1998-05-253817SENATE292301998-05-25The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Business29232923Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Ian Campbell for today, relating to the consideration of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Bills2923r4542923Consideration resumed from 13 May.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The committee is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 and Democrat amendment No. 1 on sheet 982 revised.12:32:002923Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I might put in a word about the way we are debating this social security legislation. Earlier we had a debate in relation to the Senate being in agreement about the injustice of making a demarcation between living at home and living away from home for over-25s. It would seem logical that we deal with Greens (WA) amendment No. 4, which is the other side of that. It does not fit in with the numbering on the running sheet but I just want to signal that if the Senate wished to deal with those matters now that would be wonderful because it would follow on from the debate we have had already in relation to the maximum rate of Austudy payment. The next debate logically from that would be on rent assistance and the implications of the differences between them. I wonder whether there is any agreement that we deal with that at this stage, rather than waiting till later? It would not make any difference to the outcome but it just seems logical.12:34:002923Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—In times gone by, when we have jumped around on the running sheet, people have become confused. I suggest that we simply continue with the order that is already set out on the running sheet.12:34:002923West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I take it we are debating the clause at the bottom of the first page of the running sheet concerning the length of time for study. I might be on the wrong question, but I have had raised with me by some students their concerns about this allowable time for study and the effect some of the interpretations are having on their applications for Austudy. Some people are saying they are being allowed 3½ years of Austudy allowance to study a three-year degree, but they may change their degree course in the process if they find that the course of study they were initially doing is not what they want to do, that it is not a course they are satisfied with. Yet they are being allowed only 3½ years of access to Austudy.I also know of students who have married in the third year of their course. They will be having to do four years because they changed after the first year of university and were previously not able to access Austudy because of their parents' income and asset level. Now the female finds that because she is married to another student she fits within the independent rate criteria very clearly but she will not be able to access Austudy for the last six months of her course. Her husband is in a similar situation. He had done two years of study previously and will be able to access only 3½ years of Austudy although he has now undertaken a four-year course. They will have a period of six months, before the female of the couple is able to get out into the work force and earn income, when they will have no access to Austudy and limited access to loans and things like that. That is of grave concern.I have also had students complaining about the loan situation, in that the female students who apply are treated differently from the male students who apply. There is a situation where twins—a male and a female—are studying. The male proceeded to seek a loan and it was granted overnight with no questions asked and with no major problems. These two people have identical economic set-ups, but when the female applied for a loan it took three weeks to be approved.It is of grave concern to everybody, I think, that this sort of thing is happening. Certainly the students are very worried that they are only able to access Austudy for 3½ years. It is possible that they do not have some of the information terribly straight, but I doubt it: these students are involved in student representative council type activities and know their rights, their entitlements. They were most surprised to discover when they got married that the female was only eligible for another 12 months of Austudy, which will not take her through to the end of her degree. For a period of six months neither of them will be eligible for Austudy and neither of them will be able to have another source of income. It is of major concern to them, Minister.12:38:002924Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I indicated last time we discussed this legislation that the government does not plan to oppose the Democrat amendment, that we do not propose to oppose the next bracket of Opposition amendments on the running sheet, and that we do not propose to oppose the next bracket of amendments by the Opposition, the Democrats and the Greens (WA) in relation to long-term income support for students.In the interests of speeding up passage of this legislation—if possible before lunchtime—I repeat what I said last time: we are not opposing these amendments.12:39:002924West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I just want confirmation, Minister, that the scenarios that I outlined will operate until this amendment is passed. Is that correct?12:40:002924Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am sorry, there is a little confusion amongst the officials as to whether the scenarios that you describe are dealt with by this amendment. But certainly this amendment is not one that we plan to oppose. 