1998-05-143817SENATE279101998-05-14The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.279110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:279122TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;2. actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;3. work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;4. repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and5. stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 22 citizens)2791105AW5Carr Sen KimTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the Senate to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for Australians.Senator CarrAW5Senator Carr(from 105 citizens)279121TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to: 1. Make available the draft text of the 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 BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 21 citizens)Petitions received.Notices279127912791Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate calls on President Suharto to dismantle the military dictatorship and institute democracy in Indonesia.27912791Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) condemns the move by the Indian Government to conduct two additional nuclear tests on 13 May 1998;(b) notes: (i) that a contributing factor to this action by the Indian Government is the lack of commitment by the nuclear weapons states to a timetable for nuclear disarmament in either the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and (ii) that the Australian Government was complicit in this lack of commitment by the nuclear weapons states to nuclear disarmament; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to play a positive role by encouraging all nuclear weapons states and threshold states to commit to urgent negotiations with a view to incorporating a real commitment to nuclear disarmament in both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 27922792Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate is of the view that, in the event of a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses under section 57 of the Constitution, the division of senators into two classes for the purposes of rotation should be in accordance with the results of a recount of the Senate vote under section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to determine the order of election of senators in each State.27922792McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—On behalf of Senator George Campbell and myself, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, we will move:That the Senate—(a) welcomes and supports the agreement concluded in Belfast on Good Friday, 10 April 1998, following the multi-party negotiations for a political settlement in Northern Ireland;(b) pays tribute: (i) to the Irish and British Governments led by Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and all of the participants in the negotiations for their tireless efforts and their determination to see a successful outcome to the Northern Ireland peace process, and (ii) to the talks chairman, Mr George Mitchell, his two co-chairman, and all involved in bringing the negotiations to a fruitful conclusion;(c) recognises that this agreement represents the outcome of the most inclusive and comprehensive negotiations ever undertaken on the future of Northern Ireland;(d) notes, with satisfaction: (i) the fact that the document has now been endorsed by all of the parties to the agreement, including the main Unionist Party, led by David Trimble, and the main nationalist parties, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, led by John Hume, and the Sinn Fein, led by Gerry Adams, and (ii) that, in endorsing the agreement, all of these parties, including Sinn Fein and the parties representing Unionist paramilitary groups, have reaffirmed their commitment to progress through exclusively peaceful means;(e) believes the agreement lays the foundation for the peoples of Ireland, North and South, to move forward together to a secure and peaceful future;(f) expresses the hope and confidence that the agreement will be endorsed and embraced by the people of Ireland, North and South, in the referendums to be held on 22 May 1998;(g) notes that successive Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia have contributed to the peace process in Northern Ireland, including through assistance to the International Fund for Ireland, and the making available, at an earlier stage, of former Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, as an independent talks chairman; and(h) calls on the Commonwealth Government to continue to work with all of those involved in the efforts to consolidate peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland in every appropriate manner at its disposal.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—Madam President, at an appropriate time later, I will seek leave to table a copy of the agreement that this notice of motion addresses.27922792Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate urges political parties and non-aligned candidates in Australia to:(a) acknowledge that the alarmist and divisive rhetoric employed by members of the One Nation Party has damaged Australia's social fabric and its international reputation;(b) not simply condemn but constructively campaign against the knee-jerk populism which passes for the policy platform of One Nation in order to reveal it for its inherent flaws and its inability to contribute intelligently to addressing the many issues of great concern which confront Australia today;(c) demonstrate to those constituents to whom One Nation has some appeal that the simplistic and alienating rhetoric of One Nation is no substitute for substantive policy responses to the issues presently before the nation;(d) stress to those same constituents that while diversification of party choice can foster a liberal democracy, the establishment of parties such as One Nation can only work against the national resolve required to address our society's ills;(e) admonish any action to favour political expediency over political commonsense by considering preference deals with the One Nation Party; and(f) place ONP candidates last on their recommended preferences in State and Federal elections.27932793Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that the European Parliament passed legislation: (i) allowing the patenting of so-called artificial genes, and (ii) excluding the cloning of human embryos and therapies which would allow germ line changes;(b) expresses concern that this may result in the commodification of genetic materials; and(c) urges the Government to: (i) review its policies dealing with the ownership of life, in particular genes, and (ii) involve the community in an informed debate about the moral, ethical and social consequences of genetic technologies.27932793Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during this sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard . Copies of the statement have already been circulated in the chamber.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Purpose of Proposed Bill: To amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to give effect to the reform measures arising out of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the 1996 federal election.Reasons for urgency requiring introduction and passage in the same sittings: It is desirable that the Bill be passed to allow for implementation, where necessary, before the next federal election.Effect if the bill is not dealt with in one sittings: The Government considers it essential that a number of the election-related measures be implemented before the next federal election. Early passage will allow lead time to ensure that revised procedures to cater for these measures are in place.Why the need for the amendments was not foreseen: It was anticipated that the Bill would be introduced in the 1998 Autumn Sittings. However, certain aspects of the Bill required further consideration and consultation and these matters were not resolved in time for introduction during the Autumn Sittings.Circulated by the authority of the Special Minister of State)27932793Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, on behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name for the disallowance of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (Amendment) as contained in the Statutory Rules 1997 No. 400 made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.27932793Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the consequential amendments to the legislation which implements the reforms announced as a result of the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry.Legislation giving effect to the first stage of the reforms was introduced in the Autumn sittings, with a planned commencement date for the legislation of 1 July 1998, or as soon as possible after that date.However, while the key reforms have been introduced, amendments arising as a consequence of those reforms will not be ready for introduction until the Winter sitting period. These amendments are essential to the proper functioning of the new legislation, and therefore need to be in place for the commencement of the legislation on 1 July 1998.(Circulated by authority of the Treasurer)27942794Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes the criminal charges brought against prominent members of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), Councillor Shane Foster and Ms Karen Ehrman, the ALP candidate for the State electorate of Thuringowa until 13 May 1998, who respectively have been charged with 32 and 54 counts of forging and uttering, arising out of vote rigging allegations in the ALP preselection processes in Townsville seats.Business27942794Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 6— Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill 1998No. 7— Crimes Amendment (Enforcement of Fines) Bill 1998No. 8— Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997No. 9— Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 1997 , second reading.2794Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2794Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 795 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, proposing orders for the production of documents by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), be postponed till 29 June 1998.2794Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1089 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2794Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(a) General business notice of motion No. 1103 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner), relating to the practice of asset-stripping companies; and(b) consideration of government documents.2794Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1114 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, proposing orders for the production of documents by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) and the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Kemp), be postponed till the next day of sitting.Notices279427942794Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I withdraw notice of motion No. 1113 standing in my name and seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—This motion relates to the 70th anniversary of the Royal Flying Doctor Service and was designed to be co-sponsored by party leaders, Senator Faulkner, Senator Lees and Senator Hill. I understand motion No. 1116 will be moved and co-sponsored by Senator Hill, Senator Faulkner and Senator Lees, and relates to the same issue. I am withdrawing the notice of motion standing in my name so that No. 1116 can go forward in a multipartisan manner.Committees279527952795Motion (by Senator Heffernan, at the request of Senator Watson) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous279509:44:002795Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1110 standing in my name for today relating to the launch of the National Human Rights Register be taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.Miscellaneous27952795Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1116 that currently stands in my name, so that it stands also in the names of Senator Hill and Senator Lees. It relates to the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the matter that was referred to a moment ago by Senator Campbell.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You may move the motion on behalf of yourself and the other Senators.Motion (by Senator Faulkner, Senator Hill and Senator Lees) agreed to: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.Bills2795s1612795Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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 related purposes.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.279609:47:002796Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill contains consequential amendments to the package of financial sector reform bills introduced into the House of Representatives by the Treasurer on 26 March 1998. These bills put in place a new regulatory structure to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the Australian financial system while preserving its integrity, security and fairness. These reforms represent the Government's response to the recommendations of the 1997 Financial System Inquiry chaired by Mr Stan Wallis. The Treasurer set out the rationale for the reforms and the detail of the measures being put in place in his second reading speeches when introducing the initial package of bills in the House of Representatives last sittings. These bills represent the first stage of implementation of a new regulatory regime and will, among other things, establish the 2 new financial system regulators, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). APRA and ASIC are expected to commence operation on 1 July 1998. The amendments included in the bill introduced today simply ensure that other Commonwealth legislation is made consistent with the new regulatory arrangements.A number of the amendments in this bill are consequential to the amendments to the Banking Act 1959 contained in the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill. Generally, these consequential amendments change references to the words "bank", "banker" and "banking" in other Commonwealth legislation to equivalent references to Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (ADI). Similarly, this bill also includes amendments as a consequence of the repeal of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Act 1987. References to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner in Commonwealth legislation are to be amended to refer to either APRA or ASIC, or both, depending upon which organisation will adopt regulatory responsibility.Finally, a number of the consequential amendments give effect to the proposed renaming of some of the financial sector levy acts (in particular, those applying to excluded superannuation funds) as amended by the financial sector reform package. I also foreshadow that I will shortly circulate draft provisions which would make further consequential amendments implementing the Government's financial sector reforms.This course of action is necessary because the Commonwealth is required under the terms of the Corporations Agreement to consult on these amendments, which relate to the national scheme laws for corporations, with the Ministerial Council for Corporations (MINCO). The support of two States is required before amendments of this kind may be introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament.Following these MINCO consultations, I propose to move government amendments to this bill in a form similar to the draft provisions I will circulate.The additional amendments will do two things.First, they will amend references to the word "bank" and like expressions, and to the "Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner" in the Corporations Law and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989.Secondly, they will confer on ASIC sole responsibility for consumer protection in relation to financial services. These proposed amendments are part of the on-going implementation of the Financial System Inquiry recommendations. In particular, recommendation 3 was to the effect that ASIC should have sole responsibility for administering consumer protection regulation within its jurisdiction over the financial sector. For this purpose, consumer protection provisions comparable to those in the Trade Practices Act 1974 were recommended to be included in ASIC's legislation.The amendments included in the first package of bills introduced on 26 March 1998 (including the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998) will confer on ASIC specific market integrity and consumer protection functions under the various pieces of legislation listed in proposed section 12A of the ASIC act. To the extent that those acts deal with consumer protection matters, ASIC will already be taking on consumer protection responsibilities. For example, ASIC will have responsibility for the administration of section 72 of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997, which prohibits a person from engaging in misleading conduct in publishing an advertisement in relation to a retirement savings account.The Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill does not, however, confer general consumer protection functions and powers on ASIC. Currently, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) exercises this general function in the financial system through the provisions in Parts IVA and V of the Trade Practices Act. The amendments will explicitly transfer responsibility for consumer protection in the financial system from the ACCC to ASIC. This will implement the Financial System Inquiry recommendation by making ASIC the sole regulator of consumer protection in the financial system.I commend the bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be adjourned until the first day of the spring sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Committees279727972797Motion (by Senator Bolkus and Senator Stot Despoja)—as amended—agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 August 1998:(1) The need for Commonwealth privacy legislation to be extended to the private sector, with particular reference to: (a) relevant international standards and obligations; (b) international comparisons; (c) current legislative and other frameworks for privacy regulation in the Commonwealth, States and Territories; (d) the role, responsibilities and practices of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments; (e) the needs and responsibilities of the private sector; and (f) the rights of consumers.(2) The effectiveness of any privacy scheme that does not have legislatively-backed complaints, investigation and enforcement mechanisms.(3) The appropriateness of using the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information, as produced by the Privacy Commissioner, as a basis for a co-regulatory regime for the private sector and the best means of implementing such a scheme.(4) The appropriateness of the provisions of the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998.XE4BOLKUSSenator BOLKUS—I ask the Senate to note that this notice of motion is co-sponsored by me and Senator Stott Despoja.Bills2797s1632797Motion (by Senator Forshaw) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Forshaw) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.279709:50:002797Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Guaranteeing workers' entitlements in the event of company insolvency is one of the most important reforms yet to be undertaken by an Australian government. Australia has a fine record when it comes to the introduction of social legislation. We were one of the first countries in the world to introduce worker's compensation, and we were the first to grant child endowment payments to mothers and introduce long service leave to workers. And yet, when it comes to guaranteeing workers' entitlements against an employer's insolvency or providing them with the utmost priority against all other creditors, Australia has neither. The rest of the world has passed us by. In this respect, our proud tradition of social reforms stands diminished.Guaranteeing workers' entitlements is a social reform for our time. The recent tragic stories of the miners at Cobar and at Woodlawn mine near Goulburn and of the meatworkers at Grafton remind us of that. More recently, the events on the waterfront where companies were stripped of their assets and workers sacked in the middle of the night demonstrate that Australians have never before felt less secure in their jobs. As Asia's economic woes begin to have their effect on our shores, business insolvencies are destined to increase dramatically.This bill is in similar terms to a bill introduced recently into the House of Representatives by my colleague, the Member for Prospect, Mrs Crosio. I congratulate Mrs Crosio on her leadership and initiative in this matter. The bill seeks to reform an aspect of Australian industrial relations that can no longer be set aside. We can no longer enjoy the luxury of sitting in this Senate and expressing our sympathy to workers left without their entitlements and saying: "Oh yes, something needs to be done to stop this happening in the future", and then wait for somebody else to do it. With this bill, I am doing something about it. With this bill I am giving the government and other senators the opportunity to do something about it as well.As it stands at the moment, at least 3,000 Australian workers are owed roughly $20 million in their legal entitlements due to company insolvency. This is a disgraceful figure, but it should not be a surprising one. It is estimated that 13,000 businesses and companies become insolvent each year in this country, leaving at least 20,000 workers out of a job. Of course not all of these ex-employees are left without their accrued entitlements but a good many are.In 1993 the Labor government, supported by the Coalition and by both unions and employer groups, relegated the Commissioner of Taxation to the category of "unsecured creditor", thereby improving the position of unpaid employees for priority of payment in the event of an employer's insolvency. This was an important and commendable reform. However, in hindsight, it has not proved as successful as was first hoped. Employees have continued to miss out on their entitlements for the simple reason that, if a bankrupt enterprise no longer has any assets, the workers, whatever their position in an order of priority, do not benefit.The Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 aims to rectify this situation by establishing a scheme to guarantee the payment of wages and other liabilities in the event of insolvency. Under the scheme, no Australian worker need ever again be left without entitlements should his or her employer collapse into insolvency. Unless exempt under the legislation, all employers must take out and maintain a policy of wage protection insurance for their work force with an approved insurer. The Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner will administer the scheme. In the event of an employer's insolvency, workers will be insured for unpaid wages, annual leave or long service leave, liabilities resulting from the termination of employment without notice or with insufficient notice and liabilities for repayment of any amounts paid by the employee to the employer for training in a particular trade or profession. One of the most important aspects of the scheme is that it will include a bad risk cross-subsidisation system to help offset the concerns of employers and the insurance industry.I am well aware that there will always be some employers who are perceived by the insurance industry as potential bad risks. If this concern were allowed to manifest itself without regulation, some employers would find it very difficult to obtain insurance cover or, if they did obtain it, it would be prohibitively expensive. As a way around this problem, the bbill requires approved insurers participating in the scheme, along with the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, to participate in a bad risk cross-subsidisation system.Under such a program, an insurer would be required to accept an insurance proposal—even from an employer considered a bad risk—at a rate of premium not exceeding a maximum fixed by the commissioner. In order to mitigate the harshness of this from the insurer's point of view, the bad risk cross-subsidisation scheme would allow for the transfer of the burden of bad risks away from the individual insurer to the total body of insurers.Critics of this bbill have argued that it would place an unfair extra financial burden on all employers to make up for the unscrupulous actions of a few. My response to that is twofold. Firstly, I do not consider the estimated extra 0.1 to 0.3 per cent of an employer's total wages bbill that they would be required to contribute to participate in the scheme to be an unfair burden. It would certainly not be a burden of the stature that has been discussed: impeding a business' growth, the hiring of their staff or indeed hastening their own insolvency. Secondly, all employers are members of a corporate community. As a community they have a number of social responsibilities and one of those is seeing that all of their workers, in return for their labour, receive the entitlements that they are owed. Obviously we have seen that, at the present time, there are occasions when that responsibility is not being met. Employers have to work as one to address this issue, to live up to their responsibilities. Participation in this scheme should be seen in that respect.However, if the government is uneasy about socialising the burdens of insolvency by passing the responsibility of risk on to all members of the corporate community, it has a number of options open to it. One would be to amend my bbill to require participation in the scheme only by those employers who did not enter formal arrangements to place their employee's entitlements in trust. Another would be to amend this bbill to require lending institutions to pay for maintaining their privileged position at the top of the creditor preference queue. If the government were to underpin my scheme by firstly taking contributions from the banks, payments required from employers would be substantially reduced.After the Member for Prospect introduced a similar bbill into the House of Representatives in March this year, she received an extremely positive response, including many expressions of support from members, not only from our own side but also from the government's side, as well as from the community at large. Australians, not just those workers who have lost their entitlements but I think the great majority of the people we represent, want to put an end to this sort of unfairness taking place. I think most of us recognise that fact. By supporting this bbill, senators can put this vexing problem behind this country once and for all. As long as this reform remains undone, thousands of ordinary Australian workers and their families will continue to be failed by a system they look to for justice, fairness and equity.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said last month, in relation to legislative reform:There'll be people running around saying, "Oh, don't do it—it's too hard". I mean, you can't go on forever saying that. We know everything's a bit difficult if it's a big reform, but the Australian people in the long run will respect you and support you if you have a go.I invite the Prime Minister and the members of his government to heed his advice and act on this matter with the utmost urgency. The Opposition, I know, stands ready to give him that support.I commend this bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) adjourned.Bills2799s1622799Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.279909:52:002799Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill contains a number of electoral reforms to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.These reforms arise out of the recommendations contained in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters' report on the conduct of the 1996 federal election, which was tabled on 16 June 1997.Many of the Committee's recommendations were dealt with in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997, debated in the House of Representatives a few weeks ago. The items of that bill are largely technical in nature and considered non-contentious.The amendments in the bill which I introduce today relate to the more substantive reform issues considered by the Electoral Matters Committee, including the matter of electoral fraud.There is increasing disquiet in sections of the community about the potential for electoral fraud and continuing scepticism regarding the integrity of the Electoral Roll as the current enrolment process is open to abuse.The Government agrees with the Committee when it statesthat it is unacceptable that the most fundamental transaction between a citizen and the government—[that is] the act of choosing the government at a democratic election—is subject to a far lower level of security than such lesser transactions as opening a bank account, applying for a passport, applying for a driver's license or registering for social security benefits, to name but a few.Under the Act in its present form, it is remarkably easy to place on the Roll a dead persons name, a false name, a non-citizen, or a person who is not yet 18. In addition the enrolment could have a fake or false address.Maintaining the confidence of all Australians in the integrity of our electoral system is essential.Accordingly, this bill introduces some of the recommendations of the Electoral Matters Committee report with respect to addressing the potential for electoral fraud. The amendments relating to enrolment issues will provide:. for an upgraded witnessing requirement, whereby the witness must be an elector and be in a prescribed class of persons. Regulations will be made to provide for an extensive list of categories or people who will be able to witness a claim for enrolment, and will specify provisions for those electors who are unable to find a witness in the prescribed list;. that a person who is enrolling for the first time must have their identity verified before they are enrolled, and that a person who claims in their enrolment application to be an Australian citizen because of a grant of Australian citizenship under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, must have their citizenship verified before they may be enrolled. The methods of verification are to be prescribed by regulation; and. that an elector must notify a change of address within one month of taking up residence at their new address.The regulations specifying the method of verification of identity of first time enrollees will require the applicant to produce, at the time of application, at least one original form of proof of identity documentation. The form of documentation will depend on the circumstances of the applicant, but may include an Australian birth certificate, passport or photographic driver's license. It is possible that some applicants will not be in a position to produce an original form of identity document, and in such cases the regulations will provide for, say, a written reference to be produced.Original documentation will be able to be posted to a Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) or to an Australian Electoral Officer (AEO) with the enrolment application. The documents will be checked and then returned by mail to the applicant. Alternatively, the applicant may present the original documents at an office of a DRO or AEO with the application. The documents will then be checked at that time and handed back to the applicant.To provide, however, a wider facility for lodgement of original documents and enrolment applications by hand (so that many applicants need not part with original documents, especially those presenting a driver's license), a new provision will allow prescribed persons to receive enrolment applications, and where necessary, sight and verify the lodgement of original identity documents, enabling the documents to be handed back to the applicant.The lodgement of enrolment applications with a prescribed person will only be by hand; the applications will not be able to be posted to a prescribed person. Prescribed persons will be selected on the basis of their accessibility to the public, and, subject to negotiation, may include government or semi-government organisations, such as post offices. Prescribed persons will not verify or determine entitlement to enrolment, however, they would be required to note on applications the time of their receipt and forward them to the Australian Electoral Commission as directed. In the case of first time enrolment applicants, the prescribed person would also be required to verify the lodgement of an original form of identity document, and note on the application that the document was lodged, and then hand back the original to the applicant.In addition to the increased requirements with regard to the enrolment processes, the Government proposes, in line with the JSCEM recommendation, to close the Electoral Roll on the day that the writ is issued for new electors, while still allowing three working days following the issue of the writ for existing electors to change their enrolment details.As the JSCEM reported, "at the 1996 election some 428,000 transactions (new and updated enrolments) were processed from the day the writs were issued. The AEC freely admits that detailed checking, before the election, of these late enrolments—particularly the new enrolments—is virtually impossible. Consequently the seven-day period is often called into question by those concerned about the integrity of the rolls.New enrolments should cease on the day the writ is issued, while electors already on the roll should be given three days in which to notify changes of address. Suggestions that such measures would lead to less accurate rolls are unfounded—the AEC should extensively advertise the new requirements, and should move as quickly as possible to a continuous roll review based on effective data-matching and flexible habitation reviews".New provisions will also ensure that an enrolment application lodged with a prescribed person, before the close of the Rolls for an election, will satisfy the requirement for the receipt of the application by a DRO or AEO before the close of the Rolls. That is, the application can be processed and, if accepted by the AEC, the applicant can be added to the Roll for the election.Regulations for verification of citizenship will take the form of the enrolment applicant being required to provide either their citizenship number or date of conferral of citizenship on the application, and for the Australian Electoral Commission to verify with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that the applicant is in fact an Australian citizen. It is possible that some applicants in this category will not be able to produce either a citizenship number or date of conferral, in which case the AEC will be required to make whatever inquiries of the applicant and the Department as are necessary to verify citizenship.Amendments to improve the integrity of the election process include allowing only the presiding officer of a polling place to mark, fold and deposit the ballot paper of those voters who require assistance with voting. Scrutineers will also be permitted to witness the assistance being provided, and the voter may also nominate a person to witness the process.Other important amendments will:. repeal the entitlement of prisoners to be enrolled or to vote. The Government agrees with the Electoral Matters Committee that those who disregard the laws to a degree sufficient to warrant imprisonment should not expect to retain the franchise;. allow for the provision of date of birth and salutation details of electors to Members, Senators and registered political parties. Also, elector details will be able to be used by these people and organisations for electoral research purposes. The AEC will commence collecting salutation details on enrolment forms when the amendments are enacted;. increase the penalty on the disclosure of elector data, or for its commercial use, to 100 penalty units (that is, $10,000);. allow for the preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes to commence on the Monday before polling day. However, no declaration envelopes will be opened before the close of polling, and any envelopes rejected at the preliminary scrutiny will not be rechecked until after the close of the poll;. require donors to political parties to provide a return to the AEC if the sum of the donations to a party in a financial year, by the donor is $10,000 or more. This is an increase from $1,500;. require political parties to furnish a return identifying donors to the party where the sum of the donations from the donor, in a financial year, is $5,000 or more. This is an increase from $1,500;. require only those donations which are $1,500 or more to be counted in the sum of donations from a donor to a political party. This is an increase from $500.The Government is concerned to ensure that all Australians have the utmost confidence in the integrity and accuracy of the electoral rolls. The measures proposed in this bill will improve enrolment procedures without unduly inhibiting the opportunity for all adult Australian citizens to participate in the electoral process.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be adjourned until the first day of the spring sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Committees280128012801Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Recreation and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 1998:(1) The relationships between Federal, State and local governments and developers in the Hinchinbrook Channel.(2) The effect of developments on the environment of the Hinchinbrook Channel and surrounding environs.(3) Whether governments have met their obligations under the various Acts and agreements that deal with the Hinchinbrook area.(4) Alternatives to the existing regime.(5) What lessons have been learned and what can be done to prevent problems like this occurring in the future.Business28012801Motion (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.Miscellaneous2801Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes the advertisement on page 24 of the Australian Financial Review of 23 March 1998 regarding funding for human cloning research;(b) reaffirms the resolution adopted by the Senate on 6 March 1997 about genetic engineering;(c) expresses concern that the Government is not taking a leading role in assisting the Australian community to understand and deal with this new technology; and(d) urges the Government to take measures to ensure human reproductive cloning is banned in Australia and to take a leading role on this matter in international forums.Committees2801280128012801Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Sandy Macdonald, I present the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Publications.Ordered that the report be adopted.280228022802Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of Senator Murphy, I present the second report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the necessity for public accountability of all government services provided by government contractors, together with submissions and transcript of evidence.Ordered that the report be printed.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to have Senator Murphy's tabling statement incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The Senate's attention was drawn to certain consequences of the contracting out of government services through the concerns expressed by the then Commonwealth Ombudsman in her 1995-96 annual report. On 4 November 1996, the matter was referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report. The reference was extended on 27 May 1997 to include, specifically, all aspects of the outsourcing of the information technology requirements of Commonwealth departments and agencies. This was the subject of the committee's first report in November of last year.In this, its second report on the broad issues surrounding the contracting out of government services, the committee has looked specifically at four aspects: the tendering process; contract management; accountability; and the problems posed by commercial confidentiality. It has not attempted to reproduce the Industry Commissions's comprehensive overview of the subject or to write the definitive best practice guide to outsourcing. Nor has it canvassed the issue of whether outsourcing per se is desirable policy. It has looked at examples of outsourcing—both good and bad—and attempted to draw lessons from them.In the committee's view, the efficiency of a competitive tendering process is crucial in achieving the desired outcomes of outsourcing. The committee noted many examples of flawed tendering, resulting in considerable cost to the taxpayer through legal challenges and in disillusionment on the part of unsuccessful tenderers. As Commonwealth agencies develop more expertise in tendering, the potential tendering pitfalls may be avoided. The committee will keep a watching brief on Commonwealth agency tendering and may report again on this highly sensitive aspect of outsourcing, should its findings warrant it.Contract management is another area of concern to the committee and, the committee noted, to the Auditor-General. It appears that despite the many worthy volumes of advice available to them, Commonwealth agencies have a mixed record as contract managers. Whether the public service will be able to retain, train or acquire the appropriate expertise in contract monitoring is of particular interest to the committee and is another area which the committee believes requires ongoing monitoring. The Auditor-General's role in this process is vital. While the mechanics of achieving access by the Auditor-General to relevant third-party information and records can be complex, such access is vital to ensuring that the efficiency and integrity of any outsourcing is maintained.The committee is concerned to ensure that the values of fairness, openness, honesty and efficiency in Commonwealth agency dealings with the general public that were intended to be achieved by the provisions of the administrative law reforms in recent decades be maintained, whether a service is provided by government or by the private sector under contract. Members of the public who might be adversely affected by the manner in which a service is delivered must have a right to redress and that redress mechanism must be simple, accessible and monitored by the contracting agency. Common sense dictates that in the first instance, complaints need to be handled by the agency providing the service, with a service charter spelling out the mechanics of the complaints-handling procedures.Further review, where required, should be possible. In the committee's view, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has a proven track record in complaints-handling. That office is already under pressure, however, in workload terms. Rather than exacerbate its problems by recommending an across-the-board extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to cover contracted out services, the committee has decided to adopt the approach of recommending a gradual extension on a case-by-case basis for large or particularly sensitive areas of service delivery, as has been done for employment service providers. In collaboration with the Ombudsman's office, the committee will monitor usage and will revisit at a later stage the question of a legislative extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to cover all contracted out government services.The contribution of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in enhancing scrutiny of government activities is such that, in the committee's view, it should not be weakened in an outsourced environment. The Administrative Review Council (ARC) is currently considering options for extending the remit of the act. This committee supports the ARC proposal to amend the FOI Act by deeming documents in the possession of contractors which relate directly to the performance of a contractor's contractual obligations to be in the possession of the government agency, and hence FOIable.The contracting out of government services poses considerable accountability challenges. The committee believes it is important to establish and entrench amongst contractors the same culture of accountability as exists in the Commonwealth public sector. Equally, it is important to reinforce in the public sector that outsourcing should not involve any lowering of the existing levels of public scrutiny and parliamentary accountability of publicly funded enterprises.The committee is concerned that the mantra of `commercial confidentiality' will increasingly be used to deny Parliament access to the detail of contracting arrangements. The committee accepts that there are limited aspects of contracts which may be legitimately commercially confidential. However, whenever information is denied Parliament, there will be a suspicion that it is to hide sloppy administration, extravagance, incompetence—or worse—in the expenditure of public money. While recognising that parliamentary committees have extensive powers to compel the production of information, the committee regretfully also recognises that those powers are sometimes used capriciously. It strongly supports the use of the Auditor-General as an independent arbiter in determining the confidentiality status of commercial information sought by Parliament.The security of information relating to the affairs of individuals when in the hands of a contractor rather than a government agency is an issue the committee considered closely. The committee is aware that amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 to ensure coverage of contractors supplying services to government in relation to personal information held by them on behalf of government is currently before the Parliament. It is vital, in the committee's view, that the Privacy Commissioner be adequately resourced to handle her educative role for contracted service providers.I commend the report to the Senate.2803West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.28032803Debate resumed from 13 May.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—proposed: That the report of the committee be adopted.09:55:002803Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Could I contribute to the debate by speaking to Senator Ian Campbell's motion, which is just flatly reporting the fact, and move an amendment to the motion. I move:At the end of the motion, add ", and, in respect of the provisions of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 and the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998, the provisions of both bills be referred to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for report on 22 June 1998.".A committee report date of that magnitude would allow an adequate reporting time of five weeks for consideration by the committee. It should be borne in mind that the Telstra legislation, which has already been referred to a committee for a similar period of time, has had three hearing dates, as I understand it.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It has had to be extended. Your own members had to move an extension of time.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—There has been every opportunity for hearings to be conducted along the same lines.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But your own members—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you can seek leave to speak later at the appropriate time.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If we refer this bill for a similar period of time, then you would have the opportunity to have a series of hearing days in an area where I think the views of all of the stakeholders are pretty well known. There may be some disagreements at the margin but, essentially, the main issues are clear. There has been a lot of public debate about them. No doubt people will want to put in submissions and have a re-run of the arguments, but I would be very surprised if anything new will emerge.The view of the government is that a five-week hearing time, allowing for a number of days of public hearings, would be more than sufficient. It is critically important to remem ber that the magnitude of the investment required by the broadcasters to convert to digital is well in excess of $½ billion. It requires the certainty of legislation as a precondition for starting out on that expenditure process.The legislation is a broad framework for the digital conversion scheme for Australia. Much of the detail will be determined through extensive reviews and consultation with interested groups. There is a requirement for no less than five statutory reviews to be completed by the start-up date of 1 January 2001. These will be to consider definitions of enhanced programming and datacasting; to deal with the issues of convergence; to determine policy relating to retransmission of pay TV; to develop amendments to ensure that under-serviced regional licence areas are provided with the same services as metropolitan areas; to determine a method of charging for datacasting; to commence technical planning of spectrum and technical standards relating to equipment; to establish arrangements relating to digital transmission of community television; and to determine the ability of the ABC and SBS to provide limited multichannelling—all of those matters will be dealt with under a series of reviews, but those reviews cannot get under way until the legislation is in place.If the view of the Senate turns out to be that this matter should be put off for another six months or so, you are effectively saying that you really want it after the election. We all know that that could mean that this legislation will not be properly debated for perhaps another year.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It might actually be an election issue.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It may not be. But, if you want to proceed on that basis, you are effectively saying you do not care if the legislation is delayed for up to another 12 months. If you do that, you are fundamentally jeopardising Australia's prospects of getting into digital television.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Are you saying you are going to put the bill through in the last two weeks in June?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Yes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, your chance will come.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If you want to run a political line to justify not supporting an early passage of legislation to enable all of those reviews to get under way and ensure that we have adequate time for consideration, then you—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Madam President, I raise a point of order: I just use this point of order to actually put a question to the minister before his time runs out—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—This is not the appropriate time to do it.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I know but, on the point of order, is the minister expecting this bill to be carried by the end of this session?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Of course we are. We have said that all along. Senator Schacht well knows that. It has been introduced into the House of Representatives to enable it to be referred off—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Is it on the Senate legislative program?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston has the call.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You can bluster and filibuster as much as you like. You know that it has always been the intention of the government—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It's not even on the Senate legislative program. This is chaotic.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You have been aware for days and weeks that we want the matter referred off to a committee—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Has it been circulated?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Yes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour on both sides of the chamber is out of order. Senator Alston has the call. Other senators will have the chance to speak if they seek the call.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The Labor Party has been facing this issue for weeks now. They well know that it is on the basis that we want the matter referred off to a committee to enable proper consideration so that the act can be in place by 30 June so we can get on with all these reviews and make sure Australia does not fall fundamentally behind.You are really saying that you do not want Australians to have that opportunity and you want to set back the whole process by perhaps 12 months. You are not interested in seeing this dealt with expeditiously. There is no reason it cannot be. As I have already indicated, there will be plenty of time for all sorts of public hearings and plenty of opportunities for grandstanding, but, at the end of the day, there is no reason we cannot follow that timetable and get the legislation in place so that Australia can have the modern, world class system of digital television and radio that it deserves. (Time expired)10:01:002805Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:Omit "22 June 1998", substitute "7 September 1998 and that the committee have regard to the following matters:(a) 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;(b) 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; (c) the costs to broadcasters and consumers associated with the migration into a digial broadcasting environment; (d) the appropriateness of extending the ban on the allocation of new commercial television licences until 2008; (e) the provision of additional spectrum to the existing free-to-air television broadcasters, and the use of this additioinal spectrum; (f) content requirements, including minimum Australian content requirements and the mandating of minimum High Definition Television levels; (g) the particular needs and concerns of regional television networks; (h) the special requirements for the national broadcasters, that is, the Australian Broad casting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service; (i) 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; (j) 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; and(k) any other relevant matter, incidental to the above".This amendment omits the reporting date of 29 June. I accept the minister's proposition that the legislation go to a legislation committee. The substitute reporting date in my amendment is 7 September 1998—the first sitting week in September.Government senators interjecting—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I was simply unable to hear the terms of Senator Schacht's amendment. Could I have him read that out again.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—The amendment seeks to omit the reporting date of 29 June 1998 and substitute 7 September 1998. At the end of your amendment I seek to amend the terms of reference relating to some of the very important issues that this bill deals with.The reason we want a lengthier reporting time is that there are a number of major issues relating to the introduction of digital television, which the opposition in general supports, which have not been properly debated in the community. For example, the community is not yet aware that in 2008 all existing analogue television sets will go blank under this government's proposal.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—No, they won't.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—That is what your legislation says. We may have a review in between—the uncertainty of which the minister has outlined. He is to establish four review committees, but we do not have terms of reference for one of the review committees.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I do not mind a robust debate in which Senator Schacht exposes his real reasons for not wanting this matter dealt with, but he simply cannot be allowed to make statements that are quite incorrect. In terms of simulcast he fundamentally misunderstands and therefore has not read the proposed legislation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is not a point of order.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Above all I want to point out to the government that the introduction of digital television is a major issue for consumers in this country. It is a major issue for the television stations and information technology. There is already considerable debate—maybe only between the major players who have a difference of view—on this.The minister is putting to us in his offhanded remarks that he wants this package of bills to be reported on by 22 June and in the remaining two weeks of the budget sittings the whole package to go through the parliament. That is a joke when all the budget bills are before us. This will be given priority over the budget bills? We know that is a joke. In the end, Mr Costello will demand that the budget bills take precedence. A lot of senators will make a contribution on this bill.Once the public sees what is at stake they will want proper public process—a process that this minister has not been involved in. All they have is an ABA report from the middle of last year and there has been no public discussion. This has been done behind closed doors and a lot of people want a chance to hear the arguments why we want to introduce digital television and all its ancillary matters. This is not a small bill. It is a very significant bill. All we are asking is that a period of the winter recess be used to debate the bill and we report back in September.The minister mentioned the Telstra privatisation bill. I moved a motion for a lengthier time for consideration of that bill. I was defeated. Guess what happened earlier this week? The government had to move a motion for a two-week extension because they could not write the majority report in the time that the minister gave the committee—a committee where the government has the majority. The same thing will happen on this.Unless you want the report to be an absolute mickey mouse waste of time you ought to give the legislative committee, on which the government has the majority, more time to deal with it and produce a decent report. Otherwise, it will be like the joke with the Telstra privatisation bill. We were jammed for time. There was a unanimous recommendation of the committee earlier this week to ask for an extra two weeks because the government majority still could not write its own report.Despite Senator Alston and others screaming what a wonderful thing privatisation is they could not prepare their own report. They had to seek an extension. We in the minority who are going to oppose it are still waiting for the chairman's majority report to turn up so that we can prepare our minority report. They sought an extension.The same thing will happen for this very important legislation dealing with the introduction of digital television. This legislation will have a profound effect on all consumers and every household in this country with a television set. The minister's legislation seeks to introduce digital radio. That means that at some stage in the future every radio in this country will go silent. They will not be able to be heard because they are going to go digital.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—That's not right.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—That is what we want to find out. Your legislation is silent on so many things and so many areas. We are asking for a reasonable time for submissions to be sought, hearings to be held and the government's majority to report back to the Senate.If the government expects to get this bill through the Senate, to ram it through in the last week in the middle of all the budget bills, we know that is an absolute joke. You will not get your Senate budget bills and this complicated piece of legislation through at the same time. This minister again is trying to close off public debate and do deals behind closed doors. That is why we are proposing a lengthier period of time that is quite reasonable. (Time expired)10:07:002807Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I just want to make one contribution to this debate. I am sure honourable senators will remember the debate about the introduction of pay TV in Australia. That happened in 1991-92, I believe. A select committee was set up to look into that. That select committee was set up in June 1992 and reported in September 1992. I was on that committee. In fact it was the now government which asked for that committee and which thought that was a fair time for that committee to report.I think that was a fair time for that committee to report. I believe we needed all of that time to look into the introduction of pay TV in this country. I think the changeover of all television services—free to air and other television services—in this country from analogue to digital is such a massive change, far more massive than the introduction of pay TV in this country. I believe we will have similar numbers of people wishing to appear before that committee, and it will take at least a similar time for that committee to deliberate and to report. I would support 7 September.10:09:002807Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I would like to join in this matter. I understood the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Ian Campbell) to be saying that this was a bill listed for introduction and debate in the winter sittings of parliament. I draw the attention of the minister and the manager to page 3 of their own schedule distributed to senators last week—attachment A, legislative proposal for debate in 1998 winter sittings. Bills for debate and introduction in the winter sittings are marked with an asterisk. The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 is not so marked. It is not marked for debate in this session. We have been misled here today. This bill has not been signalled by this government as a part of its legislative priority. It has not been signalled in such a way. To state the contrary is to mislead the Senate. 10:10:002807Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—This is a very important matter. This is a very important inquiry. I was initially of the view that the reporting date of the inquiry should be in September. But I believe that if we vote for this motion put forward by the government, in the event that there is a number of persons in the community who are not able to provide their information—and hopefully it is some new information that we are not already aware of—and if the committee finds it does not have adequate time to give due consideration to all of those submissions and all of the arguments that are advanced before it, by 22 June, then the committee can seek an extension of time, as it is doing with the sale of Telstra.I have a number of views about this whole question of going from analogue to digital, and I will be very interested to follow what the committee is doing and to have a look at submissions that are put forward to the committee. But I am proposing to at least support the motion put forward by the government and oppose the amendment on that basis.10:12:002807Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The coalition is a party which supposedly stands on consumer sovereignty—that is, the ability of people within the community to make their own choices within a market. The issue the committee is being asked to address is not just about television sets; it is about whether or not parliament can enforce the will of corporations on the community to reduce their own costs. Whether it is digital telephones or digital television sets, what we are talking about is whether or not corporations can go to governments and argue that for their bottom line, for their profitability, they can force the community to make certain consumer choices. This is a very much broader issue than television sets. But in fact as it involves television sets it affects most of Australia and therefore deserves proper parliamentary attention.10:13:002807Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will now seek to close the debate. There are a couple of matters that do need to be responded to because opposition senators have either deliberately or innocently misled the Senate in relation to the government's legislative program. We now have the spectacle of the opposition having two leaders of opposition business in this place. Senator Carr seems to be trying to do the job, and generally doing a good job, as I have said on previous occasions, of managing opposition business. It is very hard for him to do so because with every decision he makes he has to deal with three or four different factions plus the Democrats to come to a decision, but he generally does so effectively and efficiently.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Something you forgot when you left the Democrats.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I never joined the Democrats, Senator Carr.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is very disappointing. We'll pull the letters out on that one.