end of the Cold War, although what has been substituted for that has been a lot more battles amongst nations on the basis of nationality than there used to be. It would be a terrible thing if that sort of war was fought in any way by nuclear weapons. Although the emotion that used to be there has modified a bit because we do not have the two super powers—we only have one—the issue of nuclear weapons is still a very great issue given the fact that nations are still fighting each other. India has been criticised, and justifiably so. They have said, `As soon as we've tested these weapons, we're happy to sign a treaty and then of course we'll never use them,' but Pakistan and other countries get worried about that. It is important that we have a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, as was done in New York on 10 December 1996. It is not going to bring perfection and it is not going to bring that peace we want, but it is better to have the process than not.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment275910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.275919:12:002759Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise tonight on a topic which is of longstanding interest to me, and that is the area of information technology. Tonight I intend to continue a series of speeches on a theme that I started in the last session. We are indeed at the start of the information revolution, a revolution as important to change in the economy and in society as the Industrial Revolution was 170 years ago. One of the large emerging factors in this revolution that is coming about at a breathtaking pace at the moment is the whole world of e-commerce.E-commerce, or electronic commerce, is the selling of goods and services over the Internet. World wide this is expected to boom from $6 billion, which is the most recent figure in the international economy, to more than $300 billion in the year 2002. What is driving this electronic commerce is the incredibly rapid development of the Internet which, in terms of e-commerce usage, is doubling every 100 days world wide. People on the Internet who will have access to this electronic commerce are expected to increase by tenfold—that is, from 100 million people to one billion people—by 2005. That is roughly 20 per cent of the world's population. The rate of the expansion of this new technology and the commerce that it will drive is phenomenal. Just four years ago e-commerce usage of the Internet in the United States was being debated as they tried to work out what sorts of protocols and procedures could be used to trade in goods and services over the Internet. At that time the whole thing was a relatively new concept. How things have changed in just a very short time. Australia is really trying to catch up with this very rapidly developing global phenomenon.Recently in Canberra was the E-commerce Summit, organised by Minister Alston's Office of the Information Economy. It was held here several weeks ago in Parliament House and it drew a very impressive group of people from business, government and consumer groups, industrial leaders and people concerned with the regulation of industry. The summit was a very important step to get Australian business ready for e-commerce, ready to compete in this new information economy. Australia cannot afford, given its rapid development, to take a wait and see approach. We need to be gearing up very rapidly for this new economic revolution that is now flowing over the whole world.We can look to the US for the very broad effect of the information revolution, and it already points the way to Australia's economic future. In the US, the Internet accounts for one-third of real growth in their economy. Information technology industries have grown from four per cent to eight per cent of the US economy in the last decade. It has created seven million jobs in information technology and related industry.The interesting thing is that it is creating high wage jobs. The average wage, for example, in the United States is $28,000. In the information technology industry, the average wage is $44,000. So there is some very good news in the type of economy that is developing at this time. Some 45 per cent of business investment in the United States at the moment is in information technology, and it is up from three per cent just 15 years ago. The US believes the importance of this will tend to accelerate.At the E-commerce Summit, we had Mr Ira Magaziner, who is the special adviser to President Clinton on e-commerce. He had some very interesting things to tell us about the way in which this is developing in the United States currently. It is believed that business to business electronic commerce will grow from $6 billion per annum to $300 billion per annum by the year 2002. Retailing is one of the big areas that will be subject to rapid change in the immediate future.Already sales of things like books, clothing and real estate are gaining very rapid acceptance in this e-commerce world, but there will be a rapidly expanding range of products and services developed and delivered digitally from this point on. Things like software, music, movies, video games, insurance policies, banking, consulting services, education, medical diagnostic services and news services are just some of the things that will be transported digitally in this new world of electronic commerce. Significantly, Ira Magaziner said that he believed that this will drive world economic growth for the next 25 years. If he is right, the e-commerce revolution will create the largest and longest boom in world economic history.Magaziner said that the United States had five principles it used when setting its policy in examining the information economy. These are principles which Australians should consider very carefully and should be debating very vigorously at this point in time. Some of these principles, if put into place, would certainly have some very big upsides economically, but socially, for some of the groups in our economy, there could be some fairly significant downsides. We are moving into a totally new world, and we are moving into it very rapidly. So this debate, in terms of these principles, should occur right now.I want to outline the five principles that he said were driving Internet policy in the United States. The first principle is that the private sector should lead Internet growth. They have found that government structures in this new world where change is so rapid often get in the way and do not have the flexibility to respond to the changes that are needed to let this e-commerce sector grow at a pace at which it is capable of growing.The second principle is that the whole area should be market driven. It should not be a regulated area. Regulation is hard obviously not only because of its international dimensions but also because of the convergence of the technologies involved in e-commerce and the way in which our structures currently tend to segment different markets which in the e-commerce world will all merge into one. Other things in the technology area are changing as well. Where there were certain limits, particularly created by bandwidth on the Internet, new technology means that all these barriers will come down as well. His claim is that government, in its regulations, can get in the way.The third principle is that any government intervention that does exist should be minimal. The fourth principle is the need to take heed of the medium that we are dealing with. We are not dealing just with big businesses often in this e-commerce world. We are dealing with a whole range of smaller organisations in a very decentralised structure. So, to have this whole market work properly, you need as much flexibility to allow smaller players in a wide range of sites to be able to develop their businesses with as little hindrance as possible.His final principle relating to e-commerce was related to its global nature and the need to remove, particularly between countries, not only tariff but also non-tariff trade barriers. He sees that the Internet and its trade should be free of any customs duties—and he advocates world trade organisations making electronic transmissions free of customs duty—that any taxation should be tax neutral and that no discriminatory tax should be placed against the Internet.What I have outlined to date indicates a number of things about e-commerce which should raise questions in people's minds. Seeing I am nearly out of time, I will continue the discussion of those principles tomorrow. These are things that should not necessarily be just accepted. In this new information age, we need to respond in an appropriate way. (Time expired)276119:22:002761Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—They came like thieves in the night. They came with balaclavas to hide their faces. They came with weapons and they came with vicious dogs. This is a scene that has been repeated in history many, many times. Fortunately, our country has never had to witness it, until recently. It is the sort of thing that happened in Europe during the 1940s. It is the sort of thing that happened in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in Eastern Europe. It is what happened in 1956 in Hungary. It is what happened in 1968 in Czechoslovakia. It is what happened in Argentina and Chile. It is what happened in China. It is the symbol of oppression of people's rights and, sadly, just prior to Easter, it happened here on the ports around Australia.The symbolism is ironic. Guard dogs, men in balaclavas, weapons in the middle of the night. And it happened right on the eve of Easter, the time when most democratic nations in the world celebrate one of the most significant events in the history of Christianity, the death and resurrection of Christ. On this occasion, the irony is quite significant because what we had was the employer, Patrick, on the eve of the Easter holidays and with the full support and connivance of the John Howard government, engaging in an illegal and deceitful action to destroy a trade union.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Make your biblical comparisons.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I have referred to history. I have referred to the importance of trade unions in history and I will refer to the importance of religious organisations in history, because what Senator McGauran refuses to accept and understand is that, in all democratic societies throughout history, it is often the trade union movement and the organised churches that are first attacked whenever despots or tyrants take over. Why are they attacked? They are attacked because they represent the fundamental right of human beings to assemble peacefully in collective organisations, such as trade unions, or to follow their religious beliefs in recognised free churches and religious organisations. If the symbolism and the comparisons with the anti-democratic regimes of other parts of the world, particularly Europe, are something that Senator McGauran does not want to hear about, then certainly it demonstrates how sensitive he is on this issue.The liberalisation of Eastern Europe—I will explain this for Senator McGauran's benefit, but I am sure he knows this—actually began with the struggle of a trade union movement, Solidarity, to establish itself in Poland as a legitimate organisation. Similarly, the apartheid regime of South Africa—which was supported by many people who preceded people from Senator McGauran's party and this government—was defeated because of organisations like COSATU, the trade union movement in that country that struggled so long against oppression.Similarly, we still have these struggles going on today—in Indonesia, for instance. It was not so long ago that even in the greatest democracy in the world—the United States—the farm workers had to struggle to survive. I can recall in my early days in the trade union movement in this country in the 1970s reading about and then subsequently visiting America to meet Cesar Chavez. Cesar Chavez started an organisation for the US farm workers, which the conservative government in California at that time and the major employers in the farming industry—particularly the fruit industry—set out to destroy. Trade union officials were murdered because they stood up for the right of an organisation to exist and enrol workers.The situation is this. What we have here is nowhere near the excesses that occurred then, and I accept that. But, unfortunately, what we have here is a government that is so hell-bent on destroying a trade union that it is prepared to support the sending in, as I said, of men in balaclavas in the middle of the night with guard dogs in order to sack workers. Many workers were sacked that night. In total, 2,000 workers working on the waterfront were dismissed. Members of the government have claimed that they are not setting out to destroy a trade union, but listen to the rhetoric. Go back and study the words they have used. In the months leading up to this event, we had Peter Reith continuously standing up in the parliament and everywhere else labelling every person who worked on the waterfront as a greedy thug, as a greedy, lazy bludger. They were the words that Peter