12:40:002924West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Can somebody take that on notice, please? It is vitally important that we clarify this. I was not aware that this scenario could happen. This will be a major problem for this couple and, I would suspect, a number of other students. If it is happening in their institution, it is presumably happening elsewhere as well.12:40:002924Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am perfectly happy to take it on notice, but I cannot give you an answer now, I am afraid.12:41:002924Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—This Democrat amendment is supported by the opposition. It deals in particular with the difficulty of reduced student assistance when they can extend the study period by up to four times. It allows a discretion by the secretary in order to allow them to do this. There seems to be a mismatch between the capacity of a student to extend their course and the period over which a person in that situation can receive Austudy. Obviously a number of people are affected by this change. Can the department advise us what numbers of people are involved and what cost is involved?12:42:002924Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I understand that we do not have the figures here but that the extension of four times for students only occurs in a very small number of cases.12:42:002924Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—When you say `small', is that less than 10, in the hundreds or in the thousands?12:42:002924Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—We have not got the numbers for you right now, but we could try to get them for you later.Amendment agreed to.12:42:002924Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 31 (after line 12), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) A notice under subsection (1) must contain reasons why the activity test non-payment period applies to the person.(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 37 (line 25), omit "informs the person that the person is re quired", substitute "gives the person a written notice stating that the person is required, within a period stated in the notice, being a period of not less than 14 days,".(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 37 (after line 31), after subsection (1), insert:Content of notice(1A) A notice under paragraph (1)(c) must inform the person to whom it is given of the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice without reasonable excuse.(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 49 (after line 7), after subsection 582B(1), insert:(1A) A notice under subsection (1) must contain reasons why the activity test breach rate reduction period applies to the person.(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 52 (after line 29), after subsection 583B(1), insert:(1A) A notice under subsection (1) must contain reasons why the administrative breach rate reduction period applies to the person.(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 65 (line 10), at the end of subsection (3), add:; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 65 (line 16), omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 65 (line 28), omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 67 (line 4), at the end of subsection (2), add:; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 67 (line 9), omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".(12) Schedule 4, item 5, page 171 (line 12), at the end of subsection (3), add:; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.(13) Schedule 4, item 5, page 173 (line 2), at the end of subsection (2), add:; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the requirement set out in the notice.These changes relate to the notification provisions for the youth allowance. Members of the Senate might recall that during the debate on the previous youth allowance bill there was some concern about how people were notified and what penalties they suffered if there was a failure to comply with that notification. As a result, some changes were made to ensure that there was fairness and that natural justice applied in relation to notification.To ensure there is consistency in the notification provisions, these amendments are proposed by the opposition to relate to those people who are presently called recipients of Austudy. This will ensure that their notification provisions are the same as for those people who receive the youth allowance who were not previously called Austudy recipients. This now relates to students who receive youth allowance. I think it will be advantageous ultimately not only for the students themselves who will know what to expect but also for the department which will have one system. Certainly I would hope it would make it easier for the department, and it will be administratively less expensive.Amendments agreed to.12:47:002925Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Having arranged all my affairs on the basis of the previous running sheet and having been given a running sheet as I walked through the door, it is very difficult. I know it might be amusing to some people, but it is making it extraordinarily difficult to make sure I have them in the correct place.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is still in the same order, Senator Neal. You can work on the other one if you want to.