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—You can. Today we have seen Senator Schacht putting in his bid for the job. He obviously wants to be manager of opposition business. He made a claim about managing opposition business in the Senate—that is, how dare the government suggest that we should get any bills through this session other than the budget bills. I say to Senator Schacht, if he is putting in a bid for the job, go around to Senator Carr's office or come around to my office and I will show you the bills that we are seeking to get through this session. Senator Schacht, I am making you a generous offer which I am sure you will accept. As of today, I will include you on the mailing list for matters relating to the management of government business and opposition business in the Senate. If you would like, I will invite you to the leaders and whips meetings and you can come along and be part of it. Then Senator Schacht would not mislead the Senate in relation to the government's intentions. We do intend dealing with a large schedule of legislation in these sittings. They are short sittings. We do intend dealing with bills other than budget bills, a lot of other bills. We are dealing with those today if you look at the Notice Paper, but Senator Schacht probably cannot find the Notice Paper. I think it is also on the World Wide Web now, but he would probably have trouble looking that up. Firstly, Senator Schacht said it was not on the distributed legislation list. Senator Carr has already contradicted him. He is trying to claw his way back into the job of Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate. He is trying to redeem himself. Senator Carr has seen the list. He has alerted Senator Schacht to the fact that the government did alert all senators through their leaders and whips of the legislation proposed to be debated in the 1998 winter sittings. I will table this document, because at least if it is tabled—Senator Schacht may not be able to find it on the World Wide Web or on the Senate's homepage; he may not be able to get it through Senator Carr's office, because he is obviously going to fight to retain his job—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But you didn't even give it a priority, Ian, on your own list.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I will get to that, Senator Schacht. You will learn the game, if you just stay in here for a while and speak to Senator Carr. I know he is on the Left and you are on the Centre Left, but you should be able to talk to each other. They should be able to talk to each other even though they are in different factions. Senator Carr, as you know, Madam President, is in the far Left faction from Victoria and Senator Schacht is in the sort of Centre Left faction from South Australia, which I think he is the only member of, but they can talk to each other. Senator Carr should train Senator Schacht to be the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate.But I will table this document, so even if he cannot find it through his computer—he has trouble with the computer; he has trouble with his own homepage, let alone finding someone else's—all Senator Schacht has to do is go down to the Table Office and ask for a copy. On page 3 he will see that this bill was distributed to senators some 10 days prior to the sittings commencing saying that this is on the government's agenda.Senator Carr then said, `Because this doesn't have an asterisk against it, it means that it's not going to be debated this sitting.' If you read what the asterisk means, it means introduced and debated in these sittings. This bill—and Senator Carr may not have picked it up because it happened in the other place—was actually introduced in the last sittings and that is why it does not have an asterisk against its name.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Oh, sophistry here!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Madam President, Senator Schacht says it is sophistry to put an asterisk against something saying, `This is a bill to be introduced and debated in these sittings.' They are special bills for which we need the cut-off, and that is why we alert people to their attention. But on the front of this document which I am going to table it says `Legislation proposed for debate'. On the front page in big letters it says `Legislation proposed for debate in 1998'. Senator Schacht, we propose it for debate. We would like the committee to hear it. We would like consumers to have their say. I commend the amendment to the Senate. (Time expired)10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question before the Senate is that the amendment moved by Senator Schacht to the amendment moved by Senator Alston be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Alston be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Campbell, as amended by Senator Alston's amendment, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.2809280910:19:002809Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Murphy and on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, I present a report relating to the committee's inquiry into the sale of 57 Commonwealth properties, together with submissions received by the committee. The following is the chairman's report regarding the inquiry into the sale of 57 Commonwealth properties.On 3 December 1997, the Senate referred the following matter to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 1998:The basis for the Government's decision to divest itself of 57 Commonwealth properties and the expected cost and benefits of this decision to the Australian taxpayer.The issue of whether government should own property in its own right and, if so, in what circumstances has been debated in the parliament and particularly in estimates hearings since the announcement in the 1996 budget context that the government has adopted the Commonwealth property principles as its guide by which it would take such decisions. Those principles essentially propose that the government should own only property where the long-term yield rate exceeded the social opportunity cost of capital or where it is otherwise in the public interest to do so. In view of the apparent interest in the topic, the committee adopted the reference with alacrity, advertised nationally for submissions and wrote personally to many individuals and organisations expected to have an interest in the matter. In the event, however, the response was extremely disappointing. By the closing date for submissions, the committee had only received five modest contributions, along with many indications from others that the issue under investigation was not of particular concern to the writers. The committee has therefore reluctantly decided that to continue a public inquiry into this matter would be a waste of time and public money and thanks those individuals and organisations which made submissions. A compilation of those submissions has been tabled with this report for the assistance of those who may be interested in the subject.Miscellaneous2809280928092809Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—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 1996-97, budget estimates supplementary hearings for 1997-98 and additional estimates for 1997-98.10:22:002810Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the documents.In doing so, I draw to the Senate's attention that on 6 March I asked some 56 questions on notice regarding consultancies in the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. These were questions that related to various matters following up specific consultancies and some contracts of service and matters that had been raised in previous estimates hearings. Also, there was a series of new questions relating to consultancies engaged in the 1997-98, 1996-97, and 1995-96 financial years. The department advised me that such answers could not be provided by the due date of 1 April. It went on to—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Madam President, I have a point of order. What I have done is presented additional information. Is it appropriate for Senator Carr to now be spending a lot of time debating the additional information?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr is entitled under the standing orders—standing order 62, I think—to move to take note of the report and speak to that motion.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Further to the point of order, I have just presented additional information; it is not necessarily a report.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is correct.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—What is the time limit for Senator Carr?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr has 10 minutes to speak if he wishes to do so. He probably does not need that much time.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—No, I do not, but I am being persuaded to take my full allocation of time with these gratuitous interventions from the chairman of this committee, who ought to be doing his job in ensuring that the department answers legitimate questions put to it by members of this Senate—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Ask some legitimate questions then instead of wasting the committee's time for hour on hour on hour on trivia. AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—And that the questions ought be answered within the time specified under the relevant orders of the Senate. What you find here is a case where some 56 questions—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—You never strike a blow—not one column inch in the papers.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Tierney, cease interjecting.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—The chairman of this particular committee seeks to defend the actions of this government and this department in the way in which the department has let consultancies and the way in which it has sought to avoid answering the legitimate questions of the estimates committee. What I would like to do is draw to the Senate's attention that the department, in a letter sent to me dated 23 March, indicated that those questions would be answered, although it was not able to meet the deadline of 1 April. It said that the answers would require investigation from various aspects of the department and the answers would be available in early May. That date has now also expired.I would like to, once again, draw to the Senate's attention the failure of the department to answer these questions and indicate to the Senate that I will be pursuing these matters. I trust that the officers will find it within their resources to answer these questions forthwith.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous281028102810Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the following documents: Particulars of Proposed Expenditure in relation to the Parliamentary Departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1999, Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1999 and Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1999. I seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents just tabled to the legislation committees.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I thank my colleagues for granting leave. I move:That the following documents be referred to legislation committees for examination and report in accordance with the provisions of the order of the Senate on 26 March 1998 relating to estimates hearings:Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1999.Particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1999.Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1999.Question resolved in the affirmative.281110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I table the portfolio budget statements for 1998-99 for the Department of the Senate, Department of the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House Department. Copies of these documents will be distributed to members of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee and to other interested senators. Additional copies will be available from the Senate Table Office. 28112811Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I table the portfolio budget statements for 1998-99 for portfolios and executive departments in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber. Copies of these documents will shortly be distributed to members of Senate legislation committees and to other interested senators. Additional copies are available from the Senate Table Office.Bills2811r511Billsr4842811Bills received from the House of Representatives.2811Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—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.281110:29:002811Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—NATIONAL ROAD TRANSPORT COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1998I am pleased to be able to bring forward the National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998, which contains a range of reforms to upgrade and revitalise the national road transport reform process, following a major review of the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC).The bill will ensure that the significant task of national road transport reform can continue to be effectively carried out. It extends the sunset of the NRTC until 2004 and makes it, and the inter-governmental processes through which reform is pursued, more effective.The National Road Transport Commission Act 1991 (the NRTC Act) was reviewed in late 1996, by a joint government/industry steering committee. The review drew on the lessons of the first six years of the NRTC and examined ways to improve the road transport reform process. The review recognised the significant economic benefits that will flow from the road transport reform program—the Industry Commission has estimated that GDP benefits could total $800 million per year—as well as making the roads safer.The passage of the National Road Transport Commission Amendment Act 1997 through this Parliament extended the life of the NRTC Act for twelve months from January 1998, ensuring that the reform process could continue while this bill was finalised in consultation with States and Territories.The Government is committed to delivering road transport reform to benefit not only the road transport industry, but all the community, rural, regional and urban. Since the NRTC was created in 1991, reforms developed and agreed through the NRTC process include nationally consistent heavy vehicle charges, consistent heavy vehicle registration requirements, National Mass and Dimension and Vehicle Standards, a new Dangerous Goods regime, and national driving hours for long distance coaches and trucks. Many further reforms are on the agenda.These reforms will provide a nationally uniform or consistent operating environment for road transport operators and drivers, no matter where they are based or travel. An important ongoing role for the NRTC and all jurisdictions will be to ensure that the gains delivered by reform are maintained and built upon.Effective observance of road transport reform is also one of the key components of the national competition policy, and thus one of the criteria for determining the national competition payments to the States and Territories.The bill will give stronger objectives and focus for the NRTC, set by Heads of Government.It will strengthen the NRTC's accountability to the Australian Transport Council—the council of Transport Ministers—including through new strategic planning requirements and the appointment of the Commission's Chief Executive by the Council. The Council will also review the NRTC Act at least every six years.The bill is to be supported by amending Heads of Government Agreements, which will give jurisdictions greater flexibility in their implementation of legislative reforms, so reforms can be implemented more quickly. Heads of Government will sign these Agreements shortly.The bill provides recognition for the unique transport operational requirements of the Defence Forces, to make it easier for them to operate, particularly in potential security and emergency situations, but with due regard to road safety. These provisions were developed in a strong cooperative spirit by the Department of Defence, the States and Territories and the Department of Transport and Regional Development.The bill also gives legislative backing to the National Environment Protection Council's involvement in the joint development of motor vehicle noise and emission standards, and allows for New Zealand's involvement in developing trans-Tasman vehicle standards.In short, the National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998 will provide a better road transport reform process that, through cooperation between Governments, the NRTC and the road transport industry, will deliver big benefits to the whole Australian community. AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING COUNCIL REPEAL BILL 1998The Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998, in part, implements the changes announced by the Prime Minister on December 18 last year to his high-level science, technology and engineering advisory arrangements.Upon coming to office, the Government identified, as a priority, the need to examine how Australia's science and technology system might be improved. The then Minister for Science and Technology commissioned the Chief Scientist, Professor John Stocker, to investigate and report on certain aspects of Australia's science and technology arrangements.In his report to the then Minister, Professor Stocker identified several strengths and a number of structural weaknesses in the current science and technology advisory arrangements. Professor Stocker spoke very highly indeed of the role played by the Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council (or PMSEC). He observed that PMSEC provides a unique forum for the Prime Minister, and other senior Ministers, to be informed of recent developments in science and technology and their application to the national needs and opportunities. Professor Stocker noted also, the difficulties which the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council (or ASTEC) faces in respect of undertaking the complex tasks of consultation, analysis of issues and in the synthesis of its findings. Professor Stocker suggested there would be an advantage in drawing ASTEC closer to PMSEC, but at the same time, allowing ASTEC to keep its independent perspective on the issues which it examined.The Government has acted on Professor Stocker's recommendations in regard to the Prime Minister's high-level science, technology and engineering advisory arrangements. In so doing, the Government has sought to capitalise on the strengths, and to address the weaknesses of the former arrangements.A new advisory body known as the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council has already been established. It will supersede the former PMSEC. The new Council reinforces the vital role which the Government sees for science, technology and engineering in the creation of Australia's future. The name of the new Council also emphasises the importance which the Government places on innovation as a primary driver of industrial competitiveness.This new arrangement has created a science, technology and engineering advisory body that is able to conduct studies as ASTEC has done in the past. But, in addition, the new advisory body has the benefit of being able to draw upon the best expertise and experience available in this country, while at the same time having a mechanism that can deliver the outcomes of these studies direct to the Ministry. This is a considerable enhancement over the previous arrangements in that it does maintains the conduit for independent advice, while adding a delivery mechanism that ASTEC has never had.The new Council will meet in full session, generally twice in a year, to discuss major issues in science, technology and engineering and their contribution to the economic and social development of Australia. It will be chaired by the Prime Minister and will include ministerial and non-ministerial members. Ministerial members will comprise Ministers for whom science, technology and engineering are particularly relevant to their portfolio responsibilities. Non-ministerial members will be drawn from key representatives of the business and scientific communities.The non-ministerial members of the new Council will constitute a standing committee. This standing committee will oversee and contribute to studies and research to improve the understanding of Australia's science, technology and engineering capabilities and the effectiveness of their organisation and utilisation. As such, the standing committee will have similar functions and responsibilities to ASTEC. It will also have a similar capacity to ASTEC to undertake work on its own initiative, as well as work identified for it by the Government.With this new and significantly enhanced advisory Council established, the Government is acting now to remove the largely redundant ASTEC from the statutes. In repealing the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Act 1978 (the ASTEC Act), the new Council will become the Government's main independent source of advice on science, technology and engineering. The Government is therefore concerned to see that the new Council is provided with adequate resources to underpin its important advisory role. The resources which are currently allocated to ASTEC will be transferred to the new Council and its Secretariat once the ASTEC Act has been repealed.The Government values ASTEC's current work and wishes to see it completed before the ASTEC Act is repealed. I believe that adequate provision has been made in the bill to ensure that this may be the case.The Government also wishes to see that provisions in the ASTEC Act to protect Council members and others associated with the Council, both past and present, against actions, suits or other proceedings, are maintained. Similarly, secrecy provisions comparable to those in the ASTEC Act must be maintained to ensure that confidences are kept in respect of information and data that might have been provided to past and present Council members and others associated with the Council during its existence. The bill carries forward both the protection from actions and the secrecy provisions of the ASTEC Act.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills2813r4452813Consideration resumed from 13 May.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, are you ready to proceed with your amendments which were deferred earlier?10:30:002813Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—When we adjourned the debate yesterday, Senator Vanstone had indicated that the government was prepared to accept a certain batch of amendments, which included amendments that I had moved and amendments that had been proposed by the Australian Democrats. We were going to further refine those amendments and come back with a package of amendments which would be acceptable to the government.In essence, the issue we were covering was that of the use of gender specific language in legislation. The committee was of a will to ensure a provision that protected against the use of gender specific language in legislation. By way of definition, we are talking about language that expresses bias in favour of one sex.In terms of the amendments that were before the committee at the time, the opposition had amendments, as circulated, Nos 1, 3, 20, 22 and 29. I withdrew amendment No. 20 in preference for Australian Democrats amendment No. 4, so we were proceeding with amendments 1, 3, 22 and 29. The Australian Democrats were proposing amendments Nos 4 and 5, but the government had proposed a rider to those amendments which would have ensured that the provisions would not have struck out any legislative instrument proposal if there had been an inadvertent use of gender specific language. Democrat amend ment No. 2 also ensured a reporting system to the parliament in cases where the principle had been transgressed.Senator Vanstone is not present at the moment. We are waiting for her before we continue with the substantive part of the debate. I think that is a summary of where we were yesterday afternoon. I am also informed that the Australian Democrats wish to pursue their amendment No. 3 which, from recollection, was very close to opposition amendment No. 22. I do not know whether the Australian Democrats still want to pursue that; from what I could see, there was not really much difference. There was a bit of a difference in language use but in terms of technical effect there was no difference between Democrat amendment No. 3 and opposition No. 22.That is basically where we were yesterday afternoon when the bill was adjourned. Maybe Senator Murray can now give us an update on how he has gone with further refining his amendments to meet the wishes of the government.10:34:002814Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will deal with the last matter first. Senator Bolkus, I would give your amendment No. 22 precedence, as it is similar to our No. 3. If that gets up, ours will just fall away. I think that is the appropriate way to deal with it.The clerks and the persons participating in the debate were a little inconvenienced yesterday. I think it should go much more smoothly now that we have got a revised running sheet and now that the negotiations between the government and ourselves on these gender specific matters have concluded. You will see before you sheet No. 968 revised, in which the revised amendments agreed with the government are noted. Those are R2, R4 and R5 on the revised sheet. The government has accepted R4 and R5 and has accepted our belief that R2 should accompany them. When the minister arrives, we will seek to deal with the first item on the issue sheet.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendments 1, 3, 22 and 29 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Amendments (by Senator Murray)—by leave—proposed:(R2) Clause 15, page 17 (line 23), at the end of the clause, add: ; and (f) reporting to both Houses of the Parliament on any occasion when a rule-maker has been advised that a registered instrument contains inappropriate use of gender-specific language.(R4) 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 knowingly 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. (5) The registration of an instrument that contains gender-specific language is nonetheless a valid registration.(R5) Clause 43, page 44 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Principal Legislative Counsel must not knowingly register a copy of a legislative instrument that, but for this subsection, would be permitted to be registered under section 43, if the instrument contains any gender-specific language unless that language is necessary to identify persons by their sex. (4) The registration of a copy of an instrument that contains gender-specific language is nonetheless a valid registration.10:37:002814Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—For the sake of completeness, amendments 4 and 5 were going to be further amended overnight. I have not had any further amendments circulated to me. I wonder whether anyone else has them. Is Senator Murray in a position to provide them to us?10:37:002814Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator, I was under the impression I had instructed them to be circulated last night. I have them before me on my table.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is sheet 968 revised, Senator Bolkus. The question is that Democrat amendments R2, R4 and R5 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.10:38:002815Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will now withdraw Democrat amendment 3 on sheet 968 revised.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes. We now move to clause 8.10:38:002815Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Before we do that, I notice that Senator Murray has amendment No. 6 also relating to gender-specific language.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Not on this running sheet.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—It may not be on the running sheet, but it is on sheet 968 which was just provided to me. I do not know whether it is appropriate to move it now.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—It is on page 3 of the running sheet.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Do you want to move it now, Senator Murray?10:38:002815Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator Bolkus has made a good point. If the minister is happy, I would move the remaining gender amendments on sheet 968 revised. They are amendments 6 and 10.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Are you objecting to them being moved together, Minister?10:39:002815Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Yes, only for the purposes of trying to clarify something. It might be convenient to object until it is sorted out. Is Democrat amendment No. 6 on sheet 968 revised the same as opposition amendment No. 22 that we have just passed?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—We felt item 22 was the one.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I am advised that it is. If it is, then we do not need No. 6 and we do not need to proceed. We need to clarify that. Senator Murray, if you can indicate that what I have been advised is not correct, then we still do need to sort out what to do with your amendment No. 6.10:40:002815Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—May I suggest that we stay with the running sheet and we can come back to these on page 3. By then my adviser and the government's adviser will have been able to discuss it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, because I also cannot find on the running sheet Democrat amendment No. 10.10:40:002815Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—That amendment is not necessary because it is the same as opposition amendment No. 29. I think it is fair to say that Democrat amendment No. 6 is not the same as my amendment 22. The problem that Senator Vanstone raises really goes to my amendment 29 and Democrat amendment No. 10. We can look at Democrat amendment No. 6 and my amendment 22 and work out whether the government is right about whether they both achieve the same purpose.10:41:002815Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have had a chance to look at this revised running sheet and its guidance is there. It says that Democrat amendments 1 and 10 are the same as opposition amendments 1 and 29. Since amendments 1 and 29 have already been passed, it would therefore be appropriate for Democrat amendments 1 and 10 to be withdrawn. Accordingly, I withdraw amendments 1 and 10. That leaves only item 6 on page 3 to be cleared by the adviser.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Thank you. That has clarified matters greatly.10:41:002815Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:(2) Clause 8, page 12 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add: (12) A certificate given on an application under subsection (2) to the effect that an instrument of a particular kind will not be a legislative instrument is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (13) If a House of the Parliament disallows a certificate mentioned in subsection (12) in relation to an instrument of a particular kind, instruments of that kind, whether made before, on or after the day of disallowance, are taken to be legislative instruments. (14) If: (a) an instrument was made before the commencing day; and (b) the Attorney-General has issued a certificate to the effect that an instru ment of that kind made on or after that day, is not a legislative instrument; and (c) the certificate was subsequently disallowed by either House of the Parliament; and (d) the last day for lodgment of that instrument for registration, worked out in accordance with section 49, had already passed on the day the certificate was so disallowed (the disallowance day ) or would pass in less than 3 working days after the disallowance day; and (e) within 3 working days after the disallowance day, the instrument was lodged for registration in Part B of the Register: the instrument is taken to have been so lodged, and, upon its registration, to have been registered, in accordance with the requirements of this Act. (15) If: (a) an instrument is made on or after the commencing day; and (b) the Attorney-General has issued a certificate to the effect that an instrument of that kind would not be a legislative instrument; and (c) the certificate was subsequently disallowed by either House of the Parliament; and (d) within 3 working days after the day on which the certificate was so disallowed, the instrument was lodged for registration under Part A of the Register; then: (e) the instrument is taken to have been lodged, and, upon its registration, taken to have been registered, in accordance with the requirements of this Act; and (f) the instrument is taken to have been so registered on the day on which it was made; and (g) the date of its effect is to be determined accordingly.This particular set of amendments—amendment No. 2 from the opposition, and other amendments from the Greens (WA) and Senator Colston—goes to the issue of the Attorney-General's certificate and the reviewability of such a certificate. The parliament has grappled with a number of different mechanisms for reviewing an Attorney-General's power to issue a certificate to the effect that an instrument is not legislative in character.In the Legislative Instruments Bill 1994, the previous Labor government provided for parliamentary review and disallowance of such certificates. However, the 1994 bill did exclude judicial review, including review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act of 1977. The Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] removes the ability of parliament to review this decision but takes a different course of action in that it provides for decisions to be reviewable under the AD(JR) Act.The 1994 bill was actually assessed by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That committee, the membership of which included the Attorney-General, unanimously recommended that parliamentary review should be maintained. That view was not held just by the previous government and the current Attorney-General but even most recently it was supported by some government backbenchers, including Senator O'Chee, who did so in his capacity as chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.It has to be said that the Attorney-General has never tried to justify the government's rejection of the 1994 proposal. In terms of any justification at all, he has now come up with the argument that the government rejects his and the opposition's previous position because he now regards the function as essentially judicial in nature. So we have an admin officer, the Attorney-General, claiming that a function that he is performing is essentially judicial in nature.It has to be placed on the record that this view was rejected unanimously by the House of Representatives committee of which he was a member. It needs to be put on the record what the committee, including the Attorney, thought about this matter. In its report, the committee said in paragraph 3.13.4:The Committee is inclined to the view that the power of the Attorney-General is administrative in character and not judicial. The Attorney-General is certifying whether an instrument is legislative, that is whether the provisions of the Act apply or not. The Attorney-General is not determining an issue of law between litigants.The committee went on, at paragraphs 3.13.5 to 3.13.8:The Committee notes that the proposed government amendments will provide for the decisions of the Attorney-General to be made subject to disallowance by Parliament. The Committee is concerned whether this is the best form of scrutiny of these decisions. It notes that the Bill excludes review under the AD(JR) Act.Mr Morgan told the Committee that the Attorney-General's Department expects clause 7 to be used only in a `very few cases'.Professor Pearce—well known to the committee process—told the Committee that the approach proposed by the Government (to rely on Parliamentary scrutiny) is a pragmatic effort to keep the courts out of the legislative arena and has some attraction as an alternative measure to judicial intervention. Mr Morgan indicated that it was simply a means whereby the Parliament could scrutinise whether the power it gave to the Executive (the Attorney-General) was being exercised correctly. Professor Pearce agreed with this assessment.Ms Davies told the Committee that judicial scrutiny was costly to the individual and likely to occasion considerable delay compared to the parliamentary scrutiny.Can I emphasise that this is the argument that appeals to me most. The committee therefore agreed that the decisions of the Attorney-General under clause 7 should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. As I say, the committee also went on to unanimously recommend that a decision by the Attorney to grant a certificate should also be reviewable under the AD(JR) Act.So a House of Representatives committee, consisting of a number of members of all parties, including the current Attorney-General, recommended both courses of action—both parliamentary scrutiny and reviewability under the AD(JR) Act. The committee made this point by rightly pointing out the fact that the proposal to exclude judicial review under the AD(JR) Act did not exclude judicial review pursuant to the original jurisdiction of the High Court, or section 39B of the Judiciary Act.In terms of our current position, it is this obvious anomaly as well as the working of the committee that has led the Labor Party now to accept the committee's recommendations.We have been persuaded by the committee. The government, in opposition, were persuaded by the position that we are now putting. Senator O'Chee, even recently, has still been persuaded by the position that the opposition, the Greens (WA) and Senator Colston are now putting.It is not good enough for the Attorney-General to argue that black is white or white is black, as he seems to have done in this particular instance. We are talking here of a decision making process which has been characterised by both the current Attorney and a parliamentary committee—I think correctly—as being executive in nature. For the Attorney now to say that we are talking about a judicial function rather than an executive one, without really explaining how he has come to that conclusion and without any substantive evidence to support it, is, I think, totally unacceptable.So the opposition is pursuing this particular amendment. We think it is a reasonable one that the government could quite reasonably accept. We hope that through the process we are involved in this morning in the Senate the government may, in fact, be persuaded by both the current and previous arguments put to this parliament.10:48:002817Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Madam Temporary Chairman. We are debating opposition amendment No. 2 which is seeking to make certificates issued by the Attorney scrutinisable by parliament. Those certificates say whether something is a legislative instrument or not. If it is, then it would have to go through these processes that this whole bill is about—legislative instruments legislation. Senator Bolkus, the shadow Attorney-General, makes a contribution and says, `The Attorney is claiming that this decision on his part is a judicial process.' I have not heard the Attorney say that.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I have read the report.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—They are certainly not my instructions from the Attorney whatsoever. I do not say you are being deliberately misleading, Senator Bolkus, but they are not my instructions at all.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That is not good enough.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—It may not be good enough, Senator Bolkus, for you, but I have not finished yet. I am just indicating to you first up that those are not my instructions. Secondly, I am indicating that the bill, since the report that you were talking about, has now changed. The bill, in its original form, did not allow for administrative decisions judicial review. So you would have a situation that if the Attorney were to say, `No, I am not going to have parliament review my decision' and you could not have an administrative review, then you would have a non-reviewable decision. But, as you well know, Senator Bolkus, the bill has been changed from its original form and a decision by the Attorney would now provide for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and that review would be by the Federal Court—quite the opposite from the impression one might get if one was an unsuspecting person reading the Hansard late at night and read Senator Bolkus's speech.There are a couple of things you would not realise. You would not realise that this bill is not the original bill from years ago. This bill is different. It does allow for administrative decisions judicial review by the Federal Court of a decision taken by the Attorney. You would not appreciate that from what Senator Bolkus says.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That is also not true. Weren't you listening? I put that on the record. What were you doing, Amanda?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—Minister, you have the call.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Thank you for indicating I have the call, Madam Temporary Chairman. I had thought I had but I was a little bit confused with Senator Bolkus interjecting all the time and trying to hold things up. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which got some mention in Senator Bolkus's speech, has taken up the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of section 8 certificates on a number of occasions. The Attorney has made it clear to the chair of that committee that he does not accept the view that parliament should be reviewing the Attorney's decisions in this respect and that the AD(JR) Act review by the Federal Court is satisfactory. That is the Attorney's position and the government's position.10:52:002818Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Let me repeat this for the record, and maybe this time the minister will listen. I did make the point, in referring not only to the Senate committee but also to the House of Representatives committee, that that committee actually canvassed the question of reviewability under the ADJR. As I said, it is on the basis of the recommendations and work of that committee that the opposition now is persuaded to accept the ADJR reviewability aspect as well as parliamentary review. That is a point I made clear. So anyone reading the debate late at night will probably wonder where Senator Vanstone was when I was making my initial contribution.The point is that the Attorney-General as a member of that committee was persuaded not just by reviewability under the ADJR but also by the concept of parliamentary scrutiny which was embodied in the 1994 legislation. That committee recommended both avenues of accountability. As I said, we are persuaded by that committee's recommendation. So, Senator Vanstone, maybe if you tuned in a bit more often you might obviate the need for protracted debate.Amendment agreed to.10:53:002818Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I wish the Greens (WA) were here for this one. My running sheet has me moving to amendment Nos 4, 18 and 19. I just wonder whether we can bypass opposition No. 8 and move on to another one. Senator Murray is trying to get the Greens (WA) here, and he may be able to assist us. Opposition 21 goes to clause 22 on page 53 and omits the words `or 66'.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Excuse me, for clarification, can you advise which amendment you are now moving?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I am not. I am still on the one that you called, clause 21. I think what we are concerned about here is whether a legislative instrument proposal should take into account and recognise environmental matters. In respect of this amendment, I point out that the 1966 bill does generally widen the information that must be included in a legislative instrument proposal. The legislative instrument proposal will now cover a more complete analysis of the options available to achieve the purpose underlying a legislative instrument, and it will also canvass the relative merits of alternative approaches. A LIP is required to take into account the indirect social and economic costs and benefits of a particular proposal.The only problem with the government's proposal here is that in detailing its inclusive list of matters to be taken into account the government has deliberately excluded environmental matters. Environmental matters were in fact listed in the 1994 bill. I note that, as the government has agreed, this change does not prevent environmental concerns being considered. So we have a government which has deliberately dropped environmental matters from consideration in a legislative instrument proposal, though it has not precluded them from being taken into account.There is no real reason given for the government's rejection of the previous government's position. As I say, the previous list included environmental matters as a matter of relevant consideration. The Attorney has now stated that under Commonwealth environmental legislation there is a detailed consultation process on proposals affecting environmental issues where costs and benefits are relevant factors. It is the view of the government that it is not necessary to duplicate those requirements. However, as the Attorney well knows—or should know—the requirements for environmental impact assessment under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act do not apply to the vast majority of legislative instruments that will come within the terms of this legislation.So once again the Attorney is trying to gloss over the truth, trying to conceal the fact that this legislation has a broader range of impact than the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. As a consequence of the government's measure here, as a consequence of the government's omission, environmental matters will not be taken into consideration in a wide body of legislative instruments proposed by government.So we believe it is important that these matters continue to be considered and consequently we are pursuing this amendment. It has to be put on the record that it is extremely important that the environmental effect of these instruments be considered and that they should be considered in a process which is not as rigorous as the one provided under the environment protection act, as I mentioned earlier. Clearly, if the provisions of the environment protection act are complied with, the terms of the bill will be met, but where they are not complied with this amendment by the opposition and the Greens (WA) will ensure that these considerations are taken into account.The government has been at odds with itself in terms of trying to work out why it is opposing this provision. In the debate last time Senator Vanstone indicated, on the Attorney's behalf, that the removal of the word `environmental' would not prevent environmental considerations being taken into account but, as I said earlier, that is really not good enough.They are some of the reasons the opposition is pursuing this amendment. It will be interesting to see why the government opposes it. I move:(8) Clause 21, page 21 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) a statement of the direct and indirect social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of each such option; andAmendment agreed to.11:00:002819Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I will be moving the following amendments:(15) Clause 28, page 29 (line 12) to page 30 (line 33), omit the clause, substitute:28 Circumstances in which compliance with sections 20 to 25 is not required (1) Despite the inclusion of enabling legislation in the table set out in Schedule 2, the rule-maker is not required to comply with sections 20 to 25 in relation to the making of a legislative instrument that the rule-maker proposes to make under that enabling legislation if: (a) the rule-maker is satisfied that: (i) the instrument is required for reasons of urgency including, but not limiting the generality of the foregoing, reasons related to the prudential supervision of insurance, banking or superannuation or the regulation of financial markets; or (ii) notice of the content of the instrument would enable individuals to gain an advantage over other persons without that notice; or (iii) the instrument is a proclamation that provides solely for the commencement of that enabling legislation or of any provision of that enabling legislation; and (b) if the rule-maker is satisfied of the matter referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii)—the regulatory review body has certified in writing that it is also satisfied of that matter and set out the reasons for being so satisfied; or (c) the Attorney-General has certified in writing that public interest requires that the instrument be excluded from the operation of sections 20 to 25. (2) Instruments made in reliance on subparagraph (a)(i) cease to have effect 12 months after they are made. (3) An instrument the same in substance as an instrument which has ceased to have effect under subsection (2) may not be made in reliance on subparagraph (a)(i).(16) Clause 30, page 33 (line 19) to page 36 (line 5), TO BE OPPOSED .(17) Clause 31, page 36 (lines 19 to 33), omit subclause (2).Madam Temporary Chair, this is one of the important areas of the debate. I am suggesting that amendments 15 and 16 be taken cognately with 17. In speaking to amendment 17, can I say that the opposition has put an alternative 17 in an attempt to try to reach some accommodation with the government's concerns. We are talking here about exemption from consultation and the extent of exemption from consultation. Amendments 15, 16 and 17 deal with this principle. As I say, in moving the alternative, we are trying to meet some of the government's concerns. Can it be placed on the record—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—Can I just ask for clarification, Senator Bolkus? On this running sheet, we have opposition amendments to clauses 28 and 27 listed as 15 and 11. I wonder if you could direct us to 16 to assist us.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—It is on page 3.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Senator Murray.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—We are talking about clause 31, non-compliance with consultation procedures. At the top of page 2 we have opposition amendment No. 17, and the second item on page 3 is opposition amendment No. 16. There is a batch of other consequential amendments as well. So it does appear twice on the running sheet, and that is why I am suggesting we handle it here now.As I was about to say, there are a number of changes between the 1994 bill and the 1996 bill on the range of matters for which consultation may be granted. The 1996 bill does not provide exemptions where, firstly, the legislative instrument is required urgently—for example, for reasons related to the prudential supervision of insurance, banking and superannuation or the regulation of financial markets; or, secondly, where there is significant or comparable public consultation on the legislation already taking place; or, thirdly, notice of the legislative instrument would give an unfair advantage to particular individuals; or, fourthly, the Attorney certifies that public consultation would not be in the public interest.Instead, the 1996 bill does provide exemptions where, firstly, the instrument is required in the interests of national security but no process for certification by the Attorney-General is required; secondly, the instrument is an airworthiness directive; thirdly, the instrument is a commencement proclamation; fourthly, the decision maker proposes to make a 12-month temporary legislative instrument; or, finally, the regulatory review body certifies that the legislative instrument proposal is adequate and otherwise waives part 3, consultation requirements, where no such consultation is required by the enabling legislation, the agreement is comparable or the costs of complying with part 3 outweigh the benefits to be obtained by the instrument.As I said in the earlier debate, we believe that the 1996 bill is too restrictive and, in a sense, we are trying to help the government here to ensure that its objectives are met. So our amendments here modify the government's regime by accepting some of the government's changes and rejecting others.Let me place on the record that we believe that an exemption should be available where the instrument is urgently required or where notice would give an unfair advantage to individuals. However, we believe that in those circumstances the instrument should have only a 12-month temporary operation and should be certified by the regulatory review body as being so necessary. We think that is a fair balance.Secondly, we believe that the exemptions for significant or comparable public consultation should be retained, but that there should be a requirement that the regulatory review body certify that such consultation has indeed taken place. This provides an independent checking mechanism that will prevent over-enthusiastic departments from using this provision to get around the consultation requirement set out in the bill.Thirdly, we believe that the public interest test should be retained, thus eliminating the need for some of the more specific exemptions. However, in our amendments we retain a number of specific exemptions such as national security and airworthiness directives. We believe that these particular areas fall within the broader public interest test, and we have specifically mentioned these to avoid any doubt in relation to these matters. We believe that the failure to state a broader public interest test could in fact prejudice matters which should be excluded from the operation of the consultation requirements but which have not been specifically listed in the bill. I think the Senate will be able to note that we have actually changed the form of some of our amendments from that originally proposed. We still seek the same objectives, but, in doing so, I think we also take into account some of the government's wording in their proposals. Can I also say that we support the exemption of commencement proclamations.Fifthly, given the exemptions already granted, we do not support the exemption of all 12-month temporary instruments from the operation of the consultation requirement. I must say that this may in fact be the substantive issue in dispute between us and the government. We do not believe that there should be exemption of all 12-month temporary instruments from the operation of the consultation requirement. These provisions are merely a means for the government of the day to avoid the operation of essential consultation processes, and we also believe that they can be open to abuse.Finally, in terms of the areas before the Senate, the powers of the regulatory review body to limit the consultation requirement should, we believe, be retained, as set out in the bill.As a result of deliberations here last time, and the considerations that we have taken since the debate here just a few months ago, we will pursue amendment 15 in precisely the same form as we proposed last time. We pursue amendment 14 in a modified form. Amendment 16 that we moved last time will not be proceeded with. We have included the old form of amendments 14 and 16 in our original list of amendments so that senators can see how they differ, but we do not intend to pursue them.I note also that our amendment proposal should address the majority of concerns expressed by the Attorney in his speech on 17 November 1997. As I said during the debate, the only substantial area of disagreement between us now is in relation to the 12-month temporary instrument. That still stands between us for the reasons I have already stated.Whilst I have been putting this explanation on the record, I hope that other senators have been able to work out whether we will proceed at this particular stage with 15, 16 or 17, or whether it is desired that we proceed just with 17. Can I say that we are talking about exemption from the consultation process, and I believe the three amendments can be handled cognately at this stage.11:07:002822Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Senator Bolkus, by way of clarification, did you want to include your amendment 11 as well? I am sorry; I was getting some advice at the time. My advice is that your amendment Nos 17, 16, 15 and 11 all relate to the same matter, but they might have to be put separately because of the way they are phrased.11:09:002822Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Minister, No. 11 is consequential to 15, 16 and 17 and can be handled within the same package.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, we will need to put opposition amendment No. 16 separately from the other three because it is to oppose the clause. If it is the wish of the committee, opposition amendments Nos 17, 15 and 11 can be moved cognately.Amendments (by Senator Bolkus )—by leave—agreed to:(11) Clause 27, page 28 (lines 3 and 4), omit ",(iv), (v), (vi), (vii) or (viii)".(15) Clause 28, page 29 (line 12) to page 30 (line 33), omit the clause, substitute:28 Circumstances in which compliance with sections 20 to 25 is not required (1) Despite the inclusion of enabling legislation in the table set out in Schedule 2, the rule-maker is not required to comply with sections 20 to 25 in relation to the making of a legislative instrument that the rule-maker proposes to make under that enabling legislation if: (a) the rule-maker is satisfied that: (i) the instrument is required for reasons of urgency including, but not limiting the generality of the foregoing, reasons related to the prudential supervision of insurance, banking or superannuation or the regulation of financial markets; or (ii) notice of the content of the instrument would enable individuals to gain an advantage over other persons without that notice; or (iii) the instrument is a proclamation that provides solely for the commencement of that enabling legislation or of any provision of that enabling legislation; and (b) if the rule-maker is satisfied of the matter referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii)—the regulatory review body has certified in writing that it is also satisfied of that matter and set out the reasons for being so satisfied; or (c) the Attorney-General has certified in writing that public interest requires that the instrument be excluded from the operation of sections 20 to 25. (2) Instruments made in reliance on subparagraph (a)(i) cease to have effect 12 months after they are made. (3) An instrument the same in substance as an instrument which has ceased to have effect under subsection (2) may not be made in reliance on subparagraph (a)(i).(17) Clause 31, page 36 (lines 19 to 33), omit subclause (2).10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now turn to opposition amendment No. 16, which seeks to oppose clause 30. The question is that clause 30 stand as printed.11:10:002822Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have sat quietly because these discussions were broadly canvassed in the previous debate. I think Senator Bolkus has put the proposition quite appropriately. In all these discussions, it is not the intention to interfere with the government's desire to get on with the business of government. It is merely the intention of those proposing and supporting these amendments, which we do, to determine that the parliament has its appropriate place and that the appropriate protections are there for it.As we have said before, by and large the bill has excellent features. I think these are helpful amendments rather than amendments which are aggressive to the government's intention.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, you now need to move opposition amendments consequential to amendment 16—that is, amendment Nos 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 34 to 37 on sheet 910.11:11:002823Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Opposition amendment No. 6 is another which may also be included in this group. I seek leave to move the amendments together.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I move:(5) Clause 18, page 20 (line 5), omit ", 30".(6) Clause 20, page 20 (line 22), omit "sections 28 and 30", substitute "section 28".(7) Clause 21, page 21 (line 14), omit "sections 28 and 20", substitute "section 28".(9) Clause 22, page 22 (line 22), omit ", 30".(10) Clause 27, page 26 (line 17), omit ", 30".(13) Clause 27, page 29 (line 3), omit "or 30".(34) Schedule 4, page 109 (line 9), omit "or 30".(35) Schedule 4, page 110 (line 23), omit "or 30".(36) Schedule 4, page 111 (line 32), omit "or 30".(37) Schedule 4, page 113 (line 11), omit "or 30".Amendments agreed to.11:12:002823Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I withdraw opposition amendment Nos 12, 14, 20 and 23.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, those amendments do not need to be moved. We will now turn to Opposition/GWA/Colston amendments 24, 4 and 2 relating to clause 6111:13:002823Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I will not be moving opposition amendment No. 24 at this stage. I do note, however, that Senator Colston and the Greens (WA) also have amendments. They may wish to proceed with theirs.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Colston, are you minded to move your amendment at this time?11:13:002823Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—Can you tell me where we are on the running sheet?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We are on page 2, clause 61—opposition amendment 24, Greens (WA) amendment 4 and Colston amendment 2.PF4Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTON—I intend to move:(2) Clause 61, page 64 (line 29) to page 65 (line 7), omit subclause (7).11:15:002823Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Whilst Senator Colston is finding his notes, I note that opposition amendment No. 24, which I am not pursuing, is identical to the amendment which I gather Senator Colston intends to move. It seeks to remove the exclusion of intergovernmental schemes from the operation of the bill. The government opposes this provision on the basis that it would necessitate a revisitation of this issue by COAG and that an alternate regime for dealing with this matter is currently being considered by the chairs of the review committees of the states and territories. The government also notes that this matter is specifically listed in clause 72 as a matter which will be part of the scheduled review of legislation.I was not going to move this particular amendment as I was going to wait on the deliberations in the Senate on the ambit of the legislation before us. The government's proposal is that the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] cover only business regulation. There is an amendment which will extend the operation to other matters as well. We will not be supporting the extension, unlike on the previous occasion. We believe that this time, in the interests of trying to achieve some compromise, we can limit it to business regulation, but we put the rider to it that we will ensure that the bill is kept under close scrutiny and that, in government, we would give further consideration to an extension.With that modification of the ambit of the legislation, as opposed to the legislation that went through last time, I see no problem in including intergovernmental schemes as part of the accountability mechanism in this legislation so, if Senator Colston does not proceed with his amendment, I can then proceed with mine if necessary.11:16:002823Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I am sorry—I missed part of that. This amendment was passed the last time the bill was before the chamber. At that time, I was in another place—in hospital—and I was not able to participate. I am told that the Senate agreed to this particular amendment and that it was agreed to by the House of Representatives but was not included in the No. 2 bill. The notice that I have is that the bill excludes from parliamentary disallowance instruments which provide for national schemes of legislation such as the Corporations Law, the competition code, road transport reform and occupational health and safety.These schemes are likely to become more important and it is inappropriate that the parliament should not be able to scrutinise this legislation. Parliament should have the same option of disallowance of the instruments as it has over other legislative instruments, many of which are of far less consequence than national schemes. It is incongruous that the national parliament should not have control over national legislation.My amendment No. 2 provides for national legislative scheme instruments to be disallowable by either House. I am sorry that I did not quite catch Senator Bolkus's comments. Is it your suggestion that I not move this amendment and that you have a similar amendment to move if this one did not go?