Reith used time and time and time again to talk about decent Australian people. No proof. No evidence. He just categorised them all as greedy, lazy bludgers, turned them into scapegoats and tried to turn the rest of the Australian community against them. He tried to blame them for all of the economic ills of this country. That is what they have said, and they have continued to do it. They tried to make out by distorting the figures that they all earned $90,000 a year and did little or no work.I happen to know a person who worked on the waterfront. I know a few, but I know one in particular who is a neighbour of mine. I will not name him because I do not particularly want to get into those sorts of personal details, but I know this about him. Firstly, he is a hardworking, decent Australian. Secondly, he has worked on the waterfront for 18 years. Thirdly, he has got a wife and three children. And, fourthly, he is not even a member of the wharfies' union. He was a supervisor working on the wharves. He was a member of the supervisors union, not the MUA. They were not on strike. They had an enterprise agreement with Patricks. He was sacked. He was telephoned at home and told he did not have a job anymore.There were 600 workers other than those in the MUA who were sacked. They were innocent of any crime. They were innocent of any illegal or legal industrial activity. They were busy doing their jobs on the waterfront and they were sacked. What was John Howard's response when this was put to him? John Howard said on TV—and these are his exact words—`Well, they're all in the MUA and innocent people get affected.' That is true: innocent people get affected, particularly in events like wars or other catastrophes. But innocent people get affected when tyrannical governments ignore the fundamental rights of their citizens as this government has done. In its ideological obsession to set out to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia, it has ignored the fundamental rights of those people, and hundreds upon hundreds of innocent people and their families have been affected.John Howard and Peter Reith should wake up, understand their obligation to the Australian community and set about negotiating the issue of waterfront reform in a democratic way, and not have to rely upon the methods of despots and tyrants.276219:32:002762Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I acknowledge Senator Forshaw's comments when he talked about some of the great events of this century being brought about by the union movement. I referred earlier to education and should acknowledge tonight the National Union of Students. Members of the student union are in the gallery this evening and hopefully are bringing about similar progressive change in education in this country—but with this government, I never know.I wish tonight to address an education issue of grave importance. Last year, some senators in this place may recall the issue of HECS places being sacrificed to introduce places for domestic up-front fee paying places. This issue actually arose when minutes—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What about P&O?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—No, P&O were not involved in this crisis, Senator McGauran.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Hey, Forshaw, what about P&O?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! Senator McGauran, you have been persistently interjecting and I think I have been more than tolerant, but I will not continue to be tolerant if you continue to interject.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I am talking about the issue of HECS places being replaced by those for full fee paying domestic students. Minutes from the University of Sydney's Faculty of Veterinary Science board meeting of 5 March were presented to an estimates committee. These minutes detailed the faculty's plans to drop its first year HECS intake to 67 places from a planned 83. The minutes stated:From 1997 the quota for Year 1 HECS-paying students has been changed to 65 in order to accommodate a mixture of 25 prospective International and Australian Fee-paying students from 1998.That statement appears on page 3 of the minutes. The statement demonstrates blatant disregard of the government's claim that fee paying students would not displace HECS places.When this was brought to the attention of the former Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Vanstone, we received a rather feeble response. I quote from a response to a question on notice to the estimates committee:The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney has advised that the University has reduced its first year intake for Veterinary Science in 1997 from 83 to 67 students because of concerns over the high drop out rate in the course.The minister was happy with this explanation that was given and, at least to my knowledge, has accepted the lower HECS load. From my inquiries, I gather that the current first year is comprised of 69 HECS and 19 domestic up-front fee paying students. The minutes stated that the faculty was planning for a mixture of 25 international and domestic fee paying students this year but, given previous enrolment trends, I find it hard to believe that the international student intake would be as low as six. However, we have been unable to find out just how many international students are enrolled at the University of Sydney to substantiate, or otherwise, those comments. In light of this, I find the response from the university and the seeming lack of interest by the minister and the department in this matter of great concern.That concern has been compounded now by a letter that I received, as has the current Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), from Ms Avril Baird. Over the last nine years, Ms Baird has strived to fulfil her desire to work with animals through a number of academic pursuits as well as through her work with the development of animal courses in the TAFE sector involving collaborative programming and work with a veterinary teaching hospital. Her academic record is a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture and a Master's research degree from the Faculty of Veterinary Science (Sydney).Despite her completion of the Master's in the same area at the same institution, Avril's application to gain a HECS placement in the undergraduate veterinary science course this year was not successful. This, in itself, is unusual enough to warrant further attention from the minister. But her story gets even more interesting.When the first round placements were announced, Avril Baird made an appointment with the Dean of the Faculty, Professor David Fraser, to discuss the possibility of her receiving a second round offer. After this meeting, it was agreed by the professor that they would investigate the possibility, but apparently no definite undertaking was given that her application would be successful.A few days later, on 3 February, apparently while picking up her dog from the University of Sydney veterinary hospital, Ms Baird was approached by Dr William Porges, the Associate Dean, Professional and Community Relations, at this same faculty. Until this time, Dr Porges had never initiated a conversation with Ms Baird. To her knowledge, he was not aware that she had applied to gain a placement in the undergraduate veterinary science course. Dr Porges indicated that she would receive a letter shortly, and in fact indicated his surprise that she had not already been contacted. After this conversation, Avril Baird believed that her application had been accepted and that at last, as she said in her letter to me, `My life's ambition was going to be fulfilled.'That Friday, 6 February, the newspapers did not have Ms Baird's name in the second round of offers and she was understandably quite devastated. She rang the university application centre who confirmed that she had not received an offer. Her application was refused. Avril Baird has since approached the student ombudsman and has appealed against the decision, but was informed by Ros Pesman, chair of the academic board, that:Because there are only some 20 to 30 HECS places available for category B students each year and some two to three hundred applicants, competition for the places is very very strong with the result that many students with outstanding records and very high motivation fail to gain a place. Your ranking was not sufficiently high for you to qualify for one of the Category B places.Ms Baird wrote to the vice-chancellor seeking clarification as to the events which had occurred. She wanted to be told why she had not got a place, why she could finish a Masters of Veterinary Science in that faculty and yet not be accepted into the undergraduate degree. The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Gavin Brown, wrote back to Miss Baird after seeking advice from the Dean, Professor Fraser. In his response dated 27 March, the vice-chancellor stated the `objective criteria' for applicants with a tertiary record may be `supplemented by the more subjective criteria of a demonstrated commitment to veterinary science where relevant information is supplied.'The vice-chancellor stated that Dr Porges was one of the staff that the dean had contacted who `erroneously concluded that this inquiry indicated that your application had been successful'. The vice-chancellor apologised for this `simple but unfortunate misunderstanding' and reaffirmed the decision of the faculty.I share the concerns of Miss Baird regarding the responses of both the academic board and the vice-chancellor. First, there is some question as to whether or not the `objective criteria' has been fully investigated. This is stated by the vice-chancellor and also by the academic board who found that her `ranking was not sufficiently high.'My understanding is that Miss Baird submitted her thesis for her masters research degree to the University of Sydney on 20 August 1997. This had not apparently been accounted for in her assessment as a candidate for the bachelor's degree. Secondly, and still on the objective criteria, Miss Baird's ranking has been based on her grade point average of a lesser degree, that is, her Bachelor of Agricultural Science has been used to arrive at that objective criteria ranking. This grade point average of 4.45 out of a possible seven gives Miss Baird a rank of 81. It will probably give Miss Baird no comfort to learn that another student did enter the Bachelor of Veterinary Science who was also assessed on a bachelor degree with a grade point average of 3.94 out of the possible seven or a ranking of 74—that student made it in.It would appear that, contrary to the claim of the academic board, Avril's ranking was sufficiently high. The only real defence left that the university could put up would be what Vice-Chancellor Professor Brown termed `subjective criteria', that is, as he stated, her application `may be supplemented by the more subjective criteria of a demonstrated commitment to veterinary science where relevant information is supplied'. Clearly, from her nine years working towards not only entrance in the degree but working in this field, through her work with TAFE, et cetera, Miss Baird has demonstrated this commitment.What is of concern here is that the vice-chancellor indicates that the confusion has arisen because Dr Porges was one of several staff members that the Dean, Professor Fraser, consulted to investigate Miss Baird's subjective criteria. Miss Baird included in her application several referees who were both staff members of the faculty and who had worked closely with her. The dean did not approach these people.As indicated by the uniqueness of Dr Porges actually initiating a conversation with Miss Baird, he has little to do with her professionally or academically and was definitely not used as a referee by Miss Baird. So why then has this process been followed? Why has the application of Miss Baird not been given proper consideration, why has she not been given the benefit of having the information she supplied to back up her application being taken into consideration?I believe the crux of this issue is that this faculty is being pushed into pursuit of up-front fee payers at all costs and therefore due process has not been followed when deciding course offers. Perhaps another up-front fee payer came into contention and knocked Ms Baird out of the running. We will probably never know, but I believe that the minister should do his utmost to get to the bottom of this murky issue.I have a number of comments to follow. I have spoken to the opposition and to the representative of the government on duty to ask whether I may seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my remarks which go on to reveal the real intrigue. I request the government to act on this issue. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my remarks.Leave granted.The remarks read as follows—While the Minister is investigating Miss Baird's situation, he might want to take note of other disturbing events taking place in this Faculty and around the country where fee paying is concerned.Allegations of preferential treatment for fee-paying students at this university, and in this faculty, are not new.Some of the most recent were broadcast on ABC radio National some weeks ago.Dr. Paul Hopwood, lecturer at the University of Sydney in Veterinary Anatomy has claimed that he has substantial evidence, which supports the theory that the University of Sydney is giving fee-paying students an unfair advantage over HECS students.In August of 1997, Dr Paul Hopwood noticed a new overseas feepaying student in his first year class, who had been admitted to the course more than half way through the academic year.He stated `In 25 years within this faculty, it, to the best of my knowledge, has never happened before. It's a little strange that a course that has already had part of the work examined, for a course that requires attendance at a large number of dissection classes, for a student to be enrolled half-way through that course, is more than enough to make you raise your eyebrows'.When asked by Radio national's Tom Morton, what the problem with a student beginning a course half-way through the academic year was, he replied `Well, the problem would be that half of the teaching material has already been presented and because the teaching material is based on animal dissection work, it's very difficult for a student to be able to cover the material.'The University of Sydney's rules state that a student must attend 90% of lectures in order to pass a subject, unless they can show due cause why they should be exempted. Dr. Paul Hopwood believes that this student was given special treatment, his response to this was, and I quote,`I think this is obvious: not only does such a late enrolment advantage a student, I mean they don't have to find accommodation or other costs that the other students completing a full year have to go through, but this student would not be capable of completing the work without special tuition, and the University provided, to my direct knowledge, the services of two tutors at University expense. Whereas Australian HECS students don't receive these benefits.'After further examination of the overseas student's academic transcript, he discovered that the student had absolutely no training which might have been relevant to the course he was teaching.He said, `The course was being taught based on the dissection of the dog. As you would appreciate, veterinary practitioners routinely operate on cats and dogs, it's a substantial part of their training, and this student had no anatomical training on dog.'This was met by the following claims made by the Dean of Veterinary Science, who believed that the student in question deserved to be given credit for the work she'd already done at university overseas, and I quote;`The student had had experience in anatomy, human anatomy and human dissection so that that was one of the reasons for making this decision. And of course veterinary anatomy is simply comparative anatomy; the human anatomy is one species and the whole purpose of veterinary anatomy is to compare different species, and that was a very good grounding for the veterinary anatomy which was subsequently done'.In response, the lecturer Dr. Paul Hopwood is not satisfied with this X explanation.He is quoted as saying `Well unless you believe that veterinary surgeons should be operating on people, and human surgeons should be operating on dogs and cats I find that view rather amazing.'I guess the lure of as much as $26,000 + per year that an institution can gain from an international fee-paying student must be great in the face of the devastation that the Coalition's budget cuts to university operating grants of 6% over five years have created.These allegations made by Dr Hopwood, and the letter I received from Avril Baird must be responded to by the Minister as a matter of urgency.I find it disturbing that the penalty for breaching the 25% limit on domestic upfront fee places is $9,000. A figure far less than the potential profits of these places. However, the most disturbing factor of all has been the disinterest with which successive Government Minister's and University's such as the University of Sydney (and they are not alone in reduced their HECS load to increase the likelihood of fee-paying places) have treated apparent breaches of the edict not to sacrifice HECS places.The motto for Sydney Uni translates to `Same mind under a different sky' but the post Howard version might read `same mind under different rules'.276619:42:002766Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I would like to preface my speech tonight by extending my congratulations to my colleague and friend the Treasurer, Peter Costello, on a far sighted and responsible 1998-99 budget. I would like to acknowledge the thinking behind the budget, the commitment to the Australian people which underlies the budget strategy and the determination to share the burdens and the rewards which will give, as the Treasurer said, young people, home buyers, small business and job seekers better opportunities and a bright future. It will allow us to care for our older people and give hope to the younger ones.This evening I wish to return to the main theme of my maiden speech: the reliance of many Australians on welfare and the growth of the welfare culture in our country. Just 20 years ago in 1978, spending on welfare in Australia was about 27 per cent of the national budget. That percentage has now risen to nearly 39 per cent—a massive increase in 20 years. This escalation clearly cannot continue. It is imperative that it is reigned in not only because of hard economic realities, but also because of the massive social cost of welfare in our community.The values which underpin Australia's culture are being attacked by the welfare mentality. No longer do some people have the same cocky self-confidence which has characterised this nation for so long. Instead, they look desperately to government to solve their problems, to hold their hands and to pay their bills. Last financial year, an additional 130,000 people became dependent on government payments. One in five Australians over 20 is now dependent on welfare, and that does not include those in receipt of an age pension. Forty-three per cent of all Australian children now live in a family that relies on welfare—a jump of more than 10 per cent in the last five years and something, surely, that no political party can condone or support.I believe that the best thing you can do for someone on welfare is to help get them off welfare. The whole purpose of the social welfare system was supposed to be a safety net to prevent people falling into poverty and despair. Instead, for many, it has become a sticky web trapping people in poverty and despair. The culture of dependency eats at your confidence, bites into your being, poisons all hope. This is a downward spiral. Formerly self-reliant people fall into a poverty trap as the social welfare system and the taxation system conspire to make it impossible to get out. It is often better to stay on welfare or on a very low income supplemented by welfare, than it is to try to work your way out of it and become self-supporting again. This is simply not good enough. What messages are we giving our children, what ethics will they learn, what values will they believe in?Our children will learn that in some families it is financially better not to work, and so they will not. A recent study has found that a family with one child and a single income of $20,000 had more disposable income than a similar family earning $30,000. Welfare boosted the first families' $20,000 to $28,427. The family earning $30,000 received fewer benefits and ended up with $26,697—nearly $2,000 less than the lower income family. The extra $10,000 per year in salary translated to a net loss of $40 a week, or an effective tax rate of $240 on earnings of $200—a marginal tax rate of 120 per cent.This problem is recognised by the government, if not the opposition. As the Treasurer said last night, with some understatement, I believe:The interaction of the tax and social security systems reduces the incentive to find work or to earn more.As the head of the Audit Commission, Professor Bob Officer observed:It becomes the culture to rely on the government. Welfare encourages dependency and often leads to false claims.' Look at the results of the Minister for Social Security's recent crackdown on social security fraud and compliance: 1,319 convictions for welfare fraud—an increase of almost 20 per cent over the same period last year.Since July 1996, some $600 million, or nearly $1.1 million per day, has been recovered for the taxpayers. In addition, nearly 200,000 people had payments cancelled or reduced in the first six months of the financial year—a massive increase of 25.4 per cent over the same period in the previous year. Claiming unemployment benefits whilst in jail, on holidays overseas, or whilst actually working on the snowfields is a well-documented phenomenon. Nearly $120 million—almost half of all debt recovery from reviews—came from the allegedly unemployed. Ripping off the government, which is what a lot of these people think they are doing, is supposedly okay. The reality is that it is not the government that they are ripping off. It is their neighbours, their friends and their family.We all need to acknowledge the mutual obligation—the give and take—inherent in society and in the social security system. We need to combine fairness and compassion for the genuinely needy with the imperative to help people off the culture of dependency and into an environment of self-reliance; and this government is putting in place the mechanisms to assist with this very necessary attitudinal change.We have introduced work for the dole—the quintessential example of mutual obligation in action—and other programs to help young people improve their job prospects. The budget is full of examples to assist those in genuine need. We can only afford the fair and effective social security system that we need if we have a healthy economy and this government—as our actions and this week's budget are showing—is achieving that.Look at employment. What this government has delivered on employment is fantastic. Even with 35,000 extra people joining the labour market last month, unemployment in this country has fallen to 7.9 per cent.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You sacked 12,000 locally in Canberra—oh sorry, I forgot, add another 2,000 or 3,000 to that. That is what we are dealing with—you cause unemployment.FQ6Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNON—It is all right for you to interject, Kate Lundy, but under your government unemployment reached 11.3 per cent—over 1 million unemployed.We now have, at 7.9 per cent, the lowest unemployment rate since October 1990. Under this government, last month a total of 58,200 jobs were created—42,500 of them were full-time but you don't want to hear the good news, do you, Senator Lundy.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. Senator Lundy has been interjecting continually since the start of Senator Synon's remarks, and I ask that you call her to order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—I have been aware of Senator Lundy's interjection, but she hasn't been able to be heard and that is why I have not called her to order. But I would—FQ6Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNON—I have been hearing her, Madam Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I spoke very severely to Senator McGauran for continuous interjection because his voice was very penetrating and was disrupting the flow of the speech. I did not feel that was so in your case, Senator Synon, but I will ask Senator Lundy to cease interjecting. Please continue. FQ6Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNON—Thank you. A radical review of the links between the social welfare system and the taxation system must be a priority for this country. The government has demonstrated that the taxation system is broken, and I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for having the determination to confront this serious problem in the taxation system and for the development of a comprehensive plan for reform. Our plan will remove many of the incentives to stay on welfare built into the current taxation system.In closing, I would like to emphasise that the coalition believes in helping to get people off welfare. The ALP believes in keeping people dependent on welfare. We want all Australians to be—(Time expired)19:52:002768Senate adjourned at 7.52 p.m.Documents27682768The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act—Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Reports for 1996-97 and for the period 1 July 1997 to 24 October 1997.Australia-India Council—Report for 1996-97.Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act—Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—Strategic plan July 1998 to December 2000.Torres Strait Fisheries Act—Protected Zone Joint Authority—Report for— 1995-96. 