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—It relates to the higher rate for long-term income support.B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:Schedule 1, item 7, page 91 (lines 1 to 9), omit point 1067L-B3 and the note, substitute:Long term income support student1067L-B3 If the person is a long term income support student (see section 1067K), the person's maximum basic rate is $322.40. Note: The rate provided for in this point is indexed annually in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194). Under the proposed 1067L-B3 the maximum rate of Austudy payment for a long-term income support student living at home is $214.60 per fortnight, whereas the maximum rate for such a student not living at home is $322.40 per fortnight. Under our proposed amendment, the maximum rate for all long-term income support students would be $322.40. That removes a situation where older students who have been on that higher level would not suddenly have their payments reduced quite substantially by about $100. It will ensure that they retain their present income level.I am always very concerned when I see a bill—particularly one with the sorts of intricacies that this bill has—through which, because of an administrative change, small groups who previously relied on one level of income have to cope with a substantially reduced income. In light of applying proper fairness to these people—and they are generally between the ages of 21 and 25—we believe they should not have their payment reduced as is proposed in the bill. The effect of our amendment is to allow them to retain the higher rate, which is the away from home rate.12:49:002926Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like some clarification. On the running sheet it says `NB identical', and I am assuming that relates to the Democrat and Greens (WA) amendments under the `or'. We are talking about point 1067L-B2 and so on. It is hard for me to work out what the impact would be if we support the opposition's request. Will it still be necessary to move the Greens' and Democrats' amendments which are part of the same section?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The way in which it is written is generally that, if the opposition one is supported beforehand, that would subsume the next group, which is the group to which you have referred, Senator Margetts.12:51:002926Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—It is the view of the opposition that, if this amendment is carried, it would no longer be necessary for the Greens to move their amendment. My understanding is that the substantial effect of our request No. 2 and your other amendments are identical and that there would be no need to move your amendment, but you are free to interpret it as you like.12:51:002926Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—What we were hoping to do with our amendments was to remove the distinction between living at home or living away from home for the purposes of determining the maximum rate of payment for aperson over the age of 25 and to achieve this for the new Austudy payment for those aged 25 and over. Given that that is what the opposition's amendments will do but in a slightly different way, obviously the Greens (WA) will be supporting them.Request agreed to.12:52:002926Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:(11) Schedule 1, item 7, page 90 (line 7), omit "Table BB", substitute "point 1067L-B3".Amendment 11 is of an administrative nature. Having just carried the amendment which allows those over the age of 25 to retain the higher rate of living away from home allowance, it is necessary to restructure some of the tables contained in the bill. This amendment omits table BB which previously contained the differential rates between away from home and at home. Because we have now removed that distinction, there is no necessity to have that table, and this amendment has the effect of removing it.Amendment agreed to.12:54:002926Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 92 (after line 22), after Module C, insert:Module CA—Rent assistanceRent assistance1067L-CA1 Subject to point 1067L-CA3, an amount to help cover the cost of rent is to be added to the maximum basic rate of a person for a period if: (a) the person lives away from home; and (b) the person is not an aged care resident; and (c) the person is not an ineligible homeowner; and (d) the person pays, or is liable to pay, rent (other than Government rent) in respect of the period; and (e) the rent is payable at a rate of more than the rent threshold rate under point 1067L-CA2; and (f) the person is in Australia throughout the period; and (g) the person does not have a partner with a rent increased pension (see point 1067L-CA3); and (h) where the person or the person's partner is receiving family payment in respect of a dependent child who is an FP child—the standard family payment rate of the person or partner does not exceed the minimum family payment rate of the person or partner, as the case may be.Note: For aged care resident, ineligible homeowner, rent and Government rent see section 13.Rent threshold rate1067L-CA2 A person's rent threshold rate depends on the person's family situation. Work out which family situation in Table CAA applies to the person. The rent threshold rate is the corresponding amount in column 3.Table CAA—Rent threshold ratesColumn 1Column 2Column 3ItemPerson's family situationAmount a fortnight1Not a member of a couple$71.602Partnered—partner does not have rent increased benefit (see point 1067L-CA5)$116.603Partnered—partner has rent increased benefit$116.604Partnered—member of an illness separated couple$71.605Partnered—member of a respite care couple$71.606Partnered—member of a temporarily separated couple$71.607Partnered (partner in gaol)$71.60Note 1: For member of a couple, partnered, illness separated couple, respite care couple, temporarily separated couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.Note 2: The column 3 amounts are indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191-1194).Partner with rent increased pension1067L-CA3 A person has a partner with a rent increased pension, for the purposes of point 1067L-CA1, if: (a) the partner is living with the person in their home; and (b) the partner is receiving a social security pension or service pension; and (c) the partner's pension rate is increased to take account of rent.Factors