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Go ahead with yours.PF4Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTON—I formally move:(2) Clause 61, page 64 (line 29) to page 65 (line 7), omit subclause (7).10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—The question is that amendment No. 2 moved by Senator Colston be agreed to.11:19:002824Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—The government acknowledges that intergovernmental schemes are becoming increasingly important to regulate particular forms of conduct or activity across jurisdictional boundaries. These schemes require legislation in each of the jurisdictions involved, and that legislation is obviously a compromise in terms of the interests of all parties in the scheme. The effects of a disallowance of instruments under those schemes, giving this parliament the opportunity to do that in any of the participating jurisdictions, would significantly impair the operation of such schemes. The government is aware of work being undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Chairs of Review Committees of the States and Territories to develop a proper basis for scrutiny of those schemes. The government's position is not that these schemes should be entered into or be allowed to be entered into and not have some scrutiny, but that this proposal for scrutiny is inappropriate because it allows the parliament of one party to bring the whole scheme apart by pulling one party, effectively, out of the scheme.One proposal that I am advised is under current consideration is that the parties to an agreement will pick one party to undertake the proper scrutiny function of that scheme on behalf of all the jurisdictions that are in it. That is not settled, but that is one scheme that is there. I understand that the development is not yet at a sufficiently advanced stage to formulate specific proposals by governments.This government's view is that, until that occurs, it is inappropriate to enter into this particular arrangement. In other words, the particular exemption which is provided for these schemes to prevent the disallowance of a Commonwealth government's participation, which it could effectively do, is inappropriate at this time. We need that exemption. It should stay until a proper process of scrutiny is worked out between all the parties that might be a party to these agreements.11:22:002824Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am partly guided in this by the precedent that I have seen established in this parliament, and that is the party which represents the opposition—that has been in government previously and I guess hopes to be in government again—is very mindful of the relationships between the Commonwealth and the states and how they operate. I think you have made the leap that schemes and agreements made between the Commonwealth government of whichever flavour of the day, and the states might be knocked over by the Commonwealth parliament. But, given the precedents that I have seen in this place, the likelihood is that the two major parties will most often agree. It is only where fundamental principles, rights or issues are affected that the intentions of the government of the day might be under some threat.I would assume that, in most cases, the negotiations you have with the states and consequent outcomes would tend to get support from those who have the experience in government and that the threat you outline, whilst it exists, could be overstated because it would not occur every time. It might only occur occasionally. And when it does occur, in our view, it would probably be justified. Do you have a response to that?11:24:002825Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I will very briefly make two points. My first point is your argument is working on the basis that this is an appropriate mechanism. However, you are silent on the issue of when there was an intergovernmental scheme that had three or four parliaments in it and any one parliament could just pull that government out for the time being. I think it is appropriate that these sorts of schemes do have proper scrutiny. We have the states, territories and the Commonwealth working on a proper system of scrutiny that can be agreed to all around Australia.It is egotistical and folly in the extreme in both cases for us to proceed to set up a system without waiting for the outcome of those sensible negotiations. Every other day on the radio you will hear people saying, `Why cannot these people work together?' I am indicating that, apparently somewhere, we have officers from the states, territories and the Commonwealth working together on getting a sensible scrutiny mechanism. We are saying that, until we do have that mechanism in place, these schemes should be exempt.We are not denying the need for scrutiny; we are at one on that. We are saying do not assume that we here in this chamber now—with all the knowledge that I am sure is here in the Democrats, in the opposition and in the government—know best. Let people have a go at working it out together sensibly, and that is what I hear from the men and women in the streets all the time. As to your second point, which is fed by a paranoia—paranoia is seen as a negative word—or something approaching a paranoia in the parties with smaller numbers that the two big parties will always get together to defeat them, you think it is only on the occasions when great principle comes into play that a major party would support other parties such as your own and defeat the government of the day in relation to one of these schemes.I make two small points on that argument. Firstly, the principle is principle—whether it is great or small does not matter. The principle is what distinguishes it from a mere viewpoint. Secondly, you have over there the former Labor government that said, `We would never sell the Commonwealth Bank.' They got into government and did. They said, `We won't sell the rest of it,' but then, after an election, came back and sold the rest of it. What else did they sell? Australian National Line and Qantas. Privatisation was in principle a bad thing before an election and in principle a good thing after an election. When they were in government, their practice was it was a good thing. Now they are in opposition, for no other reason than political opportunism, it is seen as a bad thing.While I disagree with the Democrats' general views on contracting out and privatisation, at least you are consistent. They are not. I have given you one classic example of where you cannot say where those opposite stand—a classic example of where political opportunism will be taken by them and used. Frankly, I do not see that you can say that the experience of government will encourage the Labor opposition as it now stands to vote according to principle in any way at all.11:28:002825Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, as you know in debates, sometimes your best points are made by the other side. I think you have made the point that, quite frequently, governments and oppositions vote together on issues in which they have agreement, such as the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. Whilst we disagree, that is a fact and that is the precedent.I have a second question for the minister: is it your view that, when you sit with the states government as the Commonwealth government, you sit as equals or that you sit as the pre-eminent parliament and the pre- eminent government of this country? The country is not run by the states; the country is run by the Commonwealth government. This is not a parliament which is acting just as one of nine; this is a parliament with a particular constitutional weight and authority, and acts accordingly.I would also point out that it is open to any parliament to pass similar amendments to the ones which we are passing, which would give that parliament the power to withdraw from such a scheme. So it is not necessarily just in your hands.11:29:002826Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Very simply, Senator Murray, of course all senators would say this is the pre-eminent chamber in the pre-eminent parliament. I suppose the members of the House of Representatives, who have all got batons in their back pockets thinking one day they will be prime minister, would say that the House of Representatives is the pre-eminent house in the pre-eminent parliament. But to specifically answer your question, it depends on what the scheme is. If it is a scheme where the constitutional power lies entirely with the states and the Commonwealth is there by virtue of using its spending power to be a part of that scheme, I think it would be somewhat audacious for the Commonwealth to regard itself as being the superior member of such a scheme. It depends on what the scheme is. Everybody has their place and moment in the sun. We can all kid ourselves that we are the pre-eminent parliament or the pre-eminent chamber, but everybody has their place.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—We now move on to opposition amendment No. 28.11:30:002826Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Can I suggest we defer consideration of this amendment. We have amendment Nos 1 and 2 on sheet 952 and the Democrats have amendment No. 9. If either of those two sets of amendments are successful then we will not be proceeding with this particular amendment, so I suggest that we defer consideration of it until later in the proceedings.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Would you like to move amendments 1 and 2 at this stage, Senator Bolkus?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I would prefer that Senator Murray move amendment No. 9. If that has the support of other senators then I would be more inclined to support it than my amendments 1 and 2.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—What is the wish of the committee?3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I am at your disposal, Madam Temporary Chairman.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Would you care to move Democrat amendment No. 9.11:32:002826Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(9) Page 74 (after line 26), at the end of Part 6 insert:66A Principal Legislative Counsel must table periodic lists of instruments due for sunsetting (1) The Principal Legislative Counsel must lay before each House of the Parliament periodic lists in a prescribed form of: (a) the principal legislative instruments; and (b) the provisions (if any) of other legislative instruments that relate to the operation of those principal legislative instruments;that will, because of the operation of section 66, cease to be in force. (2) The Principal Legislative Counsel must, as soon as practicable after laying a list before each House, forward a copy of the list in a prescribed form to each rule-maker responsible for each legislative instrument, and each provision, in the list. (3) All instruments or provisions on a list remain in force for 6 months after the date on which that list is tabled unless either House of the Parliament makes a resolution under subsection (4), in which case the instruments or provisions which are not the subject of the resolution cease to be in force on the day after the resolution, provided that this day is not earlier than the day on which the instrument would have ceased to be in force because of the operation of section 66. (4) If an instrument or provision notified under subsection (1) is the subject of a resolution of either House of the Parlia ment, that instrument or provision continues to be in force for a further 5 years after the time when it would have been taken to cease to be in force because of the operation of section 66. (5) If the requirements of subsection (1) have not been complied with in respect of an instrument or provision, that instrument or provision continues to be in force for a further 5 years after the time when it would have been taken to cease to be in force because of the operation of section 66.For the Democrats this is probably the most important amendment we will consider in this debate. We have consistently said throughout the series of debates on the Legislative Instruments Bill that we congratulate the government on bringing this bill forward. We have consistently said that in most of its parts it is a real advance in the legislative armoury that the government and the parliament provide themselves. We have made the analogy before that for us it is like a good athlete with a hole in the heart. The danger we see is that the sunset provisions, with which we agree, could result in throwing good regulations out with the bad.We said in our negotiations with the government—and I will repeat my remarks of yesterday; I thank both the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General for the manner in which they tried to approach discussions on this, but we could not agree—that we believe that it is the place of parliament to have the opportunity to reject the intention of government to sunset a particular regulation. All regulations of this type are delegated. They are powers delegated by the parliament to the executive. The parliament that gives can take away. Our view is that either house of parliament should have the opportunity to recommend that, in any particular list proposing sunset legislative instruments, say, one or two should not be done away with or alternatively should be remade.That retains the authority and responsibility of parliament. It is an issue we all understand. It is not a difficult issue to understand, but it is the most fundamental principle of democracy—that is, that the representatives of the people have the power to deal with legislation of both the primary kind and the delegated kind.This process would add a further burden on both houses. We would need to provide the relevant committee—probably the Regulations and Ordinances Committee—with the resources to deal with the lists that come before them. My experience as an observer of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee both past and present is that they are a non-partisan, very effective and very professional body, well serviced by the secretariat they enjoy.We have tried to develop here a process whereby this could be undertaken. We are aware of the government's need for speed of response and we have therefore given a time frame of six months within which matters can be considered. In the event of a resolution of either house of parliament that a legislative instrument is kept alive, it would be kept alive for a further five years until the sunset provision comes up again.As I see it, it would happen as follows. A list of 100 legislative instruments would come to either house of parliament, the appropriate committee would look at it and they would recommend that three should be retained or remade and the appropriate house would pass the appropriate resolution. The government might disagree with one or two of those resolutions, in which case they would then bring a repealing motion before the house and that would be decided upon.We think it is a perfectly reasonable approach. It retains the government's ability to review the list. It retains the government's ability to get rid of old, outdated and unnecessary regulations but it also retains the parliament's right to have an overview and reflect on the powers and activities of the executive of the day. Quite frankly, if this got up and per chance you are not the government next time or the time after you might welcome the fact that this sort of provision was retained in the legislation.11:37:002827Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—We have had the debate on this before. The opposition supports the Democrat amendment.11:38:002828Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Senator Bolkus is right for one of the brief few moments in his life. We have had the debate on this before and the government has not changed its position. We reject the amendment.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—I will now attempt to go back to clause 71 and opposition amendment 28. Do you want to proceed with that, Senator Bolkus?XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—No, I will not be moving that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We then move to clause 72 and opposition/GWA/Colston amendments.11:39:002828Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:(30) Clause 72, page 79 (lines 24 to 26), omit paragraph (c).(32) Schedule 1, page 84 (table item 14), omit the table item.(33) Schedule 1, page 85 (table item 15), at the end of the item, add "with the exception of instruments made under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 ".All these amendments relate to a particularly insidious part of this legislation. The government is trying to double dip in the legislative process here. The issue before the parliament is whether Public Service terms and conditions can continue to be disallowable.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, you are talking about amendments 30, 32 and 33. Amendment 31 needs to be put separately because it is a clause to be opposed. We are dealing with amendments 30, 32 and 33.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I will deal with amendment 31 later. The government, as part of its proposals for public sector reform, is also seeking to exclude various legislative instruments relating to public sector terms and conditions from amongst those instruments which are disallowable. Those instruments are currently disallowable. The government knows that its reforms are not acceptable to the Senate. They know that because the Senate has twice rejected the Public Service Bill 1997. They know that they are not acceptable to the Senate because those Public Service reforms, euphemistically known as structural changes in the workplace, mean nothing other than reduction of terms and conditions for the Australian public sector.I will digress for a moment. In the wash up after the budget this week, we had both domestic and international commentators talking about the need for structural reforms in the workplace. I say to them, whether they are domestic or representatives of Zurich Insurance—and David Hale finds himself on Australian television often these days—`Why don't you just come clean and tell the people what you are talking about? When you talk about structural reforms in the workplace you are talking about reduction in wages and conditions. You are talking about, at the least, reduction of protection in terms and conditions of employment. That is what you are talking about. That is what this government is on about.If the government wants a workplace like they have in the United States where people have to rely on tips, by way of charity, to ensure that they have accommodation and food to sustain themselves and their families, why isn't it brave enough and honest enough to say so? Sitting in Zegna suits on international television telling Australian workers that they do not need protection against avaricious employers and business is a bit rich for me. This is what this part of the legislation is about. It is about ensuring that government can remove terms and conditions of employment, and remove them in a non-accountable way.If you want to make this legislation a trigger for a double dissolution, then the focus of that trigger will not be the legislative instruments proposals and all the technical details we have spent canvassing this morning and yesterday; it will be the public sector. Our message to the public sector will be: this legislation takes away reviewability and the Senate's capacity to protect you against governments removing your terms and conditions. That is the message from this legislation. If you are going to be foolhardy enough in your ideological zealotry to go out there and use this as a trigger for a double dissolution, we will make sure that the public sector knows that this bill, together with the Public Service Bill 1997, is geared towards removing their protection against government unlawful and unfair interference with well and long fought for terms and conditions of employment.We say to the government: if you want to reform the public sector, if you want to reform the public sector terms and conditions of employment, do it honestly and do it through the Public Service Bill. We will not let you do it through this particular piece of legislation. We will not let you change legislation to an extent that the Senate's role is removed from the process. Until such time as the Public Service Act is changed, then arrangements relating to disallowance of instruments arising under it should not be changed either. That is the basic position here.As I said, it is incredible that the government is pursuing a non-negotiation approach in this legislation and pursuing it to the extent that it may be used as a trigger for a double dissolution. But in the circumstances that it may—maybe the government does want a double dissolution—I point out to other government senators who may be listening from their offices that some of them should enjoy those offices for the moment because a good half a dozen at least will not be back here. If the government does embark upon a double dissolution, then the likelihood, in fact the probability, is that six or seven of government backbenchers and maybe the odd frontbencher will not see themselves back in this place. With the Prime Minister's hell-bent intention of using Wik and other legislation as a trigger for a double dissolution, you have to ask yourselves: what is the rationale? What is the prospect of a conservative government, for instance, with a reduction of numbers in the Senate being able to get through legislation that it wants to not only during the next three years if it is successful but also at a joint sitting? That is the other point that needs to be taken into account by governments that want to pursue a double dissolution at the moment. The way the polls are, what is most likely is a very close result. To actually get a majority in a joint sitting, this government would need to get a majority of at least seven or eight, if not 10, in the House of Representatives. The likelihood of that happening, according to the polls at the moment, is not all that strong. I say to anyone who might be listening, and I hope this message does get through to Senator Vanstone at least: this legislation should not be used as a trigger for a double dissolution. The government should be showing some flexibility here. We are on this side. We are not pursuing quite a number of our amendments, but an amendment we will pursue is one that protects the wages and conditions of the public sector.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendments 30, 32 and 33 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to clause 52 and Democrats' amendment No. 6.11:46:002829Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I withdraw amendment No. 6 on revised sheet 968.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Would you care to move amendments 7 and 8, Senator Murray?11:47:002829Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(7) Clause 66, page 70 (line 6), omit "that gives", substitute "the sole or principal purpose of which is to give".(8) Clause 66, page 70 (line 8), omit "that confers", substitute "the sole or principal purpose of which is to confer".These two amendments refer to clause 66 on page 70 and relate to the sunsetting recommendations. If you look at clause 66, page 70 at line 6 and line 8, you will find that, in terms of the sunsetting of legislative instruments, it says:(1) This section does not apply to:(a) any legislative instrument that gives effect to an international obligation of Australia; or (b) any legislative instrument that confers heads of power on a self-governing Territory; orYou will note that this particular amendment is opposed to or is in conflict with opposition amendment 27, which seeks to omit the clause completely.It is our view that the government has an appropriate case that this should be made, but we recognise the dangers of it, and those are the dangers, no doubt, that the opposition sees in it. I think it is said that something like 2,000 treaties affect Australia and there are numerous conventions and so on that we are signatories to. Although we understand the government's purpose, we sought to make it clear that the international obligation could not just be a side issue within a larger regulation but that it had to refer to the sole or principal purpose which is to give effect to an international obligation, because otherwise you might have a regulation or an instrument of which only one small part might be an international obligation. So that was our purpose in changing it accordingly.11:49:002830Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition will not be supporting these amendments.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendments 7 and 8 moved by Senator Murray be agreed.Amendments agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We move to clause 66, opposition amendments 1 and 2.11:50:002830Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—There will not be a need to pursue these since Democrat amendment No. 9 was carried.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Okay. They are withdrawn. We move to opposition amendments 27 and 31.11:51:002830Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—In respect of these two amendments and amendments 21 and 25, once again, given that Democrat amendment No. 9 was carried, we will not be pursuing these.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We then move to clause 17, opposition amendments 4, 18 and 19.11:51:002830Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman, they are also not being pursued.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Okay. We then move to clauses 27 and 28, which are opposition amendments 1, 2 and 5.11:52:002830Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—They are also not being pursued, nor are opposition amendments 15 and 11 on the next page and nor is opposition amendment No. 6 in respect of quarantine.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, I have been advised that opposition amendments 15 and 11 have already been put, passed and agreed to.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Sure.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Did you mention clause 72, which is opposition amendment No. 6?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Opposition amendments 6 and 26, both in respect of quarantine, will not be pursued.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We are making good progress here, Senator Bolkus.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Colston, we move to clause 61, which is your amendment No. 3 on sheet 929.11:53:002830Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—The last time this was before the chamber, the chamber decided not to support my amendment No. 3, so I will not be moving it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you. Senator Colston, we then go to amendments Nos 4 and 7 standing in your name. They are clauses 61 and 66 to do with the Flags Act.PF4Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTON—The same happened with those amendments. They were moved last time but they were not agreed to by the Senate, so I will not be pursuing them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—What about your amendment No. 5, clause 61 in relation to the Migration Act?PF4Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTON—Where are we at now? 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We are on running sheet 929 and we are now at the final amendment on the last page of that running sheet.PF4Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTON—The notes that I have indicate that it was not supported by the chamber last time, so I will not pursue that amendment.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.2831Bill (on motion by Senator Vanstone) read a third time.Bills2831r4212831Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.11:56:002831Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 is a bill which contains a large number of unrelated but nonetheless significant tax matters. It includes the introduction of the new government dissavings rebate scheme, together with the major proposed change to the superannuation system, known as the `choice regime'. This debate takes place against the background of the so-called tax reform debate taking place in Australia at the moment. I say `so-called' because there is no debate really taking place and that is for the reason that the government—specifically the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Treasurer, Mr Costello—refuse to participate in a debate.It is a fair question as to why the government will not come clean on this issue. Why has the promised discussion paper on the taxation of trusts been suppressed, for example? Is it because so many coalition frontbenchers—19 in all—have trusts, the most notorious being the trust arrangements of Senator Parer? Is it because so many coalition backbenchers have trusts and this government is more interested in protecting the financial interests of its members—exemplified by Senator Parer—than it is about doing something effective about tax avoidance in this area?We have the ludicrous situation where these two leaders of the government—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—are constantly denigrating Australia's tax system generally through false claims and wild exaggerations of the scale of particular problems, yet they absolutely refuse to tell us what they are planning to do. There is no doubt there is an electoral ambush in the making.What they are engaged in is a concerted effort to falsely worry Australian business people and families into thinking that the Australian taxation system is broken. We know, and we have certainly argued, that that is patently untrue. The truth of the matter is that the tax system is in very much better shape than it was when Labor came into power in the early 1980s. Then it was fair to say that the tax system really was broken, and it was broken because of the negligent stewardship of the then Treasurer, the current Prime Minister. It was broken because paying tax was made optional for those with access to specialist taxation advice. The then Treasurer, Mr Howard, refused to act for years on the taxation advice provided by Taxation Commissioner O'Reilly. He was deliberately protecting a small minority of the community, as is demonstrated by the protection and total support he has now given to Senator Parer.Looking at the specific provisions of the bill, I wish to focus on superannuation choice provisions, the savings rebate provisions, dividend streaming and the changes to private company shareholder loans. Schedule 5 of the bill implements the government's policy on choice of superannuation fund. The introduction of this policy is arguably one of the most significant changes to superannuation since Labor introduced the superannuation guarantee in 1992 and will change the entire nature of the superannuation industry.Public debate on choice of superannuation funds has highlighted the unsatisfactory attempts by other countries to introduce choice of superannuation fund, particularly the United Kingdom and Chile, and the impact which the failure of choice of fund has had on the retirement incomes of people in those countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, some 570,000 people were sold inappropriate retirement income products as a result of the introduction of the Thatcher government's superannuation choice model, which this government has adopted. The compensation bill for those people is currently $10 billion and climbing. If that were to happen in Australia, it would be the end of superannuation.What those experiences of other countries suggest is that any choice of fund proposal should be carefully scrutinised by the parliament before it is introduced. To that end, Labor supports a Senate inquiry into the choice of fund, with Labor and Democrat senators recommending that the government's bill not be passed without substantial amendment. The government has got it wrong on the choice of fund issue.The government claims that its choice model will benefit consumers through increased competition in the superannuation industry, leading to lower fees and charges and thus resulting in better retirement incomes. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. A recent survey of 354 superannuation funds by Sedgwick Noble Lowndes reported that the government's choice of fund model will lead to increased costs to fund members. The survey stated that 87 per cent of funds believe that choice of fund will increase fund administration costs, with the cost increasing by some 10 per cent.Alarmingly, around 10 per cent of the funds surveyed believed that costs would increase by up to 50 per cent. A cost increase of that order would have a disastrous effect on the retirement incomes of thousands of Australians. And that is before anyone has even made a choice of fund that could see uninformed people end up in inappropriate funds with high fees and charges and comparatively low returns.In addition, the government's choice of fund proposal is certain to disadvantage employers through increased administrative costs of up to $21 million initially and recurrent costs of up to $15 million per year. These figures are provided by the government in the explanatory memorandum to the bill that introduces its choice model—the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997.There is also a strong likelihood that employers may be legally liable under its choice model in a number of ways, despite attempts to legislate away employers' potential legal liability in clause 32V of the same bill. The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation received evidence suggesting that it is impossible to legislate away the common law duty of care that employers must exercise towards their employees. Higher fees and charges and uninformed choices will result in lower returns to fund members and lower retirement income to Australians, which is inconsistent with broader retirement income policy.Unfortunately, time does not allow me to further highlight the failures of the government's choice model, but I am sure that other speakers on my side of the parliament will do that. Needless to say, I will pursue this matter in more detail in the committee stage of this debate.I now turn to Labor's model. Labor believes we need a phased two-stage model which educates employers and employees about investment options and offers genuine employee choice. Stage 1 would be investment choice. Stage 1 requires superannuation funds with more than 50 fund members to offer a minimum of three investment choice options to fund members—that is, choice within existing funds. It would not be compulsory for members in a fund to exercise an investment choice if they chose not to do so, but a default fund arrangement could apply based on age-risk profiles. Due to their unique nature, defined benefit funds would be exempt from having to offer investment choice.We recommend member investment choice as a first step forward for several reasons. Firstly, the option for funds to offer choice of investment already exists. It is set out in subsection 52(4) of the SIS Act. Secondly, investment choice within funds is a good way to begin to educate fund members about their retirement income options and control of their superannuation savings.Thirdly, investment choice provides real options for choice as opposed to the government's model which could see consumers faced with identical choice options, just from different service providers. The clear example here is that we now have three commercial television channels in Australia. I remember when we had only two. We thought the addition of a third one would offer more choice. We have a third commercial television channel, but the programs are essentially all the same. Finally, an added feature of investment choice is a default investment option based on age-risk profiles. This would ensure that fund members do not find themselves in inappropriate investment products which are not suitable to maximising fund members' final retirement income.Stage 2 of Labor's proposal concerns genuine employee choice of fund. Stage 2 of our proposal offers choice to those who should exercise it—employees. It would begin only after an extensive education and consumer protection campaign. I will now outline the key features of our genuine employee choice model. If an industrial award requires an employer to pay superannuation contributions to a specified superannuation fund on behalf of an employee, employees can nominate and, if employers agree, have superannuation contributions paid into a complying fund other than that set out in an industrial award. The nomination must be made in writing and must be signed by the employee. Employers and employees who negotiate a certified agreement or an Australian workplace agreement would be taken to have exercised choice.Regulations would be drafted governing standard disclosure provisions applying to key feature statements offered by funds directly to employees, particularly to enable simple comparison of fees, charges and fund earnings—a most important issue. In the event of a dispute between employer and employee, the Industrial Relations Commission would act as the independent arbitrator. Finally, where a workplace is not covered by an industrial award or agreement, the default fund would be that to which the majority of employees at that workplace belong. In the event of a new business which is not covered by an industrial award or agreement, the fund specified in the designated award would apply.Labor believes that this offers genuine choice of fund to employees. It more accurately reflects the demand for choice of superannuation fund from workers, rather than choice driven by government or by vested interests. It is simple to administer and avoids the complications of the government's model. It is broadly consistent with the choice of fund models which presently operate in the New South Wales and Queensland state jurisdictions, therefore leading to less confusion and creating greater national consistency between state and federal choice of fund models.Employers and employees would have the protection of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in settling disputes. It limits employer liability compared with what the government is putting forward, it would avoid the default fund problems that the government model has, and it would also avoid some of the transitional problems in the two models that the government's bill contains.If unsuccessful, Labor proposes to move a range of amendments on the choice legislation in the Senate. Briefly, they include: exemption of funds which already offer member investment choice within funds; excision of clause 32U, which overrides federal award provisions and inclusion of award contributions; an intention to ban or severely limit the sale of products where a financial adviser derives income through the use of trailing commissions—this was a major problem with the UK choice fiasco; minimum standards for default funds, including insurance and investment options based on age-risk profiles; a redefinition of industry based funds to exclude funds with high fees and charges; inclusion of third-line forcing provisions which prevent employers from gaining a financial benefit at the expense of their employees; and an amendment which may require funds to be year 2000 compliant before they can accept superannuation guarantee contributions under the new choice arrangements. Labor's amendments will make the bill much fairer and simpler to administer, while still allowing employees the opportunity to choose a superannuation fund, not have one forced on them unnecessarily by their employer.Turning now to the other provisions of the bill, schedule 8 deals with the problem of dividend streaming. Dividend streaming, in its simplest form, is where a company streams franked dividends to its shareholders who are best placed to take advantage of the attached franking rebate and hence minimise tax. More likely than not, such shareholders are Australian residents, as foreign shareholders or exempt bodies either have no use for or can make no use of the attached franking rebates. Hence a foreign shareholder may be paid unfranked dividends and Australian residents a disproportionate amount of franked dividends in order to maximise the tax advantage which franked dividends provide.This schedule will introduce general anti-avoidance rules to such schemes that are used to obtain a tax advantage in relation to the imputation credits. These general anti-avoidance rules will supplement the specific provisions for anti-streaming and the announced but as yet not introduced provisions aimed at countering trading in imputation credits. The opposition supports these changes.One would hope that these changes will also put an end to the blatant dividend streaming arrangements entered into, supervised and implemented, for example, in the tax dodging case of Senator Parer. As we know, Senator Parer has a dividend streaming arrangement through the AQRM trust which holds one H class share in Senator Parer's coal company QCMM Pty Ltd. From the writ lodged by Senator Parer's former business associate, Mr Adams, we know that the AQRM trust was established for the sole purpose of creating a pool of fully franked dividends from which bonuses to key directors and employees would be paid. Given that Senator Parer was Chairman of QCMM Pty Ltd, one would safely assume that he was a beneficiary of this blatant dividend streaming arrangement. As we know, Senator Parer has a penchant for tax avoidance schemes, having participated in no less than three of them, including the AQRM dividend streaming trust. I would therefore ask the minister—he is not in the chamber at the moment, but when he does appear—whether he can advise on the status of Senator Parer's dividend streaming arrangements facilitated by the AQRM trust under these amendments, and whether or not it will become void. If he cannot answer that question in his second reading speech, then I put the minister on notice that we will have a very long and interesting committee stage of this debate.Schedule 9 of the bill seeks to ensure that all forms of advances by way of loans or other credits made by private companies to shareholders are treated as assessable dividends to the extent that such payments are made out of company profits in the form of tax-free distributions. This has been a fairly common practice in order to disguise the real form of the payments being made so as to avoid tax.Evidence before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee from the Australian Taxation Office was such that the current section 108 of the tax act has been shown to be ineffective due to relevant AAT and subsequent court cases. Consequently, a tightening up of the provisions is called for. The Labor opposition supports these changes and notes the plethora of amendments the government has subsequently introduced to clean up its original farcical drafting, which included payments such as SGC obligations under the original definition of benefit and hence were deemed to be dividends and therefore taxable.Once again, this amendment strikes right at the heart, one would hope, of another tax avoidance scheme, no doubt masterminded and implemented in the form of Senator Parer's schemes. It is becoming a sad state of affairs, but Senator Parer seems totally unable to keep his hands out of the public till. As an artful tax dodger, it is like a child—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Cook, I think you should withdraw that.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I withdraw that.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is going a bit too far.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Let us look at the scheme engineered by Senator Parer regarding the disguising of company dividends paid by QCMM Pty Ltd as non-taxable company loans. Once again, the writ lodged by Mr Adams is very illuminating about the operation of this scheme. According to the writ, which is available from the Queensland Supreme Court Registry, Mr Adams states in his affidavit:There was a delay of almost two years in the issuing of the shares. During that time, payments were made to the proposed shareholders notionally on account of dividends on such shareholdings. The payments were calculated according to the approved value of the shareholdings and were processed in the books as loans.What can be plainer than that? Notional dividends declared on shares that have not yet been issued but are disguised as non-taxable loans. And who has their hands in that arrangement? That is Senator Parer.I am also concerned that during the committee hearings into this bill, I asked the Australian Taxation Office specifically how it could be possible to declare notional dividends on shares that do not exist and then to show them as loans in company accounts. The ATO's response was that they did not understand the concept of what notional dividends were. (Time expired)12:17:002835Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Before I commence my remarks on this bill and in accordance with standing orders, I declare the potential for an interest in this matter since I am a trustee of a family trust.The Australian Democrats are very mindful that this bill contains a number of important, if unrelated, measures—it is really an omnibus bill. Most of these measures flow from the 1997 budget and are, therefore, way overdue for consideration—indeed, the savings tax rebate was the centrepiece of the government's 1997 budget announcements.The Australian Democrats acknowledge that—everything else being equal—there is virtue in moving towards budget balance and a moderate surplus. But surpluses are only warranted if they are achieved without causing hardship in the community. And hardship has been the cost of the deregulatory policies and the economic rationalist policies of both treasurers Keating and Costello, particularly from the cost-cutting policies of the current government.We believe the increasing division of Australian society under these policies is ripping the fabric of Australian society. Governments are not just here to provide a level playing field for business. In a liberal democratic society—and that is a small `l'- governments have roles in nation building, in supporting the development of a sense of community, and in providing the forms which give effect to cultural and social development and national self-definition. Governments also have a responsibility to provide services and to ensure that we provide opportunities and support for those in difficulties, whilst improving our standard of living and our national wealth.A different route is required to achieve budget balance and surplus. Rather than slashing expenditure, the aim of balancing the budget can be achieved—in part—by closing tax loopholes and by eliminating other measures which reduce revenue without serving worthwhile social or industry development goals. We need to bear in mind that Australia can cope with additional taxes, as it is one of the lowest taxing countries in the OECD. Against that background, several of the measures in the bill are laudable, and the Democrats will not impede their signing into law.However, the bill, as submitted into the House of Representatives, was sloppy in many respects. The government conceded this in developing its 83 amendments, which have now been incorporated into the revised bill. But problems remain, and while we will be moving amendments to address some of these, we consider it the responsibility of the government—not our own—to fix most of the glitches. I have to say, too, that the government has been its own enemy with regard to this bill. It is the government which determines its legislative program and the government had strongly stated that it intended to deal with the bill last year and, then, well prior to Easter. On this basis the Australian Democrats agreed to the rapid consideration of this bill by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, and to an early reporting date. Mr Chairman, you were intimately involved in this matter and you suffered some stress as a result.In the event, the bill has not been considered until now. The rushed reporting date meant that the committee had totally inadequate time to deal with a number of very complex, detailed and important tax issues. We had the farcical situation of witnesses before the committee hearing being unable to discuss the bill confidently, since they had not had time to assess whether the government's 83 amendments to the bill had met their concerns. The other consequence of misleading the Senate and senators as to the timing of bringing on of the bill is to make us less inclined to believe the government again, and that is regrettable.The Australian Democrats again place on record our objection to the government's practice of squeezing the legitimate deliberations of committees to meet unrealistic projections for Senate consideration of government legislation. It is not the government's practice with regard to every bill, but in a number of bills recently it has been the case, and it is to be deeply regretted.I now want to deal with the substantial elements of the bill. One of the major elements is superannuation and the choice that exists within superannuation. I will leave that area to my colleague, Senator Allison, who will speak separately on that matter.Turning to the remainder of the bill, I will address, firstly, the payment of reportable payment systems, known as RPSs; prescribed payment systems, known as PPSs; and pay-as-you-earn deductions, known as PAYEs. In general, we have no problem with the schedule, which allows for the more efficient payment of these deductions, reducing considerably the expenses of the Australian Taxation Office.We do, however, question whether it is reasonable to make it effectively compulsory for large remitters to do so electronically rather than by otherwise valid forms of payment. It is clear that the Taxation Office has an interest in encouraging remitters to do so electronically. However, a penalty of $500 each time for not using electronic means can come to an annual penalty of $26,000.The Australian Democrats will consider whether the Australian Taxation Office should be obliged not to apply the $500 penalty without consideration of individual circumstances and to discuss with individual remitters their particular situations and their abilities to remit cheaply in this way. We also suggest that the government—or the next government—re-assess this measure after a year of operation and consider whether there should be any amendment.In terms of the franking of dividends and other distributions, considerable concern was raised in the Senate hearings about these provisions. A principal criticism is that the test for catching an action is that gaining a franking credit benefit is `an other than incidental' rather than `a dominant' purpose. Several witnesses expressed concern that this would catch franking arrangements which are otherwise legitimate in their intent and operation. Witnesses also criticised the lack of a definition of `dividend streaming' and its retrospectivity.The Australian Democrats consider there may be problems with the drafting of this schedule. However, within the limitations of the committee considerations, we had inadequate time to explore the provisions and to refine improvements. In any case, we consider that it is the responsibility of the government with its extensive executive resources to ensure that the drafting of a bill is satisfactory. This schedule is one which could be flagged for reconsideration when there is the inevitable rewrite of taxation law next year following the election. Having said this, the Australian Democrats support the intention of this schedule to minimise taxation loss in this area and will not oppose its passage through the Senate. Distributions from private companies are dealt with in schedule 9. What a mess that has been. Again, there were major drafting problems with this schedule. While it is essential that a democratic state have community watchdogs out there who help us by alerting us to the dangers of any particular legislation, we should not need to rely on them as much as we were forced to here. Fortunately, those watchdogs did growl loudly. It also suggests that the Australian Taxation Office or the Treasury—or both—may need to review their consultation processes and listen more carefully to the concerns raised by special groups in the industry before submitting legislation.To the government's credit, though, they did change their own legislation with a truckload of amendments and they did respond to well expressed community concern. And we thank them for that. In large measure, concerns with the schedule seem to have been addressed as a consequence but, in the Senate committee, witnesses indicated that there some outstanding technical problems. Again, we consider that it is for the government to address these problems rather than for non-government parties to be devoting their limited resources to trying to do so. The schedule is nonetheless very important in clawing back an estimated $110 million over three years in what the Treasurer (Mr Costello) likes to refer to as tax rorts.There is one important area we do want to address, and that is in relation to employee share ownership schemes. The Democrats, as the Senate knows—and many senators agree with us on this—are great supporters of employee share ownership schemes and would like to see as many employees as possible participating in the enterprises which they work for. The coalition's 1996 pre-election policy on employee share ownership plans emphasised the importance of such plans improving national savings. The coalition promised to widen the taxation incentives for employee share ownership plans. We will be moving to ensure that such plans are indeed not caught up by this schedule and continue to be given preferential treatment.Finally, I will speak to the last schedule of this bill, which relates to the savings rebate. We recognise that this was a key feature of the 1997 budget. The Australian Democrats support measures to increase Australian private savings as a means of reducing overseas borrowing requirements, as a means of financing Australian business development, and as a means of advancing Australia's national wealth. To this end, the rapid growth of Australian superannuation funds to $326 billion is extremely pleasing—and we believe that the Labor government that preceded the present government should take credit for much of that effort. I should say though that the Democrats would discourage the investment of too much of those funds overseas, because that does not necessarily benefit Australia as much as it otherwise could.The current amount invested overseas is $52 billion—or some 16 per cent. I recognise it is a moot point as to how much is how much, but it is an area on which we are alert to dangers. Unfortunately, we believe that the savings rebate will not achieve that aim of increasing savings. Let us be honest. Since last year's budget the measure has not had a happy stay in the anteroom of the parliamentary doctor. We had the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) renouncing his personal claim to the rebate pretty well immediately—which was not exactly a clever way to say that he thought it was a good idea—before it became clear that the rebate would be provided automatically by the Australian Taxation Office. That also indicated that it was a fruitless gesture. But, worse, we had Treasury revealing that the rebate would actually reduce net national savings.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—`A big risk', in Mr Evans's words.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Yes. It is that which is the fatal problem with this schedule. The reason that it reduces net savings is that it will not adequately change individual investor behaviour. High income earners will be rewarded for doing what they are already doing. The wealthy do not need encouragement to save. Regrettably, low income workers will be limited in their ability to take advantage of the measure because their incomes are already committed to the day-to-day expenditures which keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. If you want the lower income members of our society to save, you need to progress policies which actually advance their standard of living, advance their income, and allow them to become more productive members of the community. But it is those who are better off in society that we must look to at present for savings.With three to four per cent for cash interest rates, the taxpayer needs to have $75,000 to $100,000 in bank savings to earn the top rebate. The rebate in this case is capped at too high a level, in our view. The reward for superannuation is more easily achieved, as only $3,000 is required to achieve the same maximum benefit of $450.This bill moves the rebate part of the way in the right direction. It should be targeted towards medium-term and long-term savings. One of the most important initiatives governments have taken over the last decade is to address the issues of lengthening life expectancies, consequent longer periods spent in retirement, and the projected increase in the ratio of those who are retired to those still in the work force. We have had to find ways to support people in providing for themselves in their retirement so they can retain a decent lifestyle when it will be impossible for the state to provide adequate pensions from year to year revenue. Both the preceding government and this government have been alert to that problem.With this in mind, the Australian Council of Social Service, known as ACOSS, suggested four principles for making the rebate more effective and equitable. Firstly, the rebate should be restricted to long-term financial savings such as those through superannuation and financial institution accounts maintained for at least five years. Secondly, the rebate should be linked to contributions and deposits rather than interest so as to make savings of smaller amounts worthwhile. Thirdly, the rebate should be added to the account rather than paid to the taxpayer directly. Fourthly, the rebate should extend to compulsory superannuation so that low and middle income wage earners can significantly benefit or, at the very least, be restricted to longer term financial savings other than superannuation and to be strictly income tested.The Australian Democrats, before the 1996 election, said that the savings rebate should be targeted towards longer term savings and be means tested. The coalition has changed its own pre-election views on the savings initiative. Specifically, it has changed from a concessional tax rate to a rebate. But, more importantly, the coalition government has removed the income threshold at the same time as scrapping the superannuation employer contributions. The income threshold is vital if we are to achieve equity in the taxation system, for this is a very expensive measure, and it is a very expensive measure which will result—to repeat what I said earlier—in a net reduction in savings.Last year's budget projected losses in revenue of $350 million, then of $1.4 billion and a massive $2 billion over the next three financial years—totalling nearly $4 billion. It makes little sense to be enacting this measure so shortly before an election for which the central issue, the government tells us, will be taxation reform. Two billion dollars per year of rebates is a significant mass in the overall scheme of taxation revenues. Certainly, such an ad hoc measure would be reshaped within a sensible, comprehensive overhaul of the Australian taxation system.The Australian Democrats, therefore, suggest that this close to an election the measure should be delayed until savings measures have been comprehensively debated within the broader context of producing an equitable, effective tax system which advances national wealth. I suspect the government might prefer to do this as well, and I would be surprised if their tax reform committee is not looking at this very issue. Nevertheless, if the government does proceed with this measure so as to keep its commitments from before the election and the last budget, we will move an amendment. Consistent with the government's 1996 pre-election commitment, we will move to phase out the rebate between $35,000 and $39,000.12:33:002838Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 that the Senate is considering deals with a range of very important provisions. The issue that I intend to make a contribution on today relates to the so-called introduction of choice of superannuation products. There are a range of other matters relating, for example, to the rebate. I have made a contribution on previous occasions on that issue. There are a range of other pieces of legislation with respect to superannuation choice in the industrial relations area and the public sector area, and I will make a contribution when that legislation comes before the Senate.Firstly, let me give a brief overview of current superannuation arrangements in Australia. Superannuation has been compulsory for employees in Australia since the introduction of the superannuation guarantee charge by the then Keating Labor government. At the time, it was controversial, but it is now hailed as a universally necessary measure in order to boost both national savings and individual retirement incomes. It is currently six per cent of wages, rising to nine per cent by the year 2001-02.These contributions are made by the employer, but they are moneys that belong to the employee and, in part, they are superannuation contributions in lieu of a wage increase. These funds are administered by the private sector, and they are administered and managed, in the main, by independent, non-profit trusts, either through a company or industry fund structure. In both these cases, there are joint employer and employee trustees. The trustees, who exercise management decisions, tender in a competitive way for the administration, investment and insurance products for the funds that they manage. Trustees, using their economy of scale, bargain very successfully on behalf of their individual members. They are cost efficient, reliable and safe, and enjoy a good long-term average return.Another product in the superannuation market is personal superannuation. It is often sold by agents. We have also recently had the entry of banks into the superannuation market with retirement savings accounts, commonly known as RSAs. In respect of personal superannuation products they have often been criticised, I think justifiably, for their high administrative charges. In respect to RSAs, they are certainly delivered at a reasonable cost in terms of administration, but they are a low return product.What does superannuation choice mean? If we look at the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Miles, it is interesting to note, initially, that the government's explanation for superannuation choice is only five paragraphs long. This is interesting because the measure we are considering is one of the most radical and far-reaching changes that will affect millions of Australians. It will have a very significant implication. I find it disturbing that there is only a five-paragraph contribution in the second reading speech on this issue.What does superannuation choice mean in reality? In reality, it is the deregulation of the retail market for superannuation in this country where the employer agrees. The effective choice is largely left to the employer. That is a significant change to the government's original budget announcement. The Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, made significant changes to effectively give the employer the right of veto over the choice made by employees. The Assistant Treasurer refers to the changes as `enhancements'. Effectively, it was a backdown in the face of employer pressure to ensure that the employer had the right of veto.We are not considering legislation that gives the employee the right of choice. But, in reality, what does choice mean? Effectively, as I have said, it is the deregulation of the retail end of the market. Before I make some comments about the implications of that, I should emphasise that there is a form of choice in respect of the superannuation market at the present time. There is choice of investment within a significant number of superannuation funds that currently exist. In many of the funds that offer the product, a member can indicate the sort of investment area they want their moneys invested in. That is a feature that is emerging more and more in the range of superannuation funds that exist in this country.It is also interesting that this government has identified choice as an issue since the advent of the superannuation guarantee and of industry superannuation funds. It is interesting to note that it never regarded choice as an issue when superannuation was confined to a minority of the work force in this country and confined, largely, to in-house employer funds.I would like to make a few comments about the theory of competition. Assurances are given in Mr Miles's speech and by Senator Kemp and others. Mr Miles said:The choice of fund arrangements are designed to give employees greater choice and control over their superannuation savings, which in turn give them greater sense of ownership of these savings. The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings.Let me emphasise that last sentence again:The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings.That is the claim by the government. Let me deal with the theory of competition, because it is very important when considering the issue of choice. The theory of competition relies on a number of important criteria. The two relevant criteria here are, firstly, that superannuation should be delivered by a significant number of players. We should not have an oligopoly or a monopoly; there should be a considerable range of products from which to make a choice. That criterion certainly exists in the superannuation industry.The second important criterion for competition is product knowledge and understanding. This will be very important in respect of the individual Australians, the individual consumers, who will be compulsorily required to make a choice as a consequence of this legislation.I am very sceptical. In fact, I am sure that there is a very limited product knowledge held by the millions of Australian consumers who will be required to make this choice. Interestingly, at the hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, there was considerable evidence about the lack of knowledge of Australian consumers in this area.I note that Mr Ken Lockery, who is the principal of Towers Perrin, noted that the majority of employees in large employer based or industry funds would not receive any benefit and that they might, instead, suffer a net economic loss as a result of the introduction of choice, simply because their individual knowledge of making a choice about a superannuation product is very limited and, in many cases, non-existent.If there is to be a choice, it is important that it is an informed choice. The Australian consumer should be able to sit down and make a valid comparison between various superannuation products and the costs and returns associated with the range of products on offer. In that regard, education is very important and it is critical to Australians making an informed choice. Education is a great deal more than a well- planned advertising and, I would argue, propaganda campaign by funds as to the different products they offer. Of course, there also needs to be a sufficient time period in which to conduct an education campaign.Even with a properly presented education campaign directed at the Australian community, I am very sceptical about us being able to adequately inform Australians as to making an informed choice of superannuation product. Let us assume that we can educate millions of Australians to the level of financial literacy required to make an informed choice. What about the 2.5 million Australians who are either illiterate or functionally illiterate? What hope is there of educating those 2.5 million Australians adequately in order for them to make an informed choice.Choice has been introduced in two countries, and disturbing evidence of the significant problems which have arisen has come from both those countries—the United Kingdom and Chile. Firstly, let me deal with the United Kingdom. In the 1980s, the Thatcher conservative government decided to allow employees to opt out of their company pension fund and set up a personal pension arrangement instead—indeed, they were forced to. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Bills2841r4642841Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.12:45:002841Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill 1998 amends part 4A of the Student Youth Assistance Act 1973, which deals with Austudy and Abstudy financial supplements. The financial supplement is a loan scheme under which students can obtain $2 on loan for every $1 of Austudy or Abstudy entitlement, up to a maximum of $3,500. This scheme, which was one of the innovations of the former Labor government, is designed to benefit students and to provide them with greater flexibility in income support. This is in stark contrast to the harsh treatment that students have received under the coalition.The financial supplement loans are repaid through the tax system, but not for the first five years after they have been made available. On 1 July of this year, the first loan recipients, those from 1993, will be required to start repayments if their taxable income exceeds the minimum threshold. The minimum level at which repayments begin—$29,307—is set at the annual equivalent of average weekly earnings and requires payments at the rate of two per cent of annual income. At an income level of $33,305, three per cent repayments apply, rising to four per cent at the income level of $46,629.These thresholds are the same, after indexation, as those that applied under Labor's HECS scheme. Under the coalition government, the HECS repayment threshold is set at the ridiculously low level of less than $21,000. We are pleased to note that the government has at least recognised in this bill that to pile further repayment obligations on students earning only $21,000 would be totally unreasonable. It is an extraordinary contrast that this particular measure has been maintained while the broader aspects of the HECS changes have forced students to undertake such unreasonable burdens.The financial supplement scheme provided loans for around 44,000 students in 1993, its first year of operation. While the vast majority of these still have some outstanding debt, it is not known how many will be required to commence repayments in the 1998-99 tax year because their income levels are also unknown. By 1996, around 13 per cent of Austudy and Abstudy recipients, or 68,000 students, were taking out loans under this scheme.This bill also introduces a 14-day cooling-off period for financial supplement applications. This means that students can have a full two weeks to consider their financial options and whether to proceed with trading their Austudy entitlements for twice as much in the form of a loan. If they wish, students can choose to have earlier access to loan funds, thus waiving the cooling-off period. The opposition supports this refinement.With the passage of the youth allowance legislation, students currently receiving Austudy will be dealt with by the Department of Social Security, although Abstudy recipients will remain with DEETYA. It is disappointing to note that the full details of the financial supplement scheme are not spelt out in legislation setting up the youth allowance or the Austudy payment to apply to students aged 25 years and over. Under the amendments to the Social Security Act passed by the Senate this week, the financial supplement scheme is referred to only in general terms, raising concerns that the government plans to make the Labor initiative less generous to students.The opposition has been assured by Senator Newman that administrative difficulties have been the cause of this omission. As I indicated in the debate earlier this week, I am concerned at the resources of the department not being made available to ensure that these measures were fully spelt out in the legislation currently before the parliament. We have been given to believe that the government will rectify this situation by the end of the year if at all possible. I look forward to that assurance being met and to seeing legislation put down to ensure that these provisions are reflected in a legislative framework. In terms of the bill before us, the opposition supports the legislation.12:50:002842Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats support the Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill 1998 . We support the various technical and administrative amendments to this bill, including clarifying percentage amounts where there should be dollar amounts in relation to the discounts available to people paying back their loans. We also support the 14-day cooling-off period for people who are applying for the supplement. We think it is appropriate that people should be given the opportunity to reconsider their supplement request.I place on record the concerns that the Democrats have had with the operation of a loans or a supplement scheme. I was reading through comments by former senator and Democrat education spokeswoman Karen Sowada who debated this legislation on behalf of my party in 1992. The concerns that she stated in the chamber then are the same concerns that the Democrats have today with a system that, instead of providing for an adequate system of student financial support in the form of grants, relies on supplementation in the form of loans. It should be resourced in a way that enables people to have a livable income. In that debate, Karen Sowada said the her concerns were that:Instead of redressing the blatant inequities in Austudy, this scheme is what the Government is actually offering the struggling students of this country. Loans will be available to those students eligible for Austudy and Abstudy—those students who are, by definition, the hardest hit and the poorest in our community.She thought it was inappropriate that those people who were already struggling to participate or to enter into the higher education system should be slugged further with incurring a debt.While the Democrats are the first to suggest that students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, should have access to some form of student assistance, we believe it should be available in a grants form because the loans scheme only ensures that students are saddled with increasing amounts of debt. I should note that, in light of the recent changes to the higher education contribution scheme and also the possibility of up-front fees and charges under the current government, it is not unrealistic to believe that many students in Australia will have debts at least the equivalent of the cost of their parents' house.Various research studies have indicated that, for example, a student studying a law degree over four or perhaps even five years at the rate of at least $5,500 per annum in HECS debt, not to mention comparable loans that they may incur, will have huge amounts to repay at the end of their degree or when the threshold kicks in. As Senator Carr said, that threshold is at an inappropriate and unrealistic level these days at just over $21,000. That is something again that the Democrats do not support.I urge the government today to do something about ensuring that there is an adequate level of support and financial assistance to students in this country. We know that Austudy or the loan supplement by no means provides a livable income for many young people and for students. I draw the attention of the chamber and in particular the minister to the National Union of Students' Commonwealth budget submission for this year which points out how you could ensure that students were on a livable income—that is, one that is over the poverty level—not the current levels of student assistance which we know are at best around 60 per cent of the poverty line and on average around 35 per cent of the poverty line. Perhaps the government could take some clues from that submission as to how we can ensure that students are assisted with their studies and are resourced in a way that not only enables them to buy study materials but also to have such basic things as shelter and food.The Democrats have long called for the reform of student financial assistance in relation to the eligibility criteria and in relation to the amounts paid and we will continue that campaign. I also acknowledge that elements of the bill before us are contingent on the passage of the common youth allowance legislation. While I will not discuss the bill that is specifically before the parliament, I note there is considerable community debate on to some of its negative aspects, specifically how 16- and 17-year-olds will survive without benefits if they are not in employment, education and training. There is also the long debated issue of how we define `independence'; that is, the age at which young people and in particular students qualify for the independent rate of Austudy and other financial assistance. That is not assisted by the government's proposal that students should be dependent upon their family until the age of 25 in the common youth allowance bill. That is an issue we have raised not only during the loans debate in 1992 but also before that.I bring to the attention of the chamber once again the fact that the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs—I do not know at whose request—organised a media strategy document to counter some of these negative criticisms and concerns.AW5CARRSenator Carr—No, Social Security.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Sorry, the Department of Social Security.AW5CARRSenator Carr—DEETYA is not that bad.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—DEETYA hardly exists any more, Senator Carr, they have cut it back so much. I wonder whether it is an unprecedented move to target individuals in the parliament, me in particular and a member in the other house. Rather than criticising those people who might raise concerns about how families are going to support their students—I will not say `children' because it implies that they are very young and, in fact, I do not consider someone the age of 25 to be a child as such—and coming up with strategies to target those people who may air those concerns, perhaps the government could look at ways to assist those families and reorganise the student financial assistance in a way that actually provides people with a livable income so they can enter into, and participate in, higher and other levels of education.12:56:002843Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I would like to thank those senators who participated for their contribution. I thank the opposition and the Democrats for their support of this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills2843s1582843Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:58:002843Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—We are dealing with the Crimes Amendment (Enforcement of Fines) Bill 1998 . On behalf of the opposition, I am pleased to report that we are not opposed to the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills2843r4102843Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Ian Macdonald:That this bill be now read a second time.13:00:002843Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I can report on behalf of the opposition that we are not opposed to the Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997 .Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills2843r2062843Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Hill:That this bill be now read a second time.13:02:002844Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I seek leave, on behalf of Senator Bolkus, to incorporate his second reading speech. I have shown the speech to the government whip.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—CRIMES AMENDMENT (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) BILL 1997Madam President,I propose to speak only briefly in relation to this Bill.The Crimes Amendment (Forensic) Procedures Bill 1997 represents the fulfilment of yet another commitment made by the previous Labor Government. In the much heralded Justice Statement , launched in May 1995, the previous Labor Government committed itself to the introduction of, and I quote:"a Forensic Procedures Bill to allow police to apply for court orders to take samples from suspected criminals for identification."As the Justice Statement went on to state:"The use of forensic samples is a very important tool in crime investigation. The compulsory taking of samples is necessary for effective law enforcement. A lack of such powers might advantage criminals. The Commonwealth legislation will build in substantial civil liberty safeguards."As the Justice Statement promised, so the previous Labor Government delivered. Unlike some, we keep our promises. Later in 1995, the Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 1995 was introduced and passed through the House.That bill was based on the Model Forensic Procedures Bill developed by the Model Criminal Code of fixers' Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.In turn, the Model Bill drew on the recommendations of the Report on Body Samples and Examinations published by the Victorian Consultative Committee on Police Powers of Investigation.The 1995 bill found its way to the Senate and, following consideration by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, which reported in October 1995, the bill lapsed when the parliament was prorogued for the 1996 Federal election.The bill currently before the House relies heavily on the 1995 Bill, although amendments have been made adopting most of the twenty unanimous recommendation of the Senate Committee. Only three of those recommendations have not been adopted in full.Recommendations 1 and 3 sought to limit the power to take body samples and conduct examinations, particularly of breast swabs in the case of recommendation 3, to circumstances in which the offence was punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more. The Government has applied this recommendation save that it has reduced the scope of the exception to apply it to indictable offences only.It also appears, on the basis of further consideration, that the Senate Committee, in agreeing to recommendation 3, failed to fully appreciate the nature of the procedures contemplated by the relevant provisions.Accordingly, the Labor Party believes that these amendments are appropriate.Recommendation 2 prevented the taking of dental impressions. This recommendation was based on the state of forensic deontology as it was in 1995. I am advised that technological developments made since that time now mean that low-invasive techniques for the taking of dental impressions are now available.Accordingly, the Labor Party also believes that this amendment is appropriate.The bill was further referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional legislation Committee which reported back in December 1997. The majority on that Committee, which members of both the Government and the Opposition suggested only one further minor amendment.More substantively, Senator Murray on behalf of the Australian Democrats made a number of recommendations the substance of which are now contained in the amendments moved on his behalf.With the exception of amendment 14 which establishes a formal review of the operation of the Bill, the Labor Party will be opposing these amendments.I have no doubt that they are born out of a genuine concern from the Australian Democrats that some of the provisions in this Bill may be abused. I believe, however, that they are misguided in that view. The Bill currently places very tight, often judicial control, on the undertaking on non-consensual intimate forensic procedures. Accordingly, we believe that these protections are sufficient.The Democrats amendments make further limitations by, for example, defining as a "suspect" certain persons but not persons whom the ordinary members of the public would believe to be a suspect, in other words a person reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offence. Such an amendment does not assist ordinary Australians to understand the effect of the legislation nor is the amendment advisable.The Democrats amendments would also prevent ordinary police officers from taking hair samples (other than pubic hair samples), samples of nails or from material under nails, handprints, fingerprints, footprints and toe prints. These are all activities regularly carried out by police officers and I can see no logical reason for preventing police officers from performing these actions in the future.ConclusionIn conclusion, it follows that this Bill remains, in essence, and largely in substance, Labor's 1995 bill.13:02:002845Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The model bill for forensic procedures circulated by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee is now before the parliament, and it raises some significant concerns. The bill gives the Australian Federal Police broad powers to conduct forensic procedures, ranging from finger and foot prints to taking samples of hair, and to initiate forensic procedures by having appropriately qualified persons taking genital swabs and other intimate samples. The bill distinguishes between intimate and non-intimate procedures, but there is no clear distinction between the two since the procedures are on a continuum from least intimate and intrusive to most intimate and intrusive.There are conflicting views as to the need for the bill. On the one hand, the bill is presented as necessary to advance the protection of human rights, as it is clear that forensic procedures are not only in widespread use in police work but are also not properly managed at this time. On the other hand, the bill introduces new powers to take samples from persons who have not been charged with an offence and to force them to give these samples. At common law, there is no power presently to compel a suspect to provide a sample of his or her blood, hair, saliva or other bodily matter. Undoubtedly, the bill significantly erodes conventional civil liberties by altering this common law constraint. The question is whether the bill significantly advances the public good in so doing.One way to measure this is to establish whether significantly advanced criminal detection rates will result from the bill. It is readily apparent from the evidence put to the hearings that no such case is made by the proponents of the bill. There has been no quantification of an expected detection and conviction rate improvement. I would remind you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that the question of quantifying the benefits of bills are well established in financial bills, and I would have thought a bill which alters our civil rights accordingly would have had its effect quantified. One inescapable issue dominates any consideration of the bill. The bill gives the police powers to detain and take samples from persons who have not been arrested or charged.The development of the modern law of evidence has its origins in the 17th and 18th centuries. By and large, it is a collection of exclusionary rules, rules declaring that certain matters which might well be accepted as evidence of fact by other inquirers will not be accepted by the courts—rules declaring, in other words, what is not judicial evidence.The evidence of a fact is that which tends to prove it—something which may satisfy an inquirer of the fact's existence. Courts of law usually have to find that certain facts exist before pronouncing on the rights, duties and liabilities of parties, and such evidence as they will receive in furtherance of this task is described as `judicial evidence'. Judicial evidence consists of testimony, hearsay, documents, things and facts which a court will accept as evidence of the facts to be debated in any given case. The main facts in issue are all those facts which the prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt to succeed.The main point is obviously relevance, and the main general rule governing the entire subject is that all evidence which is sufficiently relevant to an issue before the court is admissible and all that is irrelevant, or insufficiently relevant, should be excluded. It has been said that the first rule of evidence is relevance. It should perhaps be added that the first rule of collecting evidence should also be relevance. In legal terms, if the prosecution cannot prove that a piece of evidence is relevant to the case at hand, the judge will exclude it from the consideration of the jury.In my view, and in the view of the Australian Democrats, the collection of evidence by any investigatory body should be relevant to a criminal investigation and admissible as evidence before a court of law. There is a general exclusionary ability in this bill. It enables the Australian Federal Police to detain, force a sample from and then exclude from any further inquiries any suspect they think is reasonable to deal with. The question of relevance is determined in these instances by the police, not by the courts.Evidence of a fact is that which tends to prove it—something which may satisfy an inquirer of the fact's existence. That is not to say that all evidence is admissible. For instance, a telephone tap may tend conclusively to prove that someone is dealing in drugs. However, if the tap is not lawfully obtained, it may be ruled inadmissible by the court. In contrast to the United States where the courts are firmly of the opinion that illegally obtained evidence should be automatically excluded, Australian courts will admit illegally obtained evidence if, on a balanced analysis, the public good sufficiently outweighs the infringement of the legal protection.As a society, we include as democratic principles the adherence to the rule of law—that is, citizens are ruled by laws and those administering them. Democratic dictates also require the respect for human rights and the protection of minorities against the possible coercive and oppressive power of the majority—thus the arguments for a bill of rights and constitutional protection against the tyranny of any given majority. It must be said that wide, unfettered discretion of this kind is, therefore, contrary to the concept of the rule of law as we have known it.Contrary to popular belief, the police do not have any greater power to arrest than the average citizen. Lawful arrest is the only circumstance in which a citizen's personal liberty can be deprived, and then only according to the rule of law. The check against the abuse of this power lies in the civil law protection against unlawful imprisonment. This action is taken by the citizen against the arresting officer personally. The police officer must, therefore, be very clear that the action of arrest is reasonable in all the circumstances.Despite this apparent civil law protection, there have been cases where citizens have been unlawfully arrested. There are strict limits on the amount of time someone can be held under arrest before being charged, released or bailed, and we are all familiar with the writ of habeas corpus. In the present environment of legal aid cuts and increased court fees, it is questionable as to whether a citizen could now prosecute a successful civil law claim. In this bill, it is significant that the onus would be on the victim to assert their rights in the event of the powers being abused.Fundamental to the criminal justice system is the presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty. The onus is, therefore, placed upon the prosecution to rebut this presumption. The prosecution must provide evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. This bill significantly alters the presumption by allowing the police to obtain evidence not only to prove guilt but also to now prove innocence. This represents a fundamental departure from what is commonly considered should be the role of law enforcement bodies in the criminal justice system.The bill clearly intends that someone could have a body sample taken to prove that they were not an offender. This distorts the nexus of both relevance and probative value of evidence, which is fundamental to presumption of innocence and, we suggest, to the rule of law itself. If everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty, there is no need to accumulate evidence to support a proposition that the law is already compelled to accept.Although significantly altered in recent years, there is still a significant component of the presumption of innocence that says a person should not have to do the prosecution's job for them. The presumption of innocence dictates that the prosecution, not the accused, must prove the guilt. It must be stated that the bill significantly departs from this privilege because of the coercive nature of collecting the evidence. There is some weight in the argument that states, if you can not be compelled to answer questions, the more significant removal of bodily matter, by requirement, should be at least on a par with that prohibition. The bill will make lawful activities by law enforcement agencies which are not presently lawful in any state or in the Commonwealth, except in Victoria. It actually extends police powers.The point of contact of police with a citizen is the point where the state and its coercive powers are at their most significant. Some farmers, of course, maintain that the same applies when you have Customs officers knocking on your door. The intercession of the rule of law is what distinguishes democratic and just societies from despotic and oppressive regimes.The nature of police work is unusual in so far as power and discretion is inverse to that of seniority and rank. In police work, young constables are the persons who engage the public the most and are authorised to carry arms and, in certain circumstances, use deadly force. In this bill, senior constables are authorised persons, and at the hearings the committee was given evidence that these persons would typically not be younger than 26 years old. By any number of criteria, the nature of police work includes a wide range of discretion.At almost every point of contact with the citizen, the police officer makes decisions and value judgments about that citizen. While it is acknowledged that most policing necessarily involves the use of discretion, it is also true that the rule of law requires that this is limited to the absolute minimum. The Australian Democrats are not convinced of the necessity for all the bill's coercive and intrusive powers. We do accept, and we do support, the regularisation of current forensic procedures, the regularisation of data usage, and procedures for the storage and destruction of forensic samples.It is quite clear that in our society and with modern technology this is an area which deserves the legislative attention of the Commonwealth. It is quite clear that the AFP do need guiding legislative principles. So we are not opposed to those elements of the bill, but we do think that the bill goes too far. Accordingly, we have introduced a number of amendments, which I have circulated, on amendment sheet No. 840. Those amendments will seek to: restrict the use of coercive and pre-emptive police powers where not appropriate, limit the applications of sample procurement, require the police to provide training in forensic procedures policing and provide for appropriate review and reporting on the use of these powers.We do think that this is a very important bill in terms of human rights, in terms of Australian civil rights and in terms of civil liberties. We do think it is important that the parliament considers the extreme possibilities that may arise out of the provisions of the bill. Therefore, we hope the amendments we have put forward to moderate it will be acceptable to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Minchin) adjourned.Sitting suspended from 1.14 p.m. to 2.00p.m.Questions Without Notice284728472847Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services, Senator Herron. Can the minister confirm that expenditure on child-care assistance in 1997-98 was about $100 million less than anticipated in last year's budget? Does the government admit that this is because parents cannot afford formal care and instead are leaving paid work or putting their children into backyard care?2847Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Gibbs for her question because once again she raises the same Labor misinformation program. No, Senator Gibbs, I do not believe the statement that you have just made. The government has allocated $4.9 billion over four years to child care. There will be an extra 83,000 places over four years.It is interesting that you sit next to Senator Crowley. She was the minister responsible for the unbridled overdevelopment of private day care centres which got totally out of control. They were built in the wrong places. Evidence was given before a Senate inquiry that there were 16 child-care centres within one kilometre of each other. That occurred under the Labor government. So I dispute that statement, Senator Gibbs. As I have said, there will be an extra 83,000 places over four years. Currently, there are 493,880 families using formal child care—that is, 599,920 children.Some $1.2 billion has been allocated to child care this year—an increase of 18 per cent since Labor's last year in office. We get this bleating—these complaints—from Labor that we are forcing women out. That is not true. The ABS Labor force figures show that the total participation rate for females with dependent children under 15 years of age has remained relatively stable since January 1996 at around 59 per cent.Where are these women who are being chased out of the work force? They are not. The same percentage are in work now as under Labor. It has been the same figure since January 1996. In seasonally adjusted terms, participation rates for women with children have remained at a constant level of 59 per cent over the same period. The same misinformation program is going on. The Labor Party is running a scare campaign.They have nothing else to go on after the tremendous budget that was delivered the other day. Inflation is the lowest it has been for 30 years. Housing interest rates are the lowest they have been in 28 years. Small business interest rates are the lowest they have been in 30 years. The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been for eight years. Senator Cook was talking about the current account deficit. I looked it up. Under the Labor Party it averaged 4.8 per cent of gross domestic product. In our first year in government it was 3.5 per cent.They are getting back to the old scare campaign about child-care centres because they have not got a feather to fly with in relation to the budget. You will remember, Madam President, the scare campaign and the misinformation campaign conducted by the Labor Party before the budget was brought down. They are going back to it because they have nothing else to talk about. They are dredging up the old stories about child-care centres which are completely untrue. Senator Gibbs knows that they are completely untrue. If she does not she should talk to Senator Crowley. I will drag out the Crowley file. Let us have the Crowley file and we will produce the statements that Senator Crowley made.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—`Senator Crowley file' to you.VW4Senator HERRON—The `Senator Crowley file', as Senator Faulkner says. My apologies. She should talk to the senator sitting next to her and she will get the truth of the matter.2848Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Madam President, maybe you could refer the minister to budget paper No. 4 this year. Can the minister confirm that the estimates of spending on child-care assistance for the outyears imply a further cut to child-care budgets of nearly $300 million in the next three years in addition to the $800 million already cut?2848Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—At times I start getting concerned about the ability of the Labor Party to read budget papers. I am sure my colleague Senator Kemp would be happy to explain the budget papers to Senator Gibbs. It is obvious that Senator Gibbs has not got the faintest idea about those budget papers. I have already stated in answer to her previous question that an extra $4.9 billion will be spent over the next four years. That means an extra 83,000 places over the next four years.They make these allegations about various cuts. I know they have difficulty with the budget, as I have said before. I can understand why they had a $10.3 billion deficit in their last year in office. They cannot add up. They can subtract. They know how to spend. That is why we faced the debacle of a $10.3 billion deficit when we took over government. (Time expired)28482848Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Newman. The coalition government has always taken seriously its responsibility towards older Australians. In addition to measures such as the indexation of the age pension at 25 per cent of total male average weekly earnings, tax rebates for low income self-funded retirees and incentives for private health insurance, will you outline some of the measures in the federal budget which will be of benefit to older Australians?2849Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Senator Patterson has long been concerned in this chamber about issues to do with older Australians. As chairman of the Conference for Older Australians, she is working very hard with other members of the Conference for Older Australians to ensure that the International Year for Older Australians is a great success in contrast to what happened to the International Year of the Family under the previous administration.This government is good news for older Australians. It continues the government's drive to provide older Australians with greater income security and with access to the services they need. Labor has a lot of rhetoric about the aged but when it comes to reality we remember who called an older person a `silly old bugger' and for the rest of the time they forgot them.Let me talk about the Commonwealth seniors health card. We promised in the election campaign that we would make access to that card simpler, and we have done it. The application process will be much easier for people.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Eight pages they had.BE4Senator NEWMAN—It was an eight-page form and very intrusive and people were not prepared to have the intrusion that that meant. Now there will be 220,000 older Australians who will be eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. It is a recognition of what they are doing in self-providing in their retirement. That saves the taxpayer a lot of money. It is not something that is done easily and overnight. They work hard. They save hard. They put money by often that they can ill-afford so that they can be self-sufficient in retirement.Not everybody can do that, but for those who do there has been little or no recognition in the past. This is very important. So people who now have an income of up to $40,000 if they are a single person or up to $67,000 if they are a couple will be eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card for the first time. I think that is really important. It does recognise the contribution they have made by saving for their own retirement. The simplification I have already mentioned. They will only have to produce their current tax assessment notice. That complexity of application was really a great turn-off for people. We made a commitment to change it and that is what we are doing.That is only one of the measures that we are taking to help older Australians. We are addressing the needs of an Australian population that is getting older, and any government worth its salt should be planning for that.The staying at home package, which was announced just before the budget but which is funded in the budget, includes a new carer allowance payment from 1 July next year—14,000 additional carers of adults are expected to benefit from the extension. From July this year people receiving domiciliary nursing care benefit will get an increase in their pay, taking it to $75 a fortnight, which is a 29 per cent increase, which shows what happened to it over 13 years of Labor when it never moved.We are recognising the needs of those who are caring for ageing family members. It was this government which legislated to make the benchmark for the pension not only the CPI but also 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. The first time that was passed on to pensioners was in April. It is very important that they are now benchmarked against two benchmarks.We are introducing the pension bonus plan for older Australians who want to work beyond retirement. We are continuing to improve and simplify the incomes streams measures in the social security portfolio. We listened to the needs of older Australians; Labor did not. They ignored them or they abused them. We have listened to the concerns of age pensioners, to the carers of older people and to the retirees, and we have done it all in just over two years of government, whereas Labor spent 13 wasted years not preparing to help older Australians. (Time expired)2849Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you have spoken of the important contribution made by self-funded retirees. What is the government doing to encourage people to plan and provide for their retirement and also in regard to health?2850Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I cannot stress enough the importance of encouraging people to save for their own retirement to the extent that they are able to. I recognise that there will always be people, like carers, who will find it very difficult to save for their own retirement. But that is why our extension of the seniors health card is so important. Our population is ageing and one statistic puts it in a nutshell: currently there are six taxpayers for every person of retirement age. Within 50 years there will only be three taxpayers to every person of retirement age.We have introduced free vaccination of the flu vaccine, which is important for the health of older Australians. They are much more vulnerable to flu as they get older. We have kept the age pension at 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. Recently I announced a campaign for younger Australians, 40- to 45-year-olds, to save for their retirement. The `money man' Paul Clitheroe helped launch that program. We are opening the financial information service at Centrelink to younger Australians. (Time expired)28502850Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Can the minister confirm that the 1998 budget introduced a harsh new tax on people who receive lump sum compensation payments for pain and suffering, a measure that will deny social security payments to people for up to one year? What will the minister say to the unemployed person who loses his leg in an accident and receives a payout of $25,000 when the government takes his unemployment benefit away for 12 months?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right!5K4Senator FAULKNER—What will the minister say to the age pensioner who seriously injures herself after a fall in a supermarket and receives a payout of $15,000 when the government takes $46 a fortnight out of her age pension for one year? How can the minister possibly justify extracting a $50 million saving from people who suffer injury? Aren't you just adding insult to injury, Minister?2850Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think the graduate from NIDA would be interested to know that his government was reducing social security payments to people with compensation payouts by $1 for every $1 they received. So I would think his concern is rather over the top.Let me make it quite clear what the budget measure is actually doing. It provides incentives for people to choose periodic non-economic loss compensation payments over one-off lump sums. It provides concessional treatment for periodic non-economic loss payments while treating lump sums more harshly than the current treatment. For example, an initial lump sum of $10,000 and monthly payments of $1,500 will be received income test free. The evidence suggests that one-off compensation lump sums are quickly dissipated and do not offer long-term income support. It encourages compensation authorities and insurers to make periodic payments, consistent with government policy of encouraging periodic payments and thus improving the adequacy of longer term incomes. It reduces the tendency to dissipate large numbers unwisely. It strengthens the concept of the social security system as a safety net rather than the preferred source of income support. Finally, it responds to the Victorian government's workers compensation reforms by providing a concessional treatment to those people who receive periodic non-economic loss payments—concessional on what applies now.2850Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, isn't it true that, in your budget—Government senators interjecting—5K4Senator FAULKNER—Isn't it true that you have introduced a harsh new tax on people who receive lump sum compensation payouts for pain and suffering?Government senators interjecting—5K4Senator FAULKNER—Isn't that a fact, Minister? Isn't that a measure, Minister, that is going to deny social security payments for people up to—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Faulkner has tried three times, quite unsuccessfully, to adhere to the standing orders and to your ruling. On each occasion he has directed the question to the minister rather than through the chair. I concede that he is probably trying to do his best, but his best is clearly not good enough. Madam President, you ought not to allow him to continue in that amateurish fashion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am hopeful of senators gradually learning to abide by the standing orders. I am sure Senator Faulkner will, but I would appreciate a little less noise on my right also. Senator Faulkner.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam President. Minister, isn't this a measure which will deny social security—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Madam President, I do not think I even have to say it. He cannot put the question in those terms. He must put it through you and ask of the minister, not attempt to do what he does best, and that is shout down people. The point is, Senator, you are no longer allowed to do that. You must now adhere to the standing orders.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I do not need any further help on the matter. If I could help, Senator Faulkner—5K4Senator FAULKNER—On the point of order, Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.5K4Senator FAULKNER—I raise a further point of order. Madam President, you would note that poor old Senator Hill forgot himself when he took that point of order. But on this point of order: as I understand the written notification you have given to all senators, it is proper to address the minister through you. Madam President, you have asked senators—all senators in the chamber—to address ministers as `Minister', not use the word `you'. I did not. I addressed the minister as a minister through you. Madam President, I ask you to rule both Senator Alston and Senator Hill out of order. They are merely trying to cover up this vicious, vindictive budget measure. They won't get away with it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If I could help, Senator. The interpretation of the standing order would mean that you address the chair and refer to the minister as `the minister', not directly as `Minister'. That is the subtle difference.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam President. Isn't it true that, as the minister, you have introduced a measure which will deny—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!5K4Senator FAULKNER—which will deny—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! That reaction is outrageous. Senator Faulkner will, I am sure, gradually come to understand the standing order. Senator Faulkner, ask your supplementary question, and senators on my right will not interject.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, isn't this measure typical of this minister's and this government's approach to the most needy in our community?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.5K4Senator FAULKNER—It is another indication of the fact that the government's surplus is built on the backs of the most vulnerable, the most needy and the most disadvantaged in the community.2851Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Madam President, we have just seen an example of why it is very hard to explain something to Senator Faulkner. Can I point out first of all that he has asked me a question about taxation. I am not the minister responsible for taxation and I am not putting a tax on anybody. Secondly, the rationale of this measure is to encourage people to take their compensation by way of periodic payments rather than lump sums, which, historically, are dissipated. To that end, we are giving concessional treatment to people who take periodic payments.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What about a bit of choice?BE4Senator NEWMAN—They will have a choice, but they will do it in the full knowledge of what the implications are. I point out to you, Madam President, that this measure is not to come into effect for one year from now. As a result, lawyers, compensation schemes and the like will be well advised as early as possible so that any negotiations which are taking place in this coming year for people claiming compensation will be done in the full knowledge of what the government's intention is—that is, to encourage periodic payments in the future. I think that is a reasonable measure. It is good for Australia as well. (Time expired)RF4COOKSenator Cook—Totally outrageous.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook!RF4COOKSenator Cook—What if they invested in shares and get a better return?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, we are waiting to go on with question time.28522852Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. The 1998-99 budget revealed the first Commonwealth underlying surplus in almost a decade. Yesterday the minister mentioned the benefits to all Australians of such a surplus, benefits such as lowest inflation outcomes since the early 1960s and lowest bank mortgage rates since 1970.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Thanks to Labor.BX5Senator GIBSON—Will the minister outline how this budget surplus has been achieved?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Low inflation.BX5Senator GIBSON—Are there any alternative theories on how to achieve budget surpluses?2852Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Many thanks to Senator Gibson for that important question. While the question was being asked, Senator Cook made an interjection in relation to the surplus. Senator Gibson referred to the very substantial surplus that the government has been able to achieve, and Senator Cook argued that this was due to the Labor Party. We are all aware of the famous quote by Senator Cook in November 1995, when he claimed that the budget was in surplus and would continue to be in surplus. That was wrong on every account and Senator Cook has refused to stand up and correct that highly misleading statement.This surplus has been achieved through the hard work of this government. The Labor Party has opposed virtually all major measures to address the financial catastrophe which the Labor Party left to us when we resumed government. Senator Gibson was quite right when he said that the underlying budget surplus of $2.7 billion brings the Commonwealth back into the black for the first time in almost a decade. Senator Gibson was also correct when he said that it was due to the Howard government's good management of the economy and fiscal restraint. In relation to that, I will quote the very popular Treasurer, who in the last couple of days said:We now have the lowest inflation since 1962, since a band named the Beatles sung Twist and Shout in Liverpool. Mortgage rates as low as 1969, since a man called Armstrong said, `One small step for man.' And unemployment—Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—The Labor Party loves to listen to this:And unemployment as low as October 1990, since a man called Keating said, `This is the recession we had to have.'They all want to forget that.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Just a moment Senator Kemp. Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, as you would appreciate, it is quite appalling that I have to try to answer this important question with a barrage of comments coming from the other side.I referred to Senator Cook earlier in my remarks and whether the Labor Party had left this government with the very big fiscal black hole of $10.3 billion. For some two years, the Labor Party—led by Mr Beazley, the former Minister for Finance—has been strongly arguing that there was no such black hole. As I have said in this chamber before, I am not one to normally praise the shadow Treasurer, Mr Gary Evans, but Gary Evans came clean on the Sunday program last week when he confessed that Labor had left this $10.3 billion black hole. Mr Beazley did not like that and there was a bit of argie-bargie between the two.I can now reveal some important new information on this and, if time runs out, I am sure my colleague will ask me what this information is. A transcript has fallen off the back of a truck and it shows that the former Senator Gareth Evans is winning this debate on the Beazley black hole. This is the transcript of a radio interview. A leading member of the Labor Party came out strongly on the side of Mr Gary Evans, and I can now reveal—(Time expired)2853Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister outline how the budget surplus has been achieved and what alternative theories there are around as to how you can achieve a surplus?2853Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Happily, because of that supplementary question, I now have time to reveal who the leading member of the Labor Party was who—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: I think we all heard Senator Gibson's supplementary question. Do you believe that it appears the minister is trying to answer it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—He is 10 seconds into his answer. I am listening very carefully to whether or not he is dealing with Senator Gibson's question, and I am sure he is. I call Senator Kemp.WW4Senator KEMP—As I was saying, there is this very big debate in the Labor Party between Mr Beazley and Mr Evans as to whether there was a black hole or not. As I said, Mr Evans in my view was correct and honest, and I have a transcript which has fallen off the back of a truck which reveals that a senior member of the Labor Party agrees with Mr Evans. This person said:The $10 billion figure was in the budget outcome papers. That is true.As time is running out, I can reveal that that quote was made on the radio by none other than Mrs Kernot. (Time expired)28532853Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Has Mr Johns, the ABC managing director, responded point by point to the minister's 900-word diatribe about the ABC's alleged anti-government bias on the waterfront issue? Why did the minister send his letter to Mr Johns rather than to Mr McDonald, the chairman of the ABC board? Is it true that both Mr Johns and Mr McDonald have assured the minister that they are satisfied that the ABC's coverage has been impartial and that the ABC's editorial guidelines are being followed? Is the minister prepared to admit he was just being hypersensitive to the widespread and well-justified scrutiny of the government's waterfront strategy?2853Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer to the first part of the question is no. Mr Johns did not respond point by point to my request for a point by point assessment. Indeed, in my letter I raised five matters of particular concern which I think do require a detailed response. For example, there was this distinction drawn between promotion and coverage, which is one that has never been drawn before, to my knowledge. Certainly, if it had been, it was clearly not at the forefront of anyone's mind in the ABC because it had to be sent out at short notice to effectively ensure that there was no coverage of a pro-government rally in relation to the waterfront. At the very same time, Carolyn Tucker, on ABC Radio in Brisbane, was out there giving chapter and verse to all those who wanted to attend an anti-government rally; they were welcome to go to St Mary's Cathedral with Father Kennedy at 5 p.m. that evening. I would have thought that was a classic promotion of an event.There was also an occasion when The World Today conducted an interview with a gentleman, whose name I forget, who was introduced as the Mayor of Burnie. The Mayor of Burnie made it very plain that he very much disapproved of the way in which the government had handled the waterfront issue. He described himself as a conservative person by nature and then went on to further bag the Howard government.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What's wrong with that?LD4Senator ALSTON—What's wrong with that? Come in, spinner! Is it any wonder that Senator Schacht is being groomed for a post-parliamentary career? What is wrong with it is that he was the endorsed ALP candidate for Braddon.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, just a moment. Order! Senator Alston.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I could go on.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Keep going. Try going on.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, resume your seat. I have asked the minister to resume his seat while order descends upon the chamber.LD4Senator ALSTON—The fact is that there were five specific instances which do require a detailed response. The answer that I got from Mr Johns was that the matter would be referred to the board, with no indication that the ABC would come back to me in due course. I therefore do propose to take the matter further. I want to make it plain that, far from people like you being able to pretend that somehow this is a generalised slur on the ABC, it is not. The ABC itself accepts—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Come on; you've been abusing them for two years.LD4Senator ALSTON—You have only to read the letter from Kirsten Garrett to know that the ABC itself concedes that from time to time there are matters that require attention. Anyone can get it wrong. When those matters are brought to the attention of management, then you expect them to examine them carefully.What I do not regard as an adequate response is to say, `From time to time we do research out in the general community and we ask whether people think we're for or against the Liberal Party or the Labor Party and it basically comes out even so we must be doing something right.' That is not a proper response; it is not the approach—RF4COOKSenator Cook—This is political interference by you in the ABC.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook!LD4Senator ALSTON—I think you should pay due deference to the fact that Senator Ray has just returned from his job and you should be much more respectful than you are. We certainly think that independence is a very important element for any statutory corporation, but this is not a matter of independence; this is a statutory obligation which the ABC has. Even Senator Schacht's letter to the Australian acknowledged that I have the right to raise matters of bias.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You bagged and abused them first, then sent the letter; that's what you did.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht!LD4Senator ALSTON—I have the right to raise those matters. If that is the fact, what flows from that is that the ABC needs to have in place internal mechanisms that will monitor these matters—not simply have guidelines which may or may not be adhered to—to ensure that those programmers and presenters on the ground are aware of and complying with the requirements.(Time expired)2854Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has mentioned his letter containing five points. If the minister has not already made it public, would he be willing to table his letter to the ABC for the information of the Senate?2854Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—It is not what I would regard as a classic example of a supplementary question. I may or may not do that.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What's wrong with tabling it? You are afraid to table it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht.LD4Senator ALSTON—You see, that is what is so unhelpful about this whole debate, Madam President. When matters are brought to our attention and we raise them, and Senator Schacht, as the opposition spokesman, concedes that it is right to raise them, you then get these generalised statements that you are abusing them.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But you abused them first.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht!LD4Senator ALSTON—that you are abusing them. You can't have it both ways. If you think there is a concern about bias and the ABC does not respond to it in detail, you take that as somehow being a generalised slur. Well, it is not. I regard the ABC as doing a very competent job in a number of areas but, like any other body, it can do better. If it has its own complaints mechanisms that are effective—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Table the letter, Richard. You haven't got the courage to table the letter.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you are consistently and wilfully in breach of the standing orders.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I am surprised that he is not back home trying to salvage that No. 5 spot. One of you is not going to be here—(Time expired)4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Table the letter.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I note that Senator Crowley has already left to look after her spot.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are far too many interjections and discussions being shouted across the chamber.28552855Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Hill. I refer the minister to the killing of at least six students and possibly other people by Indonesian military forces in Jakarta over the last 24 hours. I ask: will the government withhold the $7 million which Australia provides to Indonesia to fund staff training and joint military exercises until there has been a full and open inquiry into these deaths? Will the Australian government insist that the Indonesian government has the Indonesian Human Rights Commission and at least one independent observer such as the International Red Cross involved in this inquiry?2855Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The issue obviously is very important. The Australian government deeply regrets the deaths of students that have occurred in Indonesia and also the injuries that have occurred. The honourable senator might be aware that, as a result of those events, we caused our embassy in Jakarta to pursue the issue with ABRI's leadership; in particular, to seek a fair and independent inquiry into the killings. As I understand it, such an inquiry has been announced and I think that that is recognised in the question from Senator Lees.We are of course looking for that inquiry to ensure that not only it is a fair inquiry, but if it identifies wrongdoers, that they are properly punished. I am told that the head of the Indonesian armed forces has said that any wrongdoer will be properly punished. Therefore, we accept that what has been announced is in the right direction. We have also expressed our concerns as to what has occurred to others within the Indonesian government. We recognise that circumstances in Indonesia are difficult at the moment as a result of the financial crisis, rising prices of food and other items, the falling value of the currency and high unemployment. Nevertheless, even in such circumstances of financial and, following from that, social stress, it is important that any government maintains respect for human rights and also acts in a way to encourage stability during such periods of tension.That is the way in which we are approaching the matter; to look for ways in which we can assist and support Indonesia during and through this difficult period, in an effort to avoid social tensions deteriorating into outbreaks of the type of violence that has occurred in recent days.The honourable senator will be aware of the action that the Australian government has taken in conjunction with the IMF to contribute towards stabilising the currency and building a stronger, more sustainable economic base for Indonesia. She would also be aware of the other efforts that the Australian government has been making in encouraging the strengthening of institution building in Indonesia and the training programs that we have been sponsoring for Indonesian officials and the like. She would also be aware of the funding support that we have been giving for the human rights body in Indonesia.I think she would be prepared to acknowledge that that body has in fact been more active in recent times. It has been able to report alleged abuses as they have occurred, which is of course part of building a type of civil society in which there can be not only a better awareness of actions that are taken by military and other authorities, and therefore leading to community pressures for different behaviour, but also can have an influence upon the government itself.We have sought to adopt a constructive and helpful approach during this very difficult period. We believe the course of action that we have adopted to date has been the correct one. That is as far as we have gone to date.2856Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if it comes to the point that the inquiry is obviously not open and our government has to make a decision, are you prepared to cease all military contact and, indeed, to cease any funding whatsoever for military activities in Indonesia? Secondly, considering all that has happened on the economic front and what has happened in the past in East Timor, as well as what is happening now, is the government prepared to put pressure on Indonesia to ensure that they really do start real political reform?2856Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—There is no doubt that institutional reform, certainly in relation to the economy, is now taking place and must take place. That will bring its own set of pressures and influences upon government. I have mentioned the fact that we are supporting other institutional reform through the structures of Indonesian governance and will continue to do so. As I said, we will take the steps that we believe are appropriate at any particular time. We believe that the steps we have taken to date are appropriate in the circumstances, but the matter will obviously continue to be monitored.28562856Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Ellison representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Has the federal government provided any funding for the training of any alternative stevedoring work force on the waterfront, either directly, such as per-head subsidies, or in any other way? If so, how much has been provided to date, when was the funding provided, who sought the funding and where was the training to be provided? Finally, was the training provider or providers fully accredited to provide such training?2856Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I am not aware of the Commonwealth providing any of the assistance mentioned by Senator Campbell but what I can say is that in this budget the federal government has allocated over $400 million to underpin strong growth in new apprenticeships. In fact, through the recent ANTA agreement, we have agreed with the states and territories for increased growth in relation to new apprenticeships to the tune of 44,000 new positions, which spells good news for young Australians and those people who seek to engage in training as either an apprentice or a trainee.We have also announced $296 million in this budget for employer incentives for the training of trainees and apprentices and at the moment we have a record number of trainees and apprenticeships in training.