1996-97.Treaties—Text, together with national interest analysis—Multilateral —Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, done at New York on 10 September 1996.UNESCO General Conference—29th session, Paris, 21 October to 12 November 1997—Report of the Australian Delegation.2768The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Acts Interpretation Act—Statement pursuant to subsection 34C(7) relating to the delay in presentation of a report—Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority Report for 1995-96.Aged Care Act—Determination under section 44—ACA No. 1/1998.Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 70.Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposals Nos 6-8 of 1998.Australian Communications Authority Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 62.Child Care Act— Child Care (Eligibility—New Allocations) Guidelines 1998. Child Care (High Need Regions) Determination 1998.Child Care Legislation Amendment Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 64.Christmas Island Act—Ordinance—No. 2 of 1998 (Land Laws Amendment Ordinance 1998). Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Directive—Part— 105, dated 13, 19 [6], 23 [6], 25 [5] and 27 [2] March; and 2 [2], 3 [2], 7 [5], 8 and 9 [21] April 1998. 106, dated 19 and 24 [3] March; and 3 [2], 7 and 9 April 1998. Exemptions Nos CASA 12/1998-CASA 16/1998. Instruments Nos CASA 79/98, CASA 84/98, CASA 103/98 and CASA 104/98.Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—Ordinance—No. 2 of 1998 (Land Laws Amendment Ordinance 1998).Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notice pursuant to paragraph 45(1)(a)—Establishment of the National Prescribing Service Limited.Copyright Act—Declaration under section 10A, dated 20 April 1998.Crimes Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 68.Customs Act— Instruments of Approval Nos 1, 3 and 4 of 1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 58.Defence Act— Defence Determinations 1998/16 and 1998/17. Defence Force (Superannuation) (Productivity Benefit) Determination (Amendment) (No. 2 of 1998). Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 60 and 63.Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Export Control (Fees) Orders (Amendment)—Export Control Orders No. 1 of 1998.Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 75.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 59.Financial Management and Accountability Act— Determination under section 20— Australian Archives Projects and Sponsored Activities Reserve. Financial Action Task Force—Asia Pacific Group Secretariat Reserve. PBPA—Factor (f) Funds Reserve. The Comcover Reserve. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 65. Fisheries Management Act—Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995—Direction No. NPFD 20 (Amendment of Direction No. NPFD 13).Health Insurance Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 67.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section— 15— T30-97 and T31-97. T9-98. 16—T29-97. 19—T10-98.Imported Food Control Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 69.Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 79.Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 77.Insurance Contracts Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 78.International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 66.Judiciary Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 61.Lands Acquisition Act—Statements describing property acquired by agreement under section 40 of the Act for specified public purposes [2].Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Order under section 68— Order No. M79/98. Order No. MQ72/98.Migration Act—Statement for period 1 July to 31 December 1997 under section 351.Military Superannuation and Benefits Act— Military Superannuation and Benefits Trust Deed (Amendment) (No. 1 of 1998). Military Superannuation and Benefits Trust Deed (Amendment) (No. 2 of 1998).Murray-Darling Basin Act—Murray-Darling Basin Agreement—Schedule E—Interstate Transfer of Water Allocations.National Health Act— Declarations Nos PB 6 and PB 7 of 1998. Determination— HIG3/1998. No. PB 8 of 1998. Private Patients' Hospital Charter—HIG2/1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 73. Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Horticultural Levy Act and Horticultural Export Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 74.Public Service Act— Foreign Affairs and Trade Determinations 1998/2 and 1998/3. Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1998/14-1998/18. Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1998/20-1998/25.Quarantine Act—Quarantine Determinations No. 1 of 1998.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determination No. 12 of 1998.Retirement Savings Accounts Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 82.Sales Tax Determination STD 98/1 (Addendum).Student and Youth Assistance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 71.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 76, 81 and 83.Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 84.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 2/98.Taxation Determinations TD 98/5-TD 98/7.Taxation Ruling— SST 9. TR 94/26 (Addendum). TR 98/5.Telecommunications Act— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 72. Telecommunications (Due Date for Annual Charge) Determination 1998. Telecommunications (Late Payment of Annual Charge) Determination 1998.Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act— Telecommunications (Amount of Annual Charge) Determination 1998. Telecommunications (Exemption from Annual Charge) Determination 1998.Therapeutic Goods Act— Determination under section 19A, dated 20 March 1998. Therapeutic Goods Order No. 61.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instrument under section— 29—Instrument No. 3 of 1998. 115B—Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme—Instrument No. 5 of 1998. 196B—Instruments Nos 25-36 of 1998.Proclamations2770Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified:Child Care Legislation Amendment Act 1998 —Provisions of the Act, other than sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 and items 16 and 17 of Schedule 1—27 April 1998 (Gazette No. S167, 20 April 1998).Insurance Laws Amendment Act 1998 —Schedule 1—30 April 1998 (Gazette No. S188, 29 April 1998).Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 —Act, except for Part 1—1 May 1998 (Gazette No. S187, 29 April 1998).Answers to Questions on Notice2771The following answers to questions were circulated:2771(Question No. 1027)10272771Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 5 December 1997:(a) What training or seminars for Canberra-based public servants employed by the department have occurred outside Canberra since March 1996; and (b) where has the training taken place.2771Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:According to records held by the Department of Finance and Administration:(a) (i) 52 Canberra-based staff attended Task Allocation and Planning Workshops; and (ii) 39 Canberra-based staff attended a Team Building Day.(b) (i) Lake George and Braidwood; and (ii) Goolabri Park, Sutton, NSW.2771(Question No. 1061)10612771Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 30 January 1998:(1) With reference to the application of the phrase `or his services having been otherwise terminated' (section 7(1) Superannuation Act 1976) to cessation of employment on health grounds of members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme: Can some actual examples be provided of the words which were used, and the sources of those words, to describe the manner in which the employment had been terminated (for example `ceased employment on invalidity grounds').(2) If an employer, which is in possession of an Australian Government Medical Officer's report and recommendation which indicates an employee is not fit to perform his or her duties, refuses to retire the employee but alternatively processes a resignation, does the Commissioner for Superan nuation `have a discretion' between paying a 66(1) benefit and a section 80 (resignation) benefit.2771Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Subsection 7(1) of the Superannuation Act 1976 provides: "7(1) A reference in this Act to the retirement of an eligible employee on the ground of invalidity shall be read as a reference to his or her having been retired or his or her services having been otherwise terminated, on the ground of physical or mental incapacity to perform his or her duties."Subsection 7(1) may be broken down as follows: "A reference in this Act to the retirement of an eligible employee on the ground of invalidity shall be read as a reference to: (i) an eligible employee having been retired on the ground of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties, or (ii) an eligible employee's services having been otherwise terminated on the ground of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties."The reason for there being two limbs in sub-s 7(1) is to ensure that the various forms of employment by which a person becomes an `eligible employee' within the meaning of sub-s.3(1) are brought within the ambit of sub-s 7(1). Sub-s 7(1) recognises that some sorts of eligible employees are retired whereas other sorts of eligible employees cannot properly be said to be retired but rather, have their services terminated.Specific examples of `eligible employees' who may have their services "otherwise terminated on the ground of physical or mental incapacity to perform his or her duties" are:. High Court of Australia Act 1979 "24.(1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar by reason of the misbehaviour or the physical or mental incapacity of the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar.". Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 "18.(1) The Governor-General may remove a non-executive Director from office for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity."(2) Retirement on the ground of invalidity is provided for in Part IVA of the Superannuation Act 1976. Section 54C provides that an eligible employee cannot be retired on the ground of invalidity without the approval of the CSS Board. The Commissioner for Superannuation no longer has any power with regard to invalidity retirement. Part IVA sets out the process that the CSS Board must follow in deciding whether to approve a retirement.Subsection 7(2) provides the CSS Board with a discretion to deem that the person be retired on the ground of invalidity where the person has ceased to be an eligible employee before attaining his or her maximum retiring age by reason of having been retired or his or her services having been otherwise terminated other than on the grounds of invalidity.2772(Question No. 1075)10752772O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 4 March 1998:(1) How many small businesses were there in Australia, by State, in December 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997.(2) With reference to the Minister's media release, dated 6 January 1998, which stated that the Government expected 40 000 new businesses to be created in 1998: Can a breakdown of that forecast growth by State be provided.2772Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No figures are available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for the month of December for the years requested. However, financial year figures are available in the ABS publication, Small Business in Australia, Cat.No.1321.0.(2) The estimate of 40,000 new businesses in the Minister's media release did not give a breakdown. The Government is confident that the very positive business environment for the small business sector will ensure that this "global" forecast is met.2772(Question No. 1077)10772772Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1998:With reference to a speech the Minister gave at the Australian College of Education Conference on 30 April 1997, in which the Minister announced that he would establish an expert group of top teachers to advise the Federal Government on key education policies:(1) Was this group of top teachers formed; if so: (a) when (b) what are the names of the teachers included in the group and the names of the organisations which recommended them; and (c) does any member of this group have a strong background in indigenous education.(2) On which education policy matters has the Minister consulted with the group.(3) What are some examples of how the Minister has utilised the advice given to him by this group of experts(4) Is it intended for the advisory group to continue.2772Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Membership of this teacher body is still under consideration. The organisations that have been asked to nominate possible members of the body are the:Australian Association for the Teaching of English; Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers; Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation; Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations; Australian Federation of Societies for Studies of Society and Environment; Australian Joint Council of Professional Teaching Associations; Australian Science Teachers' Association; National Affiliation of Arts Educators; National Education Forum; Primary English Teaching Association; Technology Education Federation of Australia; and Vocational Education and Training Network.It is intended that one member of the new body will have a strong background in indigenous education.