affecting rate of rent assistance1067L-CA4 The rate of rent assistance depends on: (a) the fortnightly rent paid or payable by the person; and (b) whether or not the person has a partner who has a rent increased benefit. Partner with rent increased benefit1067L-CA5 A person's partner has a rent increased benefit for the purposes of this Module if the partner: (a) is living with the person in their home; and (b) either: (i) is receiving a social security benefit the rate of which is increased to take account of rent; or (ii) would be receiving such a benefit but for the amount of the person's ordinary income reduction under point 1067L-D30.Note: For the treatment of rent paid by a member of a couple see points 1067L-CA8 and 1067L-CA9.Rate of rent assistance1067L-CA6 The rate of rent assistance a fortnight is worked out using Table CAB. Work out the person's family situation and calculate Rate A for the person using the corresponding formula in column 3. This will be the person's rate of rent assistance but only up to: (a) if the person is not a single person sharing accommodation—Rate B for the person worked out using column 4; or (b) if the person is a single person sharing accommodation—two-thirds of the amount that would otherwise have been Rate B for the person.Table CAB—Rate of rent assistanceColumn 1 ItemColumn 2 Person's family situationColumn 3 Rate AColumn 4 Rate B1Not a member of a couple3 x (fortnightly rent - $71.60) 4$74.802Partnered—partner does not have rent increased benefit (see point 1067L-CA5)3 x (fortnightly rent - $116.60) 4$70.603Partnered—partner has rent increased benefit3 x (fortnightly rent - $116.60) 4$35.304Partnered—member of an illness separated couple3 x (fortnightly rent - $71.60) 4$74.805Partnered—member of a respite care couple3 x (fortnightly rent - $71.60) 4$74.806Partnered—member of a temporarily separated couple3 x (fortnightly rent - $71.60) 4$70.607Partnered (partner in gaol)3 x (fortnightly rent - $71.60) 4$74.80Note 1: For member of a couple, partnered, illness separated couple, respite care couple, temporarily separated couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.Note 2: The rent threshold amounts in column 3, and the Rate B amounts, are indexed 6 monthly in line with CPI increases (see sections 1191 to 1194).Note 3: For single person sharing accommodation see section 5A.Fortnightly rent1067L-CA7 Fortnightly rent is the fortnightly rent paid or payable by the person whose rate of youth allowance is being calculated.Rent paid by a member of a couple1067L-CA8 If a person is a member of a couple and the person's partner is living with the person in their home, any rent that the person's partner pays or is liable to pay in respect of the home is to be treated as paid or payable by the person.Rent paid by a member of an illness separated couple1067L-CA9 If a person is a member of an illness separated couple, any rent that the person's partner pays or is liable to pay in respect of the premises or lodgings occupied by the person is to be treated as paid or payable by the person.Note: For illness separated couple see section 4.These amendments, with several others including amendments 1 and 2 on sheet 975, apply the rent assistance provisions available to youth allowance recipients to those students over the age of 25 in receipt of the new Austudy payment. It should be noted that under these amendments rent assistance will be available only to those students over the age of 25 who are living away from their parents' home.Under the changes to payments made to students under the youth allowance bill debated early this year, the big carrot was the long-overdue payment of rent assistance to full-time students. The Greens did not agree with many of the regressive changes which were traded off for the provision of student rent assistance, which we did welcome.Predictably, the government trumpeted the introduction of student rent assistance as reflective of their commitment to students and delivery of their promises made in opposition. We were chided for any criticisms that were made by Senator Newman in relation to this, but there were many people within the com munity who had very good reasons for not swallowing what the government was trying to do as a package. We are trying here to redress the ridiculous position where a person who begins study when aged 24 years and 11 months and therefore receives youth allowance will be entitled to rent assistance, whereas someone who begins study at 25 years and one month and therefore receives the new Austudy payment contained in the consequential bill will not be entitled to rent assistance. All in all, there will be about 35,000 people around Australia who will be discriminated against by virtue of the fact that they have been unable to begin study until the age of 25. That is absolutely ridiculous and utterly insensitive.It is highly ironic that some of the strongest statements about the importance of providing rent assistance to all students are from Senator Newman herself. On 18 June 1997, Senator Newman declared:We are treating students and unemployed people on a fair and consistent basis. Payments to students will now be brought up to the level of unemployment payments and students will be eligible for rent assistance. This is long overdue, as Senator Payne mentioned, and desperately needed . . . In answer to a question without notice from Senator Abetz, Senator Newman boasted:The previous government paid not one cent of rent assistance to students. We are the first government to offer students up to $100 a fortnight to help pay their rent. Their housing costs will fall, not rise.In answer to a question from Senator O'Chee on 28 August 1997, Senator Newman predicted that rent assistance would:. . . make a massive difference to the living standards of young people who have to go away to study . . . During her second reading speech on 2 March 1998, Senator Newman, somewhat dramatically, said:How wrong it has been that young unemployed people have had access to that allowance while students have not. We are bringing the students up to the same level. Is that unfair? Is it unfair to anybody? I think not. I cannot understand how you could possibly be criticising it.I hope Senator Newman heeds her own words and finds it impossible to criticise the Greens (WA) for proposing that all students, not just those who the government wishes to win over with a flawed youth allowance package, be entitled to rent assistance. I assure all senators in this place that this issue will haunt those who do not support such a basic point of equity. I assure you that a situation in which students of the same age, studying the same course, and in exactly the same financial situation receive payments which differ up to $75 per fortnight will be an ongoing source of justifiable anger, frustration and disillusionment. I urge senators to support the Greens (WA) amendment to allow all students access to rent assistance. After all, isn't consistency what the youth allowance package is supposed to be about?12:58:002929Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats have identical amendments to the Greens (WA) amendment and also some consequential amendments, similarly identical, subsequent on how the vote goes on this particular issue and this particular request dealing with the issue of rent assistance. As Senator Margetts has outlined, this is, among other things, an issue of consistency across the entire act, and that is something the Democrats have often voiced support for.We would like to get a little information on the record in relation to rent assistance, and I would like to ask either the minister or Senator Neal if they have information about how much it would cost to implement rent assistance for students in receipt of Austudy payments over the course of each year and why it was not included in the original package, given the importance of consistency for this group of people.12:59:002929Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The government does not believe there is anything unfair in what we are doing with Austudy payment. Despite the quotations that Senator Margetts used from what I have said previously in this chamber, she was referring to what I have said about treating young people under the age of 25 consistently. Of course that is on the youth allowance and that is exactly what we have done.In this amendment we are now talking about people who are studying, who are of any age over the age of 25 and in different circumstances in their lives. We are not talking here about encouraging young people under 25 to be students rather than be unemployed; we are talking about adults who have been financially independent for some time.Our primary purpose when we put together the youth allowance package was to standardise as much as possible the various payments going to young people aged between 16 and 25—as Senator Margetts would know very well—to get rid of those disincentives to study and, of course, to stop young people falling between the cracks.So a fundamental part of those reforms had to be providing rent assistance to students for the very first time, and providing pharmaceutical and remote area allowances. Then, when looking at those who were older, the intention was that we would be bringing in the new Austudy payment as a social security payment, but otherwise it would be as similar as possible to the existing Austudy. The intention was that those over the age of 25 would, in the main, neither be winners nor losers from the Austudy payment. So we have maintained the status quo.I have not heard Senator Margetts in this chamber in the years she has been here—and she can correct me if I am wrong—claim that those students should be receiving rent assistance. It is suddenly a new-found interest.Students over 25 are not losing a cent as a result of the changes to Austudy payment. There is no imperative to pay rent assistance in those cases. Senator Bartlett quite sensibly asked: what is the cost? I do not think Senator Margetts bothers about the cost, but perhaps Senator Bartlett is more concerned. I am advised that the outlay would be $25 million in the first year and then $11 million over each of the following years. So the Greens amendment would cost $60 million over four years, giving older students a benefit they do not currently receive.We have maintained a view that the status quo for older students should remain and that is what we have largely delivered here.13:02:002930Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Senator Newman said I could correct her if she was wrong: she is wrong. Consistently the Greens (WA) have been calling for rent assistance for students based on need. To draw an artificial line and say, `These students under a certain age somehow or other should get it, and these students who happen to start their course at a different age should not get it,' has never been the position of Greens (WA).If Senator Newman can find a press release or anything that I have put out asking for there to be a distinction based simply on age I would happy to see it. Basically, I do not know too many people who have been as consistent in calling for rent assistance for students who need it; we have been asking for that for years.Senator Newman invented the youth allowance and our calls for rent assistance for students have been going on for certainly as long as I have been a senator. Our call has never been to distinguish between one group of students who need it and another group of students who still need it but who were simply born in a different month.13:03:002930Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I want to say something briefly, not so much in