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Did it or didn't it happen? Will you say Yes or No?9X5Senator ELLISON—That figure is in the region of 180,000 new apprenticeships, Senator Cook. That spells good news for all those Australians—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: the minister was asked a direct question about training for an alternative waterfront work force. I do not believe that the minister is answering the question asked by Senator George Campbell of him. He may well be answering some other question, but he was asked a very specific question. He has indicated he does not know very much about it. Wouldn't it be better for you to rule that perhaps he can take it on notice and not waffle on about matters which were not directed to him?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The power of the presiding officer in this instance, Senator, is that—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—On a point of order, Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I need to deal with this point of order first. I cannot direct him as to how he answers the question. I understood him to answer it and he has gone on talking on the topic that was raised by the senator. It is relevant to that issue. Do you have another point of order, Senator Kemp?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—My comment, Madam President, was actually on the point of order. That is why I was seeking your call. The question involved training programs and the minister is now responding to that part of the question.9X5Senator ELLISON—The answer that I am giving to the Senate and through you, Madam President, to Senator Campbell, touches on the government's training programs in relation to apprentices and trainees. The question was squarely on that. It related to aspects of it which I said I was not aware of. This government has introduced initiatives in the training sector which, obviously, the opposition does not want to hear about because it spell good news. The record number of people in training, I thought, would have been of great interest to the Australian people and of great interest to the opposition, but obviously not: they are not interested and they do not want to hear the answer.But we have also announced a guarantee for loans for those group training companies in relation to their capital funding and that spells good news for those companies which provide much needed resources for small business. They, after all, give small business the opportunity to take on apprentices and trainees and that is another initiative by this government which spells very good news for the business sector.2857Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I ask a supplementary question. Through you, Madam President, I ask the minister to take that question on notice, together with another one. Has the federal government provided any training funding, either directly or indirectly, to or through the following companies: any Patrick Stevedores company, any Jamison company, P&C Stevedores, Barton Australia Pty Ltd, Fynwest Pty Ltd, International Port Services Training Group Pty Ltd or Container Terminal Management Services Ltd?2857Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I thank Senator Campbell for that question and I will take it on notice. It really is a question that should be placed on notice.28572857Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoken with their opposite numbers in Indonesia during the last few days as this tremendously worrying crisis erupts in that country, our nearest neighbour? If so, what message was given to the Indonesian leadership expressing the concern which Australians have about the violence and bloodshed in that country? Has the government moved to match America in reviewing military exercises with Indonesia in the coming months? Will the government suspend the continuing aid of $7 million per annum going to Indonesia at a time when the military forces in that country are being used with such violence against peaceful protesters?2857Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I answered most of the question a few moments ago. I regret that Senator Brown must have been absent from the chamber but he will be able to pick that up in the Hansard . The only additional question he seemed to ask was whether there had been direct contact between the Prime Minister—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Point of order, Madam President. As the minister knows, I was here throughout his last answer. He did not answer the question, and I am expecting him to do so now.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BH4Senator HILL—These are very serious issues but there is simply no point in Senator Brown asking exactly the same question again. There is similarly no point in my answering it again. The additional matter that he raised is whether there has been direct contact between either Mr Howard and his counterpart or the foreign minister and his. I have no information on that and I will seek it.2858Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, you will have been listening carefully to Senator Hill and noted that he did not answer the question from Senator Lees or from me about the suspension of military aid to Indonesia at a time when the military forces in Indonesia are being used in such a bloody way against peaceful protesters. I ask the minister directly, through you, to answer yes or no to the question: will Australia suspend military aid, in whatever form, to the Suharto dictatorship until peace is restored in that country?2858Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Madam President, I have outlined to the Senate the extent of the actions that we have taken and have said that we believe it to be the appropriate extent at this time. My answer remains as I said before.28582858Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Social Security. Can the minister inform the Senate exactly when the Department of Social Security first solicited and received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that any refusal to action applications for social security from MUA members and their families was not, in fact, legal under the Social Security Act? Can the Minister inform the Senate of exactly when she became aware of this legal advice and what action she took to ensure that MUA members were treated like any other Australians who had just lost their jobs in accessing unemployment benefits?2858Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I do not think I have got here the exact date on which the Department of Social Security sought legal advice. I do know that the sequence of events was that Centrelink asked the Department of Social Security for advice about the matter, as a result of which I believe the Department of Social Security went to the Attorney-General's Department. But I do know that on 24 April DSS received legal advice from the Office of the Australian Government Solicitor to the effect that the Patrick workers whose work ceased as a result of the Patrick labour hire companies becoming non-operational could be regarded as unemployed for social security purposes, and their unemployment was not due to industrial action.The department immediately informed Centrelink and Centrelink national support office issued advice to its network on 24 April that any claims from Patrick employees could now be actioned, taking into account normal qualification and payability provisions. Arrangements in place meant that those customers whose applications had, until that time, been stockpiled by Centrelink did not need to lodge any further claim.28582858Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. In light of the Prime Minister' statement this afternoon that it is important that `the facts of what occurred can be made known to the Indonesian people' in relation to the killing of students by the security forces, does the minister agree with Sir Robert Menzies that a strong Australian voice presenting reliable news and current affairs direct to the Indonesian people through short-wave radio is highly desirable, particularly in times of crisis? Does the minister agree that this is a time of crisis in all of Asia and particularly in Indonesia? If so, will the government now agree to spend a mere $1.6 million to reopen the most modern and efficient short-wave radio transmitter in the world in order to transmit Radio Australia into Asia?2858Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Clearly, there are those in Indonesia who have an interest in obtaining an outside assessment of the events that are occurring within that country. There are indeed a number of voices that are available to provide just that—voices such as the BBC World Service. There is no particular reason why Australia's perspective is unique in that regard. The decision to close down Radio Australia's Cox Peninsula transmitter was one taken against a background of the Mansfield report, which recommended—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Which was a set-up from the start.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Forshaw.LD4Senator ALSTON—I don't know where that forlorn voice gets his information from, but he clearly was not paying attention. If Senator Forshaw, for example, had read the Mansfield report he would see that Foreign Affairs expressed very significant concern about the quality of Radio Australia's broadcast—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What a load of rubbish. They didn't.LD4Senator ALSTON—They did so. It also pointed out that the actual audience had fallen quite dramatically—from something like 20 million to five million since 1982 or 1983—and that Radio Australia was introduced at a time when there were very few alternative sources of information in the region. That is quite different now. There are satellite services. We have ATV with an audio side band. There are clearly ways in which people are able to obtain information that was not available at the time this service was first introduced.It is therefore a decision that was taken in the knowledge that there would always be those who would like to maintain Radio Australia, come what may, irrespective of the merits, irrespective of the contribution it makes to the totality of information in the region. In our judgment, it is not necessary to resurrect Radio Australia. There was indeed very limited interest in maintaining transmission from that site when we explored those options last year. I would be very surprised if people in Indonesia are not able to get other sources of information if they regard internal domestic assessments as inadequate.2859Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister recall the terms of reference of the Mansfield report, which did not include Radio Australia? Does he honestly believe that a news service from the BBC or from Voice of America or from Radio Free Asia or from Malaysia or from Singapore or from inside Indonesia or from anywhere else in the world is a better and more relevant news service in this region than Radio Australia? If so, why on earth are we still sending anything out from Radio Australia? Obviously the minister must agree with me, and I ask if he does, that Radio Australia is a superior news and current affairs service to any of those other news services, and does he believe it is in Australia's interests to have the best news service going into such a troubled region of the world?2859Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I have no doubt that each national broadcaster would regard its own service as inherently superior to others. The fact is that Mansfield did deal with the issue in quite some detail—TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—He was not asked to.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am not interested in whether he was asked to. The fact is that he did. Do you want us to ignore the fact that he did? He did, and we will take notice of it.28592859Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin in his capacity as the representative of the minister for tourism. In Tuesday' night's budget, was the departure tax increased by $3, and was an impost of $50 placed on visitors' visas? Do these measures constitute a combined impost on tourism amounting to five times the increase in funding to the Australian Tourism Commission? If the increase is not five times, is it a combined impost of some other and what factor? What does the government hope to achieve for tourism by providing funding to promote Australia overseas while at the same time introducing measures which may act as disincentives for potential tourists to this country? In any event, is it not the case that these imposts are contrary to the Prime Minister's promise that there would be no new taxes or tax increases in this year's budget?2859Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The minister for tourism has given me information in relation to these two matters which Senator Cooney has asked questions about. The passenger movement charge, which did go up by $3 in the budget, is used to recover the border processing costs associated with customs, immigration and quarantine. Some of the funds from the $3 increase in the passenger movement charge will go to meeting additional costs of passenger processing, particularly those expected in the context of the 2000 Olympics in Sydney.The $3 increase in the so-called PMC, as it now is—the former departure tax—is not expected to have discernible effect on the tourism industry. The rise is small and will not be noticeable to the vast majority of travellers. Indeed, the Tourism Council of Australia has indicated to the government that the tourism industry can live with the increase in the PMC, given that this is the first time the charge has been increased since the introduction of the PMC in 1995.With respect to the $50 visitor visa application fee, I remind you that primary responsibility for maintaining Australian border integrity does rest with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.The government has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving Australia's visa and visitor facilitation processes, including through the introduction of the electronic travel authority system, the so-called ETAS. The ETAS provides a visa issuance process which is immediate and almost invisible to eligible visiting foreign tourists. It is now available in 26 countries covering Australia's key tourism markets in Japan, North America, Europe and Asia.The $50 visa application fee does not apply to visitors accessing the ETAS. Suggestions by some sectors of the industry that 50 per cent, or around two million visitors, will pay the $50 application fee are wrong. The number of visas issued through ETAS as a percentage of total long-term and short-term business and visitor visas was around 70 per cent in March this year. The percentage in several of our key tourist markets was higher—for example, in Japan 94 per cent, in Malaysia 95 per cent and, in the USA, 96 per cent.In those developing markets which do not have access to the ETAS, there remains a need for immigration officers to instigate a range of checks for short-term visa applicants to ensure that Australia's border integrity is maintained. The government needs to ensure in these cases that we have a visa processing infrastructure in place which can efficiently cater for the expected increase in visitor visa applications, particularly in relation to markets such as China, now that we have been granted approved destination status.The processes I am talking about do not come without cost. There is a need for the user pays arrangements announced in the budget by the Treasurer and the minister for immigration. The measure will provide funding to upgrade elements of the immigration system, including IT infrastructure, border screening, coastal surveillance, and the redevelopment of the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.The fee being introduced is comparable with similar fees in a number of countries, including those where Australia's ETAS is not available. The government is confident that its strategy of continually improving the efficiency of its visa processing arrangements will assist and sustain a strong tourism industry in Australia.2860Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Through you Madam President, I ask the minister whether any person from the tourism industry has approached the government expressing concern about the charges. If they have, what weight has the government given to those concerns?2860Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Madam President, not being the minister for tourism, I cannot answer that question. I will have to take it on notice and get the information to Senator Cooney as soon as I can.28602860Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—My question is addressed to Senator Alston. I ask: is the minister aware of plans by the ABC to cease regional radio broadcasts of Saturday and public holiday horse races at the end of June? Are alternatives such as narrowcast licences, commercial and community radio, TV or the Internet practical or adequate alternatives when most regional areas of the country cannot access commercial race broadcasts? Is the minister aware that ABC regional radio broadcasts are crucial for punters, QTAB and racing industry investments, all of which contribute to the economic base of regional areas? Is the government satisfied that regional Australians will not be affected by the ABC's decision to withdraw a service vital to the racing industry in regional Australia?2861Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Madam President, this is a very important question from Senator Boswell. I had not realised that he was an avid punter, but I have no doubt that he will be betting heavily on a coalition victory at the next election. I can tell him that the odds are shortening every day, so get on now while you can.This is a matter of concern to a number of people in regional areas. The ABC has recently announced that it will be discontinuing racing radio services in regional New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, WA and Queensland as of 1 July 1998.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Those are your cutbacks; $55 million off the budget each year.LD4Senator ALSTON—That is not the explanation from the ABC, Senator. The ABC has said that there is a wide range of alternative sources of racing information now available to regional Australia, that this will provide a more comprehensive coverage than currently available, and that the ABC is working with local TABs to direct racing fans to these sources.They have spelt out a number of those alternative sources. Sky Channel, for example, which provides a seven-day service nationally on all forms of racing to TABs, will be offered to pay television and will be available in homes as well as in TABs, pubs and clubs. There will also be a direct audio feed to the major commercial racing stations in each state. Sport 927, the Melbourne based commercial radio racing service, is available nationally on other forms of pay television as well.Madam President, I have to say that my office has been in contact with the ABC about this issue because I think it is nonetheless important to understand just who misses out—not whether there might be alternative sources of service. The ABC, in a note that they provided to me, does concede that there will be some gaps in some regional areas and that this will affect some listeners interested in racing information. It is not my job—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You attacked the ABC for actually having an arrangement with the TAB to broadcast races in your own inquiry!LD4Senator ALSTON—It is not my task, Madam President, to give any directions in relation to programming matters. These are entirely—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Cut it out! You do it all the time!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr!LD4Senator ALSTON—There you go. There is someone who does not understand the difference between programming and bias. What hope is there, Madam President? Irredeemable.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You want to be editor-in-chief.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, you can take note of the answer if you wish.LD4Senator ALSTON—If it meant keeping you off the news, I would be sorely tempted.Madam President, as a result, I have had further discussions with the ABC through my office to ascertain precisely what the impact is likely to be, particularly in really remote areas where there are simply no alternatives. I am sure that the ABC will be interested in making that information available and indicating how it proposes—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—And you will abuse them if they don't.LD4Senator ALSTON—You would probably abuse them if they did. You prefer football to racing, I know. But there are some other people out there who have a slightly broader view of culture, and their view ought to be tolerated and respected.Madam President, I very much hope that we will have bipartisan support, with Senator Schacht's assistance, in ascertaining the precise impact and in identifying what it is that the ABC suggests that those people ought to do where there will not be any alternative services available.2862Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his comprehensive answer.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Just a moment, Senator; there are too many people participating.YE4Senator BOSWELL—I take it that the minister is now going to go back to the ABC to ask them what they are going to do to fill those gaps. Am I correct in that?2862Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I thank Senator Boswell for his comprehensive supplementary question. I will be doing just that.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—And table the letter.LD4Senator ALSTON—If I thought you were capable of reading it, I probably would.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice2862286215:07:002862Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions without notice asked by Senators Schacht and Bourne and the Leader of the National Party (Senator Boswell) today, relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Australia and the broadcasting of horse racing on television.We saw here today, again, an example of the inability of the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) to handle his portfolio in relation to the ABC. What we have seen is his persistent ideological attack on the ABC.Today I asked Senator Alston a question about his most recent attack on the ABC and his claim of alleged bias over the way the ABC has handled its coverage of the waterfront dispute in recent weeks. From my reading of the record and various press clippings, around 27 and 28 April Senator Alston accused the ABC of biased coverage of the waterfront dispute and, in particular, an associated matter that they would not give publicity to a farmers rally in New South Wales. He said that this was a clear case of bias and attacked the ABC.This minister launched that attack, apparently without any discussion with the ABC. Some days later, after he launched that attack accusing them of bias and, therefore, of breaking their charter, et cetera, he sent a letter to the ABC. I made it clear that I thought the minister did have the right to send a letter to the ABC seeking clarification about matters he was concerned with, but not after he had already abused them and found them guilty by making a statement alleging bias. I think it would have been a much more appropriate process for this minister to have written to the ABC—in this case, to the Chairman of the ABC—seeking clarification on matters with which he was concerned. If he was not satisfied after he had the answer, it would have been quite appropriate for the minister to express a view. But he did it around the other way: he condemned them first, found them guilty and then wrote the letter asking for an explanation of why they were guilty.This minister cannot get the process right. He cannot get right his understanding of what his responsibility is as the minister for this statutory authority, this great national institution, the ABC. When I asked him my supplementary question today, he acknowledged that, yes, he had sent a letter; he was not satisfied with the reply given by Mr Johns and the chairman, Mr McDonald. Of course, Mr McDonald was appointed by this government as chairman and he is a close friend, apparently, of the Prime Minister. They both wrote back to Senator Alston explaining that they were satisfied with the ABC's coverage of the waterfront dispute and related matters.Today, Senator Alston said that he had five points in his letter. He gave some bumbling explanation about what one of those points was, but gave no more. But when I asked him in a supplementary question to table the letter, he fudged; he went weak at the knees. He did not know whether he should table it or whether he should not. If you are going to get up and bag the ABC, if you are going to demand responses to claims of bias, it is only reasonable that you have a process whereby the public can judge whether the minister's accusations are valid and relevant to the ABC's charter. But this minister ran away from the opportunity today in the Senate to table his letter. Minister, I still ask you to have the courage—table your letter and let the public judge whether you have treated the ABC fairly or unfairly.This minister is into intimidation; he is into thuggery against the ABC. In the history of the ABC, there has been no minister who has more consistently attacked it than this minister. There has been no Prime Minister who has attacked it more often than the present Prime Minister. It is part of this coalition government's agenda to intimidate the ABC and put the heat on in the lead-up to the next election. They always claim that there is bias in the ABC, but they never make the same accusation against any other journalist from the private media. It is always the ABC that is in the gun as far as they are concerned, yet they have never demonstrated factually systemic bias in the ABC. If they were going to do that, you would think that the minister would have tabled the letter today. This minister is a gutless minister when he will not table the letter containing his criticism. (Time expired)15:13:002863Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I do not think Senator Schacht actually established his case in that tirade. It is a pretty difficult case he is trying to establish if he is trying to say that the media—any media, let alone the ABC—is even-handed in its treatment in this country.I think it has been very obvious over the last two years not only how biased the media has been against this government but, in particular, how biased the ABC has been. This came home very clearly to me, Senator Schacht, in this particular case of the waterfront and the treatment of it by the ABC and by other media.Let me give you two examples from my own area which I actually eye witnessed. John Howard, our Prime Minister, came to Maitland about five weeks ago. We really had a great day. He was out in the community; he was out in the rural areas. There were some great stories to report. He spoke to a huge public gathering in the Maitland Town Hall. But was there any evidence of this on the media that night, on the ABC or anywhere else? No.What did they report? They reported that the waterside workers were out the front of Maitland Town Hall and, as John Howard swept in, they took that particular footage, which was about one minute out of a full day. What appeared on that night's news broadcasts—the ABC included—was that footage. None of the good news was reported. The reporting was biased against the government, particularly on this waterfront issue.To move on one week: Tim Fischer came to the Hunter Valley to launch a new ship at ADI in Carrington. This was showpiece technology for this country. It was a great story. A huge crowd was there in the pouring rain to help launch this great ship. Outside the entrance to the shipyards was a very small band of protesters—a little under 30 people. Some of them were protesting about educational issues, but the great majority of those 30 were waterside workers protesting against the Prime Minister. This very small group was in a tent, in the rain, outside the shipyard.What did the media—and the ABC in particular—report on that night? They reported on the small group of protesters. They took very sharp-angled shots of the protesters so they looked like a crowd, but there was not a crowd there at all. There was a really good news story there, but they did not report it, they reported on this small group of protesters. The ABC is not the only one that does that; all the media does that.To try to establish a case for one branch of the media like the ABC and say that it is even-handed is nonsense. None of the media is even-handed, particularly the ABC. We see it time and time again in the reporting on this government. The ABC takes minor points, distorts them and blows them up. Probably the worst example in two years was the reporting of the waterfront dispute. The ABC reported it in such a way as to try make the government look bad. This government is trying to reform the waterfront. The previous government wasted $480 million and did not achieve any real workplace reform.We have started. We have had the guts to do it. The ABC should be reporting in an even-handed way that this government has had the courage to reform the waterfront, which is one of the main ways in which we will get the economy in this country back on track. We have to do it, but it must be reported properly. We have not seen proper reporting from the media generally, and we certainly have not seen it from the ABC.15:17:002864Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The answers today of the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, reflect his frustration on behalf of this government at the failure of this government to succeed in its illegal attempt to remove the MUA from the Australian waterfront. This minister is thrashing about trying to find a scapegoat for what is fundamentally flawed government policy. This policy is based upon the government's deep-seated hatred of working people and of the MUA in particular. That deep-seated hatred is perhaps only exceeded by its deep-seated hatred of the ABC itself.What we heard today was quite an amazing proposition from this minister, a minister who delivered his answer in his classic manner of guile, evasion, double-speak and deceit. He tries to cover up in a classically weak and sneaky manner his attempt to bully and intimidate the ABC into submission. This attempt was exposed by Errol Simper, who had a leak directly from the minister on 4 May. Details of the letter the minister had sent to Brian Johns were published in the Australian. He had written to Johns rather than putting his complaints to the board of the ABC.That reflected the minister's deep-seated hatred of the ABC which has been demonstrated again and again in this place. It has been demonstrated on behalf of the coalition by other coalition members over many years. In 1991, the coalition members on their expenditure review committee proposed deep and savage cuts to the ABC. The ABC inquiry was set up by this minister, through Senator Chamarette at the time, in which he sought to arm himself with a series of quite hideous and scandalous terms of reference. Those terms of reference were predicated on the assumption of the ABC's fault, the ABC's guilt.Those terms of reference were highlighted by such terms as `the failure of the ABC'. The assumption of failure of the ABC is constantly written into their very thought processes. Words like `controversy', `conflict', `dysfunction', and `deep-seated problems' were put into those terms of reference. So biased were those terms of reference that they had to be amended because they were totally inappropriate for any Senate committee let alone one such as this. This minister, who was chair of that particular committee, undertook what effectively amounted to an inquisitional equivalent of a guttercrawl. He went right through the ABC seeking to find every piece of dirt he could in an attempt to discredit the ABC.Last year, the attack on the ABC was continued, based upon the budget cuts of what now amounts to $192 million from the ABC. Claims were made by the minister in 1996 that the ABC budget was bloated. He said, `It is all very well for the ABC to win awards, but no-one is watching and we have to ask ourselves if we should really be producing these programs.' Again, he was setting himself up as the arbiter of high quality and integrity in the ABC. What a person to make such a claim.I recall that the Prime Minister also embarked upon this attack. He said that the ABC was politically correct to a fault and that it tended to concentrate on one particular point of view. I remember that the Treasurer, Mr Costello, following the audit commission's criticism of the ABC as he saw it, said that the ABC needed to be more accountable. By accountability they mean that the ABC should ape the answers given by this minister—it should follow the directions of this government. That is their notion of editorial independence. It is a notion that says that if you raise issues or concerns and things do not go the way this government thinks they would, it has to find a scapegoat—and how easy it is to blame the ABC.How appropriate it is that the ABC should be defending its integrity, should be defending its independence and should be ensuring a quality service that all Australians can enjoy, and not just the sycophancy and criminal acts that this government has been involved in in regard to the waterfront. How can you object to being exposed in the courts for the actions that you have undertaken—actions which some 10 judges across this country have now highlighted as being totally inappropriate to the way that industrial relations should be conducted in this country—and for the conspiracy that this government is so deeply involved in? (Time expired)15:22:002865Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I listened to Senator Carr with his statements and emotive words such as `deep-seated hatred of working-class people', `scapegoats' and `sycophants'. He is one of these people from the very problem of the union movement that uses words like this that have no reconciliation about them at all. It is impossible to find any common ground with him. At times, it is also impossible to find any common ground with the ABC.There is no question in the fair and reasonable minds of people in Australia that the ABC has a bias. When you analyse the organisation and find that the peak union of the ABC is part of the ACTU movement—the same as the Maritime Union of Australia—you can see where that influence comes from. It is not in the best interests of the ABC, because it is partly unionised and significantly so, for it to portray anything other than a bias towards the union movement. That is the very nub of the problem. The problem is that the union movement in Australia must be based on a volunteer organisation and not be a closed shop, whether you use coercion or whether you are up-front with it like the MUA.If one goes back to the charge of bias against the ABC, one only has to see, as has been mentioned before, the cameras down there on the wharf—predominantly from the ABC—showing wharfies going to a church service. It is a wonder the roof did not fall in on the place they were attending. It ought to have been a salutary experience because not many of them would have ever been to church in their life before. When I was a young man I belonged to the Waterside Workers Federation and, strangely, three of us on this side belonged to the Waterside Workers Federation—so we know what we are talking about. For Senator Carr to say that we have a `deep-seated hatred of working-class people' is completely erroneous. Not only erroneous, it is about as far wrong as you could possibly get. For some reason, Senator Carr gets it wrong most often—more often than other people on that side of the chamber.This is the comparison. I have never heard the ABC be strident in its criticism of the waterfront, yet you have other media outlets that are doing just that. The Australian Financial Review in early April said:At last, Australia appears to be reaching a big bang end-game to its decades- long quest to remove the shame on its waterfront. Today's farmer-inspired battle on the docks will define whether the country can work out how to earn a quid in the globalised economy.There was nothing of that nature from the ABC. The Sydney Morning Herald in early April said:A union monopoly is being broken: the waterfront is being opened to genuine reform, and the results, by degrees, will benefit the entire economy. Instead of being part of a necessary and long-overdue reform process on the waterfront, the MUA stood outside the effort and tried to undermine it with tactics like strikes, picket lines and class-war rhetoric—the same type of rhetoric that Senator Carr uses in this chamber—that were dusted off from the 1950s. The point of all this was not to protect workers' rights in any general sense, but to protect waterfront workers in a specific sense. . . The ABC never came out with anything approaching that sort of criticism of one of the most corrupt unions and one of the greatest collections of thugs in any union—apart from the painters and dockers—that this nation has ever seen. Again, in later April, the Sydney Morning Herald said:The forces of change on the waterfront are not directed against unions and unionists. They are against waste, greed and inefficiency. They are for the good of all Australians. And they are unstoppable.That is what has to get through hardline leftists—old leftover communists like Senator Carr—that the union movement on the wharf is finished, that the movement created by the National Farmers Federation is unstoppable and that the waterfront will never be the same again. You have in Mr John Coombs the Arthur Scargill of Australia. He should take a lesson out of Arthur Scargill's book. It will never be the same. You cannot and you will not return to what was one of the greatest rorts in Australia. It was not simply that it was a rort; it was simply that it was affecting everyone in Australia—it was affecting our lifestyle. That simply has to stop, and it is stopping. (Time expired)15:27:002866Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Senator Alston answered three questions today on the ABC. He answered one from me about Radio Australia, one from Senator Boswell about diminished ABC services in the bush and one from Senator Schacht about bias. I do not know if I can call them answers—I suppose that is being a bit generous to Senator Alston—but I will discuss what he said when replying to these three questions.First of all in relation to Radio Australia, the minister said that it was recommended by Mr Mansfield in the Mansfield report that Radio Australia be closed. Yes, it was recommended by Mr Mansfield. But, if you have a look at the terms of reference that Mr Mansfield was given, they did not include Radio Australia, they did not include ATV—they did not include international broadcasting by the ABC of any sort. Because they did not include those organisations, nobody made submissions on them.The millions of people in Indonesia and in Asia and the tens of thousands who wrote to the ABC saying, `What's going on?' and `What's this I hear that you might be closing RA and that you might be closing ATV?' and the heads of state who wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) and to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) saying, `Please don't do this'—all of those people would have made submissions. I would have made a submission. A great many thousands of people around the world would have made submissions.I do not know that that would have made any difference to this government, because what this government wants to do is punish the ABC. That is its prime objective in life. Sometimes I feel as though what this government really wants to achieve out of its period in office is to punish the ABC and, if possible, to destroy the ABC. Even though there was nothing in the terms of reference whatsoever—absolutely nothing—one recommendation of the Mansfield report was that Radio Australia should be closed and that ATV should be closed. That was plan A. Plan A was incredibly stupid and everybody realised that was the case.Then we went on to plan B. Plan B was to send out Radio Australia only by satellite. If you are a rich Asian person—and there are not an awful lot of rich people in Asia; most of them are not—then you will be able to hear a reasonable, fair, unbiased news service and current affairs and so on. If you are poor, `Sorry, to bad.' Plan B died a hideous death as well, which was excellent.Then we have plan C, which is where we are at the moment. Plan C is that Radio Australia is sent out into Asia. Most people are desperately in need of good news and current affairs which they do not get on as regular a basis from America, Britain or anywhere else in the world as they would from Radio Australia if we were transmitting. It would be sent out on satellite via short wave to the Pacific. This is totally ludicrous and inadequate.Secondly, I will talk a bit about Senator Alston's answer to Senator Boswell about diminished ABC services in the bush. I can tell Senator Boswell that it is only going to get worse. Until the ABC is properly funded—and the ABC is not properly funded at the moment; it is appallingly funded at the moment, it is vastly under-funded at the moment—the bush is going to suffer. The rest of us are going to suffer. Everybody in Asia is going to suffer.Thirdly, let me talk about Senator Alston's answer to Senator Schacht about bias. A couple of days ago the ABC released a report that found that 79 per cent of all respondents believe that the ABC does a great job and is balanced and even-handed in politics. Some 95 per cent stated that the ABC does a good job in providing reliable and accurate news and current affairs programs. I take it the Liberal Party comes in that other five per cent. Certainly the ministers come in the other five per cent.The ABC board requires reports on accuracy, impartiality and objectivity. Those reports do not demonstrate bias. Issues included in the current report are some of the most volatile. Bias was not demonstrated. It is interesting to note who some of the most strident complainants are. They are members of the Liberal Party—the federal director, one of the Prime Minister's advisers and the minister, who is a very strident complainant.Mr Johns does not have to respond to the minister and his incredibly ridiculous and long letter. The minister knows that jurisdictional difference. He should be writing to the board and I do not why he is not. Has he not read the act?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Because it is written for Errol Simper's benefit.TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—You wonder. Rather than considering the ABC biased, the government should rejoice in the diversity and the creativity of the ABC. Look at Roy and HG , Good News Week , Garden Australia , Lateline , Landline , 7.30 Report , Compass , Recovery , Radio National, Radio Australia and award winning programs like Wildside and Play School . We will not be seeing these if we do not get better funding for the ABC in the future. Let the ABC get on with doing the job it does best. It is the best in Australia at informing and entertaining the Australian public. Let them do it. Give them the money to do it. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees2867286728672867Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I present the government's response to the seventh report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Government Response to the 7th Report of the Joint Standing Committee on TreatiesThe Government thanks the Committee for its thorough and timely consideration of another disparate yet significant set of treaty actions. The Report covers two new treaties, one subsidiary instrument, and withdrawal from three obsolete treaties—and the Government would draw attention to this as evidence of its determination to keep Australia's international legal obligations transparent, appropriate, and current. The status of the treaty actions in question is as follows:. Denunciation of the Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)- Instrument deposited on 23 December 1996, with effect from 31 December 1997.. Agreement to amend the Agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income- Entered into force on 23 July 1997, after exchange of Notes on 6 March and 23 July 1997.. Agreement with Hong Kong concerning Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters- Signed on 23 September 1996; continued applicability after 30 June 1997 confirmed by exchange of Notes with People's Republic of China on 9 and 26 June 1997; will enter into force thirty days after exchange of Notes with Hong Kong, which awaits Hong Kong implementing legislation.. Trade & Investment Agreement with the United Mexican States- Signed on 13 November 1994; entered into force on exchange of Notes on 3 April 1997.. Denunciation of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage- Instrument deposited on 7 April 1997, with effect from 15 May 1998.. Denunciation of the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage- Deemed to be denounced with the Liability Convention, with effect from 15 May 1998.These treaty actions reflect the Committee's tacit or explicit support for Government proposals, as recorded in the Report at Paragraphs 2.40, 3.64, 4.15, 4.27, and 4.37. The Report contains only two formal recommendations, concerning the withdrawal from UNIDO and the Tax Sparing Agreement with Vietnam. It also contains an extensive discussion of consultation, with reference especially to tax treaties; and the establishment through the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) of appropriate consultative mechanisms to respond to the Committee's concerns has delayed the preparation of this response.2.39 The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that savings achieved from Australia's withdrawal from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization be redirected to other areas of the aid program where they can be more effectively utilised.The Government notes and endorses the approach reflected in this recommendation. In doing so, the Government welcomes the Committee's conclusion (Paragraph 2.38) that `more effective utilisation of Australia's aid budget may be obtained through the funding of other aid programs.' The Government notes, however, that the anticipated savings are part of managing the Australian Agency for International Development's (AusAID) global budget rather than a discrete sum that might be identifiably re-allocated. With reference to Paragraph 2.36, it notes that, at the time the decision to withdraw was made, AusAID wrote to all parties affected by the decision to advise them of the withdrawal and the rationale behind it.3.63 The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade and the Australian Taxation Office keep the exclusion of accounting and audit services from tax sparing incentives in the 1992 Double Taxation Agreement with Vietnam under review and, if Vietnamese legislation is amended, commence negotiations to remove that exclusion.The Government is pleased that the Committee supported early ratification of the amendments to the Double Taxation Agreement with Vietnam and has given effect to that ratification following the passage of the enabling legislation.However, the Government is not in a position at this time to provide a positive response to the recommendation in Paragraph 3.63 of the Report. The possible removal of the exclusion of accounting and audit services from the scope of the tax sparing provisions in the Agreement with Vietnam would be a matter for decision by the Government, in the context of its overall policy on the grant of tax sparing, if and when the relevant Vietnamese legislation should be amended.Trade & Investment Agreement with MexicoWith reference to Paragraph 4.23 and to clarify its final sentence, the International Wool Secretariat has entered into a Co-operation Agreement with the Mexican development bank Nacional Financiera and launched a development plan aimed at developing Mexico's wool textiles industry, with a view to gaining access to North American markets under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).ConsultationParagraphs 3.46-58 of the Report provide the Committee's views on aspects of the treaty-making process. The Government endorses the importance of National Interest Analyses tabled in Parliament being both comprehensive (3.48-50) and comprehensible (3.51-3) and welcomes the Committee's continuing guidance as to the styles of document most helpful for the Parliamentary consideration of proposed treaty actions.The Government has provided some comment on the issues of consultation in the concluding of bilateral treaties, in its response to the Committee's 4th Report. The onus remains on line Departments and agencies to identify and consult all significant stakeholders as early as possible in the negotiating and treaty-making processes. In the specific matter of tax treaties, the ATO has been exploring issues related to the establishment of a Tax Treaties Advisory Panel to include tax professionals and representatives of business organisations—notably the management of industry involvement while respecting international practice that bilateral treaties are confidential to the parties (governments) until signature. The Government reiterates its readiness at a mutually convenient opportunity to provide the Committee with a full briefing on the principles of tax treaties in general, so as to facilitate its consideration of the merits of specific instruments in future.Documents28682868286810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General:Report No. 43 of 1997-98—Performance Audit—Life-cycle Costing in the Defence286810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General:Report No. 44 of 1997-98—Performance Audit—Australian Diplomatic Communications Network—Project Management.Miscellaneous2869286910000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I table the portfolio budget statements for 1998-99 for the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and a corrigenda for the Department of the Senate portfolio budget statements. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.28692869Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I table the portfolio budget statements for 1998-99 for the transport and regional development portfolio. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.Miscellaneous286915:35:002869Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:(1) The Senate not sit on Monday, 1 June 1998.(2) The Senate sit on Friday, 29 May 1998 and that:(a) The hours of meeting shall be 9.30 a.m. to 4.25 p.m.;(b) The routine of business shall be government business only; and(c) The question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 p.m.I have been able to discuss this proposal with all parties and independents, with the exception of Senator Colston. Unfortunately, I have not been able to speak to him this afternoon. I have communicated with his office in writing. It has been necessary to achieve two things. The 1 June sitting would have seen a lot of senators travel to Canberra even though they were not needed to come to estimates. That would have involved expense which is unnecessary. To make up some hours which are desperately needed to deal with an extremely heavy legislative program, I am thankful that the opposition parties and other senators have agreed to the extra Friday.The other thing that should be indicated, and it has been discussed between the opposition whip and me is that, as has been previous practice, rather than specifying a luncheon period the government undertakes that at an appropriate time at the end of a bill or at the end of a second reading stage we will seek to have a short adjournment for lunch to allow staff and any senators who are involved in the chamber all day to have a break in the region between midday and 2 o'clock, depending on whatever is convenient for senators and staff on the day. We will do that on that day.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees28692869286910000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate seeking variation to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Patterson be discharged from and Senator Lightfoot be appointed to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee.28692869Motion (by Senator Calvert at the request of Senator Knowles)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 be extended to 1 June 1998.Miscellaneous286915:40:002869O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Faulkner, I move:That the Senate condemns the Government for condoning the practice of asset-stripping companies in order to evade the normal contractual responsibilities of employers to their employees, as evidenced by Government support for the corporate re-structuring and asset-stripping of Patrick Stevedores' labour hire companies. At 5.00 p.m. on the afternoon of 7 April, Patrick's industrial relations director, Mr Bill Clayton, concluded the four Patrick's companies employing 2,000 workers were insolvent. He had a meeting half an hour earlier with Mr Peter Scanlon and Mr Chris Corrigan. They told Mr Clayton in formal termination notices that the labour contracts were to be terminated. These labour hire contracts could be terminated by Patrick if there were strikes, lawful or not, and of course the wharfies had not been told of these company changes.The trap was sprung. It was an illegal trap. It was designed by the minister for workplace relations, the disgraced former minister for transport and the Prime Minister by Dr Stephen Webster and others. The National Farmers Federation and Patrick also made important contributions to its development.Mr Gillespie of the department told his minister on 10 March that the MUA work force had to be dismissed and replaced by a new work force before any action to reinstate existing workers could occur. Mr Corrigan's corporate structure achieved that objective. If I can refer back to the 10 March minute to Mr Reith, under the heading `Next steps', the minute says:Propose a further discussion—possibly with the Prime Minister in April.There was a meeting with the Prime Minister about the Reith plan, and I will come back to that issue later. A very interesting article appeared in the Age newspaper on 23 April. It was written by Mr Frank Costigan QC. The Senate would recall that between 1980 and 1984 he conducted the Royal Commission into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. He was sent to get the union movement but he finished up getting corporate Australia. I would like to look briefly at the terms of reference of that inquiry, which read:. . . without restricting the scope of your inquiry, we direct you, for the purpose of your inquiry, to give particular attention to the following questions:(a) whether any executive, administrative or other body forming part of, or established by, the Union has been used, or is being used, for the purposes of illegal activities, other than activities involving only breaches of laws, whether of the Commonwealth or a State, relating to trade unions;(b) whether the Union or any of its officials or members has been or is engaged in demanding or receiving payment (other than payments of an ordinary commercial nature or payments in accordance with an industrial award or agreement in respect of work actually performed or to be performed) from employers or other persons and, if any such payments have made— (i) the persons by whom and to whom any such payments have been made; (ii) the reasons for, or the purpose of, any such payments; (iii) the subsequent or proposed use or disposal of any such payments;(c) whether the Union or any officers or members of the Union have engaged in illegal activities in relation to the election or appointment of officers of the Union or the conduct or purported conduct of the Union's affairs;(d) if the Union or any officers or members of the Union have engaged in activities of any of the kinds referred to in this or the preceding paragraph, whether the employment conditions applying to the work of ship painters and dockers have contributed to the development of those activities:What did Mr Costigan discover? He discovered massive tax fraud with union members being made straw directors of shell companies which were asset stripped by the scheme promoter. Mr Howard, of course, was the Treasurer in the late 1970s. He was reluctant to move on taxation avoidance, despite warnings from the Australian Taxation Office. In the end he was forced to do so by the electorate. It now appears that corporate Australia has found a new use for shell companies.In the early 1980s, companies were stripped to avoid paying tax. In the 1990s, they are being stripped to avoid meeting the legal liabilities to their workers. The man who was so reluctant to move on this issue in the 1970s not only was aware of this new application of an old corporate scam but also explicitly endorsed it. What did Mr Costigan say in his article in the Age on 23 April? He said, amongst other things:I have followed with despair over the past few months the approach taken by Patrick and the Government . . . . . . . . . . . .Of special concern in this dispute is the manner in which the union employees of Patrick were deprived of their employment.He went on later to say:I am concerned with the restructuring by Patrick of their corporate entities.He goes on:In his judgment on Tuesday, Justice North set out in summary form the procedures adopted by Patrick to denude the employing companies of their assets, and to arrange contracts between those companies and the operating Patrick company which contained clauses making it simple to dispense with the services of the union members. The mechanism to achieve this was set up in advance, ready for action.There is no suggestion that these changes were designed, like the bottom of the harbour schemes, to avoid the payment of tax. However their effect, and inevitably their design, was to avoid obligations under the Workplace Relations Act.The behaviour of Patrick in relation to its reorganisation of its corporate structure deserves the strongest condemnation.This is Mr Costigan QC talking; these are not my words. Later he says:It is almost beyond belief that such endeavours attracted the applause of the Government.And applause of the government they did attract. He says later:The events surrounding the late-night sacking of the workers, enforced by security guards and dogs, and the asset stripping of the employing companies, constitute an example of financial, corporate and industrial misbehaviour which is unacceptable in this country.Then he said:For my part I am bound to declare that it is offensive to ordinary concepts of decent behaviour. It is the responsibility of the Australian Government to take appropriate steps to make certain it cannot happen again.It is inevitable, because of its action, that this government stands condemned in relation to this action. Last September Patrick started to reduce the level of capital in its employer businesses and sell assets and shares to other companies in the Patrick group. Up until the third week of September, Patrick Stevedore's companies Nos 1, 2 and 3 employed waterside workers, owned equipment, ran terminals and had contracts with shipping companies. But the business was sold for $300 million to a company further up the corporate chain while assets were sold for $7 million. The employer companies reduced their capital base by almost $70 million by buying back and then cancelling shares. This soaked up all their cash. Patrick Stevedore's No. 2 paid $24.4 million in buying 609,922 shares at a $1 par value, a $39 premium per share. Patrick Stevedore's No. 1 paid $36.9 million for 45.4 million $1 shares, a 19c discount on par value. Patrick Stevedore's No. 3 paid $6.8 million for 13.5 million shares, a 50 per cent discount on the par value of the $1 shares. I am not aware of any evidence that the terms of section 206 of the Corporations Law were addressed through the appointment of an outside expert opinion to ensure that the share buybacks were fair and reasonable, but I guess we will find out all about that in due course.When the company assets were sold to another Patrick company, the original employers entered non-exclusive labour supply deals with that company. These labour supply contracts contained automatic termination provisions if the subsidiaries were placed in the hands of administrators. As I said earlier, the contracts could also be terminated if there was industrial action, legal or illegal. In contrast, the P&C contracts signed by Patrick gave the farmers 30 days to rectify a fault with the labour supply once it was identified. The contract could not be terminated if the fault was corrected in that time. That is a remarkable difference. The Reith plan proved very effective in stripping these companies. At the first meeting of creditors of the four Patrick companies, the creditors were told that they had $400 million in liabilities and just $14 million in assets. The administrator, Mr Peter Brook, said that $150 million was owed in employee entitlements and $250 million to secured creditors, mostly banking syndicates. But this was not a problem for Mr Corrigan. Mr Corrigan said:As far as we are concerned the companies that are in administration no longer have any rights to supply labour to our facilities and so we won't be proceeding to allow those people entry. He told the ABC:We have taken actions which we are confident are completely lawful and completely honest and have no regrets whatsoever, or no concerns whatsoever about them.On the Face to Face program he was asked:But my point to you though, is these companies, at the point they sacked those workers, they could not actually fund the redundancies that were due to them, could they?Mr Corrigan answered:Most companies can't fund the redundancies if they sack the entire workforce.Question: But you planned to. That's the difference.Mr Corrigan then said:No, we didn't plan to. We negotiated until the very end.He was then asked:Exactly how long were you involved in discussions with the government on this issue?Corrigan then said:. . . Oh only about 2 weeks before it happened. We went to the Government and said we are getting to the point of complete exasperation. We may need to make people redundant in one form or another. What are the mechanisms through which you might provide redundancy arrangements.But he then said that the Howard government made mention in December that it was willing to put in place some sort of fund. However, the plan, as we now know, was well in place before that time. So Mr Corrigan thought the plan was legal and appropriate. The government was obviously happy with the plan. After all, it was the mechanism to deliver the minister the scalp of the MUA. Mr Reith was happy to own up to the fact that the government gave Mr Corrigan lots of legal advice. Mr Reith was asked on the AM program on 22 April:So you did give him that advice?He was referring to the advice to dismiss their entire work force and replace them quickly in a way that limits ordering reinstatement. Mr Reith said:We gave both of them quite a lot of legal advice. So sure, we've been very activist.What have the courts said about this? I want to quote firstly from the summary of the Federal Court's decision of 21 April. On the second page of that decision at point 12, it states:The cancellation of the labour supply contract and the appointment of administrators on 7 April 1998 were made possible by a complex inter-company transaction which occurred in September 1997. By dividing the functions of employing workers and owning the business between two companies, the Patrick group put in place a structure which made it easier to dismiss the whole workforce. It is arguable, on the evidence, that this was done because the employees were members of the Union. So there is an arguable case that the Patrick employers acted in breach of s298K(1) of the Act.Point 13 says:There is also an arguable case that these acts amounted to a breach of the employees' contracts of employment.I would like to draw the Senate's attention to page 15 of the decision, where it states:The corporate counsel of Lang Corporation Ltd deposed to the reasons for the restructure, which involved the making of the BPAs and LSAs, the share buybacks and debt repayments. The reasons were to avoid customer confusion, confusion as to which entity owned which assets, to allow better performance monitoring and to allow borrowing at better rates.I want you to listen to this passage of the judgment:There is no express denial that a reason for undertaking the restructure in this particular way was to facilitate the termination of the employees' employment.The court draws the attention of the public to the fact that the Lang Corporation did not deny that was the purpose of the restructuring. The decision goes on:The reasons given do not explain why clause 13(1)(b) of each LSA took the particular form. Furthermore, the reasons given are not inconsistent with the reason alleged by the applicants. Section 298K(1) requires the prohibited reason to be one reason, but not the only reason.So the court was very clearly finding against them and in a telling way in that regard. On page 17 of the summary of the decision, it states: Although Patricks made generalised complaints about the employees' work practices, there is no material which would justify the conclusion at this stage that the workforce was unsatisfactory. Indeed, the company accounts for the year ended 30 September 1996 show that the first respondent made an after tax profit of $10,911,000 for the year ended 30 September 1995 (the first year) and an after tax profit of $20,431,000 for the year ended 30 September 1996 (the second year).They are very interesting passages from the Federal Court decision. The High Court decision in a number of places is also very interesting to read. On page 5 of the majority decision, the High Court notes of the restructure of the business:Thus the security of the employer companies' businesses was extremely tenuous. The security of the employees' employment was consequentially altered to their prejudice.A deliberate tactic. The High Court also highlights on page 6 of the joint decision that:There is no express denial that a reason for undertaking the restructure in this particular way was to facilitate the termination of the employees' employment.It also highlights on page 22 that:. . . in effecting the 1997 reorganisation, the employer companies disposed of their assets including their stevedoring businesses, reduced their issued capital and disposed of a substantial amount of money by the buy-back of their shares and became the mere suppliers of labour, they exposed their continued commercial viability to the discretion of Patrick Operations No 2 (and later to Patrick Operations) in the event of any disruption in the supply of labour.There are many passages from that decision that I could quote.Despite the view of Mr Costigan QC, despite the view of Justice North, despite the view of the full bench of the Federal Court and despite the view of the High Court, the Prime Minister continues to back Mr Corrigan to the hilt. In fact, he has said that the events on the waterfront are a defining moment in Australia's industrial relations history. That statement is dead right.The government all but ignored the Attorney-General's Department when it put this strategy together in this matter. The plan outlined in the 10 March minute was developed by Dr Webster and others, including the law firms Minter Ellison and Dunhill Madden Butler. What was developed was a commercial structure.I am sure there are a lot of questions being asked in the Attorney-General's Department as I speak about how the government—particularly the minister for workplace relations, the former minister for transport and the Prime Minister himself—could have put itself in such a risky legal position. The government has been caught out because the Attorney-General's Department was left out of this matter. The role of the Attorney-General, and his department, in this fiasco will be revealed and it will make fascinating reading. The extent of the government's legal dilemma is highlighted by the heavy hitters brought in to help it and its alleged fellow conspirators. Patrick has hired Freehills, the NFF has hired Minter Ellison—which were also consultants to the government in relation to waterfront reform; and some very interesting questions were asked at estimates which have not yet been answered in relation to that conflict—the administrators are being represented by Phillips Fox and the government has hired Dunhill Madden Butler.The key point in this whole waterfront fiasco was the endorsement of the strategy provided to the minister for workplace relations on 27 February last year. That paper was the basis for the actions taken by the government and Patrick around Australia at 11 p.m. on 7 April. I have advised the Senate on a previous occasion that the waterfront paper was initially prepared by Mr Derryn Gillespie and Dr Greg Feeney when the maritime transport division was located in the Department of Transport and Regional Development. However, the paper was rewritten by Mr Gillespie with no reference back to his colleagues. I assume it was provided to Mr Reith's office in draft form and was rewritten accordingly. Mr Gillespie refocused the paper on the confrontationist option and that led to the sacking of the work force on 7 April.According to the now famous 10 March minute from Mr Gillespie to Mr Reith, it was intended that the 27 February paper provide the basis for a meeting with the Prime Minister. I am advised that the strategy outlined in the paper—sack the entire work force to get the MUA—was presented to the Prime Minister before Dr Webster's consultancy commenced, and he explicitly endorsed the plan. The Prime Minister was also kept up-to-date on the progress of the plan as it was fleshed out by Dr Webster, the National Farmers Federation and Patrick's. What this government now confronts is an economic and political disaster of its own making. It set about building a plan to destroy a union. It is going to fail, and it is going to get into a lot of trouble over it. (Time expired)16:00:002874McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—The government rejects the general business motion which is listed under Senator Faulkner's name. The first thing I note is that Senator Faulkner was not here to move his own motion. Instead, it was moved by Senator O'Brien, who brought nothing new to this long, drawn-out saga on the waterfront—and there is more to come. Senator O'Brien attempted to construct what we have heard before, but in some sort of new smoke and mirror fashion—that what Patrick's has undertaken is illegal and that the courts have found it to be illegal. Well, they have not. They have not found the restructuring by Patrick's to be at all illegal. A prima facie case has been established and the main case is still to be undertaken.Senator Carr interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—The motion that is before the Senate is based on the false premise that Patrick's hire companies are illegal entities; they are not. They were found by the High Court not to be illegal; rather, they were found to be legitimate entities that are entitled to undertake commercial activities and make commercial decisions. We await, Senator Carr, some of those commercial decisions and realities which the administrators are now pondering over. It is important to say that because the government would not be supporting any company for any reason if they undertook their affairs illegally. We on this side of the House do not believe that the end justifies the means.