(2) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.(4) It is intended that the initial appointments be for a period three years with a review of the membership and operation of the body toward the end of that period. 2773(Question No. 1079)10792773Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, on notice, on 9 March 1998:(1) Have any company injunctions been taken out under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 or the Trade Practices Act 1974 against protests and boycott actions by consumers, environmentalists or human rights activists whether individuals groups or body corporate; if so, can details be provided including a comparison of the number with action taken in previous years under the Industrial Relations Act 1988.(2) Has the Minister received any complaint since the promulgation of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the new sections 45D, 45DA and 45DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974, that the new Act has stifled environmental, human rights, spiritual, cultural, or consumer protest in any way; if so, can details be provided.2773Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Schedule 17 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendments Act 1996 (WROLA) introduced amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). Sections 45D, 45DA, 45DB, 45DC 45DD and 45DE, 45EA and 45EB were incorporated into the TPA and commenced on 17 January 1997 (the new boycott provisions). Relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (the IR Act) were repealed.Prior to the amendments made by WROLA, the provisions relating to boycott conduct in the industrial context were contained in Division 7 of Part VI of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (the IR Act). These provisions were inserted in the IR Act by the Industrial Relations Reform Act (IRR Act), which also repealed section 45E and amended section 45D of the TPA to exclude "boycott conduct" within the meaning of Division 7 of Part VI of the IR Act from its scopeWhile my department does not have direct responsibility for administering the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974, it has an informal role in monitoring actions taken under the boycott provisions. My department has no record of any instance where an injunction has been granted under the new boycott provisions of the TPA in instances involving protests and boycott actions by consumers, environmentalists or human rights activists whether individuals, groups or bodies corporate.The Assistant Treasurer has indicated that neither the Department of Treasury nor the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is aware of injunctions granted under the new boycott provisions of the TPA against any individual, group or body corporate in relation to protest or boycott action by consumer, environmentalist or human rights activists.In relation to the former Division 7, Part VI of the IR Act (i.e., as amended by the IRR Act), my department has no record of any instance where an injunction was granted in circumstances that could be described as protests and boycott action by consumers, environmentalists, or human rights activists.In relation to former sections 45D and 45E of the TPA prior to the commencement of the IRR Act in 1994, my department has records of nine cases where an injunction was granted in circumstances involving protests and boycott action that were taken by consumers environmentalists, or human rights activists. A list of these maters is attached.My department has no record of injunctions being granted under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WRA) in circumstances involving action by, environmentalists, consumer protection groups or human rights activists. The provisions of the WR Act authorising the issue of injunctions are concerned with various industrial maters (eg, enforcing orders made about industrial action, unfair and unlawful dismissal, and enforcing certain other provisions relating to industrial action, freedom of association, Australian Workplace Agreements, right of entry, strike pay, industrial election inquiries.)(2) I have no record of any complaints that boycott provisions of the TPA or the WR Act have in any way stifled environmental, human rights, spiritual, cultural or consumer protest. The Assistant Treasurer has also advised that neither he nor the Treasurer has received any complaints that the TPA has stifled such protests.Injunctions Granted under boycott provisions—AttachmentActCase NameDetailsTrade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1994. Binalong Pty Ltd and Anor v Conservation Council of South Australia and Ors (1994) ATPR 41-312.The case concerns both conservation and Aboriginal land rights issues. In late October 1993, the CFMEU and the Friends of Goolwa and Kumarangk (the Friends), placed pickets at the Hindmarsh Island Bridge construction site, obstructing the movement of a rode grader onto the site. After some days, attempts at construction ceased, and the picket was lifted. However, the CFMEU stated that should construction resume, the picket would be reinstated. The union also made public statements that it would never allow the bridge to be built, because its construction would result in environmental damage and interference to Aboriginal sites.On 24 March 1994, an officer of the Conservation Council of South Australia gave a radio interview in which he asked Westpac, who was financing the project, to withdraw financial backing. Five days later, a public rally was held in opposition to the construction of the bridge. After the rally, members of the Union went to Westpac's office and handed a letter to an employee, again requesting that financial backing be withdrawn.On 29 March 1994, Binalong Pty Ltd made an application under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. That same day, the Federal Court granted interim injunctions restraining the respondents from hindering or preventing the construction of the bridge, and from hindering or preventing the provision of banking and/or financial services to the applicant by Westpac.Heerey J (in a judgement delivered 19 April 1994), held that there was no triable issue in relation to the statements made by the Conservation Council. His Honour also held that an injunction should not be granted in relation to the approaches made to Westpac. However, he held that the CFMEU and the Friends had acted in concert to prevent building the bridge, which caused direct or obvious damage to the applicant's business. Accordingly, the interim injunction was replaced by an order restraining the CFMEU (and certain officers and members of the Union) and the Friends from hindering, preventing or attempting to hinder or prevent further construction. Trade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1994BHP v Greenpeace AustraliaIn 1991, BHP Petroleum commenced action under section 45D against Greenpeace over the latter's disruption of BHP's seismic surveying operations off the Victorian coast. The area that the company was surveying contained the Southern Right Whale calving grounds. BHP Petroleum was granted an injunction preventing Greenpeace, its vessels or employees from approaching the survey vessel. After a public outcry, BHP did not pursue its action further.It should be noted that this action, as it did not involve industrial action, would be covered by the defence in subsection 45DD(3) of the Trade Practice Act (as amended by Schedule 17 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996.)Trade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1994 Attorney-General of Queensland and Mary Kathleen Uranium v Seamen's Union of Australia Nos Q33 and Q32 of 1981There were two cases concerning this issue, both arising out of the same set of circumstances. Bans were placed on ships (from 6/5/81) as part of the ACTU Uranium Boycott. The Attorney-General of Queensland and Mary Kathleen Uranium (MKU) made an application (22/10/81) under section 45D. An interim injunction was granted on 6/11/81.The ACTU decided to defer the further implementation of its anti-uranium export policy in December 1981 (however, the MKU ships had sailed without uranium prior to this). Accordingly, the applications were withdrawn on 11/1 and 13/1/82.Trade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1994 Mary Kathleen Uranium v Waterside Workers' Federation and Anor No QG 25/1991Mary Kathleen Uranium made another application against the WWF and AFSA (on 11/11/81). An interim injunction was issued the same day. The application was withdrawn on 25/8/82. Trade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1994 Air Pacific Limited v Transport Workers' Union No NG18/93This matter arose from a dispute that Air Pacific was having in Fiji. Charges had been laid against the Secretary of the Fiji Airways Workers Association (FAWA) for strike action. On 13 January 1993, the Transport Workers' Union, acting in support of the FAWA, imposed bans on refuelling and baggage handling in respect of Air Pacific aircraft at Australian airports. On 15 January 1993, the company sought an ex parte interim injunction to restrain breaches of s.45D of the Act. An ex parte interlocutory injunction was granted on that day. This injunction was set aside on 23 January 1993. (It had been expressed to apply until 19.1.93, and the Transport Workers' Union had lifted its bans; however, due to the union's refusal to comply with subpoenas requiring the production of certain documents, Hill J amended the injunction so that it remained in force `until further order'.) The inunction was set aside after the parties had settled the dispute.Trade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1994 Overseas Containers Australia Pty Ltd v Seaman's Union of Australia No. G54/83Regarding underpayment of crew members on a `flag or convenience' ship. Application made 23/3/83, interim injunction granted 24/3/83, matter adjourned indefinitely on 13/5/83 after a conference between ANL, maritime unions and the Minister for Transport.Trade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1994 Hamburg Suedameri-Kanische and Columbus Line v Seamen's Union of Australia No. G56/83Regarding underpayment of crew members on a `flag of convenience' ship. Application made 23/2/83, interim injunction granted 24/3/83, matter adjourned indefinitely 10/6/83.Trade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1994Chevron Transport Corporation v Seamen's Union of Australia and Anor No. G230/83Matter arose over underpayment on `flag of convenience' ship. Bans applied because crew members were paid below The International Transport Federation rate. Application made 15/8/83, interim injunction granted 17/8/83, bans lifted, matter adjourned indefinitely 19/8/83.Trade Practices Act 1974, prior to 30 March 1974 Green Island Cement Pty Ltd v Waterside Workers' Federation and the Seamen's Union of Australia No. G463/84Regarding underpayment of crew members. Application made 24/12/84, interim injunction granted 24/12/84. This led to the freezing of funds in the WWF bank account equivalent to those paid by Green Island to make up the underpayment to its employees. On 12/2/85, the application was withdrawn, with the company agreeing to pay all arrears.2777(Question No. 1085)10852777Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1998:Given the serious problems associated with the Actual Means Test (AMT) for Austudy that were experienced throughout 1997, including the need for the Government to conduct a review of the AMT to identify anomalies in the test and apparently make improvements:(1) Why, after significant time and resources have been spent "improving" the AMT process, does the situation currently exist that a person who was self-employed in 1996 and 1997 and earned around $30,000 per annum would receive virtually no Austudy upon undertaking full-time study for the first time in 1998, while a person who received a wage of $70,000 in 1997, in otherwise similar circumstances, would be entitled to the full rate of Austudy.(2) Has the Department adopted a policy that students returning to study from the workforce will not generally be eligible for the current income concession, meaning that they will be tested on their 1996-97 income rather than 1997-98, thus potentially creating the farcical situation that even the AMT students whose only income in 1996-97 was from Austudy will receive a reduced Austudy entitlement in 1998.(3) For how long has the Minister been aware of the serious inequities currently being experienced by independent students who are subject to the AMT, especially those who were self-employed before undertaking full-time study.