relation to what the Greens have said here in the chamber as to a press release issued during the last week or so in which it was alleged that the non-availability of rental assistance to those over 25 was in fact a reduction in the benefit they presently received. I think the term used was `cut'.This is not a change to a benefit that currently exists for students over the age of 25. They do not presently receive rent assistance. Certainly, if it were the cutting of a benefit that students presently receive, the opposition would be strongly opposing it. But that is not the case. The amendment moved by the Greens does not preserve a benefit that is currently received by that group of people. That really puts the situation in a very different light.I am always sympathetic to the plight of students in terms of their income levels. It is often a very difficult time financially although it may be a pleasant time in other ways. The opposition feels that we are not able at this time to substantially extend benefits through this bill. Any decisions about extension of benefits would be made in the context of our overall policy objectives and would be announced as a total education policy package as part of the opposition's bill, and not in this ad hoc way.13:05:002931Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The problem of course has been that the way the whole issue of the student youth allowance and student rent assistance was packaged was in fact a trade-off. The benefit, or the carrot at the end of the stick, was the rent assistance, but we all knew that there were other trade-offs.We had this debate. We looked at the impact for younger people and saw that the government was arguing that as long as it provided this rent assistance then the other things that were happening in terms of the program itself—including the cuts to education funding, the extra costs involved in education and so on—would be compensated. The increasing education costs, such as user pays, extra fees and so on, still exist for students over that age.In reality we all know that the government have been arguing that to compensate for all these other things that they have done to reduce their bottom line—and not just this year, but in previous years—the big trade-off or the great, magnificent and magnanimous gesture, was student rent assistance. If you are an older student you are still going to be hit with a lot of user-pays charges.Honourable senators will remember the arguments last year that these things had to happen because of the budget black hole. I think Labor should get up and argue now that, because of all those other cuts and increases in expenses for students, the reality is that it makes no logical sense not to extend that benefit to older students. Nobody has given them extra to assist them with the extra fees that they have to pay like anyone else.The reality is that those budget cuts were the ones that have taken place over the last few years and this was going to be the reward; this was going to make up for all those other cuts to the education budget that have occurred and that have enabled the big tax give-back that is likely to occur. But no: instead of dealing with the actual justice of the situation—of what is fair and what is not and what people are actually going to have to live on in that situation—they are making artificial distinctions, and that position from the ALP is disappointing. I believe that there were a number of people who contacted the ALP in relation to this—and so they should, because it is a matter one should judge on justice. I believe that $60 million over four years is the very least the government can do to redress some of the problems that have occurred in education. There are very good reasons for that if there are that many people above the age of 25 who are in higher education—and remember that education is a benefit and not a cost to the community.I find it quite extraordinary what is being said here. A lot of the arguments that we give here are numbers benefits: `There are only this many,' or `There are too many.' One would think that what we should be dealing with in terms of the effectiveness of spending the community's money—public money; it is not money that belongs to the government—is how we effectively use the resources that are available to reduce the burdens that have been placed on them over time, especially over the last couple of years. So I think the logic is lost. In reality it means that that group of people do not have that sweetener, that carrot, to make up for all those other things that have occurred to them over the last couple of years.13:09:002931Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I want to ask the minister a question in order to get the information on the record and to flesh out some of the details we have been talking about. We have had a dollar figure for the cost; perhaps we could transform the dollars into actual people. How many students are expected to be in this Austudy payment category next year and in subsequent years? How many students were cut off Austudy or had reduced benefits as a result of the raising of the age of independence to 25—that is, what was the overall amount of money that this cut from the Austudy budget?13:10:002931Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—While I am waiting on information from the officials on the first question, I can say to Senator Bartlett that I am not able to give him the answer to his second question because it relates to a couple of years ago when the age limit for Austudy was changed. I was not the minister responsible for Austudy then; it has only now come into my portfolio, as you would know. So we do not have that here.13:11:002932Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to make one further point. I would expect to get that information at some