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That's what you're into.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—But you do, by your defence of the MUA, the indefensible. Did anyone notice that Senator O'Brien did not once mention the reforms that are so necessary down on the waterfront? His defence of the MUA really was a case of the means justifying the end. The end, for those on the other side of the House, is that the MUA stay in their established form as the most powerful union within the trade union movement, as the supplier of funds and the propper-upper of the Labor Party, and all their rorts and extortions down on the waterfront continue beyond the year 2000 into the next century.The truth is that the motion before the Senate is an exercise in defending the indefensible. It is yet another strident defence of the MUA by the Labor Party because, as I said, the MUA pays the bulk of the bills of the Labor Party. It dominates the union movement. The MUA leaders are notorious rorters and extortionists. This dates way back to the fathers of the union—way back to the Second World War, when they held our waterfront to ransom through shocking behaviour, when our fighting troops were denied supplies and arms. It was utterly against the national interest. This is what happened way back in the 1940s. Those fathers of the union have not changed at all. The MUA—under another name; that is all—is behaving in the same way.This is not a union representing the working class or the battlers of Australia; I wish it was. For example, a crane driver, for 14 hours work a week, can be paid over $90,000. This is a practice which adds costs to our exports and to our imports. They are sacrificing the jobs of other workers. This has a cascading effect through all industries throughout Australia.While all this vitriol is being heaped upon Patrick's throughout this dispute, the most interesting development in the last couple of days has been the entry of P&O into this debate. They are now demanding fundamental reforms which are no different from Patrick's. For months now, the Labor Party have been demonising Patrick's, saying, `Why can't Patrick's be like P&O?' How ironic! Like Patrick's, P&O are now demanding reforms on the waterfront, because their workplace agreements are only now falling due. P&O were just biding their time. Don't think P&O are on your side; they are more like Patrick's than Patrick's are like them.As the realities of the marketplace hit home to those opposite and to the MUA, and as the debate drags on, the government's determination is proven. In the coming weeks the MUA have two choices: to reform their work practices and change the culture down on the waterfront, or leave. Those are their two choices. They will take the latter, you wait and see. Should they be foolish enough to take the latter, there are others willing to take up the jobs that they will walk out on, such as the NFF-run P&C Stevedores. However, we will wait and see how the MUA deal with the market realities that they face in the coming weeks.One obvious factor throughout this whole waterfront dispute has been the importance which the MUA have placed on public relations. We have all noticed it—the gloss over and above the substance. With regard to winning media opinion, they have certainly done that to a great extent—none more so than the ABC. They have won the ABC over to their side, there is no doubt about that, but that is never hard to do.John Coombs has been so conscious of reshaping his public image that he has called in Jane Singleton on a daily basis to get advice, to whack on the make-up, to know what to say and how to dress up. Jane Singleton is reshaping John Coombs. The tough, rough nut from the waterfront is now looking just a little more decent before the cameras. He is all done up by the public relations people. So the usual grand gesture of the deluders is now occurring. They have been on their way to the picket lines to support their brothers in arms in the MUA.These self-deluders have made ridiculous comparisons of the MUA to Poland's Solidarity movement and South Africa's union movement against apartheid. Only last night in this chamber, Senator Forshaw was idealising the MUA, making comparisons with the Polish struggle against communism or the union struggles—and good struggles they were—against apartheid in South Africa. The truth of the matter is John Coombs is no Lech Walesa, no matter how the public relations departments dress him up. He is more like an Arthur Scargill, who, if you remember, was paid by the Russian communists at the time he brought England to its knees when he carried out his strikes.Sure as can be, the MUA is no Solidarity, nor is their cause. They do not represent the Aussie battlers, particularly on their hourly rates. Was the union movement so strident—the ACTU and their political allies across there—when the timber workers lost their jobs against the ridiculous ambit claims by the green movements? When the Ravenshoe workers lost their jobs up in Queensland several years ago, was the union movement defending their jobs? They were battlers, they were working class, they were driven from their jobs: where were you?But you were all out on the platforms and the pickets with the MUA, the money men of the union. Best estimates are they have $20 million cash in their bank account. They are going to need it for all their legal fees. That is why you succumb to the MUA's call and not to the call of the battlers and the real workers from Ravenshoe when they were driven out of their jobs. They are the working-class people who deserve a strong and decent union and a strong political arm. The point is, the general public are not fooled by this; you are fooled, you are self-deluders, the general public are not.Senator Carr interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—We are willing to go to an election on that, Senator Carr, if you so wish. I would have thought, for all the expenses the union is paying for public relations that the public relations department would not have made such a huge error, at least in Victoria, when they wheeled out Joan Kirner and Bill Kelty to have their pictures taken on the picket lines. For all Victorians, this brings back memories of the worst possible face of the union. Isn't Joan Kirner best remembered as the Premier who drove the state into its gloomiest and darkest period, its most depressing period, all because she was then a captive of John Halfpenny's Trades Hall Council? And isn't Bill Kelty best known and remembered for his `blood in the streets' comments during the last election? On both occasions, it cost you votes and it cost you a public image before the people of Victoria. It cost you elections, but you still wheel out the two of them. I invite you to keep wheeling them out before the cameras and in the newspapers, and have them on the picket lines. It only proves the point that these people are the friends of the MUA, that these people are self-deluding. They think they have some idealistic fight here when it is nothing of the sort; they are holding the nation to ransom.AW5CARRSenator Carr—There is certainly no idealism about you!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Carr, you may be interested to know that I can give a very honest real-life account of the tactics of the MUA. For all those who think that John Coombs is Lech Walesa and that MUA is Solidarity, for all those who have deluded themselves that that is what this is all about, let me give you some real-life accounts of the picket lines down on the docks. I have several friends working for P&C Stevedores, the NFF-run stevedoring company. They tell me what happens down there, how they are intimidated and how efficient they are for such inexperienced workers.Senator Carr, you were seen down on Swanson Dock having your picture taken with the picketers. How could I leave out Senator Carr when I talk about Joan Kirner and Bill Kelty? You were with them Senator Carr. You keep linking arms with them and putting yourself on the front page of the Herald Sun, the Australian and the Age because it only does our cause good! Down on Swanson Dock picket lines—and I use this personal story because I know Senator Forshaw last night tried to bring out a personal story, and where there is one story from one side of the fence, there is always another one—there were death threats and physical threats upon the workers of P&C Stevedores when they went to work for Patrick. And probably worse, the young women who were working for P&C Stevedores were physically threatened in a vile manner.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What a load of drivel.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Carr, do you really think it is not true? Don't let this one get past you because you know it is true. You know how they behave on those picket lines.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Order, Senator McGauran! Through the chair, please.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, the thrust of this whole debate really should be about reform. That is something Senator O'Brien never talked about. Yet that is the substance of this debate. That is looking beyond the public relations exercise by the union and the union know that the reform that is going to occur is just a matter of time. A great deal has been said in regard to what reform can be achieved on the waterfront and in the past few weeks we have seen the publication of the Productivity Commission handed down. It is a damning document for just how inefficient our ports have been. You can add the Productivity Commission's report to the pile of other documents about the inefficiencies of the waterfront—several of them were produced by the Labor government.Given the Asian economic crisis, it is now imperative that this government moves to reform our waterfront. Time has run out for Australia and, therefore, time has run out for the MUA. To this end, the government has recently published seven benchmarks which it seeks to achieve. The first one is overmanning. Quite frankly, even the MUA's leader John Coombs concedes that there is definitely an overmanning problem down on the waterfront. Improved productivity: that is a very general term, but we can bring it down to the benchmark of crane rates. Australia's average is some 18 container lifts per hour and we are seeking a benchmark of 25, which we believe is achievable.I shall give an example as a measure of what 18 means and how inefficient 18 container lifts per hour is. I have just returned from parts of southern Africa where I was part of a political delegation. We visited Mozambique—a war-torn country for more than 25 years which has just made peace. It is now in the infancy of its democracy. The main capital—Maputo—was basically boarded up just four years and the port has just be come operational again over the last couple of years.P&O Australia have bought the management rights for this port and own some 30 per cent of it. It intends it to be a major container port for the southern African region. Their equipment is antiquated, their docks are basically bombed out, and their workers are incredibly inexperienced. They have really only been going for the last couple of years.To P&O Australia's credit, they see a future in this area. They are lifting 16 containers per hour with antiquated equipment and with inexperienced workers. They have told us that within 12 months, once they get these workers up and running an operation, they will surpass Australia's 18. There is a benchmark that we cannot even match in a bombed out country that has been war-torn for the past 25 years. They have a great deal of hope in that country and it would be a disgrace to see Australia surpassed by the efforts of P&O in Mozambique. So overmanning is the problem.The third problem is greater reliability. Australian ports have the worst strike rate in the world. The level of industrial action on the waterfront in 1996 was 1,250 working days lost per thousand employees. Just as a measure, compare that with the rest of the Australian economy. Against 1,250 working days lost per thousand employees, only 135 working days were lost per thousand employees in all other industries. This is a ratio of 10:1 compared with other industries in Australia. As two per cent of the world's shipping trade is in Australia, the waterfront has the highest level of industrial unrest in the world—23 per cent of working days lost on the waterfront across the world. We are the worst strikers in the world: little wonder that is a benchmark.Occupational health and safety is the fourth of the seven benchmarks the government is attempting to achieve. The fifth is lower stevedoring costs. Of course, with greater stevedoring competition—like the NFF's P&C—lower costs will be established by market pressure. The sixth benchmark relates to making the best use of new technologies, which will require a massive capital injection by the existing and new stevedores. And of course, training is the seventh item.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Where were the registered trainers down on the wharves? Jeff Kennett was dead right about you!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I can tell you, Senator Carr, about this idea that the wharfies—the MUA—have some monopoly on understanding of all the technical equipment and the strapping of the ships and the shifting of the containers, et cetera. I know some of the NFF P&C non-unionised workers have got the job down pat within a matter of months of training. Experience will make them better, but this is no complicated job and it can be done better. They have proven it, particularly some of the young women who are driving the big cranes. They have greater concentration and greater work effort than many of the MUA workers. Not all the MUA workers are to blame—it is the leadership and the thuggery clique that they have around them. Madam Acting Deputy President, we reject this motion.16:20:002877Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I wish to introduce a less adversarial note in this matter. What this motion is about—AW5CARRSenator Carr—You should have thought about that in the industrial relations act.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Regardless of the foolish intrusion of Senator Carr, who forgets that it is the Workplace Relations Act which the MUA and others who have been wronged in this issue are relying on, the issue I wish to address here is the question of what is right. Regardless of who is involved in a particular issue, the very concept of allowing employers or anyone with a contractual obligation to escape those obligations—to employees or to any other creditor—through corporate restructuring is an extremely dangerous and evil concept. For any government of the day to even hint at—and this government did not hint; it was forthright about it—support for any corporate asset strippers, is a serious misjudgment. The outcry from those of all political persuasions against this assault on our moral and legal values has surprised many of those who thought that bashing wharfies was an easy way to get electoral support.The fact is that if corporations are allowed to set up subsidiaries, are allowed to withdraw their assets and their financing and then to declare them bankrupt so that they can avoid their contractual obligations, then we are all at risk. It is not just employees; it is creditors, bankers—their contracts could be affected by such restructuring, landlords. tenants, the small business people whom Minister Reith recently put a fair trading act through to protect, and it is any supplier. When this restructuring device was activated by the Patrick group, a shiver of fear went through numerous people who realised that their contractual obligations could be avoided by the same device.This is not a new issue. It has been raised before in the bottom-of-the-harbour days, and it was raised and covered in 1988 by the Law Reform Commission when it conducted a general insolvency inquiry. As a part of that inquiry the commission considered the possibility of making related companies liable for the debts of an insolvent company in certain circumstances, and the commission recommended that companies should be so liable. Because of that advice which was given to the Labor government of the day by the Law Reform Commission, the Australian Democrats have constructed an amendment to the Corporations Law which is to be debated in the next session. The amendment will seek to prevent corporate groups from stripping assets from insolvent companies to prevent payments to employees or to any other creditors. We hope that we will get the support of the Senate to end the practice, but I think the point made by Senator O'Brien is that this is a little late; it is bolting the stable door too late—the horse is gone. We have to hope that the courts will regard this means of avoiding obligations to employees as not only improper, not only immoral, but hopefully they will regard it as illegal.The Australian Democrats have clearly put on the record their dislike of any system which applauds the wholesale sacking of 1,400 workers because they belong to a union. It does not matter whether they belong to the MUA, a communist union, a farmers union or any other kind of union; it is wrong to sack workers because they belong to a union. It is just as wrong to avoid the obligations you are required to have as an employer by structuring or restructuring your assets and your companies in such a way that employee entitlements cannot be paid. It has not missed the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), of other ministers and of the Senate that that same device has recently been used on the workers of Cobar and Woodlawn and has affected them. Pretty soon, we will all have tenants or suppliers or banks or somebody else who is a creditor knocking on our doors and squealing about this. Over and above the adversarial politics of who loves and who hates what, we must pay attention to the very real dangers identified in this motion that corporate asset stripping poses for anyone who has a contractual obligation and who can avoid it by what I regard as shonky, sneaky, improper actions using a device to be abhorred.We hope that the amendment we are putting up will make this practice exceptionally difficult in future. I am aware that the Labor Party have further amendments, and I would hope that the government would move to support them. If the government's intention was to reform the waterfront, to damage their own case so savagely by even pretending or starting to support any kind of activity which smacks of such immorality is a very silly thing to have done because, as a result of it, large sections of the community have been turned against the very objective they were trying to achieve.I do not have much more to say on this issue. I think the Senate should condemn the government for condoning the practice of asset stripping. They should not confuse the objective of improving productivity on the wharves—an objective supported by the Labor Party, the Democrats, the coalition, the MUA and the employers; we differ over the means, not the objective—with allowing companies to behave in a manner which avoids their contractual responsibilities and obligations and puts families at risk. Next time it could be the families of farmers, next time it could be the families of retail tenants or the families of some supplier. It is just not the proper behaviour for government to agree with. I was deeply distressed and ashamed that ministers of the crown could have supported and applauded such behaviour. Accordingly, I indicate that the Democrats will support the motion moved by the opposition.16:28:002879McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I commend Senator Murray, my Western Australian Democrat colleague, on the content of the speech that he has just made to the Senate. I make the point right at the beginning that he did at least address the text of the motion that is before the chamber, unlike the speaker prior to him, Senator McGauran from the National Party of Victoria, who completely and utterly evaded the text of the motion. Senator McGauran embarked rather on an attack on the Maritime Union of Australia, the trade union movement in general and the Labor Party as well—all lumped in together.To help people who might want to understand what this debate is about, I repeat for the record the text of the notice of motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Faulkner) and moved and spoken to so admirably by my colleague Senator O'Brien earlier this afternoon. The motion reads:That the Senate condemns the Government for condoning the practice of asset-stripping companies in order to evade the normal contractual responsibilities of employers to their employees, as evidenced by Government support for the corporate re-structuring and asset-stripping of Patrick Stevedores' labour hire companies.I am tempted to seek to amend the motion to not only delete the word `condoning' but also insert the words `the government jumping into bed with the various individuals who have operated around Patrick Stevedores'. It is becoming more and more evident day by day as further evidence is brought to the attention of the public that senior figures—senior ministers in this government, senior figures in ministers offices and senior identities in a number of government departments—have been up to their necks in the conspiracy to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia, and they have done it by the foulest means possible. They have done it by illegal means and they seek to cover their tracks. The law, it seems, is actually bigger than even senior figures in this government, as three very recent decisions of the courts have upheld. I refer to two decisions—one in the full court of the Federal Court and a later decision of the High Court of Australia.This whole debacle began in February 1996 when the then opposition spokesperson on transport promised that a coalition government would, if elected, break the grip of the Maritime Union of Australia. Mr Sharp said that in 1996. It would seem the government has held to that promise since it has been elected. As a result, we have seen major disruption in various ports throughout Australia, in ports where there has been no industrial disputation for a large number of years. Yet the individuals employed were sacked merely because they were members of the Maritime Union of Australia.Who were the major players in the game? There have been many and some have been named by my colleague Senator O'Brien and other speakers today. The main character in all of this, I would suggest, was Mr Chris Corrigan. Mr Corrigan now needs no introduction to the people of Australia. He certainly needs no introduction to corporate Australia and the trade union movement in Australia. His actions, since he took over Patrick Stevedores, have had one main objective—not necessarily to make a profit for his organisation, which essentially should be what he was appointed to do—which is to break a trade union.The game has not been fully played out yet. Perhaps at the end it will be Mr Corrigan who is broken. Already Mr Corrigan has, out of his own mouth, been exposed to be a liar of the highest order. He misled, deceived and lied openly in order to advance his objective about breaking a union and sacking the employees of his company. All of this is on the public record. Unfortunately, it is not on the public record in the detail that would allow every individual in our society to understand the type of character Mr Corrigan is and the types of people that he is dealing with. I want to use the time of the Senate this afternoon, when speaking about this asset-stripping exercise, to read into the record the transcript of a meeting that occurred between Mr Corrigan, Mr Michael Wells and Mr Peter Kilfoyle. Mr Wells and Mr Kilfoyle were the operators of a company called Fynwest. Fynwest achieved notoriety for the fact that it organised, hired and arranged for a number of Australians to be recruited to its company before moving to the port of Dubai in the Middle East to be trained as waterside workers. The meeting that I refer to occurred on 31 January this year, after the Dubai exercise had been exposed. I quote in part:Corrigan . . . I have to have credibility. If I tell a blatant lie and I really know what the answer is, and down the track something emerges, then my credibility is shot and then the next phases won't work.Wells But you have already said you weren't involved.Corrigan Mmm, I've hedged around and in more recent times I've hedged deliberately so in fact there's a trail now that says I've been equivocal. That might sound subtly different but it is actual important in the sphere. I'm not protecting myself, I'm protecting the overall scheme. But in the end game it may be that I have some credibility anyway, so I can't just come out and totally deny it. So it may be, depending on how it emerges, it may be that I have to `fess up. If I `fess up, I certainly am going to say that I did not know these people were serving military people, and I most certainly would say that I wouldn't have done it that way had I known.Kilfoyle That what annoys me with Dubai, I know you don't agree with me, but there was no—I am not sure about this next word; I do not know whether I should say it or not. It is somewhat of a profanity which refers to a particular part of the male anatomy—saying look here is the document, this is a legal thing that we are doing. We needed a . . . from Fynwest, nothing more. To get up and say, hey, this is all legal, here is the letter from the CO, here's the clause from the army saying they can bloody do it . . . Corrigan It would only work if the person releasing the press statement is credible. The structure we had in place was fatal from the beginning because Fynwest or whomever could have come out with a press statement, but the facts of the matter are that Fynwest couldn't say where the money was coming from, couldn't say who the principal was, and at the end of the day, I have to remind you, you contradicted your colleague here on day one about where they were going to work. The credibility of Fynwest from day one was chopped to pieces and so you could have come out with all the statements that you liked, but the press wouldn't have had a bloody penny of it.Kilfoyle That's because there was no credible person, as far as a press person to bloody handle it. If that would have happened and we had another week Dubai, we would have had these guys right.Corrigan I know that. We made that mistake and at the end of the day it was structurally a disaster. Remember why we made the mistake, because we thought we were able to keep it a secret. And we didn't. If we thought it through clearly enough, we would have said to ourselves, we'd never keep this a secret, we've got to . . . the structure that allows us to be credible.I am actually quoting verbatim from those statements, and if the grammar is not correct, it is not necessarily my fault. This is an intriguing document in relation to this meeting of people who, at this particular point in time, were bedfellows in breaching the law and attacking the working people of this country through the MUA. They were acting as agents for the federal government at this particular point in time.Since the meeting on 31 January, they have indeed fallen out, and Mr Wells has gone public with his declarations that were published in the Age newspaper a couple of days ago. So what we have here is actually what occurred prior to the falling out. Corrigan is an interesting character, and there are some more quotable quotes from this meeting that will serve the record well. I quote again from the transcript:Corrigan From a political point of view everybody needs this to go away. It's be come politically bad news. Now I agree with you, it's not right, but it doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong. You only have to read the press, they constantly want to link these things up and get Patricks in the middle of it say. Patricks is the common thread through here. What they're trying to do is to link everything up into this giant conspiracy leading up to Government. What they want to do is link the whole shooting match up, now there's nothing wrong with this, in PR terms yet. There's nothing wrong with this in PR terms and there are some queries about our relationship with the Union, but leave that aside. Now at this stage these people are okay, (Dubai trainees) they've got to be kept clean. If we are going to work it somehow we've got to work it, somehow we've got to get rid of this as best as possible. Obviously, we don't want to get rid of these people. We've got the people here employed. I believe the only way, we've got to get rid of that this is for you have to step out of the loop.`You' to step out of the loop being Mr Wells and Mr Kilfoyle, their bed partners. It is interesting to read what they think of their own loyal work force—the people that they brought over to Dubai. Although it may have been their work force, it has been proven since that in fact some of these people who went to Dubai were actually serving in Australia's armed forces at that particular point in time and should not have been going to Dubai in any case.AW5CARRSenator Carr—I suppose the minister didn't know anything about that either.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—He probably did not. But that is what I said in my opening remarks, Senator Carr: that the conspiracy reaches the highest political office in this land, and it also reaches the offices of many of the senior ministers in the current government. They certainly knew about it.Let me go on to talk about what these people thought about their own loyal work force—these thugs they had hired at that time; these people who later appeared masked in balaclavas with dogs to protect them when they were encouraged by the government to take over the waterfront on 7 April of this year. The transcript goes on:Corrigan In order to get this to work. So what I'm proposing is that in ordering these people free to apply for jobs here, what we have to do is tell these people that we are giving them notice. So Fynwest tell these people this thing's been a disaster, not a disaster—unable to complete the training. I'll draft a letter.Wells No letter, must be face to face.—a commendable attitude, one would think—Corrigan Unable to complete the training and give them two months notice and we direct them in a very, in as subtle a way as possible over here. Now the problem is, if you ring all of these blokes up and tell them `Look, go and apply for a job here' or more to the point, I guess you could ring them up and say `Why don't you apply for a job over here'. But if you ring them up and tell them `You will get a job' and one of these blokes goes to the press and says `I've been told I will get a job', finished. What these blokes are saying `Look if you can deliver. . .—I have to be careful with this because this guy uses a few profanities from time to time—Kilfoyle They don't really want us, I know that. My intelligence is telling me now. From people in there, they don't— want a bar of us. I know that. I know that from my own intelligence. But, for them to get this off the ground they've got 76 problems, problem children.Corrigan I don't look at it like that. At the end of the day that's not the point. These people, we owe these people a chance to have a go. That is the way I look at it. That is the facts. They are not problems, they are opportunities. What we've got to do is work out how to minimize the problem to give these blokes a fair go. Okay.Kilfoyle May I say . . . Corrigan The only way to do that, the only way to do that, is to close this off and somehow to give these people the hint that they will be given a good hearing over here. Which they will be, I can assure.Kilfoyle What do you call a good hearing Chris? The records stand as they are.Corrigan They are going to get jobs, but you can't tell them that.Kilfoyle I realise that. Okay that's all I wanted to know. Corrigan I'm going to go out of here tomorrow, we reach an agreement today. I'm going to go over there with all the list. I'm going to the bloody Farmers and say to them these blokes will get jobs, everyone of them that we give them. Now if they interview some bloke and he is absolutely unacceptable, I can't deliver totally. But I can assure you, they will get fixed. But we can't tell them that! If one of these blokes, that we haven't yet identified is the leak, gets on the bloody radio or goes to Coombs or whoever and says `I've been told if I go here I will get a job', then none of them will get jobs. The minute this thing arises, the minute this thing arises, the Farmers are going to say `We want nothing to do with them' because they can't afford to. It has to be very delicately handled.It seems that Mr Corrigan in his wisdom at that particular point in time was, despite what he said earlier, worried about the press reaction to what they were doing. They were worried about their own people—the mercenaries they had recruited to send to Dubai to train as waterside workers. They were worried that these loyal individuals that they had recruited to take the jobs of other Australians were worried about what was going to happen to them when they fronted up to the National Farmers Federation front company that was going to take jobs on the waterfront.AW5CARRSenator Carr—The courts were what they should have really been worried about.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—They were worried about the courts, but they were also obviously worried about the public relations at that particular point in time. Now the government is the one that is worried about public reaction to this. The Australian public has not accepted the right of the government, the National Farmers Federation or any company to go in in the dead of night and take the jobs of workers using thugs disguised in balaclavas, carrying weapons and using dogs. That action has backfired on the government. Public opinion is telling them so.It may be that certain sections of the public are not as friendly to waterside workers or MUA workers as some of us are. I do not have a problem with saying that I have been down to the picket lines and stood by my colleagues, representatives of the workers. Some people do not know the full story of what happens on the waterfront. They do not know about the dangers or the levels of incomes of those people. Some people have swallowed—hook, line and sinker—the propaganda that was put out, particularly by Minister Reith, about the earning power of waterside workers. However, they are learning.Whatever they feel about waterside workers, they are not going to stand for the terrorist type activities that were engaged in with the complicity of ministers of the Crown. They are not going to stand for those tactics. They condemn them, and they are quite proper in condemning them. In condemning the government, they are condemning Mr Corrigan and his ilk for what they, in turn, have done on the waterfronts of Australia. The actions that we have seen in the last six or eight months in particular, starting with Cairns and continuing through to Dubai and then to all the ports of Australia, are un-Australian activities and they are condemned.16:48:002882Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Nothing underlines the fact that this resolution on asset-stripping of companies, which has been put forward today by the Labor opposition, has no substance whatsoever than the remarks we have just heard from Senator McKiernan. This motion seeks to condemn the government for allegedly condoning the practice of asset-stripping of companies in relation to Patrick Stevedores' labour hire companies and the current efforts to reform the waterfront.Senator McKiernan had the gall to stand up and condemn Senator McGauran for not addressing that resolution relating to asset-stripping, and yet we have just heard from Senator McKiernan for 20 minutes and he has also completely ignored this resolution—having just condemned Senator McGauran out of hand for not speaking about the details of the resolution. Senator McKiernan commented on the Federal Court and the High Court cases and then he gave a long and very boring reading of alleged transcripts of con versations of people supposedly involved in waterfront reform.Senator McKiernan said at the outset that the actions of those seeking waterfront reform had been illegal and had been declared illegal by the courts. That is not true. In its final decision on the appeal from the Federal Court, the High Court reinforced the role of the administrators in the management of Patrick Stevedores' labour hire companies. After the decision was handed down by the High Court, the MUA trumpeted victory in its court action against Patrick's, but it was no such thing. It was not a victory—and if it was, it was certainly a pyrrhic victory because the High Court declared very clearly that the future of Patrick's was to be left in the hands of the administrators and that they had the ultimate decision as to whether or not the MUA members would be re-employed.Senator McKiernan went on to quote at great length from alleged transcripts of meetings, essentially regarding the Dubai training exercise. At one stage I heard him refer to alleged comments that said that the matters needed to be delicately handled. He said that that was evidence of a conspiracy and, perhaps, of a public relations problem. Again, it is evidence of no such thing. It is evidence of the history of thuggery and intimidation on the waterfront which has been engaged in by the MUA. Obviously, to avoid that intimidation and thuggery, matters have to be dealt with with a measure of experience and delicate handling—especially if the history of thuggery and intimidation from the MUA was not to succeed in this particular situation. That is what the reference was to.Let me come back to this motion which alleges that the government is condoning asset-stripping in relation to Patrick Stevedores. Where is the evidence that the government has condoned that alleged asset-stripping? No evidence whatsoever has been presented by either of the two Labor Party senators that we have heard speak in support of this motion today.The only illegality that we have so far experienced in this matter is the illegality perpetrated by the Maritime Union of Australia itself, because in the Victorian Supreme Court today Justice Beach has declared just that illegality. He has found the MUA to be in breach of his order regarding picketing and to be in contempt of court. The only illegality in relation to this matter has been declared in the Victorian Supreme Court today. Let that be an end to any claims of illegality from those opposite. The Labor Party is locked into this illegal behaviour, because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) himself has given support to these illegal pickets on the waterfront. Another senior Labor spokesman, Simon Crean, when asked while on the picket himself why he was breaking the law, replied, `No, I don't believe I'm breaking the law at all.' The Victorian Supreme Court has found today that they were breaking the law, and he was a participant in that—quite obviously—on that occasion. We have the Labor Party continuing to support union heavies like Greg Combet who said, `Bad laws should not be respected.' I seem to remember a bloke called Don Dunstan who used to have that attitude too, and we know how South Australia finished up as a result of his years of maladministration. In relation to the Supreme Court, Dean Migehll said to `totally and absolutely ignore it' and Jennie George of the ACTU said something similar—that she would simply ignore the Supreme Court. John Coombs, the doyen of the MUA, says, `We cannot take legal action, so we'll take a bit of illegal industrial action.' There is where the attitude to the law on the part of the trade unions stands very clear in this dispute. They have no respect for the law whatsoever. Yet we find the Labor opposition coming in here, seeking to condemn the government and seeking to condemn Patrick's because of some `as yet to be proven' allegations of asset-stripping and the government allegedly condoning such activity.The reality of this issue is that the MUA set out to break Patrick's, because Patrick's had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say, `Enough is enough. The waterfront needs reform.' Enough certainly was enough for Patrick's, because it had lost $56 million due to the behaviour of the MUA over an extend ed period of time. No wonder Patrick's stood up and said, `It is time we had some proper reform on the waterfront.' The industrial warfare in which the MUA has engaged has cost Patrick's $56 million and has sent it broke. That is what cost the wharfies their jobs when they were necessarily retrenched by the labour hire companies operating under Patrick's. When people are retrenched, no-one wants to see people lose what entitlements they might legally have. The government is certainly willing to look at areas that might strengthen the rights of employees in a situation where there is illegal activity undertaken. But no illegal activity has been found in this matter.In calling on the Senate to act on this issue today, both Senator Faulkner and Senator O'Brien—Senator Faulkner gave notice of the motion and sent Senator O'Brien in to do his dirty work for him—are actually asking the Senate to condemn their own laws. These are laws that were put in place by the previous Labor government. The Corporations Law, as it stands in relation to this matter, is not a law of the Liberal-National party government; it is a law that was put in place by the previous government and that has been there for 13 years without any changes. So if there is any substance in this matter, let us sheet home the blame to where it belongs, and that is to the previous Labor government—not the present government at all.The proposals to make some changes to this law as a result of this issue are designed to protect employee entitlements. But it needs to be remembered that this issue crosses boundaries between the Corporations Law, industrial law and policies. It is a complex issue when an employer is insolvent. Attempting to protect employee entitlements in that situation is not something that can be fixed with a snap of the fingers as the opposition seem to be suggesting. The fact is there are already widespread provisions within the Corporations Law to protect employees in these circumstances. Senator Conroy interjecting—FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—The other thing that needs to be remembered is that there are some one million corporations in Australia which would be affected by changes to the Corporations Law. It is very important that we do not have any unforeseen and undesirable consequences as a result of changes to the Corporations Law.Senator Conroy has been interjecting here in the last few minutes. He is a member of the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities which I chair. He would know only too well the very detailed process that has been gone through on the current areas of the Corporations Law that are being reformed through the CLERP. A lot of study has been done on the need for change and on the areas that require change. Draft legislation has been published, comments have been sought on the draft legislation and now we finally have bills before our committee for consideration. To have a knee-jerk reaction because some alleged issue has arisen—to immediately advocate some changes to the Corporations Law without at all examining what the unintended consequences of those changes might be for companies not in any way involved in the situation that is extant—would be very unwise indeed. The other thing that needs to be remembered is that the Corporations Law is a cooperative scheme that relies on the cooperation of state and territory governments, and changes to the Corporations Law have to be processed through the Ministerial Council for Corporations. It would be quite without precedent for the federal government to support any amendments to the Corporations Law which firstly have not been examined by that Ministerial Council.The government has, however, taken steps to examine the issue. At a recent meeting of state and territory ministers for labour, the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee has been asked to undertake a detailed examination of the matter, including consultation with all affected parties. The Departments of Labour Advisory Committee is going to report to the next meeting of the council of labour ministers. The government has responded to this issue but it is doing so in a proper and considered way in order to examine all of the issues, see if any necessary reforms are needed and determine the process that needs to be undertaken for those reforms.Let us not have any suggestion—as we have in this motion today—that the government is condoning any alleged improper activity on the part of a corporation to deny its employees their entitlements. That is simply a red herring that the opposition seeks to draw across the real issue, which is the continued intransigence of the Maritime Union of Australia to accede to any waterfront reform. This reform becomes more urgent as every day goes by.The reason the Labor Party want to avoid focusing on this issue is that they completely failed in their limited attempts to reform the waterfront. That is notwithstanding the fact that they threw $420 million at the issue for a few years in attempts to buy people out of their jobs. They acknowledged, when they embarked on their limited process of reform, that the waterfront was about 50 per cent overmanned.Instead of taking firm action to deal with that problem, they simply threw money at it and sought to buy people's retirement by offering them golden handshakes. A number of people took those golden handshakes. What happened? Not long after taking those golden handshakes, in many instances they returned to the waterfront as part-time or casual employees. It did not achieve the efficiencies that were required.Even with the limited reduction in manning levels that were achieved, the real reforms were never achieved. The rorts and problems that are inherent on the waterfront and that have been detailed over many weeks now—such as the nick-offs, the double time and so on—remain. They are the rorts and the problems that this government is intent on dealing with and finding a solution to so that we have world's best practice on the Australian waterfront. That is absolutely required by this country because of its dependence on export earnings as a major generator of the nation's and the community's wealth. We need to proceed with that issue.That is where the previous government failed. They did not give Australian industry—and all of the workers in all of Australia's industries that are dependent on the waterfront—the benefit of that reform process. Instead what Labor gave employees was high interest rates and high unemployment. It continued to protect the MUA's monopoly situation on our waterfront.In contrast, the Howard Liberal-National Party government is determined to take those important issues head-on and find solutions to them. That is why we have been prepared to support Patricks. As I said earlier, Patricks was prepared to stand up and say, `Enough is enough. We are going to be part of a waterfront reform process.' They were driven to that by the fact that they were sent bankrupt by the thuggery and inefficiency of the members of the MUA on the Australian waterfront.The reform is absolutely essential. It is interesting to note that reform is achievable, despite the fact that the MUA says that they are working at their best capacity. They have brought forward bogus reports to say that the crane rates are highly efficient—I think the claimed rate was 19, as published in a study by the MUA a few weeks ago. They say that that is the best we can do in Australia.It is interesting to note that today the MUA admits that productivity on the Australian waterfront has increased by up to 10 per cent since action was taken by Patricks and others to bring this matter to a head and seek proper reform on the waterfront. It is the old saying: `Nothing concentrates the mind like knowing you are going to be hanged in the morning.' That is exactly what has happened with the MUA. They are now confronted with the reality of their future employment and job security because of the actions they took in the past sending one company broke. P&O is now signing on to the government's reform program. It is signing on to achieving the seven waterfront benchmarks that we have established. The MUA know that the game is up and that unless some improvement is found rapidly their jobs are in jeopardy.Now that they are back at work we see productivity up by 10 per cent. That productivity improvement must continue. Ten per cent is a start, but it is certainly not enough to achieve the benchmarks that the govern ment has established. That reform process must be maintained and strengthened. We must have an end to the industrial warfare upon which the MUA has embarked which has cost Patricks $56 million and which costs each ship $25,000 a day when it is held up in a port.In Adelaide last weekend we saw the MUA refuse to allow P&O waterfront employees to load a scrap metal ship bound for the United States because that contract was originally a Patricks contract. Supposedly, Patricks was back in business with their employees returning to work but, because of the industrial action, Patricks had subcontracted that work to P&O and that subcontract remained in force. The MUA refused to allow the P&O waterfront employees to load that ship and were attempting to insist that the reinstated employees of Patricks would load it. Because of the dispute initiated by the MUA, the ship remained idle for several days. As I recollect, in the end a third stevedoring company, Sealand, finished up loading that ship. It hired the Patrick employees on a temporary basis.That is the sort of nonsense that the MUA carries on with. Even when the dispute was resolved and the opportunity was there for them to return to work, they wanted immediately to overturn plans that had been put in place as a direct consequence of their own earlier industrial action. There is clearly an attitude in the MUA that they are not willing to compromise and not willing to meet the reform process. Their leader has made it very clear, on a number of occasions, that although they want to go back to work with Patricks they do not want to embark on any serious achievement of reform.Again, it is worth noting today that P&O has put up a proposal for there to be no strikes for the next six months on the waterfront. P&O sought an order preventing any industrial action by MUA members at any terminal for the next six months, obviously as a precursor to developing more productive practices on the waterfront. What did MUA secretary John Coombs do? He described that proposal, the fact that there should not be any industrial disputes, as nonsense.I would have thought after the past few months when many working hours have been lost through industrial disputation—and it was that which in the end forced Patrick to make their workers redundant, the fact that there were some 30-odd days of industrial action by their employees prior to the retrenchment of their workers—that surely the MUA has learnt from this experience. It is time that they accepted the need for waterfront reform, that they accepted the need for greatly improved productivity, that they accepted the need to get rid of all the rorts that have been so exhibited on the waterfront over many years in Australia, so that those industries whose lifeblood is dependent on an efficient waterfront can produce the wealth for this country. 17:09:002886Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I wish to rise again to discuss the role of Mr Peter Scanlon so that all senators can know and understand why it is totally inappropriate for the government to do business with him. This is a man who is at the centre of this argument. Government senators can try to ignore the sorts of people that they, through their government and Peter Reith, the minister for industrial relations, have got into bed with, because that is what they have done. Not a word has come from government senators about their attempts to breach their laws. Senator Chapman liked to talk about the laws of the land. The laws that the government senators voted for over there have put Peter Reith in the dock because that is where Peter Reith will end up. That is where Peter Scanlon will end up again. It is a breach of your government's laws that is going to see the embarrassment and the documents dragged out.Remember, it is Mr Peter Scanlon who had to resign as the chairman of the Victorian TAB when he was facing criminal charges. Mr Peter Scanlon is still under investigation by the National Crime Authority and not surprisingly has not been reappointed to any position within the Victorian government. Despite this, he has been hand-picked by Peter Reith and the coalition government to carry out waterfront reform. I would like to quote from Mr Ken Jarrett's statement to the court in March 1994, which shows clearly the character of Mr Peter Scanlon and why this federal government should have nothing to do with him.For those on the opposite side of the chamber who do not know who Ken Jarrett is, he was an intimate business associate, one of the key financial people at Elders during the 1980s—John Elliott's right-hand man. Peter Scanlon worked with Ken Jarrett for years. Ken Jarrett speaks with complete authority on Peter Scanlon and the scams, rorts and shams that went on inside Elders, which have been the subject of much debate in this chamber. So Ken Jarrett is a man in a position to talk about Peter Scanlon and the sort of bloke that he is. I start by quoting from paragraph 10, which states:By the early 1980s Scanlon had become involved with strategy. He played the dominant role in the Elders and Carlton United Brewery merger transactions.Paragraph 11 states:At some time after the merger between Henry Jones IXL and Elders, Cowper moved to Monaco with Wiesener—two of the other principals whose names continually recur when it comes to that Melbourne establishment club of spivs that took over some of the companies—5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—They're all your mates.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I don't think they are any of our mates, not by any shot, Senator Ferris. Ken Jarrett went on:They both then ceased to be Directors of Henry Jones IXL. Cowper and Wiesener together established a business providing merchant banking and financial services in Monaco. I am aware that they continued to maintain associations with Elliott and Scanlon and, to an extent, with myself and other executives of Elders. They continued to identify opportunities for Elders.So this is the man who was dealing with Elliott, who was dealing with Peter Scanlon. Paragraph 12 states:In about June 1984 EXL, through a subsidiary Elders N.V., made an issue in Europe of convertible bonds having a face value of U.S. $160 million. The motivation for the issue was partly a need for EXL to raise capital and partly to enable executives of the company to take up financial interests in the company in a manner which could be self-funded. I believe the scheme to finance executive participation was proposed initially by Bankers Trust. It was attractive to the intended beneficiaries in that it was expected that the bonds would increase in value as EXL prospered and it would enable them to maintain some control over the company.Paragraph 13 states:I became involved in discussions relating to the proposal initially with Wiesener and Elliott. By the time that issue was made Elliott, Scanlon, Wiesener, Cowper and Lord were, to my knowledge, aware of the executive participation.So what you have happening here is a decision by Elders executives, including Ken Jarrett, to set up a hidden transaction where they became the beneficial owners of these bonds which gave them a significant controlling influence at Elders. That would be fine if they wanted to go out and raise the money themselves, but that is not what actually happened.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. What Senator Conroy opposite is saying may well be of interest. I have been listening to him for six minutes or so and we do know that he is preoccupied with matters to do with Elders. Mr Scanlon, I understand—was he a director of Elders at some stage?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—What is the point of order?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The point of order is that, under Senator Faulkner's general business notice of motion No. 1103 moved by Senator O'Brien, we are talking about Patrick Stevedores. At this stage, Senator Conroy, after six minutes, has failed to relate any of the matters in his speech to the motion before the chair. I do not know whether you can talk about any company, whether you want to talk about Bond Corporation and Brian Burke or Paul Keating and Heypesbury Holdings or Laurie Connell and other Labor Party figures under the guise of any motion about any company. I am not sure whether you can talk about any prime minister—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, you really should stick to the point of order. You should not be debating the issue.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The point of order is this: within the standing orders dealing with relevance, is the senator opposite capable of dealing with any corporate restructuring of any company in Australian history and the involvement of Labor prime ministers and premiers in those, or is he, in some way, supposed to deal with the matter of Patrick Stevedores and particularly the issue of industrial relations that is specifically referred to in Senator Faulkner's notice of motion—that is, the responsibilities of employers to their employees in these matters—or can you talk about any corporate affairs matter that you want to if the name of a company is mentioned?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you have to move closer to the subject under discussion. You have a very long introduction.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. This motion is about asset stripping. It goes to the character of the people involved in running Patricks. What I am detailing is previous activities of the principals of Patricks and showing how they have not just done what they did to Patricks once, but they have done it before. They have form and they have a consistent record in this. The testimony that I am putting into the Senate's record today is about how asset stripping relates to what they learnt; what Scanlon learnt about asset stripping in his previous activities.