(4) What is being done by the Government to rectify this serious inequity, which may be preventing many of Australia's self-employed "battlers" from entering higher education.2777Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1), (3) and (4) The Austudy student income test takes account of income earned by students in the period during which they are eligible to get Austudy. This is intended to reduce disincentives to earn income before they start to study. The actual means test is different. It was introduced to counter a perception in the community that undeserving families were able to manipulate their taxable income through complex financial arrangements and get Austudy while other, sometimes more needy, families could not. The previous Government considered that self-employed people should be subject to the actual means test because, for this group, the income tests may not be an adequate method of determining their need to share in the limited resources available for Austudy.In most cases, actual means will be calculated on expenditure and savings in the last financial year before the year of study. For 1998, that is the 1996-97 financial year. This meets a major concern of public submissions to the 1997 Actual Means Test Review. A current actual means concession allows for actual means to be calculated on expenditure and savings in the financial year ending in the year of study. For 1998, that is the 1997-98 financial year.I was advised in January 1998 that a small number of independent students who were self-employed in 1996-97 before undertaking full-time study in 1998 could have been disadvantaged by the 1998 actual means test because their actual means in 1996-97 (when they were self-employed) were higher than they were expected to be in 1997-98 (when they left their self-employment to study). Following detailed briefing from my Department, I agreed on 10 February 1998 to change the way the 1998 actual means test operates for self-employed people who leave their self-employment to take up full-time study.From 1 January 1998, people who expect their actual means to fall substantially because of their decision to undertake full-time study may have their actual means calculated in the 1997-98 year rather than the 1996-97 year if the reduction is expected to last for at least two years. Furthermore, people who are no longer in a designated actual means test category, such as self-employment, may have their actual means calculated on their expenditure and savings in the 1997-98 year rather than the 1996-97 year if, as a result, there is a substantial reduction in their actual means that is expected to last for at least two years. I expect these changes to provide relief to the small number of students who may have been adversely affected by the 1998 actual means test.(2) I assume that the Senator's question refers to the current actual means concession rather than the current income concession. Please refer to my answer to question 1 for details about how the concession operates.2777(Question No. 1088)10882777Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:With reference to the `forced resignation in disgrace' of ex-Major Allan Warren:(1) Is there any evidence to suggest that, in 1981, officers within the Transport Corp Directorate abused administrative procedures to force ex-Major Warren's resignation from the Australian Army; if so, what action is being taken; if not, what are the findings in the Minister's possession with regard to ex-Major Warren's forced resignation.(2) Is the Minister aware of any investigations into, or information existing with regard to, the role of ex-Brigadier J A Hooper in the termination of ex-Major Warren's armed services career; if so, can details be provided of the history of any such investigations.(3) (a) Can the Minister provide information on the several ministerial investigations carried out with regard to ex-Major Allan Warren's case between 1981 and 1994; (b) was any action required as a result of these investigations; if so, have these actions been carried out; if not, why not.(4) Has correspondence been received from the Australian Army with regard to ex-Major Warren; if so, how has the Minister responded to the army's position on this matter, given the issues raised by ex-Major Warren in his correspondence.2778Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—In accordance with advice to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel the following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:(1) There is no evidence to suggest that Army officers deliberately abused administrative procedures to force ex-Major Warren to resign. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1993, and the investigation by Lieutenant Colonel B J Salmon QC in 1994, determined that ex-Major Warren was unfairly administered in respect of the termination of his appointment. An ex gratia payment was offered and was accepted by ex-Major Warren as compensation.(2) There has been no investigation into ex-Brigadier Hooper's role in the termination of Ex-Major Warren's Army career. At the time of these events ex-Brigadier Hooper filled the appointment of Military Secretary. He held this position from 3 December 1979 until 10 December 1981. In performing the duties of his position he was responsible for the career management of all Regular Army officers. Ex-Brigadier Hooper was not the delegate who authorised the Notice to Show Cause why ex-Major Warren's appointment should not be terminated; this was done by the Chief of Personnel. He would, however, have provided the Chief of Personnel with information relating to ex- Major Warren's reported performance as an Army officer.(3) (a) and (b) The other major issues raised by ex-Major Warren in his ministerial representations relate to the preparation of his annual confidential reports and the scoring of them. These issues were dealt with by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1993 which found that statements made in some confidential reports and letters were incomplete or misleading and did not constitute an objective report of ex-Major Warren. On direction by the Tribunal, relevant documents on ex-Major Warren's dossier were annotated accordingly. The Tribunal found that there was no unfair, misleading or improper Defence administration in the scoring applied to ex-Major Warren's annual reports. In 1994 Lieutenant Colonel B J Salmon QC was engaged to further investigate the matter of the Army scoring system. He confirmed that no improper procedures were used in scoring the confidential reports.(4) Correspondence from the Army is in the standard form of briefs accompanying suggested responses to Ministerial representations by or on behalf of ex-Major Warren.The Department of Defence has acknowledged, and regrets, that there was unfair administration by Army in relation to ex-Major Warren. An ex gratia payment has been made to, and accepted by ex-Major Warren, in compensation. His personal file has been annotated to record the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.2778(Question No. 1094)10942778Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:Can details be provided, by federal electorate, of all grants provided under the Green Corps program.2778Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Green Corps (Young Australians for the Environment) program is not a grants program. The Government has funded the program for $41.6 million over three years.The primary objective of the Green Corps is to give young people with an interest in the environment the opportunities of better quality training while working on environmental projects of signifi cance. Employment is a long term secondary objective of the Green Corps.The Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers (ATCV), as the contracted organisation has responsibility for the administration of the Green Corps within parameters and accountability arrangements set out in the contract between it and DEETYA. This responsibility includes selection of specific Green Corps projects in accordance with criteria decided by the two Ministers responsible for the program. Project Proposals must be endorsed by the Green Corps Advisory Committee.Projects details by electorate, of all Green Corps projects from rounds one to five are provided at Attachment A.ATTACHMENT AROUND ONE GREEN CORP PROJECTSSTATE/TERRITORYBASE SITEPROJECTELECTORATENSWSydneySydneySydneyDubboWestern Plains ZooParkesBroken Hill Kinchega National ParkParkesMerimbulaMerimbulaEden-MonaroVICMount MacedonMount MacedonBurkeMilduraAustralian Inland Botanical GardensMalleeMelbournePort PhillipMelbourneBallaratBallaratBallaratQLDToowoombaDarling DownsGroomBrisbaneTinchi Tamba Wetlands ReserveBrisbaneMalandaUpper Johnstone RiverKennedyTownsvilleRoss RiverHerbertSANaracoorteNaracoorte CavesBarkerAdelaideKangaroo IslandBarkerPort AugustaFlinders RangesGreyWADenhamShark BayKalgoorlieKarrathaMillstream Chichester National ParkKalgoorliePerthPenguin IslandPerthTASBichenoFreycinet National ParkLyonsHobartTasman Peninsula And Maria IslandLyonsHuonvilleHuonvilleFranklinNTMatarankaElsey National ParkNorthern TerritoryDarwinCasuarina Coastal ReserveNorthern TerritoryACTCanberraNamadgi/TidbinbillaNamadgiROUND TWO GREEN CORP PROJECTSSTATE/TERRITORYBASE SITEPROJECTELECTORATENSWBathurstMacquarie RiverCalareSydneySydneyMackellar; Bradfield; Warringah; North Sydney; Bennelong; Parramatta; CookHunter ValleyHunter ValleyPatersonLismoreBig ScrubPageDorrigoDorrigoCowperWentworth FallsWentworth FallsMacquarieGraftonIlukaPageMurwillumbahFingal HeadsRichmondBen Boyd National ParkBen Boy National ParkEden-MonaroVICHorshamWimmera WetlandsMalleeWerribeeWerribee Zoo Basalt PlainsLalorMilduraMallee Fowl SurveyMalleeWangarattaRegent HoneyeaterIndiSale SaleGippslandSwan HillSwan HillMalleePakenhamPakenhamMcmillanQLDCooktownMount Cook National ParkLeichhardtNoosaMary RiverFairfaxLockyer ValleyGlen RockGroomMalenyUpper Mary RiverFisherRedcliffeMountains To MangrovesPetrieSAAdelaideUrban ForestMakin; Adelaide; Hindmarsh; Sturt; Boothby; Mayo; KingstonBroughtonThe Broughton CatchmentGreyMout BarkerMount BarkerMayoWANorwegion BayNorwegion BayKalgoorlieKunnanurraKimberleysKalgoorlieDenmarkSouth Coast EstuariesForrestWest Cape HoweWest Cape HoweForrestTASDerwent ValleyDerwent ValleyFranklinKing IslandKing IslandBraddonTamar ValleyTamar ValleyBassLauncestonNorth Esk RiverBassROUND TWO GREEN CORP PROJECTSSTATE/TERRITORYBASE SITEPROJECTELECTORATENTMacdonnell RangesMacdonnell RangesNorthern TerritoryTennant CreekTennant CreekNorthern TerritoryKatherine RiverKatherine River CorridorNorthern TerritoryACTCanberraMurrumbidgee CorridorNamadgiROUND THREE GREEN CORP PROJECTSSTATE/TERRITORYBASE SITEPROJECTELECTORATENSWGilgandraGilgandraGwydirSydneySydneyParramatta; Reid; Prospect; Fowler; Lowe; Sydney; Hughes; Werriwa; Grayndler; Kingsford Smith; Wentworth; Lindsay; Mackellar; WarringahWollongongLake IllawarraThrosbyNowraBundanonGilmoreByron BayBroken HeadRichmondMaitlandPatersonPatersonVICSeafordSeaford/GrantvilleDunkley; FlindersLatrobe ValleySnake IslandGippslandCastlemaineGuildfordBallaratBallaratBallaratBallaratQLDTownsvilleTownsvilleHerbertRockhamptonYeppoonCapricorniaGold CoastMount TamborineRankinTullyTullyKennedyAthertonTolga ScrubKennedyIpswichIpswichOxleyToowoombaDarling DownsGroomGympieGympieWide BaySANaracoorteNaracoorteBarkerAdelaideKangaroo IslandBarkerVictor HarbourMount CompassBarkerMount GambierRobeBarkerWAPerthBayswaterPerthAlbanyFitzgerald RiverO'connorDenmarkSouth Coast WetlandsForrestGeraldton/CanarvonShark BayKalgoorlieTASHobartGlenorchyDenisonBurnieBurnieBraddonLauncestonCataract GorgeBassNTDarwinDarwinNorthern Territory ACTCanberraMurrumbidgee River CorridorNamadgiROUND FOUR GREEN CORP PROJECTSSTATE/TERRITORYBASE SITEPROJECTELECTORATENSWThredboSnowy River CatchmentEden-MonaroWyongMoonee BeachShortlandLismoreBig ScrubPageWinghamWinghamLyneCasinoMallanganeePageDorrigoCowperWentworth FallsWentworth FallsMacquarieSydneyTaronga ZooWarringah YambaShelley BeachPageVICHurstbridgeDiamond CreekMcewan; Scullin; Jaga JagaAlbury-WodongaAlbury-WodongaFarrier; IndiSwan HillMallee RemnantsMalleeLatrobe ValleyWalhalla/Mt Baw BawMcmillanCape OtwayCape OtwayCorangamiteWonthaggiPowlett CatchmentGippslandBrightMount BuffaloIndiQLDCanungraCanungraRankinMossmanDaintreeLeichhardtCooktownCooktown Scenic RimLeichhardtNoosaWeyba Conservation ParkFairfaxMalenyBlackall RangeFisherRomaMaranoa-Balonne RegionMaranoaSAYorketownYorke PeninsulaWakefieldAdelaideCity Of MarionBoothbyWAAlbanyOyster HarbourForrestAlbanyStirling Range National ParkO'connor; ForrestTASLauncestonTamar ValleyBassBlackstone HeightsPitcher Parade WetlandsBassDevonportTasmanian ArboretumBraddonLauncestonNorth Esk RiverBassNTDarwinGregory National ParkNorthern TerritoryKatherineKatherineNorthern TerritoryJabiruKakaduNorthern TerritoryAlice SpringsWatarrka National ParkNorthern TerritoryACTCanberraGoogong Foreshore/Namadgi National ParkEden-Monaro; NamadgiROUND FIVE GREEN CORP PROJECTSSTATE/TERRITORYBASE SITEPROJECTELECTORATENSWSydneyConcordLoweBathurstEvans ShireCalareParkesParkesParkesSouth WindsorSouth WindsorBerowra; Lindsay; Macarthur; MacquarieLismore/AlstonvilleWilson & Tucki Tucki ReservePageParramattaParramattaParramatta; BennelongGosfordGosfordRobertsonVICBendigoInglewoodSmith Reid TrainingWarrnamboolFramlingham ForestWannonMount EvelynLilydaleCaseyMaryboroughLextonBendigoBenalla BenallaIndiBallaratCreswickBallaratQLDTullyTullyKennedyMackay MiraniDawsonRavenshoeNorth Cedar CreekKennedyIpswichIpswichOxleyCaloundraCaloundraFisherWarwickCunningham's GapMaranoaTamborine MountainTamborine MountainRankinToowoombaThe North East Darling DownsGroom; Fisher; Maranoa; DicksonSAAdelaide HillsCleland Conservation ParkSturt; MayoAdelaideMount BarkerMayoBurnsideChambers Gully CreekAdelaide; SturtWAPerthMundaringPearceKarrathaMillstream—Chichester National ParkKalgoorlieDenmarkDenmarkForrestBridgetownBlackwood RiverForrestTASHobartHobartDenisonLauncestonLauncestonBassNTKatherineTufa DamNorthern TerritoryAlice SpringsSimpson's GapNorthern TerritoryACTCanberraTidbinbilla/Black MountainNamadgi; Fraser; Canberra2784(Question No. 1100)11002784Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 March 1998:(1) Who has responsibility for independently auditing the departments of the House of Representatives, the Senate and Joint House.