time. Part of the issue relates to raising the age of independence and to some of the other aspects that Senator Margetts has been talking about. We have had a lot of cuts from the budget funds available to students, and it would not be inappropriate for some of that money to come back towards providing equal treatment for people. I am not sure what the precise change in circumstances is when people turn 25 so that those issues of having a disincentive to study which the minister has rightly addressed in terms of younger people should not also be applicable to people once they turn 25. There has been a lot of commentary these days about the importance of people being able to re-skill themselves. I think that that is an issue that applies to people of any age, not just in the earlier stages of their life.It is also important to emphasise that it is not simply a matter of consistency for the sake of consistency or of throwing $60 million at a certain group of people over four years because it looks nice. It is an issue of a basic amount for people to live on. It is probably appropriate to remind senators of the figures in relation to the poverty line. As my colleague Senator Stott Despoja has mentioned already in this debate, the Melbourne Economic and Social Research Institute set the poverty line, as at December last year, for a single person, including housing, at a little over $200 a week. At that time the unemployment benefit was $160.75 a week. Average rent assistance available to these people was $37 a week and that brought the total benefits available to an unemployed adult to a couple of dollars below the poverty line.However, those students who are in the situation that these amendments relate to will not have access to rent assistance; we will be leaving them in a situation where they will be significantly below the poverty line. And that is the basic issue here. That is a benchmark that we should continually refer to when looking at what people have available to them to enable them to live. We are trying to encourage people to access education and increase their skills to be able to make a more effective economic and social contribution to our community, but we are putting them in a situation where they are significantly below the poverty line. That is a situation that the Democrats believe is far from acceptable. We urge other parties to examine that in the context of these amendments proposed by the Greens (WA) and the Democrats.13:14:002932Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The figures that I have received, and the minister may correct me if I am wrong, indicate that something like 43,000 students are likely to be impacted by this level of discrimination. The minister is shaking her head so perhaps she might like to enlighten us as to what the figure will be.13:14:002932Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I understand that the 43,000 figure that you might have is because there are people who may have been included in that figure who would be getting rent assistance through family payments and suchlike, so it is not as clear-cut as you had.I am advised that the answer to Senator Bartlett is that the cost of extending rent assistance to students over 25 would be about $25 million in the first year, as I said, that is, 28,600 customers, declining to about $11 million in outgoing years as the Austudy population decreases. You have then got 10,400 customers per year because the youth allowance students who subsequently turn 25 will remain on youth allowance entitlements until they finish their course. I would not want it to be misread as somehow there are a whole lot of people who are going to drop out. It is a question of people who were on youth allowance at the age of 25 who will remain on youth allowance. The financial position of those who are currently getting Austudy and are over 25 will not change, and that means 28,600 would be the people who would cause a $25 million extra cost in the first year.13:16:002933Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Could the minister explain this to me: if recipients of student allowance and rent assistance or not are customers, especially the ones who miss out, what are they actually customers of in terms of government services here? Is this just another ridiculous piece of jargon that has been thrown in, or is there some note that says that every time you talk about people who do not have anything else to live on you call them customers to make it seem as if they are actually able to purchase this service?13:16:002933Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I want to clarify what the minister was trying to explain there in relation to the question I asked. I guess it is pleasing to see that the number of students affected will be fewer than the 43,000 that Senator Margetts was suggesting, and also that the number affected will be reduced beyond the first year. Minister, from the way you explained it there, and it was my understanding, that would therefore mean that students who do turn 25 while still completing their course would remain on that youth allowance rate. So you will actually have two groups of people of the same age in the same circumstances studying the same course and, depending on whether they started at over 25 or under 25, they will be receiving different rates of pay. Is that right?13:17:002933Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Sorry, I did not actually hear the minister's answer there.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—I just shook my head.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The minister said no.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Fine. Shaking the head does not actually show up in Hansard , so is she saying no, that is not true, or is she saying no? Perhaps some explanation would be good.