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I raise the same point of order. I think you upheld my previous point of order and I ask you to do so again: when debating a motion that deals with Patrick Stevedores and employer-employee relationships, a senator does not have the right to talk about the asset stripping in Bell Corporation that took place under the eyes of Paul Keating or Bond Corporation, or indeed anything to do with Elders IXL. I ask you to uphold my point of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, resume your seat. Senator Conroy, stick to the motion that is before the chair which relates to the corporate restructur ing and asset stripping of Patrick Stevedores's labour hire companies.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you. I will, as you suggest, guide my remarks to the asset stripping question. As I was saying, paragraph 13 states:I—referring to Ken Jarrett—became involved in discussions relating to the proposal initially with Wiesener and Elliott. By the time that issue was made Elliott, Scanlon, Wiesener, Cowper and Lord—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Mr Jarrett has nothing to do with Patrick Stevedores as far as I understand. The senator opposite has entirely ignored your last ruling. I would ask you to bring him to order once again. He just cannot get it through his thick skull.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Stick to the motion before the chair, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—On the point of order: the principal of asset stripping was Peter Scanlon, not Alan Bond, not Brian Burke, not any of those other people. This is a motion to do with the behaviour—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Are you debating the issue?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No. You spoke on a point of order longer than I have spoken so far.Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, be quiet.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—This is about the principal involved in the asset stripping, Mr Peter Scanlon. This is directly relevant to the behaviour of Mr Peter Scanlon.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, I am ruling that you are straying from the motion before the chair. You either accept my ruling or I will move to the next speaker.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I was speaking to the point of order. As I said, I will guide my remarks to the motion. If I am ever given more than one minute before being interjected upon, I might be able to start to draw my remarks together. But, with the guidance of the chair, I am sure I will get there. Mr Jarrett goes on to say about Mr Scanlon, Mr Scanlon being the principal asset stripper of Patricks:Of the U.S. $160 million issue a sizeable parcel of (to the best of my recollection) around U.S. $105 million, was taken up by or on behalf of executives in EXL or associates of these executives.That is Mr Peter Scanlon.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You are testing my patience, Senator Conroy. The motion relates to Patrick Stevedores.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—He's got no other notes.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I can talk about Scanlon and all the rest of your Liberal spivvy mates till the cows come home.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Are they in your branch?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—All your spivvy mates—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address your remarks through the chair, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Ask her to stop interjecting then.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Have you finished speaking?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am on my feet. She is interjecting and you are calling me to order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am directing you to direct your speech through the chair. Neglect the interjections from the other side of the chamber. I will deal with those, not you.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you. As I said, this goes to the heart of Peter Scanlon's asset stripping at Patricks—I am referring to where he learnt how to do it. Part of what has happened in Elders with Ken Jarrett and what Ken Jarrett has revealed on the public record is absolutely integral to the behaviour, the conduct and the asset stripping of Patricks. As I said, if government senators do not continue to interject, I will start to try to draw it together.Mr Jarrett points out that Wiesener organised the structure of the placements so that the fact of executive participation could be concealed. He continued:I do not presently have access to much of the relevant documentation. However, I am aware that the funding was provided by Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Bankers Trust and Credit Agricole.Bankers Trust—now there is a coincidence. Who was the chief executive of Bankers Trust? No prizes for guessing. It was Chris Corrigan. Here is a scam set up by Scanlon and administered by Corrigan. But back to Mr Jarrett's testimony for a moment:I believe that I was told this by Wiesener. Elders entered into an interest rate swap arrangement with Bankers Trust—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, for the very last time, deal with the matter of Patrick Stevedores, not the past history of Elders IXL, otherwise I will call another speaker. That is your last warning.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Mr Acting Deputy President, I have a point of order on what has occurred in this debate so far. I have been a participant in this debate. Indeed, one of your colleagues from the other side of the chamber accused me at the conclusion of my speech of not sticking to the point of the motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Do you have a point of order, Senator McKiernan?1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—My point of order relates to what has been followed in the structure of this debate, which has been going on for close to 90 minutes now. I would suggest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the first speaker, Senator McGauran, set the tone and tenor of the construction of the debate when he did not mention what the motion was about. I put it to you that a precedent has been set and the same latitude ought to be continued to be allowed.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: the motion that is before the chair is No. 1103, which says:That the Senate condemns the Government for condoning the practice of asset-stripping companies in order to evade—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—What is your point of order, Senator Carr?AW5CARRSenator Carr—I am drawing to your attention what the terms of the—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have read the motion.AW5CARRSenator Carr—I am satisfied that you obviously can read. What I would like to say to you, though, is that what Senator Conroy has been saying is absolutely consistent with the terms of this motion, which goes to condemning this government for supporting asset stripping and denying people their legitimate contractual entitlements. That is exactly what Senator Conroy has been talking about. The debate to date has ranged very widely. Senator McGauran did not mention the motion once. He did not speak to the motion once and he was not pulled up by the chair. I suggest that Senator Conroy is entirely within order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, you do not have a point of order. I call Senator Conroy. (Quorum formed)3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I seek clarification for a moment.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Are you seeking leave?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am seeking clarification.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—There is no such standing order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Continue your speech, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will read the motion that is before the Senate and is being debated, to help Senator Campbell, because that thick skull over there, as he referred to me a moment ago—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy! Withdraw that allegation about a colleague.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—You did not ask him to withdraw his! I thought you were accepting it as parliamentary language, given that you allowed him to call me that.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Do not debate the point, Senator Conroy. Withdraw that accusation about Senator Campbell.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I withdraw it. I hope that any other senator who has used that language in the recent time would have been asked to do the same, but apparently not.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—They will be.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—They weren't. The motion says:That the Senate condemns the Government for condoning the practice of asset-stripping companies in order to evade the normal contractual responsibilities of employers to their employees—One of the things that happened because of the asset stripping that went on in Elders is that employees were denied their legitimate superannuation rights, which is part of the asset stripping debate we are having here today. That is actually what happened. I appreciate that not everybody will have the intimate knowledge of those transactions that I have, but just because one senator calls a point of order saying, `Elders is irrelevant to asset stripping for employees and their entitlements,' it does not mean he is right, and he is asking you to draw a long bow to say that it is irrelevant.Mr Acting Deputy President, I appreciate that you would not have that same intimate knowledge that I do, but part of what happened is that Elders employees lost their money. Elders employees lost their money because of this asset stripping that Ken Jarrett revealed in his statement, and this motion is about asset stripping in order to evade the normal contractual responsibilities of employers to their employees. That is evidenced by Patrick. It is evidenced, but is not solely reliant on the Patrick example.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Says you.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am happy for you to join the debate, Senator Macdonald, and talk about John Elliott and Peter Scanlon, but that is what happened and that is what Ken Jarrett is coming to in his evidence. He talks about how he, as an employee of Elders, lost out in his contractual obligations. That is why Senator Campbell is misinformed and is trying to protect the asset strippers in this country. He has stood up and has taken three or four spurious points of order—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I believe that this senator has made an imputation against me. Firstly, he said that I have raised three spurious points of order—actually, they were all points of order that you upheld, which is a reflection on you—and, secondly, he said that I defend asset strippers, which is something I have never done and would never do. I would ask him to withdraw any imputation.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Senator Conroy, do not impute asset stripping support to Senator Campbell.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Can I just clarify that? To say `spurious point of order' is to impute?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The asset stripping imputation is the one that I ask you to withdraw.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I withdraw. So we have spurious points of order here to try to stop Ken Jarrett's testimony exposing Peter Scanlon. How sensitive government members are about Peter Scanlon—and well they might be, because he is one of this country's great corporate spivs. He has been involved in what were described by regulatory authorities as two of the great 1980s corporate scams. That is what Peter Scanlon is about, and Ken Jarrett's evidence exposes how he lost money—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Who's Jarrett? Is he a convicted criminal?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! No interjections on my right.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—and how he lost his entitlements, because Peter Scanlon and John Elliott came to him and took money off him. That is contained in this transcript. Ken Jarrett says, `I was entitled to this benefit for the job that I did and I had to give my money up because John Elliott came and said to me, "Peter Scanlon's unhappy; Peter Scanlon believes that he's entitled to more of the benefits of the sale of these bonds".'The very heart of this motion is about the contractual responsibilities of employers—that is Elders—to their employees—that is Ken Jarrett; an employee of Ken Jarrett's. 5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—What has that got to do with it?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will read the text of this motion for Senator Ferris, so that no government senator misunderstands what this is about. What is happening is that they are protecting Mr Scanlon, as they have done now for a year and a half.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—So you're quoting a convicted criminal.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The text of the motion reads:That the Senate condemns the Government for condoning the practice of asset-stripping companies—that is plural—`companies'- Patrick's is but one. The motion continues:in order to evade the normal contractual responsibilities of employers to their employees, as evidenced by Government support for the corporate re-structuring and asset-stripping of Patrick Stevedores' labour hire companies.The motion refers to Patrick's as an example. It does not say that it is only Patrick's where this has happened. What I am talking about is what Ken Jarrett exposed in these documents which, until only a few weeks ago, the government had refused to allow me to table. For a year, they refused to allow me to table these documents which proved that Elliott, Scanlon, Wiesener and Cowper were guilty of the defrauding of employees and were guilty of the defrauding of shareholders in Elders. This government protected them for over a year. It was only when I was able to produce a minority report regarding the National Crime Authority's investigations of primarily the Elders issue, it was only when I was able to use the forms of the Senate to table those documents as a whole—hundreds and hundreds of pages of evidence against Elliott and Scanlon, and implicating Corrigan—that we in this chamber were actually able to see the truth, because those on the other side would not give me leave. I tried on at least half a dozen occasions but the cover-up began then and it is going on again now. They do not want to hear Ken Jarrett's evidence.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order as to relevance. We want to hear about general business notice of motion No. 1103. This senator is not only continuing to call the points of order that you have upheld spurious, but he is continuing to talk about Mr Jarrett and not about the motion before the chair.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Senator Campbell, resume your seat.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I repeat, for Senator Campbell's benefit, that this motion is not confined to Patrick's; it is about asset stripping companies. Ken Jarrett was at the centre with Scanlon and Corrigan.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—But Jarrett's a convicted criminal.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is right. He `fessed up. He put up his hand and said, `I did it.' And who else did it? All of these people that I have referred to. All of these people were in it as well, because Elliott lied under oath to the NCA about asset stripping Elders.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—So your authority is a convicted criminal?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—My authority is John Elliott and, more importantly for the purposes of this debate, Peter Scanlon's sworn testimony to the National Crime Authority, given under oath. Peter Scanlon's words—not mine, not Ken Jarrett's. Ken Jarrett adds to the picture. But Peter Scanlon lied under oath about his asset stripping of Elders.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Like Corrigan did.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Just like Corrigan; and Corrigan set it up. Do you want to take Corrigan's word against that of anyone's in this chamber? I will take your word ahead of Chris Corrigan's, Senator Campbell!5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think you know there has been a fair amount of debate in this place in recent times about addressing remarks through the chair. I have been taking particular notice. Senator Conroy has been addressing Senator Macdonald, not you.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Calvert.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Ken Jarrett's evidence is at the heart of one of the worst asset stripping exercises, sham transactions, that defrauded employees at Elders of their contractual rights. This motion is about asset stripping. It is a great pity that, once again, government members are so sensitive about their former national president, the former Federal President of the Liberal Party. They are very sensitive. They do not want to hear the truth; they do not want to see the evidence that Ken Jarrett—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—We haven't heard it yet.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is because I keep taking points of order. All it shows is the lack of understanding, or the deliberate desire not to want to understand, to get to the heart of one of the biggest single corporate frauds in this country's history. It is still being investigated—not just what is known as the `H-fee'. I have not been trying to talk about the H-fee; I have been trying to talk about the stripping of $100 million out of Elders by the executives and the taking of money from Ken Jarrett, because that is what happened. Ken Jarrett lost money because Peter Scanlon said, `Look, I did more of the leg work on this rip-off. I deserve more of the money.' He took it from Ken Jarrett. That is why Ken Jarrett's evidence—(Time expired)17:38:002892Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—This motion seeks to have the Senate condemn the government for condoning asset stripping in a company. Of course, this government does not condone the practice of asset stripping companies in order to evade their normal contractual obligations and responsibilities. But in relation to the Patrick hire companies, it is an untested assertion that asset stripping took place in those companies. There is no evidence yet to prove or even convincingly suggest that asset stripping took place in the Patrick hire companies. In fact, it is quite the contrary.Patrick was an adequately funded company to the extent of $60 to $70 million. The proviso was that the unions observed the agreement and actually went to work. The companies only had an insufficient asset base when the MUA waterfront union withdrew their labour for more than 40 days of a 90-day period. In other words, for almost half of the working days, the company was unable to supply labour to the waterfront because the union had withdrawn its labour; that is, $56 million of the company's assets walked out the gate with the MUA's labour. Just today, Mr Corrigan is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald in relation to this issue. He said:. . . the supply contracts were structured so that every worker could earn $85,000 a year and the companies would still be profitable.Is that evidence of a conspiracy? There is no moral mystery about if this company was asset stripped. What any responsible government should be concerned about—and, of course, we are—is that any political party which supports this sort of corporate thuggery, and any group which engages in tactics to deliberately smash a viable public company carrying out a job on behalf of Australia, stands condemned. Yet today, the opposition in the other place voted against the bill which will provide a levy on stevedoring companies to provide redundancy payments to waterfront workers affected by restructuring. Mr Beazley had, of course, already indicated his support for the MUA who have engaged in these actions. He said:On the whole, the union movement has handled this quite well and I think they ought to go on handling it that way, that is, quite well.So it is Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, who is condoning the behaviour and practices which should be held in contempt by all Australians. Justice Barry Beach in Victoria today agreed. He found the MUA are in fact in contempt of the Supreme Court in relation to his early ruling. So it is worth asking the question: who was the great corporate leader who talked about thuggery in the pilots dispute in 1989 when they sought to asset strip his company?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. This does not relate to asset stripping or the government's support thereof.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—I rule that it is relevant.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—I was talking about another corporate leader in this country who was indeed the victim of asset stripping as a result of union thuggery; that is, the pilots dispute. It is clearly very relevant to this issue. That person was the former Prime Minister's great friend, Sir Peter Abeles. Let's never forget who defended Sir Peter Abeles when he complained about this action; it was, in fact, the Australian Labor Party. It really is worth asking the question about the relevance of this motion to call upon the Senate to condemn the government in relation to this matter.The pace of reform under Labor was absolutely hopeless. The taxpayers received no improvement in productivity on the waterfront for the $430 million which was spent just a few years ago on the WIRA process that Mr Beazley is now desperately trying to claim was reform. How many of those people who received redundancy payments under the WIRA process are still back at the waterfront? If the opposition continues to oppose the legislation providing for the stevedoring levy, it simply means that in using the classic ALP tactic of financially bullying bosses to benefit workers they are, in fact, financially bullying taxpayers—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: given your previous ruling about relevance, I can hardly see how what Senator Ferris is saying now relates in any way at all to the motion before us.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—They are in fact bullying taxpayers who will still pay for the redundancies on the waterfront which undoubtedly will take place, and we are talking about redundancies in the company Patrick, which of course is the focus of the motion before the Senate. In refusing to support this piece of legislation, they are ensuring that the stevedoring companies will benefit from the waterfront reform but the taxpayers will meet the bill. How fair is that? WIRA revisited! That will mean waterfront reform at the expense of the taxpayers and not at the expense of those who will benefit, that is, the stevedoring companies.John Coombs, the MUA's chardonnay socialist—self-declared, as he walked through his chardonnay grapevines—said on 60 Minutes, `If there were Olympic games for crane drivers, we would win as many medals for crane driving as we do for swimming and other forms of athletics.' I wonder if the MUA would be more qualified for the Masters Games? In fact, on their performance to date, they would probably win a gold medal as masters of indolence.All the noise that John Coombs and his colleagues are making about how misunderstood they are reminds me a bit of the boxer who boasts that he is the world champion at his sport but has never, ever taken on any challengers. And, like that boxer, John Coombs and the MUA will never be able to prove to Patricks—the subject of the motion before the chair—that they are as effective as other waterfront workers until they are prepared to have non-union labour on the docks working beside union members to export product for the wealth of this nation. Maybe that explains a lot about John Coombs's motivations for opposing waterfront reform.The MUA waterfront workers should accept the challenge of competition—as Patricks have done in working with P&O—and show just how good they can be at doing their jobs. They should not only say that they are the best but should want to show that they are the best—that they would win the stevedoring Olympics gold medal. And now, Patricks and this government are offering them the opportunity to prove it. They should remember that jobs on the waterfront in Patricks—the subject of this motion—only follow when employers have the money to pay their work force and that money comes from having contracts to undertake the export industries that the stevedoring companies are established to provide.If the wharfies think that they are misunderstood, they have only got themselves to blame for their image problem. Peter Reith could not have got a more effective group of people from central casting to have rattled those gates than those who turned up on the television screens that night. When I put this to the group of waterfront workers who came to visit me as part of their PR campaign through this building, they nodded and said, `But we were very proud of the boys and how they behaved on the waterfront that day.' And I said to them, `Well, Peter Reith could not have got a better lot from central casting.'If they thought that was doing their union some very good PR, what would Jane Singleton have advised them to do? Remember this PR information kit that they brought with them when they visited me? I am sure they left it in many other offices around this building. It was packaged inside a folder that had half a ship, half a truck and a twisted set of piles on its cover. It was labelled, `The Docks'. What else needs to be said—half a truck, half a ship and a twisted set of piles. Like any other product at the end of the day, the waterfront product from Patricks or their colleague P&O has to be marketed like any other product in the Australian marketplace. And to get customers, to get clients, to get contracts it actually has to offer something that Australian industry wants to buy, otherwise it is a product that will not sell.Let us have a look at the Patricks product performance—thanks to the MUA. Our crane rates are well below international benchmarks. Industrial disputes are 10 times higher on the waterfront. We are talking about the employees of Patricks and the rorts, the overmanning, the low productivity and the unreliability of that work force. This product must be marketed to Australian industry to get them to buy contracts with Patricks—the subject of this motion. Why would anybody buy a contract with Patricks? What can Patricks deliver? And how can Patricks deliver to the employees of Australia—never mind to their own—when they are unable to provide the service that they offered when they signed their contracts?Given the other products now available to service the wharves, and there are now—interestingly enough—quite a range of them, which would the consumer be likely to buy? Whose product would they choose if they went to the waterfront and had a look at what was available? There is no doubt about which product they would choose: not the ones rattling the gates, not the ones throwing the bricks, not the ones calling ordinary Australian workers trying to do a job, `Dirty, filthy, stinking scabs.' That is not a product that belongs in Australia. That is the language of the 1950s. That is the language that belongs to a past era of industrial relations in this country.It is certainly not in the spirit of Australians tolerant of one another in this society when one group of workers, going to work legitimately, face a barrage of stones, bricks and insults by a group of Australians who have chosen to stand at the gate at an illegal picket and abuse them. That is not a product that Australian companies want to service the contracts that they sign with Patricks, the subject of this motion.The Labor Party's conspiracy with the MUA and the trade union is the one which should be condemned in this place today. And it has been condemned by all Australians—by four to one, in surveys that have been done all around this country. I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in this place today, if they were honest, would admit that that is the information they have been receiving along with the Ray Martin program, along with the Bulletin, along with the Saulwick poll and various other polls that have been done around Australia.In 1996 Labor were told by the unions to oppose the Workplace Relations Act reforms and—surprise, surprise—they did as they were told. Labor are now being told to oppose the government's reforms to the waterfront, and they are doing as they are told all over again. They were told to oppose them, and this morning they did. They would rather have the taxpayers of this country pay for the inevitable redundancies on the waterfront than let the stevedoring companies be levied, quite legitimately, to pay for the reforms that they themselves will ultimately benefit from.This week the Labor shadow cabinet again did the unions' bidding by deciding to oppose the $250 million redundancy package for any waterfront workers who are found to be redundant under the waterfront reform process by Patrick, the subject of this motion before the chamber today. Today the Labor opposition again did what it had been told to do: it opposed the $250 million redundancy legislation, and did so by voting against it in the other place just this morning.Unlike Tony Blair's New Labour who were able to do so and whom the opposition can only dream of emulating—never mind the labels the opposition try to pin upon themselves—the Labor Party have not been able to cut the umbilical cord from the trade union moneybox. They are still tied by those silken threads to the union movement's treasure chest and the training college that has delivered so many members into this place. Now they are even being told what to say and how to say it. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) has already told the other place that they are using MUA research to `craft' his public statements about the waterfront. Talk about ventriloquists' dummies! I will leave my colleagues to decide who the Charlie McCarthy doll is.Now that P&O is also publicly conceding that the MUA's work practices leave a lot to be desired, are they going to be accused of conspiracy and collusion as well? Are we going to see Senator Conroy trawling the history books around the world, making trips to Europe to trawl the Swiss bank accounts to see what he can find in the P&O company, as he has done with Patrick, the subject of this motion before the chamber? How long before we see union and non-union workers standing side by side at P&O? How long before we see them working together at P&O? And realistically, how long before we see them working side by side at Patrick, the subject of this motion before the chamber today?We simply cannot lose sight of what this wider community debate is really about. All this week they have been trawling everywhere—and I do not blame them for trying to take the heat off the absolutely crushing budget that they have had to deal with in the last couple of days and that, I suppose, they will try to deal with tonight—and looking up every dictionary to find every word that means conspiracy. In their desperate search to find a villain and a victim, they have today come up with this motion to condemn a company. And there is no evidence for their claims. The chairman of Patrick has said today that there was no conspiracy; the companies were adequately funded; and $53 million was available.And did you note that Mr Corrigan said in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning that he was prepared to pay every waterfront worker an average of $86,000? Well, that is not bad. These people are not strugglers and battlers; they are very well paid Australians. And the only comment I would make on that is, `Let them be well paid Australians, but let them, like the rest of Australia—the nurses, the police, the teachers—do an honest day's work for the $86,000 that Mr Corrigan is expected to pay them.' This waterfront reform process is about making our ports more competitive, and that will be good news for all Australians, and perhaps even for Senator Conroy, who can relax and look up other words in his dictionary instead of `conspiracy', in his desperate search to nail the Elders conspiracy to this one, when there is no evidence for it and there are assertions that it does not exist. It is a desperate search to try to move the process away from the budget. (Time expired)17:58:002896Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I was querying what to use in the brief amount of time we have left. But after Senator Ferris's reliance on comments of Mr Corrigan's my choice was made for me. I will add to the references Senator McKiernan made earlier in the debate to the transcript involving Mr Corrigan, Mr Kilfoyle and others.This excerpt is quite illuminating about the credibility of Chris Corrigan. It says:Corrigan: Where your money is coming from is the greatest secret, apart from that, for the last fifteen years.Kilfoyle: It took you $250,000 to tell us that!Corrigan: The long and the short of it is, if they have enough evidence that I have to come out and it was us, we backed it. I'm not planning to do that anymore, I'm certainly not planning to concede. If I have to do it, depending on what they dig up.This is the person Senator Ferris is relying upon for her interesting contribution. But even Corrigan accepts the lack of credibility he has. Later in this excerpt from the transcript he says:But it will weaken my ability to speak out as I have been in the last couple of days about the rorts and stuff.There goes your credibility, Senator Ferris. From my involvement with the workplace relations bill and act, I find that the raw irony of this whole Patrick's dispute is that the government cannot live with its own system; it has to conspire against its own system.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Miscellaneous28962896Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Senator Kemp:That the Senate take note of the statement and documents.19:30:002896Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—One of the newspaper cartoonists yesterday gave us the ultimate `I'd like to see that' of Australian politics: the Treasurer (Mr Costello) in pigtails and a blue dress, skipping off down the yellow brick road to the sunny land of Oz, where worries melt, I am told, like lemon drops, and every resident munchkin is relaxed and comfortable, and raking in shares in AMP.But Madam President, there are always messages between the lines. Because who can think of Dorothy without her supporting cast? I look across at this government and I find the audition hall overflowing for the parts of the lion without courage, the tin man without a heart, and perhaps most oversubscribed of all, the scarecrow without a brain. So somewhere over the rainbow, there you'll find the Treasurer, far up and away, and off with the bluebirds on his technicolour journey, skipping and singing, singing and skipping.We all have our sustaining fantasies, Madam President, and listening to this budget on Tuesday night I realised that we're not in Kansas any more. Because only in the Treasurer's fantasies can there be good in this budget surplus built on a million small deficits in the lives of ordinary people. The teeth are not fixed. The pills are not bought. The kids in backyard care, or the mother out of work. The apprenticeships not found. The holiday not taken because of the cost of a mother's nursing home. The university degree out of reach, and the fulfilling career therefore not had. The shame of the young school leaver's hundredth unsuccessful job interview. The corroding despair of the long-term jobless, and the alarm of their families. The grief of the parent farewelling a child leaving town for good. The factory closed. The trauma of selling-up and moving. The hundred unspoken small goodbyes of ordinary people to their ordinary lives.These are the human losses on which this accountants' surplus was built by a government that has long ceased—or has never learned—to care. And these indeed are the hard yards. The long haul. The shouldered burden of battling Australians that somehow fuels the happiness of a Treasurer long unacquainted with the ordinary needs of his fellow Australians. The griefs and consolations, and the quiet unprotested sufferings which underpin the triumph of his numbers and the failure of his government's decency.The government will have you believe that all the pain was essential. It was not. If it was essential, why did Tuesday's budget contain spending increases of $10 billion over the next four years? If it was essential, why is it that when we look at the effect on financial year 1998-99 of the three Costello budgets, we find that in net terms he cut $6 billion in the first budget, $1 billion in the second, and then put back $2 billion in the third? Why didn't the Treasurer explain here on Tuesday why he has effectively run down two flights of stairs, and back up one on fiscal policy? He didn't, because the admission would be too great.In the first two budgets, we had selective leaking and pre-announcement of the bad news. This one has been selective leaking, and admission of failure in small instalments, the only instalments a battered, unpopular and fundamentally untrustworthy political outfit can afford. He was wrong, and he can't admit it.But the net effect of this government's policy changes on financial year 1998-99—the net effect of going down two flights of stairs and up one—was $5.4 billion. Subtracting that $5.4 billion from the surplus announced by the Treasurer leaves us with an underlying `no policy change' deficit of $2.7 billion—no cuts, no surcharges, no fees, no pain.Now let me tell you something that Gareth Evans said about an alternative budget strategy for Australia—not this week, not last year, but two years ago, after the coalition's first budget, and I quote:. . . we say we can get to budget balance within a reasonable time—in fact, within the lifetime of this parliament, by 1998-99—with a much less savage budget strategy. . . . We can get to that by targeting savings of no more than $3 billion by that third year.In other words, $1 billion of new savings each year in three budgets would have produced a starting point surplus this year of at least $300 million. On top of this, the higher economic growth, which Labor's budget strategy would have allowed, would have seen a 1998-99 budget surplus of similar dimensions to the one announced on Tuesday.Our argument was then, as it is today, that fiscal consolidation in the economic climate this government faced in 1996 was necessary but did not need to be nearly as harsh as what they immediately embarked upon. We need surpluses, of the kind that Labor delivered four years in a row not long after inheriting a $25 billion deficit from the then Treasurer, John Howard—surpluses built on jobs and growth. We need to retire public debt, but we must keep that issue in perspective too. Despite what the Jeremiahs might say, Australia's fiscal position was very good by international standards when this government came into office.That is not to say that we should become complacent. We should not. But it does seriously question why you would sell Telstra to reduce what, in our last year in government, was the third lowest public sector debt in the industrialised world. That debt, as a percentage of GDP, was less than half of Canada's, and two-thirds the proportion of France, Germany, the United States, and even Britain after a decade of Maggie Thatcher's budget cutting and privatisations.Why, then, should we allow up to $20 billion worth of Telstra, this great national asset, to go to foreigners? After only four years, we will lose more in Telstra dividends than we will save on our interest bill—dividends that would otherwise be there for generations to pay for hospitals and schools, railways and roads.This budget puts aside $580 million for the financial managers as costs and commissions for the Telstra float. That is more than half a billion dollars we could save tomorrow, and keep a great national asset into the bargain.In any budget that spends money like this one, there are things to be welcomed, and you should offer praise where it is due. Two praiseworthy ideas are the extension of the gold card to all World War II veterans, and the extension of the health care card to more self-funded retirees. Labor was proud to establish both cards in our time in government.It is unfortunate, however, that benefits for a small number of our retirees should accompany reductions for the vast majority. Twenty times as many have experienced those reductions as have received benefits now. Had those self-funded retirees obtained their card under Labor, they would have had access to free dental care, lower-priced prescriptions and free hearing aids. Two hundred and twenty thousand benefit; four million Australians lose.But all of them now confront a massive expense on entry to essential care in nursing homes. Our specific policies will be announced closer to the election—but I can say two things: we will restore capital funds cut from nursing homes in full, and none of our retirees—or any Australian for that matter—will have to pay a GST on any of their goods or services.But even though this budget has spent some money, it leaves too many questions unanswered. It cannot answer the people who ask themselves what all the pain was for in the first place, or why someone else's pain was more worthy of being reversed than theirs was.How precisely did the government make the decision not to restore Commonwealth dental funding? How did it decide it was relaxed about the situation of one woman whose letter to the member for Gilmore was submitted to a recent Senate inquiry, a woman who has been informed that all her teeth need to be extracted and, despite living in constant pain, it will be 18 months before she can be treated? Even then she will have to wait for each individual tooth to cause her pain before she is entitled to have that tooth extracted. What thought processes, what overarching philosophy, what quality of mercy goes into that kind of decision?And how did the government decide it was relaxed about elderly Australians, in their hour of greatest fragility, still having to sell the family home to pay for entry into a nursing home—and that, after all the backflips and all the reversals—some 14 of them—the fees remain, and the government still circles the family home. How did it decide that it could go right ahead and spend that money elsewhere?How did it decide there was no relief for women forced out of the work force by spiralling child care fees? How did it decide instead to factor their despair into its employment projections? The bad employment estimates in this budget are still heroic. At a minimum, they only stand up because of the thousands of women driven out of the work force by this government's decisions on child care. The Prime Minister thinks this is about family values. It is not. It is simply a collapse in the living standards of low-income working families.And how, after all its claims, can there be not one single dollar more for public hospitals in this budget than was on the table when the Premiers walked out on the Commonwealth's last offer in disgust?Let me say that John Hewson, who seems to have picked the impact of the Asian crisis far better than this government, was absolutely right in saying that this health offer is nothing like 15 per cent over five years. The Premiers walked out on that, because they knew that to sign on would be a wholesale betrayal of their public hospital patients. That inadequacy this budget happily endorses.But there is one large group of Australians which suffers most from these three budgets. I am speaking, of course, of the unemployed. To see why, we need to remember the level of economic growth before John Howard came into power. In the financial year 1993-94, economic growth in Australia was 4.6 per cent. In 1994-95, it was 4.4 per cent. In 1995-96, it was 4.1 per cent. Australia's economic growth rate for John Howard's first full financial year in office was just 2.7 per cent.Four percent growth plus under Labor. Not even two-thirds of that in the first year under the coalition. And we are meant to accept that this had nothing to do with the entire government frontbench preaching economic doom for a full five months before the first budget in 1996. Nothing to do with that budget which took $27 billion out of the economy over four years.Growth got above the parapet of three per cent last year, and now it is forecast to flatline back at three per cent, with unemployment stuck around eight per cent.But when the Treasurer was asked on Tuesday night about the unemployment rate, this is what he said:No it bounces around a bit. You know, it's 7.9, it's 8, it's 8.1. We think it's around the 8 mark at the moment, but it will bounce. It's been bouncing for a year.I am sick of that kind of talk. I am sick of people like the Treasurer with a screen full of teeth making glib analogies about real lives. These are real people, Mr Treasurer, not footballs, not Dr Kemp's rubbery statistics. They are real mums and dads, with real children dependent on them, trying to get a start in life. You were not elected to bounce unemployment around. You were elected to get it down.Before March 1996, the unemployment rate had been falling for three years. This government came in and worsened the unemployment position immediately. In our last two years in government, Labor created 550,000 jobs. In his first two years, John Howard created not half as many. The difference was 315,000 people—three MCGs jam-packed full of people who would now be in work, and not on the dole queue, if the coalition had just managed to keep up the pace we set.And anything it has managed to do on unemployment, or might manage, has to be judged against another MCG crowd of nearly 100,000 people who have simply given up looking for work since this government came into office. And what of those left on the dole queue longer than they ever feared, because of the growth this government put on hold? The number of people unemployed for a year or more fell by over a third during Labor's last term in office.So far, during this government's term, it has actually risen. When you started cutting into skillshare and other labour market programs in May 1996, there were 206,000 long-term unemployed Australians. Figures released this morning show that their ranks have now increased by 33,000 people as a result of your policies. Long-term unemployed used to be a quarter of all unemployed. Today, they are a third.And they have been ill-served by a government which has wrecked the support systems putting long-term unemployed people into work—exemplary programs emulated around the world put on the scrap heap. Or worse: some of them have been put into the hands of people with no office, no staff, no experience—some of them without even a telephone!This is where we count the cost of this budget. Having counted the beans, the government has closed the book on Australian families. It is not going to redress the pain of the last two years; it is not going to tell them where it wants to take them next century. As far as the government is concerned, there are only two more stops in the journey—the GST and an election.So let me talk about their GST—the dead heart of the hidden tax package. John Howard has built a career avoiding the unequivocal, but three years ago this month, he was absolutely unequivocal. These are his words, and we remember them well:No, there's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy. Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election.'Peter Costello has built a career avoiding being quiet, but his budget speech was silent on the issue of a GST. He was like Basil Fawlty, you know—`Don't mention the war!' The budget papers on Tuesday included $20 million for the administration of this tax package, so we are now in the farcical situation where the coalition will tell us what it will cost to implement the tax package, but it will not tell us what is in it.But one thing is for sure: the GST has come back when no-one thought it would. This tax on jobs, this tax on the poor, this tax on families is back. And as we prepare for its stealthy arrival, we need to remember that it comes back with none of the integrity that was there in its initial presentation when John Hewson put out his fully-costed package, openly and frankly, more than a year out from an election.John Howard told his party two days ago that we could be in the last parliamentary session before the election. Just weeks to go, but the voters are not going to see the tax package yet. It is something to be dropped, and then scuttled away from, to the polls, before anyone can get the wrapping off and find out what is underneath.That changes where we stand as a party. Those of us who oppose a GST now have only one course of action. I want to make it clear tonight that the Labor Party believes that John Howard has forfeited any right ever to claim a legitimate mandate for his GST. And our opposition will be there whether we win or lose the next election. A vote for Labor is a guaranteed vote against the GST. If we are elected, you will not get one, and if we are in opposition, we will oppose it in the Senate.We do this because the lateness of the hour means we are expected to take this Prime Minister on trust. But we see nothing in this government's record to trust that the package will be fair or equitable. The Treasurer has explicitly refused in this place to rule out a GST on the following items: doctors bills; dentists bills; school fees; university fees; power bills; food; nursing home fees; local government and water rates; and even rent. We see nothing in this government's record to trust that its awesome complexity will become, in their hands, anything other than a complete disaster—a disaster for businesses, workers and all consumers, implemented in the usual manner—with all the grace and poise of Inspector Clouseau in a ball bearing factory. We refuse to help John Howard get his agenda into place, and we will not inflict his tax on the Australian people. Modern government, as we approach a new century, is about skills, innovation, infrastructure and exports. It is not simply about bean counting. It is not simply about achieving a surplus by any means. It is about achieving a surplus in periods of moderate economic growth, at the same time as creating a modern, successful state which rewards, advances and enhances excellence.For Australians, this means recognising something about our own country. It means recognising that many other countries have advantages we do not. We are a nation in nobody's trading bloc. We make our way in a region where the big countries are growing by an amount equivalent to our entire population every single year, while we occupy a great proportion of that region's real estate.It also means recognising what makes us proud to be Australians—our history of innovation, our scientific endeavour and our national courage. Too often, as we have approached issues of reform over the last 15 years or so, we have been critical of Australians' willingness to work hard, innovate and change based on their own convictions rather than on some official view. Too often, we have underestimated how much Australians pride and value their own work and their achievements. Too few Australians, too few members of this parliament know that Victoria and South Australia combined have won more Nobel Prizes in the sciences than the whole country of Japan.Government must value and enhance those great Australian characteristics. Micro-economic reform is not about depriving people of wages, depriving people of leisure and depriving people of things which make for a constructive family life. We must be about enhancing skills, building on our record of innovation and developing our outward-looking attitude to opportunities in our region. Just try to find anything substantial in these three budgets from this government which builds on these strengths.Instead, the vast bulk of savings made in the three budgets have been at the expense of this Australia. They have come from our universities, from the labour market programs helping to keep our population permanently skilled, from research and development incentives and from assistance to exporters to gain a foothold in international markets.The effects are clearly documented in the budget. It forecasts a drop in net export growth. It shows business investment growth slowing throughout the year. Recent figures show growth in business spending on research and development, which reached an all-time record of $4.3 billion in Labor's last year, has stopped dead for the first time in a decade, following the swingeing cuts to R&D support in the first coalition budget.This is why there is no point in delivering a surplus ringed by deficits. It is a surplus bought from the million deficits in family budgets, a surplus sitting alongside a level of foreign debt which has worsened by $28 billion since the coalition came into power and a current account deficit forecast to grow by another $31 billion over the coming year—and nearly every single independent analyst thinking that is an understatement. This is why we need a government with a broader vision, why we need to restore the balance, why we need a government that sees where it can forge a partnership with the Australian people: a partnership supporting family life, supporting unemployed, supporting industry, supporting investment and supporting exporters. We need partnership, and we need to have their visions as well.Two years have told us all we need to know about John Howard's ambitions for Australia. He wants an Australia with him as Prime Minister, and that is where the vision ends. He wants an Australia moulded into the shape he thinks will keep him there—a nation riddled by division, neatly carved up into the few groups whose dislike of each other, encouraged by this government, he thinks will keep him in power forever.Labor will go into this next election believing in a different Australia. We believe in a proud, confident, intelligent Australia. Labor believes in an Australia that wants security in its workplaces, peace of mind in a strong health system and opportunity flowing from an education system which gives its citizens the best chance they can get in a global economy.We understand with absolute clarity the importance of the Asian financial crisis for the Australian economy, and the corresponding need for fiscal restraint in that environment. Kim Beazley promised back in February that Labor would deliver three underlying surpluses in our first term in government, and that promise stands as long as this government's projections for the budgetary position and economic forecasts stand. But Labor is going to look at priorities. We are going to look at where this government has spent money wastefully, and where the money could be used more intelligently and to greater benefit for greater numbers of Australians.We are not going into this election year with a fistful of dollars as a grudging apology for pain rendered over the previous three years. We are going into this election year with a vision of where we want Australia to go, what Australians want in their everyday lives and how, within the means available to us, we can go in that direction. These three budgets have sacrificed the security and opportunity of the population to Liberal Party prejudices. This is a government that has forgotten its responsibility to govern for all Australians and is now prepared to experiment with an unfair, job-destroying tax in a period of uncertainty.In the last two years, over the last three budgets, the Australian people have learnt what they were getting when they elected this government. I maintain they deserve something better than what they got. Normally, it would be hard to close the book on a government after only three budgets. Normally, it would be hard to say a government is not worth considering again when it has been around for only two years. Normally, a first-term government just turns up in the queue for another term like it is waiting for dessert. But this is not a normal government. This is not the normal run of events at all.This is John Howard's government and John Howard's Australia. We know that millions of Australians want no more to do with this government—no more of this government that loses seven ministers in just 18 months; no more of this government that puts black shirts, balaclavas and dogs on chains in our workplaces; no more of this government that defends ministers with tens of millions in their family trusts, and wants working Australians to pay a GST on their grocery bills, their clothing, their rent and their rates; and, no more of this government with a quarter of a billion for companies that want to sack workers, and nothing for those companies who want to keep them on.These were your three budgets, and they are over. If there was a time and a place for a government as harsh and chaotic as this, it is long, long past, and in another, lesser country. If there is a place for it now to go, it is out of our lives, and out of our lives for good.20:01:002902Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise to present the response of the Australian Democrats to the 1998-99 Costello budget. In doing so, I propose to do three things. Firstly, I shall discuss the context for the budget, the policy settings and what passes for the rationale underpinning it. Secondly, I shall outline the Democrats' response in specific portfolio areas. Thirdly, I shall outline just how the Democrats propose to address the budget when the appropriation bills come into the Senate.It is hard for me to remember a less inspiring, less stimulating budget than the one Peter Costello has just brought down. It was a singularly unimaginative document. Generally, its contents had been either leaked or announced well before the session. Virtually all the new spending initiatives were repackaged, reheated leftovers, even the size of the surplus was common knowledge to any taxi driver you would like to consult. They all knew it was somewhere between $2½ billion and $3 billion.I searched long and hard for items of some significance in the budget, and I came to the conclusion that what was really significant about this budget was not so much what was in it but what was not in it. There is nothing in this budget to address Australia's unemployment rate, which is forecast to stay stuck at around eight per cent this year. There was nothing in it to address our ballooning current account deficit—for example, no strategies to improve our export performance. There was nothing in it to repair the damage done by $7 billion of spending cuts over the last two years. There was nothing in it to boost consumer and business confidence, which is critical to maintain local demand for goods and services as well as improve export performance in what we all acknowledge will be a difficult year ahead.Simply, this is a budget with nothing much in it. This budget may well deliver a fiscal surplus, but it suffers from a chronic imagination deficit. This government is widely acknowledged to be ungenerous and mean, and this budget is an accurate reflection of the government. It has failed to address the social and economic pressures on ordinary Australians.Let me remind senators of the mindless economic mantra chanted morning and night by those on the treasury benches, the mantra from which this budget has been drawn. Where there is a public service, privatise it or contract it out. Where there is an industry concession, they must be rorting. Where there are financial market commentators, we bow the head and kiss the feet. Where there is a government benefit, label the recipients as cheats and bludgers. Where there are people who cannot find a job, blame them. Where there are people who desperately need a public health system, ignore them and pour money into the private health insurance industry. Where there are people who cannot afford a decent education, ignore them and pour money into the private education system. Where there are people who do not kneel in homage at the foot of budgetary surpluses, mock them.The much vaunted surplus, we are told, is a matter of greatness, a huge achievement. I am sorry to have to rain on Mr Costello's parade, but I cannot quite get excited about it, and neither can a lot of people, if letters in our national papers across the country are anything to go by. All the government has achieved is the replacement of a budget deficit with a gaping social deficit.Let us not forget where the budget surplus came from. It was $1 billion hacked out of public health, $1 billion hacked out of industry and export programs, $1 billion hacked out of programs to help the jobless get back to work, $1 billion hacked out of Australia's education, training and research sectors, $1.6 billion hacked out of Australia's social welfare safety net and $1.5 billion in new taxes and charges that they like to keep very quiet about. These are the foundation stones on which this budget has been built. It has been the sick, the jobless, the aged, the students and those Australians on low incomes, including many small business people, and the young who have paid for these stones, who have paid for this surplus, and they are still paying.In fact, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Science and Economic Research estimates that the government's program has left the average Australian family worse off by about $7 a week. This rises to a massive $38 a week if the breadwinner is unemployed. I cannot imagine that the people who have paid such a high price for the deficit reduction will be wanting to dance in the streets to celebrate Costello's surplus.But, when you read the budget papers carefully, you soon discover that the budget black hole turned out to be $3 billion less than Treasury said it would be. It is now clear that $3 billion of the $7 billion of spending cuts were never necessary, and that the government could have achieved a balanced budget in 1998-99 without them—just read the budget papers.In last year's budget, after the $7 billion of spending cuts, Treasury was forecasting a budget deficit in 1997-98 of around $3.9 billion and a surplus in 1998-99 of $1.6 billion. But in this year's budget papers, we find that the budget deficit for 1997-98, apart from new spending, came in $3.3 billion better and that in 1998-99 the surplus was going to be $3 billion better. The Democrats forecast this last September in our economic statement Restoring Confidence and again in my pre-budget submission released last week. We said then that there was an opportunity for government to do more to give the economy the confidence boost that it desperately needs and we say it again.In my pre-budget submission Repairing the Damage I reiterated that the budget should give priority to the restoration of some of the cuts that should never have been made, such as the cuts to public health, to Australia's schools and to our tertiary education sector. I argued that the budget should help insulate Australia from the Asian meltdown by boosting domestic demand and business investment, particularly in the export sector and infrastructure.The new Treasury forecasts vindicate completely what the Democrats have been saying. Both Treasury and the Reserve Bank are on the record now admitting that the spending cuts in the 1996 budget hit the economy much harder than they thought they would. It is now clear that if the cuts had been kept to a more modest level there would have been a lot more Australians in work now.For the last five years the Democrats fiscal policy position has been constructed on three basic principles. Firstly, we recognise the need to improve the capacity for economic activity and to expand, to employ more Australians and to do this without driving up foreign debt or interest rates. Secondly, we recognise the need for this generation of Australians to meet is own commitments, at the same time ensuring that national savings and public sector assets are not squandered for future generations. Thirdly, we recognise the need to ensure that the benefits of economic activity are fairly and equitably shared and that the costs, especially the environmental costs, of economic activity are recognised and minimised.Let me turn to history for a moment. Back in 1996, the Democrats recognised the need for deficit reduction. Importantly, however, we stressed the need to identify the causes of the budget deficit. And, however hard the Labor revisionists might like to try to rewrite history, the real reason that the budget deficit blew out was the rise in unemployment following Paul Keating's recession—the one that we had to have. What seems to have escaped the economic rationalists who framed this budget is that the best and surest way to reduce the deficit is to reduce unemployment. Every one per cent growth in employment saves the federal government $1½ billion.The Democrats pointed to the findings by prominent economists Fred Argy, John Neville and Fred Gruen that half of the budget black hole was cyclical and that the budget cuts of only about $4 billion, which represented Labor's policy failures, were justified. The Democrats argued then that if cuts were deeper than that the economy would suffer, and on every point we were proven right. But the coalition argues that it has delivered lower interest rates. A nice line but they have only partly delivered that benefit. Let us just move on past the army of government spin doctors—no doubt up there again tonight—and get to the truth.Of the estimated $220 billion of new debt created in Australia in the past two years only three per cent was incurred by the Commonwealth government. In fact, Australia has the second lowest level of public debt, second only to Korea, and the seventh lowest budget deficit of any industrialised country. It is not the public sector driving interest rates in this country. Interest rates are low because inflation is low and unemployment is high. It has little to do with this government's deficit reduction strategy. The fact is that interest rates are not actually as low as Peter Costello would like us to believe.Any economist can tell you, even the tub-thumping economic rationalists that you listen to and that you are eager to impress, that it is not the nominal rate of interest that is important, rather it is the real rate of interest when you adjust for inflation. Adjusted for inflation in real terms, home loan interest rates are now two per cent higher than they were when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969.Australian businesses face the highest interest rates on business loans in the industrialised world, largely because of this government's abject failure to do anything about the banks, to regulate them properly and rein in their whopping profit margins on loans. The Netherlands, for example, which has a lower unemployment rate than Australia, a higher budget deficit and a much higher level of public sector debt, provides for its business sector loan rates five percentage points lower than Australia. What the Netherlands has that Australia hasn't is a much lower current account deficit. In fact, Australia's current account deficit is forecast to rise from $18 billion last year to $31 billion next year.If you look in the budget to see if it addresses that, you will find there is nothing there. Instead, the budget fails to undo the $125 million cut to the export market development grants scheme, the $120 million cut to soft finance for Australian companies to invest in developing countries, the $90 million in cuts to Austrade's programs, the $400 million cut to tax breaks for research and development, and the $300 impost on business inputs through tariff concession orders.The Democrats believe that Australia must pursue export markets more aggressively, chase business investment and generate jobs and economic growth. We also believe that foreign investment must be in Australia's interest, rather than just adding to our current account deficit as it does now through repatriated profits. This budget fails on all these counts as well as failing to repair the damage done across a wide range of community services. The budget contains no good news for the unemployed with the admission that the unemployment rate is expected to stay stuck around the current level of eight per cent during all of next year. The only use for the unemployed is that, if you are unemployed now, you are likely to stay that way.