(2) Who has responsibility for independently auditing members and electorate office expenditure, and senators and electorate office expenditure.(3) Who has responsibility for independently auditing the offices of Ministers of State.(4) Who has responsibility for independently auditing expenditure under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984.(5) Are any of the stated offices or departments independently audited in terms of financial statements audits, which include efficiency audits and project performance audits, (in each case, distinguish between regular audit processes and by arrangement or occasional audits and provide details of the reporting details on audits undertaken).(6) Who has authority to undertake and order audits of expenditure by: (a) ministers and ministers staff; and (b) parliamentarians and parliamentarian staff.2784Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Auditor-General is responsible for auditing the parliamentary departments.(2) The Auditor-General's financial statement audit responsibilities encompass expenditure of public moneys incurred by Members and Senators, including electorate office expenditure, as that expenditure relates to, and is reported in, departmental financial statements. Expenditure by Members and Senators could also be audited in the context of a performance audit by the Auditor-General of the administration of the agency from whose annual appropriation this expenditure is incurred.(3) The Auditor-General has responsibility for auditing the payment of public moneys to Ministers' offices, but it is a matter for each Minister to determine the way in which he or she operates his or her office. The scope of the Auditor-General's financial statement audit responsibili ties also encompass expenditure incurred by a Minister which is included in an agency's financial statements.(4) The Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPS Act) does not appropriate moneys for expenditure. Expenditure that arises as a result of appointments made in accordance with the MOPS Act is met from annual appropriations of the Department of Finance and Administration. The Auditor-General is responsible for auditing expenditure made by the Department under those appropriations. However, the Auditor-General Act 1997 specifically excludes the activities of people employed under the MOPS Act from the Auditor-General's performance audit mandate.(5) The Auditor-General may conduct audits of the financial statements and performance of Commonwealth agencies including the departments of the Parliament. In addition, the Auditor-General may, by arrangement with any person or body, undertake financial statements audits, conduct performance audits or provide services of a kind normally performed by auditors. The reporting arrangements for those audits would be determined as part of the arrangement entered into between the Auditor-General and the person or body. More generally, the Auditor-General may report to the Parliament on any matter at any time.(6) The Auditor-General has authority to undertake audits of expenditure from money appropriated by the Parliament as set out in the answers to questions (1), (2) and (3). The Auditor-General, in determining what matters are to be audited, will have regard to the audit priorities of the Parliament as determined by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. However, under the Auditor-General Act 1997, the Auditor-General is not subject to direction from anyone in relation to: (a) whether or not a particular audit is to be conducted; or (b) the way in which a particular audit is to be conducted; or (c) the priority to be given to any particular matter.2784(Question No. 1104)11042784Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1998:(1) (a) How does the Veterans' Vehicle Assistance Scheme work; and (b) what are the eligibility requirements for the scheme. (2) What assistance is available under the scheme, for example, can it cover the cost of accessories fitted to vehicles for those who require them and does it cover the dealer delivery fees.(3) Is relief from sales tax provided under the scheme; if so: (a) does this apply to all veterans; and (b) does the veteran pay sales tax and have it refunded or is the sales tax not added to the purchase price by the vehicle dealer.(4) How do discounts or special offers provided by vehicle dealers or manufacturers affect the assistance provided under the scheme.(5) Can examples be provided which show how the final cost of the vehicle is calculated and also show the level of assistance that is provided through the scheme.2785Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The Vehicle Assistance Scheme provides veterans who are suffering from severe service-related mobility impairment with a grant to purchase a suitable motor vehicle with the appropriate driving devices, a yearly allowance to assist with the running and maintenance of the vehicle, and a further grant available every two years to assist with replacing the vehicle.(b) A veteran is eligible for assistance under the scheme if the veteran is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease by reason of:. amputation of both legs above the knee;. amputation of one leg above the knee and, in addition: (i) amputation of the other leg at or above the ankle and amputation of one arm at or above the wrist; or (ii) amputation of both arms at or above the wrists;. complete paraplegia resulting in the total loss of voluntary power in both legs to the extent that there is insufficient power for purposeful use for stance or locomotion; or. a condition that, in the opinion of the Repatriation Commission, is similar in effect or severity to the amputations described in the first two dot points.A leg that has been rendered permanently and wholly useless above the knee is treated as if it had been amputated above the knee.In addition to the eligibility criteria based on mobility impairment, a current driver's licence must be held by the veteran, or the veteran's partner, or the veteran's carer. If the veteran is unable to drive a vehicle, he or she must have the capacity of being readily transported in the vehicle.(2) The scheme provides an initial grant to purchase a motor vehicle, a yearly allowance to assist with the running and maintenance of the vehicle and a further grant available every two years to assist with replacing the vehicle. If a veteran requires driving devices to enable him or her to drive the vehicle, these are fitted with no additional cost to the veteran. Modifications such as ramps, removal of seats to accommodate a wheelchair, hoists etc may also be provided at no cost to the veteran if they are necessary to enable the veteran to derive benefit from the vehicle.No separate provision is made for dealer delivery fees. These costs are included in the grant amounts.(3) (a) Yes. Any veteran who is within the scheme has relief from sales tax. Other veterans, such as veterans who are classified as Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (TPI) or certain amputees who do not meet the medical eligibility for the scheme may also have relief from sales tax under Item 96 in Schedule 1 of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1922.(b) An eligible veteran does not pay sales tax and it is not added to the purchase price.(4) As payment is made direct to vehicle dealers, only the actual purchase price is considered in the grant. Vehicle dealers are required to complete a statement showing any discounts or offers which affect the recommended retail price.(5) Yes. The maximum grant towards an initial motor vehicle provided under the scheme is based on the higher recommended retail price (less sales tax) of a Ford or Holden automatic station wagon fitted with air conditioning, dual air-bags, anti-lock braking system, electric windows and cruise control.The current benchmark value for an initial vehicle is $31, 923. It is based on a Holden "Acclaim" vehicle fitted with the extras. While a veteran may purchase an initial motor vehicle in excess of the benchmark value, any amount over and above this value is generally the responsibility of the veteran.However, if the Repatriation Commission is satisfied that the nature of the veteran's incapacity from a war-caused condition is such that the provision of a more expensive vehicle is necessary, it may authorise payment of part or whole of the difference in cost between the authorised maximum value and the actual purchase price of the vehicle.A replacement grant is available at two year intervals to contribute towards the replacement of a motor vehicle provided for, or contributed to, by the Scheme.The maximum replacement grant (MRG) is calculated as the difference between the benchmark value (BV) and the recommended value (RV) of the vehicle being exchanged. The RV used is that published in the current industry guide on the value of used vehicles (Glass' Passenger Vehicle Guide). So the formula is MRG = BV—RV. The value of a replacement grant cannot exceed the value of the maximum replacement grant.The actual replacement grant, i.e. the grant actually paid, is the lesser of the maximum replacement grant and the value either:. cited by the motor dealer on the Dealer Statement as the exchange value in the event of a trade-in; or. calculated by subtracting the value the veteran received in a private sale from the benchmark value.The veteran's statement to this effect is included in the Application Form. Either of these statements must be completed and signed by the appropriate party before a replacement grant is approved.For example: A veteran applies for assistance under the scheme. After the veteran is assessed as eligible he orders a new vehicle from a dealer. The recommended retail price of the vehicle (less sales tax) is $35,000. As the initial grant has a benchmark value of $31,923 the veteran is required to make up the $3,077 difference as no special circumstances apply.After two years, the veteran decides to trade in the vehicle with a dealer for a new vehicle which has a recommended retail price of $33,500. According to Glass's Guide, the veteran's vehicle has a recommended value (RV) of $22,000. The maximum of the replacement grant cannot exceed $9,923. This is calculated by subtracting the recommended value from the benchmark value, i.e. $31,923 less $22,000.The dealer, however, discounts the new vehicle by $1,500 which makes the actual cost of the new car $32,000. The veteran is offered a trade-in of $22,500, making the exchange value $9,500. As this amount is less than the maximum replacement grant, $9,500 becomes the value of the grant paid to the veteran to replace his or her vehicle.Generally, the maximum replacement grant is not expected to be more than $16,000. In extreme cases, the Repatriation Commission can authorise a greater amount if, in all the circumstances of the case, it is considered necessary.A yearly in advance grant of $780 is available to an eligible veteran under the Vehicle Assistance Scheme to assist with the running and maintenance of the vehicle.2786(Question No. 1107)11072786Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 March 1998: (1) (a) What internal or external surveys, research or other forms of information has been gathered on the accuracy of recording cancellations resulting from data matching review activities; (b) what were the findings of any such activities; and (c) what percentage of the recording of `cancellations' from data matching review activities were found to be incorrect.(2) (a) What internal or external surveys, research or other forms of information has been gathered on the accuracy of recording cancellations resulting from employment declaration form review activities; (b) what were the findings of any such activities; and (c) what percentage of the recording of `cancellations' from employment declaration form review activities were found to be incorrect.(3) (a) What internal or external surveys, research or other forms of information has been gathered on the accuracy of recording cancellations resulting from any other review activities; (b) what were the findings of any such activities; and (c) what percentage of the recording of `cancellations' from any other review activities were found to be incorrect.(4) What is regarded as the maximum acceptable level of statistical error in recording cancellations from review activities.(5) How do the above findings affect the accuracy of the quarterly compliance reports tabled in Parliament by the minister.2786Newman, 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) (a) Area level `best practice' examinations relating to Employment Declaration Form (EDF) review activity, plus the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and other review checks mentioned in the answers to parts (2) and (3) below.(2) (a)Examinations of EDF review work has been undertaken at an individual Area Support Office level with the aim of identifying the application of best practices and assessing the appropriateness of result recording.External checking of all review activities has been undertaken by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) for the purpose of annual financial statements. The ANAO re-tests a sample of completed reviews to ensure that the level of error in decision-making is acceptable and that the results of the reviews can be relied on.(2) (b) For the 1996-97 financial year, the ANAO concluded that the review process was satisfactory, providing adequate controls over the validity of income support payments for financial statement audit purposes.As an integral component of its normal administration, Centrelink has ongoing measures in place to ensure the accuracy of the recording of customer information on its systems. This is facilitated by checking a minimum 10% random sample of all determinations by a second officer through the Procedure and Accuracy Checking (PAC) system. PAC monitoring since April 1997 has shown an accuracy rate for all review work of between 97% and 98%. It must be emphasised that this apparent 2%-3% `error rate' covers a variety of administrative shortcomings, not just those relating to the coding of payment cancellations. Review coordinators at all levels of Centrelink continually monitor the quality and appropriateness of review work, correct mistakes found and arrange for the on-going training of staff.(2) (c) The Area by Area EDF `best practice' examinations identified a total of some 517 cancellations as having been inappropriately recorded in some way, including cases involving inadequate documentation by staff rather than an incorrectly claimed result. Action has been taken on Centrelink's review system to amend any inappropriate results and staff advised of the correct procedures to follow in the future. Statistically valid national outcomes cannot be drawn from these Area based `best practice' examinations.(3) (a) Other on-going review activity is subject to the same level of checking and monitoring as described in the answer to part (2) (b) above.(3) (b) As noted previously, as part of day to day operation, adjustments are continually being made to records on Centrelink's review system to ensure it presents the most accurate picture available of review results. Any review entries which are deleted or amended as a result of this process are either excluded from or appropriately adjusted in terms of reported results.(4) Centrelink does not work to a maximum acceptable level of statistical error in its recording activities. We are aware, however, that the ANAO generally regard statistical errors in excess of 5% as material.(5) As noted above, it is normal practice for Centrelink to continually remove or adjust any inappropriate review recording system entries identified before results are reported. Notwithstanding this practice, even if all previously identified inappropriate entries had been included, the quantum of them is not such as to adversely impact on the overall accuracy of the quarterly compliance reports tabled in Parliament.2787(Question No. 1109)11092787Denman, Sen KaySenator DenmanFY5TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism upon notice, on 26 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister received confirmation that Tasmania will be participating at the Expo 2000 World Trade Fair in Hanover, Germany.(2) If Tasmania is participating in Expo 2000, what contribution in cost terms has been agreed as part of the sharing arrangements announced by the Prime Minister on 1 December 1997.(3) Is it expected that each State and Territory participating at the Expo will be able to individually promote its particular region.(4) Has the Minister received any indications of interest from the Tasmanian private sector with regard to the Expo; if so, which businesses have indicated an interest.2787Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—the Minister for Sport and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No.(2) The Commonwealth is not privy to the details of the States/Territories cost sharing agreement being negotiated by Premier Borbidge.(3) A fully integrated image of Australia will be developed consistent with the Expo 2000 theme of `Humankind—Nature—Technology'. However, it is envisaged that the States, Territories and industry could undertake targeted promotion in their own right to a specific audience in the non-public area of the pavilion.(4) No.2787(Question No. 1111)11112787Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:With reference to the comprehensive regional assessments (CRAs) of New South Wales forests:(1) Has the Minister advised the Member for Page, Mr Causley, that delays in the completion of socio-economic assessments in New South Wales are the fault of the New South Wales Government, not the Commonwealth Government or the Commonwealth Department > Primary Industries and Energy.(2) Is the Minister concerned that actions and inactions by the Commonwealth are threatening the successful completion of CRAs in north-eastern New South Wales by the end of 1998.(3) Will the Minister: (a) restate the Government's commitment to the National Forest Policy Statement goals of establishing a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and implementing ecologically-sustainable logging outside the reserves; (b) quickly and efficiently approve and fund essential projects, such as regional economic studies, which must be com menced and concluded as soon as possible; (c) accept and adopt the revised New South Wales boundaries; and (d) ensure the completion of the regional assessments by the end of 1998.2788Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) I do not recall discussing this matter with the Member for Page, Mr Causley.(2) No, the Commonwealth is working closely with the NSW Government to ensure successful completion of all remaining regions in a timely manner.(3) (a) The Commonwealth Government remains committed to implementing the National Forest Policy Statement, which provides for the creation of a world class comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, and ensures the development of a viable internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry.(b) The Commonwealth is looking to approve and fund projects in all NSW RFA regions as quickly as possible, consistent with due process and responsible management of Commonwealth funds.(c) The Commonwealth government advised the responsible NSW Ministers that the Commonwealth considered that the RFA process would be best served by retention of the current jointly agreed region boundaries.(d) The Commonwealth is working closely with the NSW Government to ensure successful completion of all remaining regions in a timely manner.2788(Question No. 1113)11132788Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:With reference to the article `Elizabeth Creek hailed as new Century' in the Australian of 24 March 1998:(1) (a) Which indigenous groups have been consulted about the Elizabeth Creek prospect and the exploration permit application process; (b) when were those consultations held; and (c) what was the outcome.(2) Will any successful explorer or deposit-exploiter be required, according to the user-pays principle, to pay for that component of the $4 million mapping project relating to the region and any other public costs incurred.(3) What environmental, social or economic studies have been done on the potential impact of exploration or mining in this area. 2788Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLP10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) and (3) are matters for the Queensland Government.(2) The National Geoscience Mapping Accord (NGMA) is a co-operative program of geoscience mapping between the States and Commonwealth which was established by the Australian and New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council (ANZMEC) in 1990. The rationale for the Accord is the need to renew the national geoscience infrastructure by a program of modern geoscience mapping to aid sustainable development and resource exploration into the next century.The objectives of the Accord are to:. Encourage energy and mineral resource exploration in Australia.. Help make exploration in Australia more cost effective.. Assist responsible resource and environmental management.Geoscientific studies in the North Australian Basins Resource Evaluation project (NABRE) commenced in 1995. This NGMA project is designed to influence the economic development of Northern Australia.NABRE aims to provide exploration companies with a state-of-the-art regional overview of the geological evolution of this part of northern Australia, the type of study necessary to increase the probability of discovering additional metal and energy resources in the area. NABRE is a co-operative initiative of the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland and Northern Territory Governments and includes collaborative studies with university and mineral industry geoscientists.Outputs from the NABRE project will be available to Australian and overseas exploration companies, Government, University researchers and the general public. Products are not sold on a cost recovery basis. However, money invested by the Commonwealth and State Governments is recovered several times over by the generation of interest in new exploration. Over the next year the NABRE project is scheduled to produce both digital and hard copy datasets all with the aim of reducing exploration risk and assisting the process of sound land use management in this area. The data package accompanying the Elizabeth Creek Prospect represents one of these products.2788(Question No. 1127)11272788Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NealB36NSWALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:Has Senator Tierney relocated his electorate office within the past 4 months; if so: (a) where to; (b) who owns the leased building; (c) what is the period of the lease and any options attached to it; (d) who decided on the location of the office; (e) who negotiated the lease; (f) what is the total floor space leased; (g) what was the term of the lease on the previous premises; (h) what was the cost of sign writing; and (i) what is the average cost of electorate office sign writing.2789Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Senator Tierney has not relocated his electorate office within the past 4 months.2789(Question No. 1140)11402789Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 April 1998:(1) Given that nine departments have now answered in full the questions placed on notice on 16 October 1997 (questions on notice 902-916, Senate Notice Paper of 21 October 1997) relating to qualitative and quantitative research, on what basis was it decided that the department would not authorise the money, time and effort involved to assemble the information required to provide an answer to the question.(2) What qualitative or quantitative research has been undertaken by the department and its agencies since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) What was the nature of the research undertaken, (sample sizes, questionnaire length, evaluation); and (b) to whom were the results of the research available.(4) In each instance, which firm or firms have been engaged to undertake this work.(5) In each instance what has been the cost of the work undertaken.2789Newman, 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) to (5) In my answer to the Senator's original question on notice of 16 October (No 908), I indicated that I was not prepared to authorise the expenditure of money, time and effort to assemble the information required to answer the question. This was my decision rather than my Department's.My decision was based on the scope of the question and, in particular, the timeframe which covers a large volume of research activity, including a period of some 15 months before the establishment of Centrelink. In addition, to answer part (2) of the question would have required the collation of a large amount of detailed information. My decision also took account of the fact that successive annual reports of the Department of Social Security contain detailed information on non-training research undertaken by consultants.27892789Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked The Treasurer, on 8 April 1998 (Hansard page No. 2348) the following question without notice:Since the 1997-98 Budget, what additional commitments has the government made to budget forward outlays.2789Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:Table 8 and Appendix A of the 1997-98 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, published in December 1997, provided details of policy decisions taken by the Government between the 1997-98 Budget and 12 December 1997. Comprehensive information on policy decisions taken since that time will be published in the 1998-99 Budget to be brought down on 12 May 1998.