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—It doesn't say that at all.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—I would check your budget papers if I were you, Senator, because the forward estimates for unemployment benefits suggest that Treasury is planning for unemployment to stay stuck at at least eight per cent for the next four years. The only new news in the budget was that another 9,000 public sector jobs are to go, bringing to 32,000 the total of number of jobs slashed by this government. Compare that to the government's pre-election promise to confine public sector retrenchments to just 2,500 over three years. That is another one of those optional promises and non-core promises that we had.The aged, we are told, are big winners from this budget. The Democrats certainly welcome the extension of the seniors health card to self-funded retirees. I do remind the government, however, though, that I first called for that five years ago, and it has been a long time coming. When you factor in the higher cost of pharmaceuticals, the fact that many doctors have given up bulk-billing, the longer waiting queues and the longer waiting lists in our public hospitals, I doubt if too many of Australia's aged can say they are better off now in terms of health than they were three years ago. What we are particularly disappointed about in this sector is that there was nothing in this budget to address the $1 billion shortfall in capital funding in nursing home facilities, particularly in regional areas. The other big winner was supposed to be the bush. But, like so much else in this budget, when you really look at it up close, there is nothing in it. The Democrats do welcome the small new measures for the bush such as the tax rebates for landcare projects, a bit of extra funding for regional development and a small boost to rural health. But these measures are very small beer. They do not address the steep decline in regional Australia caused by the massive public sector cuts, massive cuts to services, massive cuts to infrastructure funding for roads, local government and things like nursing homes. We all know what is happening to rural hospitals and schools. Then, of course, there is what you are doing to the ABC.The really bad news for the bush was the inclusion of the Telstra sale proceeds into the budget papers. Telstra's service capacity in the regions has dropped significantly since the staff cuts began in preparation for the sale. In regional Australia, they know they can expect a greater decline if the rest of Telstra is sold. Regional Australia will also suffer from this government's continuing and pathetic vendetta against the ABC. Indeed, we heard more of that after question time today. Just $20.8 million is provided to fund the ABC's digital conversion, less than a quarter of that recommended as an absolute minimum by the Arthur Anderson report. This will mean that regional Australia is unlikely to get the full benefits of the ABC eventually converting over to multi-channel digital technology. Australia's farmers are big losers. Australia's family are particularly big losers. Cuts to child care, the continuing squeeze on public schools and the huge cuts to tertiary education remain firmly in place. In the area of health, this budget succeeds in putting back only one-third of the $1 billion of annual cuts inflicted on the public health system. I repeat: your cuts are $1 billion annually, and it is from that that we must look at the current budget. Most of the few health initiatives such as the gold card for veterans have already been announced. Other existing programs such as the influenza vaccine initiatives and funding for medical research have merely been extended. This budget does nothing to address the most important health issue facing our nation—that is, the serious underfunding of our public hospitals. All this budget has done is to repackage again the offer to the states that they have already comprehensively rejected on a number of occasions. The Democrats do welcome the return to the full indexation of Medicare rebates, but we add that this should not just be a one-off increase for a year. All the evidence is though that this will not be enough to get many of Australia's GPs back bulk-billing. Those who gave up are unlikely to reverse their decision. We also welcome the modest increase in funding for indigenous health, although small handouts will not address the fundamental issue of Aboriginal people's right to self- determination, a right which has been continually undermined by this government. This budget contains very bad news for the environment, hidden in sleight of hand arithmetic which mixes core funding with funds from the Natural Heritage Trust. In other words, I think it is going to take a lot of questioning at estimates to try to unravel this particular puzzle. Funding for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is to be cut by 20 per cent despite an increase in its responsibilities. Indeed, I think the environmental priorities of this government are best demonstrated by Warwick Parer's win of an extra $36 million to find new fossil fuel, oil and gas deposits. Interestingly, this is exactly the amount cut from the Energy Research and Development Corporation, an organisation established to research cleaner, renewable energy sources for our future. On the tax side, the government has announced—if that is the correct word—that the provisional tax uplift factor will be cut from six per cent to five per cent, but that was already going to happen, Senator, because of amendments made in this chamber some two years ago. The new concessions for computer software and dealing with the millennium bug are important and generally welcome, but I have little faith that your tax crackdown on high wealth individuals will get very far—this seems to be an annual announcement—until your government gets serious about tax reform and addresses the use of trusts, personal service companies and other tax planning devices. These crackdowns will be basically ineffective. We will be back again next budget. Let us have another round of tax crackdowns.On the revenue side, the government perversely fails to recognise the negative effects of the sale of Telstra; the effect it will have on future budgets if it is sold. Based on Telstra's 1996-97 profit performance, the sell-off of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra will cost the Australian public sector approximately $560 million a year. The failure to tell the true story of the impact of Telstra on future budgets really puts the lie to this government's much vaunted charter of budget honesty. The government does admit it will be spending $580 million to sell the rest of Telstra. One piece of honesty is that which points out that the real winners of the Telstra sale will be the stockbrokers, the financiers, the lawyers and the advertising agency who will actually run your float. They have already pocketed an estimated $300 million from the sale of the first one-third.In short, the 1998 budget will be remembered as the one with nothing much in it. There is nothing in it to start the process of repairing the damage done by the $7 billion in cuts which largely, as we have shown, have been unnecessary. There is nothing to boost the economy, business confidence and investment, employment and export performance. And of course there is nothing in it about tax reform. Your plans on what sort of a GST we are going to be having and what you intend to inflict on Australia remain hidden. These are very great failings.On budget night I said as an ex-teacher that I would have marked the budget two out of 10 and instructed the student to repeat the exercise. Sadly, Peter Costello is unlikely to redo his budget. However, the Senate would be in error if it did not try to repair at least some of the economic damage arising from the spending cuts. The Senate is unable to touch the outlays side of the budget but we can move to modify some of the new measures on the revenue side. What the Democrats propose is to provide some incentives through the tax system to encourage business to innovate, export and employ. We propose to do this in a way that does not affect the budget bottom line but has the potential to improve the current account deficit and lower the unemployment rate.The Democrats have already announced that we will move to means test the savings rebate announced in last year's budget, and that will save about $1 billion in the year 2000. We will also move to restore the full benefit of the export market development scheme by providing an equivalent tax rebate where an eligible firm is denied funding because of the cap imposed on the grants scheme. We will move to restore the R&D concession up to 150 per cent to encourage business. These two measures alone will provide a very significant boost to Australian business, helping them to get on with the job of chasing new markets and opportunities.We also propose to move amendments to the tax act to provide important and necessary relief to small business. Let us remember that small business has been doing it pretty tough in the last year. Mid last year, the Yellow Pages index reported that most small businesses regarded the economy as in recession or at a standstill. Bankruptcy rates have soared. Small business income rose in 1997, but just by 1.7 per cent. Yet for provisional tax purposes, under your government, you have deemed that incomes have soared by six per cent.Budget papers forecast economic growth of three per cent and income growth of 4.25 per cent, yet we have a provisional tax uplift factor of five per cent. This means that your government will be collecting $75 million extra off small business in the year ahead. We will move to reduce the uplift factor to four per cent and provide a very welcome $75 million boost to small business cashflows. And we will move to correct the anomaly in the sales tax system that places independent retailers at a disadvantage against big retail chains like Coles and Woolworths, which own their own wholesale operations. These measures will help small business get on with the business of creating new jobs and opportunities, despite the enormous cost of finance they face because of your reluctance to tackle the banks.In taking these actions, the Democrats are demonstrating that we are deadly serious about getting unemployment down. We are deadly serious about improving Australia's trade position, and we are deadly serious about ensuring that small business remains a vibrant and growing generator of new jobs. If these measures win the support of the rest of the Senate, it will then be up to government to accept or reject them, as they bring with them a proven record of creating jobs and opportunities.The Democrats will be watching very closely to determine whether the government is prepared to match its rhetoric with some action. In particular, the Democrats will be putting pressure back on the government to repair the damage done by the spending cuts to Australia's economic and social fabric and to get more Australians back to work.In conclusion, the Democrats believe that, despite the government's windy rhetoric, there is nothing in this budget as it stands. This budget might have been put together by the scarecrow, the tinman and the lion from the Wizard of Oz—no brains, no heart, no courage and certainly no yellow brick road for anyone other than the high priests of the financial markets. This budget does not set out a blueprint for the sort of equitable, the sort of fair and the sort of just and compassionate society which all fair-minded Australians want. That is what we looked for when we opened the budget papers yesterday, but there was nothing much in it.20:27:002907Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise to respond to the budget announcement on behalf of the Greens (WA). This budget is one that produces a nice bottom line surplus, but at what cost? The government is playing up the textbook tick and sidelining the other indicators that show the manifest inequities and deficiencies of government policies. This budget is a perfect example of how imperfect these narrow and deceptive economic indicators are. These measures are clearly not providing an accurate indication of the pain being felt in the community. This budget is a perfect example of the need for genuine progress indicators to identify wellbeing in Australia.Genuinely reflective national accounts have been suggested by the United Nations. Senator Robert Hill, as long ago as September 1996, announced that the government was committed to linking the environment to the economy through indicators and accounting systems. What has come of this commitment? Absolutely zip.The annual funding of approximately $300 million for the environment pales into insignificance when compared with the true growing environmental debt in this country. Just one example of the true debt is the estimated annual $1.5 billion in lost production due to land degradation.The tunnel vision focus on the surplus this year represents regression from broadening the indicators of national wellbeing. This budget, in conjunction with the last two budgets, produces and reinforces social, environmental and economic debt. All the pats on the back belie the realities of what burdens have been borne to create the surplus.There are two main things I would like to address tonight. Firstly, I would like to examine who has borne the brunt of this budget. Secondly, I would like to examine some fundamental problems with the government's general approach to the budget process. The flippant claims by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) that the burdens have been shared by all and the benefits will be shared by all are an absolute farce. The burdens of the last two budgets have been borne disproportionately by social security recipients, indigenous people, students, the unemployed, the elderly, the sick and people in rural and regional communities. The government forcibly tightened the belts of those who could least afford it, driving an ever increasing bitter wedge between the rich and the poor.This year the Treasurer has come out swaggering with his smug smile. He has thrown a few crumbs at those who had the potential to be wooed before the election. The Australian people are not fooled by a free jab in the arm and an extension of the seniors health card. These measures are no compensation for the $3.6 billion that has been cut from pharmaceuticals, hospitals, dental care and Medicare in the last two budgets. Less than $2 billion has been put back. The fact that the states were so appalled by the federal government's offer on the Australian health care agreements that they walked out indicates how hopelessly inadequate the so-called increased funding to hospitals really is.The government cannot pull the wool over the eyes of regional and rural Australia. They are not fooled by the balloons of hot air about the government's commitment. It is abundantly clear that the commitment to rural and regional communities is in a drought. All of the so-called `initiatives' are simply a recycling of funding. For instance, the landcare tax rebate for farmers comes out of the already stretched Natural Heritage Trust.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—That is if they have an income to pay any tax.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—That is right. The tax rebate is also worthless for those struggling farmers who are earning so little income that they do not pay any tax—great minds think alike! There has been no recovery of the permanent cut in funding of $15 million per annum that local governments lost last year. Such cuts seriously undermine the ability of regional and rural councils to provide desperately needed services.This commitment drought comes at a time when the continued quality of telecommunications and postal services is under a huge question mark with the proposed sale of Telstra and Australia Post. Australians will not forget what has happened under the coalition pursuit of the bottom line. Families will not forget the loss of $821 million from child care. Students will not forget the missing $900 million from higher education. Indigenous people will not forget the $4 billion black hole in housing and infrastructure provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.A society with a sense of justice for all will not forget the slashing of over $100 million from legal aid. Unemployed people will not forget the $1.8 billion ripped from labour market programs and workers will not forget the fact that the government is threatening job security through industrial laws and by collusion with large companies.The Treasurer has continued to play on prejudices and target certain groups so as to create divisions in society. After slashing labour market programs by $1.8 billion in the last two budgets, the government has put in an additional $350 million to pump up the work for the dole scheme. It is a scheme that is yet to be evaluated; a scheme that mutates the concept of mutual obligation—that is something the government should be doing—beyond recognition. Mutual obligation appears to mean, from the government's point of view, conscription and forced labour. Meanwhile, the new jobs network is putting $147.6 million back into the government's pocket while it abrogates its responsibility for dealing with unemployment.Propping up programs such as work for the dole is a tactical manoeuvre by the government to shift the parameters of the problem from unemployment as a social and economic phenomenon to the unemployed as individuals. The general catchcry is: if you are unemployed, it's your own fault and you should pay. It even goes in the song: `You've got to look for the hero inside yourself'. It plays on and promotes the imagery of the dole bludger in a deeply insidious way.The Treasurer has also sought to play on the One Nation style prejudices against immigrants. By flexing their muscles and pumping money into tightening border controls, they promote the image of the mischievous illegal immigrant, attempting to unfairly dip into the Australian honey pot.Now the Treasurer claims that Australia has options; options to distribute benefits in the future. He strongly hinted that a GST will pay for income tax cuts. These hints, that deliberately antagonise the welfare lobby, are an attempt to derail a constructive and positive debate on tax reform. Moreover, this simplistic notion of tax reform has very clear winners and losers. Those who pay more income tax will reap the greatest benefits. The way in which personal income tax is determined means that, even if every marginal tax rate is diminished, high income earners will get the biggest windfall. They will get a tax break at every marginal rate.It is widely understood that a GST disproportionately affects low income earners. It is clear to see who Mr Costello is lining up to get the rewards of all the hard yards. It is not the people who have borne the brunt of the burdens; it is those who have already had many of the advantages society has to offer. The government is driving a deep wedge between the prosperous and those struggling to make a reasonable life for themselves and their families. This budget amplifies that wedge.The government, in the last two budgets, has placed a priority on debt reduction through a cutback in public sector outlays. The aim and focus has been primarily on a nice, fat bottom line. The government boasts about moving towards surplus and tightening our belts. The government claims that these priorities are the so-called `fundamentals' of the economy, and once we get those fundamentals under control, there can only be prosperity for everyone.Australians are crying out for the government to understand the economy in the context of the `fundamentals' of society, the `fundamentals' of the Australian ethos—fundamental concepts such as caring, tolerance, quality of life and a fair go for all Australians. This means 100 per cent of Australians; not just the prosperous or corporate Australians, but indigenous Australians, Australians living in poverty—mind you, over 30 per cent are living below or just above the poverty line—rural Australians, disabled Australians, elderly Australians, young Australians and sick Australians.The result of previous cutbacks has been devastating for the most disadvantaged part of Australian society. The results are becoming more and more obvious. In a relentless pursuit of efficiency, a society of the overworked and unemployed is emerging. Welfare providers on the ground are seeing a massive increase in the need for their services. Just ask them. Welfare providers have seen people come through their doors who have never had to ask for help before. Things have got to such a desperate state, however, that people have had to lower their dignity and actively appeal for help because they just cannot make ends meet.In 1998, we have a growing working poor in Australia. Despite all the evidence on the ground, the government has not heard the cries of the Australian people. The government has closed their eyes to the impact of their relentless pursuit of debt retirement. They have been conveniently mesmerised by that nice fat bottom line. Despite any realities in Australian society, despite the blow out in the current account deficit and despite the falling exchange rate, they continue to claim that prosperity will come. Just you wait and see.Not only does the government's approach produce social problems, but the economic basis is, to say the least, questionable. In economic terms, does Mr Costello really deserve a pat on the back for the budget surplus? Is he justified in expecting the surplus to expand? The government is happy to take the accolades for the surplus and to wear the badge of economic responsibility, but is this truly an economically responsible strategy?As pointed out by Professor Quiggin in the Australian Financial Review today, this fiscal strategy is highly questionable. The government fails to recognise that Telstra is a major contributor to public savings. Telstra uses retained earnings to finance investment and produces over $1 billion in retained earnings every year. This is obviously a huge contribution to public sector savings and it does not show up in the budget papers. Quiggin also notes that Treasury fails to take into account the fact that the government does not claim franking credits. Private shareholders, however, are sure to claim these credits. Quiggin estimates that this will be a cost to revenue of $600 million. So the projected $700 million gained in interest savings by 2001-2002 is looking rather irresponsible in light of the $1 billion in retained earnings and the $600 million lost through franking credits.Surplus? The longevity of the surplus is a sceptical proposition. The government took bows for the recovery of the `$10 billion Labour deficit', despite the fact that nearly half was due to bracket creep—a thing that they decried Labor for on a number of occasions. Similarly, the government is taking the bows for surplus projections despite the fact that Treasury provided the government with a $5.5 billion windfall by adjusting the parameters on which the budget is based. How nice to be able to spend some of this handy windfall while being able to present an ever increasing surplus estimate for the coming years.Many commentators, including John Hewson, have pointed out that the surplus forward estimates should be taken with a truckload of salt. The impact of the Asian crisis has been underestimated, and the surplus projections have been bolstered by unrealistic spending projections and artificial ly low spending projections. What we should be doing is looking at structuring the Australian economy to better weather the external storms. Bottom lines provide no real projections. If we have in this country a situation where every time there is an increased consumer confidence we have a blow-out in imports, somebody should be asking questions.The government's suggestion that economic benefits will flow from pushing the budget to surplus is another dubious proposition. This is certainly not the case in relation to the current account deficit. The coalition's policies and claims are based on the concept of the `twin deficit theory' pushed by the International Monetary Fund. This theory is based on a link between budget deficits and surpluses and the current account deficit or surplus. As a result, the IMF continually pushes free market style structural adjustment policies—they pull it out of the drawer and they give it to every country they go into—labour market reform and substantial cuts to government spending as the best means of addressing problems such as large current account deficits.The coalition has been a great fan of IMF style policies. Indeed, the Prime Minister was reverberating advice coming from the IMF's Mr Camdessus on page 2 of the Australian on Friday, 8 May 1998, by claiming that our recent current account blow-out meant that tight fiscal policy was needed. The idea of the twin deficit theory has never been born out in practice. This is overwhelmingly illustrated by the latest current account figures. Despite moves towards budget surplus over the last two years, our current account deficit is at its highest level ever. If anything, it appears that the more the current account deficit blows out, the more the Reserve Bank is able to produce more favourable dividends, which in turn makes the budget easier to balance.The current account deficit, which reflects the state of the national economy, deserves serious attention. A good current account deficit can give leeway to deal with government budget deficits. A bad current account deficit can cause national economic collapse in spite of government surpluses.The short-term focus of the budget surplus has failed Australia miserably. It has entrenched social, environmental and economic deficit. Socially, it has increased poverty and tension. Environmentally, it has ignored the real damage that is occurring and the reality that future generations will have to pay the mounting environmental debt. Economically, it will be shown to be wanting in the long term. Wipe that smug smile off your face, Mr Costello. Judge the budget truthfully. The Greens will be watching you and looking at the real indicators of Australia's well being on behalf of the forgotten community.Debate (on motion by Senator Parer) adjourned.Adjournment2911Motion (by Senator Parer) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.291120:44:002911Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—This week, probably for the first time in Australian political history, we have seen a consensus reached between the established parties on the need for a balanced budget. This is truly an historic moment of consensus in the debate about the future of our country's finances and the direction of Australia's economic policy. This week on the Face to Face program, Gareth Evans, Labor's shadow finance and treasury spokesman, said that the Labor Party now supports the goal of a surplus, that is, a balanced budget, one which is out of the red and into the black.Mr Evans told Glen Milne on the Face to Face program that he agrees that we should have a balanced budget and, in fact, he claimed that Labor would try to produce a budget surplus. Do not hold your breath though, Mr Evans, that opportunity is years away.Labor's newest graduate from the Democrats' finishing school, Mrs Kernot, also said over the weekend that a budget surplus was an `appropriate and symbolic goal'. Surely this statement begs the question: from 1990 to 1995 did she let the world's greatest treasurer know of her secret, symbolic goal? It would not appear so, because in May 1992 Mrs Kernot told the Senate that the Democrats did not support `the balanced budget nonsense' being pursued at that time by the coalition in opposition. So we can only conclude that this newly discovered appearance of responsibility has been collected on her way across to Mr Evans's office, from where she faxed her resignation to Democrat party headquarters. So now, former Senator Kernot and former Senator Evans have yet another new compact. But, as usual, no praise from her for this government's sensational budget surplus delivered by our Treasurer just two days ago.Appropriate and symbolic—that is how Labor now describes the notion of a balanced budget. Of course, in the nineties, Labor often said they would have liked to have brought in a balanced budget. But, instead, they created the recession we had to have and the deficits just grew and grew like Topsy, until thousands of people woke up and gave them the sack. Even so, they left all of us with a disgraceful $10.3 billion deficit.Meanwhile, back in the Democrats' newly reconstructed post-Kernot cottage, they also seem to be trying to improve their image and, goodness knows, they need to. Senator Meg Lees released the party's pre-budget submission last week, outlining her views and the party's views on budget policy—surely a new experience for the Democrats. She has elaborated on them in here tonight, and guess what? The Australian Democrats now also believe that, and I quote:There is room for a modestly more expansive fiscal policy that delivers a balanced Budget and simultaneously provides a boost to the economy.Fancy that! The budget proposals of the Democrats also represent a balancing act and also advocate a surplus as a desirable economic goal, although one a lot more modest than the one we produced just two days ago.Despite the many shortcomings of the Democrats pre-budget submission, it is significant to take note of one important concession. That is, that the Democrats share our support for the government's determination to make a balanced budget a permanent part of Australia's economic policy making environment. This is a very commendable objective from the cottage of the Democrats. This consensus between the established parties about the desirability of a balanced budget represents a historic pact in Australian politics which should not be overlooked. It is a commendable objective.With this newly discovered consensus, the policy debate can now move steadily onwards. We have been warning that Australia can no longer live beyond its means with the profligate tax and spending policies of the former government. Isn't it now refeshing, and perhaps a little surprising, to find that both other established parties now agree? However, fundamental differences still remain, of course, especially in terms of our capacity to deliver on these economic policies. The Democrats' pronouncements reveal that they still fail to appreciate that it is the very budget surplus which is proving to be our key safeguard against the financial chaos now sweeping the Asian region.The surplus is part of Australia's very precious insurance policy. `She'll be right, mate' may be part of the Australian idiom but it should not be part of any responsible political party. Never again should a political party in government be allowed to accumulate the massive debt that lay under the mat on 3 March 1996—never again. There should be no debt, no burden for our children, no crippling interest rate bills and, especially, no Beazley bankcard.291220:50:002912Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Monday 4 May 1998 was a defining day for the Australian labour movement. The High Court of Australia in a six to one decision decided that the sacked employees of Patrick Stevedores should be immediately reinstated. Despite the best efforts of the `spin merchants' for Minister Reith, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), and Patrick, the High Court judgment was an unambiguous statement on the question of the unfair sacking of the unionised work force. The fact that the coalition government is trying every conceivable stunt and scam to ensure that the Patrick labour hire companies fall over is a testimony to how deep a hole they have dug for themselves in this debacle.On the same day, over 15,000 unionists took to the streets of Brisbane in the largest Labour Day march since the 1930s. The large turnout signalled the level of anti-Howard government feeling for the way it has handled the maritime dispute. This ill will is generated by the deceit of Dubai, the pack mentality of dogs and security guards displacing people from their workplace, and the initial delight with which this government greeted the midnight sacking of an entire unionised work force.Regardless of any questions about waterfront reform, Australians do not like to see this confrontation forced upon other Australians. This imagery will linger in their thoughts for quite a while, and people have only naturally been asking themselves the question, `Is my job safe?'Over the past few weeks we have heard conflicting stories from the Prime Minister, Minister Reith, Dr Webster, Mr Corrigan, and former Fynwest owner, Mike Wells, and there is no doubt it is time the Australian public was afforded a factual account of the events of the past 12 to 18 months. It is time for a full independent inquiry, although I would be quite happy to see Minister Reith squirm under questioning from Jennifer Byrne and Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report a couple more times before the full facts become known.I would like to focus on a Queensland aspect of the waterfront dispute. Queensland, you will remember, is the state where the Premier, Deputy Premier and industrial relations minister were begging the NFF to set up their operation before a state election. The Borbidge government was desperate to escalate the dispute to extract any ounce of political advantage, and Mr Borbidge demanded that his police commissioner get tough with peaceful picket line protesters. Mr Borbidge and his industrial relations minister, Mr Santoro, taunted and antagonised the wharf workers in a divisive attempt to seek an election trigger.Like their federal colleagues, they have completely misread the central issue for the public—job security concerns. Like their federal colleagues, they have shown that the key feature of this dispute never has been waterfront reform; it has always been about smashing the Maritime Union of Australia and, as a result, commencing the dismantling of the Australian union movement. The stevedore, Sea-Land Australia, which has a good relationship with the MUA and defends the productivity of its workers, has also shown that this dispute is not about waterfront reform.The events we have witnessed in relation to the waterfront dispute represent the most serious effort in nearly a century by the forces of the conservative establishment to do a hatchet job on the Australian labour movement. These forces—manifested as Prime Minister Howard, Minister Reith, the NFF and myriad unknown business backers—have failed legally, economically and socially to break the resolve of the MUA.The coalition, as the political lap dogs of the conservative elites, have been prepared to introduce a sense of anarchy and zealotry into Australian society in an attempt to pursue their ideological vendetta against unionised workplaces. In the best traditions of coalition governments, they have attempted to stir up old hatreds in Australian society. Wharfies have been accused of disloyalty to Australia in wartime, working only 14 hour weeks, and being responsible for all the failings of the Australian economy. Regrettably, all this hysteria has done nothing for national cohesion and reconciliation.In the process, the coalition has made a mockery of its own legislation. What their actions are saying is that it is not an issue for them to defy the dismissal and freedom of association provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, but that it is essential that the MUA and the ACTU follow to the letter the secondary boycott provisions of the act.What this government induced confrontation has also displayed is that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is the best forum in which to settle workplace disputes. However, the coalition's ideological obsession to strip the commission of its authority and Mr Corrigan perjuring himself at a commission hearing earlier this year indicate the low esteem conservatives in Australia have for this institution.The NFF contribution to this dispute and the actions, including the inactions, of its affiliates and individual members should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It was not too long ago that the farmers of Australia enjoyed a considerable degree of goodwill from the rest of the community. Due to the soul destroying and financially crippling effects of drought, Australians got behind primary producers and supported them in their tough times. As many people would appreciate, the MUA was one of the most generous donors to farmers. Now we see the peak farm representative organisation, the NFF, telling us about multimillion dollar hidden fighting funds and their desire to be a leading stevedore enterprise. All Australians, not just waterside workers, would be entitled to ask whether they have been conned in the past for feeling sympathy for the farm sector. The actions of the NFF have, by association, put under the microscope the activities of the rural sector. If this sector is serious about seeking reform on Australia's docks, let it come into the debate with clean hands. Let it address some of the anti-competitive, highly protectionist practices within its own industry.I read an excellent article in last Saturday's Courier-Mail called `Is It Time For Rural Reform, Too?' by award winning journalist, Tony Koch. He questioned the figures which suggest a majority of farmers are on low or negative incomes and whether the average farm indebtedness of $240,000 should be a message to producers and government that perhaps it is time for these people to leave the land. Mr Koch suggested that unproductive farming practices did not deserve to receive an array of state and federal government funding, which includes subsidies for fertilisers, water, diesel, power and freight, amongst a raft of other areas.He suggested that farming in geographically unsuitable areas and supporting farmers simply to maintain a family generational connection with the land are no longer acceptable and that governments should review their subsidies in these instances. The article also revealed the inefficiencies and the potential rorts in the administration of various producer organisations. It was revealed that, of the 359 statutory authorities in Queensland, 121 related to primary production. Surely this unwieldy form of administration is in need of reform?The budget revealed that the Howard government is keen to extend and entrench these unproductive practices even further within the rural sector. The announcement of a tax rebate of up to 34 per cent for producers to maintain their own land, which will be potentially available to 70 per cent of farmers, will do nothing for genuine farm reform. The initiative is designed to appease the core constituency of the National Party who have been threatening to change to One Nation in their droves. Like so many of the entrenched subsidies to the farm sector, they are draped with a political pandering emphasis. In calling for reform on the waterfront, the rural sector is putting its own industry under scrutiny, and it needs to appreciate this point when it allows its peak industry body to lead the charge against the MUA.Finally, I would like to defend the reputation of workers on Brisbane's wharves. These people have been denigrated by both their Prime Minister and their Premier as `not workers but wharfies'. An article in an edition of last month's Business Queensland, hardly a publication known for its sympathy to employees, outlined that, of the major container ports in Australia, the Port of Brisbane has probably the least room for a large improvement in crane rates. It stated that Brisbane, like Fremantle, is often a port which is either a first or last port of call. This means that, when loading and unloading containers, crane operators usually have to unload other containers to gain access to the ones they really want to unload. The article also highlighted the folly of making comparisons between Brisbane and the world leader, Singapore. (Time expired)291421:00:002914Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I take the opportunity to open up for public debate within the tax reform environment the need for a limited carry back of tax losses. Currently, Australia enjoys a carry forward of tax losses, but such an environment does not help all companies, particularly those that face the insolvency or bankruptcy of a major client and a situation where they have paid tax on an accrual basis and have paid their income tax on that. The result is generally difficulty for the business and a problem for continued employment.Prior to that I wish to spend a moment or two on tax reform generally. As we all know, the tax system was designed in the 1930s. The 1936 income tax act had only 120 pages. It now has some 3,300 or more. In fact, over the last seven years it has doubled in size. Therefore, few would disagree that the existing system is inefficient, uncompetitive, inequitable, high-cost compliant and increasingly complex. Both the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) have stated that comprehensive tax reform is now a matter of urgency, widely sought and widely desired.The objectives that the government has set for the reform of the tax system are to provide incentives to work, save and invest and to boost international competitiveness, thus promoting job creation and leading to improved living standards. As we enter the new millennium, it is imperative that Australia go forth with full vigour in order to maximise our potential and to regain our place on the world stage.Inheriting an underlying budget deficit of $10.3 billion was a major setback and a major shock for the coalition on winning government. I must say that it has taken strong fiscal management in order to fill that black hole left by Messrs Keating and Beazley. There have been no increased taxes, just careful restraint of outlays, to return Australia's macro-economic fundamentals to a sound footing. That has been particularly important given the Asian meltdown.Tax reform, however, remains the greatest piece of unfinished business on the economic agenda. Business, operating in highly contested domestic and global markets, needs little convincing of the benefits of tax reform. The current system is imposing costs which can no longer be afforded. Small business and larger companies have separate as well as common concerns for reform. Governments at all levels are seeing their revenue bases gradually eroded by structural change in the economy and are having to apply complex, inefficient and unpopular bandaid measures in response. The Howard government, through tax reform, will achieve better economic and social outcomes, higher living standards, strengthened families and real jobs.On 13 August, the Prime Minister announced the formation of an interdepartmental task force to report to government on options for reform. The broad guidelines given to the tax consultative task force were: there should be no increase in the overall tax burden; there should be major reductions in personal income tax, especially for families; a broad-based indirect tax should be considered to replace some or all of the existing indirect taxes; compensation for those deserving of special consideration must be part of the package; and a reform of government and state financial relations must be addressed.From these guidelines it is clear that the government's present thinking involves comprehensive reform of both direct and indirect taxes. But I remind the Senate that tax reform must be more than providing tax savings or tax cuts to individuals or shareholders. The reform must assist business to ensure that cost compliance is at a minimum and enable it to take advantage of competitive environments in both domestic and international markets. Many individuals and representatives of the community have taken up the government's offer to present their views on how best to improve the current system. There have been over 500 submissions to the committee. This has been an important and constructive process which continues.There is a need to support and enhance the competitiveness of Australian industry in both the domestic and export markets. Many countries have provisions which allow losses to be offset against income from other periods. Carry forward of losses, where losses can be written off against future years profits, is provided for in most countries. Carry back—the concept that I am encouraging people to examine tonight—is where current losses can be written off against past years profits. This measure is provided for in a number of OECD countries and it has a number of advantages for companies and employment.Carry back involves a procedure of amended assessments and refunds. The value of any carry forward or carry back of losses will depend on a variety of factors affecting the business of a company. A company just commencing operations will be unable to use any carry back, while a company ceasing operations will be unable to use any carry forward. Of the OECD countries studied, only Australia and New Zealand do not allow any carry back. The carry back is limited to three years in Canada and the UK, two years in the US and Germany and only one year in Japan.Because of our dividend imputations, which complicates the situation, what I am advocating for Australia is just a one-year carry back. But in Canada, the US and Japan, the taxpayers have a choice of carrying the loss forward, back or using a combination. In Germany, unused losses are automatically carried back across the two preceding years, with any excess loss being carried forward. The carry back of losses in Germany is limited to DM10 million.As well as carry back, Germany and the UK allow an indefinite carry forward; however, in the UK the carry forward and deduction of losses is allowed only against income from the same trade as a loss. Carry forwards are indefinite in Australia, the UK, Germany and New Zealand. They are limited to 20 years in the US, seven years in Canada and five years in Japan.So in comparison with the OECD group, the current Australian treatment of losses suffers because there are no provisions for actual carry back. It is difficult to allow the carry back of losses under a full imputation system such as that in Australia. However, allowing the carry back of losses for one year would be practical, would minimise the loss of revenue in consequence of having given credit to individual shareholders, and would bring Australia into line with the intent of carry back provisions of other OECD countries and our major trading partners.The United Kingdom treatment of trading losses and their offset against profits of preceding periods is an excellent example to examine. For current accounting periods after 31 March, the end of the UK financial year, a company's trading losses can, to the extent to which they cannot be used against the current period's profits, also be carried back against profits arising from the previous 36 months, with any necessary apportionment of the results of a previous accounting period being made to effect this.A company in the UK must make its claim for relief within two years of the end of the accounting period in which it made its loss, with a statutory power in respect of the general three-year carry back to increase the limit where appropriate. Relief is given against profits of a later accounting period before those of an earlier accounting period.The present system in Australia prejudices those businesses receiving very large payments in one year, with considerably smaller payments in the next, with a consequent higher tax payment. A case could well be where a subcontractor, with a contract spanning two years, receives a very large progress payment in one financial year and, because of a profit circumstance, is subject to a higher than normal bill for taxation. Because of cash flow requirements in order to complete the contract, the subcontractor is forced to borrow funds in order to settle his commitments to the tax office. After borrowing from a financial institution and providing the necessary security, the subcontractor then submits the final account for work carried out under the two-year contract. However, the contractor is unable to pay because the contractor has declared insolvency. (Time expired)291621:11:002916Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—Senators may recall that yesterday, during the matters of public interest debate, I raised the quite disgraceful situation in Townsville where the ALP has been rigging the vote in their preselections, which resulted yesterday in the then candidate for the state electorate of Thuring owa being summonsed in respect of 54 criminal charges of uttering and forging which are being prosecuted against her.Upon the serving of those summonses, the Labor Party dismissed her as the candidate and brought back the existing member who, some time previously, had announced that he was too old and that it was time to give it away and let a younger person have a go. Suddenly, he has been thrust back into the limelight; he is standing again in the forlorn hope that he might retain the seat.In the unlikely event that he does retain the seat, he would be there only as a caretaker; he has no interest whatsoever in remaining in the state parliament, knowing that he would be in opposition yet again. That would result in a by-election at very great expense to the Queensland taxpayers, and it would mean that the people of Thuringowa would have a lame duck member who was not interested in representing them. But I do not think that is going to happen, because it is unlikely that Mr McElligott will win the seat. I am quite confident that the Liberal candidate, David Moore, who is a young person—the sort of person that Mr McElligott, the current Labor member, indicated should take over in that seat—will win and give the electors of Thuringowa the sort of representation they deserve.I was surprised at the fact that people do listen to the parliamentary and news network. Following my speech there were quite a number of calls to my office from people who, like me, were sickened by the evidence of vote rigging by the ALP in the state preselection contest in Townsville—a practice which seems to be fairly widespread in the ALP. I quoted yesterday some evidence from Victoria and New South Wales, and indicated that this malaise, this disease, in those states has now spread to North Queensland.It was bad enough that Ms Ehrmann was summonsed on 54 counts of forging and uttering and was dismissed by the Labor Party—although, just a couple of days before that, the state leader of the Labor Party in Queensland, Mr Beattie, had been expressing great confidence in this candidate, and had even agreed to come to Townsville to open her campaign office this Saturday. Of course, Mr Beattie is too weak and too ineffectual to be able to control some of the shenanigans and goings-on within the Labor Party in Townsville.That was bad enough, but we find out today that, as a result of all that preselection vote rigging by the ALP in the Townsville area, a Townsville City Council alderman, Councillor Shane Foster, has also been charged as part of that racket. He has been charged with 32 counts of forging and uttering. I emphasise that he has only been charged; he is, of course, not guilty until the court proceeds with those matters.For those of us who live in the Townsville area, it is something that has been expected for a long time, because the preselections up there have been particularly bitter. It has now happened that the successful candidate, who some say won as a result of that vote rigging, has now been forced to stand aside.Those sorts of rumours have been going around as well in the state electorate of Townsville, where the former mayor, Mike Reynolds, defeated the current mayor, Tony Mooney, for preselection for that state seat. In fact, a report in the Townsville Bulletin this morning said:Mike Reynolds, an Ehrman—and Ehrman was the candidate who had been forced to resign after receiving those summonses—pre-selection ally and candidate for Townsville, reacted angrily when asked yesterday whether he had been summonsed.Again, he says he has not, but you get the flavour of what is happening from the article on the front page of the Townsville Bulletin . The people of Townsville wait to see whether, in addition to the candidate for Thuringowa, a city council alderman, other ALP candidates may be caught up in this vote-rigging, fraudulent, criminal exercise. I wanted to go on at greater length on this—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Order! I draw it to your attention that you are sailing very close to the wind. I urge a caution about what you say about these matters which are presumably about to come before the court.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you. I do not need to comment further on that. I was intending to go on at greater length to explain this, but I understand that my colleague Senator Sandy Macdonald—a National Party senator for New South Wales—wants to speak for a few minutes on the adjournment, so I have agreed to curtail my speech. I understand that he wishes to pay tribute to the recently deceased mayor of the town of Casino in northern New South Wales, Mr Senthil Vasan, a man whom I knew very well. In closing my speech, I indicate that I would like to associate myself with the comments that Senator Sandy Macdonald will make about the former mayor of Casino.291721:17:002917Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I wish to take a moment tonight, with some sadness, to pay tribute to the late Senthil Vasan who was the mayor of Casino. I know that Senator Ian Macdonald had been to Casino a number of times and also knew Dr Vasan quite well. As members of the Senate will be aware, Dr Vasan was tragically killed in a plane accident late last week. His passing is a great loss to his family, his friends, the people of Casino and to the north coast of New South Wales generally.Dr Vasan was born in Malaysia 62 years ago and arrived in Casino in 1977 with his wife Vicki and two sons. He immediately became involved in the local community and, during his 21 years as a doctor in general practice in Casino, he was also an active member of Rotary, a visiting medical officer at Casino Hospital, and a member of the aero club.Dr Vasan entered local government and he was both committed and effective. In 1991, Dr Vasan was elected mayor of Casino. At that time he said, `Casino has been good to me', and he repaid Casino by being good to it. The general manager of the Casino council, Mr Ross Schipp, said:He was a visionary. A person able to appreciate the bigger picture, something which can be difficult in local government.Dr Vasan also sat on the Northern Rivers Regional Development Board, was president of the Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils, a past president of the Country Mayors Association and a member of the Premier's Taskforce on Regional Development.As the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer, said at the funeral, Dr Vasan was a truly outstanding citizen. From my personal contacts with him I know that he was someone who got the most out of life. He was devoted to his family and to his many friends. He was involved in everything. Perhaps most importantly, his energy, initiative and hard work had won him the respect of many people in his new country.He was a charming and interesting companion and he had a certain mysticism about him that was very much a product of his heritage. His close friend and the deputy mayor of Casino, Councillor Mulherin, told the Northern Star newspaper:Council will carry on because we have to, but we are going to miss Senthil like mad.I express my deepest sympathy to his wife and sons, who have lost a loving and caring husband and father.On another matter, I cannot let the opportunity pass without making some comments about the contribution of Senator Gibbs tonight. I do not know what stone Senator Gibbs has been under. She comes in here and reads into Hansard her clapped-out left-wing rhetoric concerning the MUA and the current waterfront dispute. It is a mockery of good reason for Senator Gibbs to defend the MUA and, in a subsequent breath, to criticise Australian farmers.The comments of my `good friend' Lindsay Tanner are really telling. He is reputed to have said, `It is impossible for us in the ALP to defend the indefensible.' Senator Gibbs's comments breach the Hobart resolution of the ALP conference held in January or early February to open up the waterfront. There is a history of rorts and intimidation. The MUA is not a friend of the farmers: it never has been and it never will be.In the brief time that I have, I would like to go back to some of the reasons for the reform efforts and note the role that the Australian farmers have played in this area of industrial relations reform. Waterfront reform will boost jobs and exports for all Australians, and this is especially true for primary producers, country people and rural people generally.With the live sheep dispute in 1979, which was a perfectly bloody-minded effort by the MUA to prevent the export of live sheep to the Middle East, the birth of the NFF was assured. It was a great win for commonsense. Live sheep were exported then and they are still being exported.Next, in the late 1980s were the changes to bulk handling of wheat on the waterfront after an enormous amount of capital investment which ensured world's best practice. These bulk handling terminals are now substantially operated without union membership—and certainly not by MUA membership.In 1982, the NFF took on the AWU over the wide-combs dispute in the shearing industry. Here, if ever there was an example of a union being ignorant and bloody-minded, this was the AWU. The AWU destroyed their membership and deserved to do so.They attempted to stop probably the hardest working people in the country—shearers who get paid piece rates only for what they actually do—not like the MUA who are paid $73,000 a year for meter reading. The AWU tried to stop these people using a bit of equipment that made their job easier and more productive, and ensured them an income which they would not have had if they had continued to work with the smaller combs. It was no wonder that the Australian shearing industry gave the two-fingered salute to the AWU. They left the union membership and have never returned. In 1985, of course, we had Mudginberri where, again, a union tried to prevent a legitimate operation of an abattoir in the Northern Territory. The NFF was instrumental in making the job of the meat workers in volved in that dispute absolutely impossible for them to survive.21:24:002919Senate adjourned at 9.24 p.m. until Monday, 25 May 1998, at 12.30 p.m.Documents29192919The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Defence Act— Defence Determinations 1998/18 and 1998/19. Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations Nos 13 and 14 of 1998.Financial Management and Accountability Act—Determination under section— 20—Australian Greenhouse Office Reserve. 21—Commonwealth Superannuation Administration Fund.Insurance Act— Determination No. 1 of 1998. Insurance (Designated Security Trust Funds) Rules 1998. Insurance (Lloyd's Security Trust Fund Arrangements) Determination 1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 80.Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act— Approval of Form No. 1 of 1998. Approval of Form (and Manner) No. 2 of 1998.Taxation Determinations TD 98/8-TD 98/10.Telecommunications Act—Determination under section 7A, dated 14 April 1998.Answers to Questions on Notice2920The following answers to questions were circulated:2920(Question No. 1105)11052920Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1998:With reference to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 March 1998, which reported the Minister as saying that parents migrating to Australia as part of family reunion programs come disproportionately from countries which do not have social security systems: (a) can a detailed breakdown be provided of the countries of origin of the migrants who were issued parent visas in the financial years of 1995-96, 1996-97 and to date in 1997-98; and (b) can a breakdown be provided of these countries of origin which do not have social security systems.2920Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) Table 1 below provides a detailed breakdown of the countries of origin (by country of birth) of the migrants who were issued subclass 103 and 804 parent visas for the financial years 1995-96 through to 30 March 1998.A breakdown has only been provided with respect to countries which represent 1 percent or more of the total number of parent visa grants from 1995-96 to 30 March 1998. Of the 17,350 parent visas issued over the period, 14,643 or 84.5 percent came from these countries. The remaining 2,707 visas were distributed across a further 89 countries.(b) Of the 18 major source countries, only the United Kingdom has so far been assessed by the Department of Social Security as having a social security system broadly comparable to Australia's (that is, being able to provide a reciprocal level of coverage of age or other pensions for Australians who move to those countries).TABLE 1103 AND 804PARENT VISAS GRANTED 1995-96, 1997-98, 1997-98 (TO 30 MARCH 1998)COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN (BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH)Country of Birth1995-98 (To 30 March)1995-961996-971997-98 (To 30 March)No of Visas% of Parent Visa GrantsNo of VisasNo of VisasNo of VisasChina 1631836.432482816254United Kingdom 2216412.51209830125India8785.150032949Former USSR and the Baltic States 37954.640634940Vietnam6563.834627040Fiji4752.725119925Republic of South Africa4722.718324841Sri Lanka4562.620422131Philippines3992.314921436Hong Kong3321.916815212Yugoslavia 43201.815812834Poland2391.411310422Malaysia2191.31039917 Lebanon2011.2859422Egypt1861.195838Iraq1851.1729716Iran1771.099726Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia1711.0738711Other 5270715.512511173283Total17350100871375651072 61 Excludes Taiwan.2 Includes England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man.3 Includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.4 Includes Yugoslavia (so stated).5 Each country of origin in this group represents less than 1% of the total number of parent visa grants for the period from 1995-98 (to 30 March 1998).6 Includes applications for visas lodged prior to the Migration Reform Act which are not covered by capping.