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—Yes.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Would there be a situation where one person who started their course at a different age but is in fact the same age as someone else is likely to be receiving a different rate of Austudy? It is now a yes shake. Perhaps a little more detail would be good. Question put: That the request (Senator Margetts's ) be agreed to.13:22:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)8Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Woodley, J.55Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. *Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.13:26:002933Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The next item on the running sheet was in relation to schedule 1, item 7, and that was our request No. 4 on sheet 979. This is the one I referred to earlier on, both in my presentation during the second reading debate and at the beginning, as my `break glass in case of emergency' amendment. It related to another alternative in case there was no support for the maximum basic rate of Austudy payments. Given that there was support for our preferred position, which was the preferred position of the majority of the Senate, I will not be proceeding with request No. 4.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—We move on to requests Nos 6 and 7.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I seek leave to move requests Nos 6 and 7 together.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I move:(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 105 (line 7), omit "zero", substitute "$3,000".(7) Schedule 2, page 127 (after line 6), after item 51, insert:51A Point 1067G-J3 (Step 1 of the Method Statement)Omit "zero", substitute "$3,000".Greens (WA) requests Nos 6 and 7 on sheet 979 seek to address the situation of some students being worse off under the student income bank than they are under existing Austudy additional earning provisions. In particular, the amendments seek to address the situation where a person earns a significant proportion of their allowable $6,000 additional earnings in the period before their student income bank, which currently begins with a balance of zero. Considering the amount of uncertainty there is for students, of course students have to take whatever opportunities present themselves and that obviously includes the gap between when they are working and when they are studying, or from when they have left school or whatever. It does not make any sense for students not to be able to support themselves, especially when it might be difficult to find means of support during that time.If a person earns a significant proportion of their allowable $6,000 additional earnings in the period before their student income bank, which currently begins at a balance of zero, they have to wait for it to build to a sufficient level so as not to affect their payments. This does not relate much to the real world. At present the student income bank actually acts as a disincentive to students taking up work in the period before their student income bank has accrued sufficient credit. Of specific concern are those students who will be taking up work in the upcoming vacation period, this July, who may unknowingly jeopardise their payments by earning more than has accrued in their student income bank but far less than the $6,000 they are currently allowed.I would think that most people would think that this would be a good thing, students getting some experience in the world and students being able to provide a little bit in case of emergency, because we all know that the emergencies that occur in life are not necessarily ones that can be dealt with with $100 or $150. Some of them, if they are means of transport or something that happens at home or even some health issues that are not covered by health insurance and so on—and heaven knows how few students can afford health insurance—can result in a situation which is very problematical.The Greens (WA) amendment seeks to remedy this problem by starting the student income bank at $3,000 for all those who come onto the youth allowance or Austudy payments. I believe every senator could think of a situation where this should apply. It is reasonable for students to be able to work during vacations and average that out over a year, but to suggest also that they have to start from an assumed balance of zero does not make any sense whatsoever. The reality is that a lot of the income earning opportunities are very lumpy.I know from my own experience—when I was putting myself through university—work could be three hours an evening pulling beer in an English pub. I am sure there must be those in Australia who can understand that waitressing or doing other kinds of jobs accessible to students is not necessarily going to provide you with the income you need for, for example, technical equipment or just things necessary for living. I have mentioned the situation where you might get pulled over by the constabulary who measure your tyres and say, `Look, only one of your tyres actually has the right amount of tread on it. You are going to have to get three new tyres,' and so on. These are not extraordinary kinds of expenses. It might be that someone has purchased an old car—if they have not got public transport—and suddenly the engine goes, or something else, and a major overhaul is needed.It is not reasonable to suggest that you can accept the need for students to be able to use their vacation opportunities, where they have them, to earn that little bit of fall-back income to be able to provide some of the needs that will not be covered by the student income which the government provides to—as the government calls them—customers. Those people absolutely need that assistance but may need other things from time to time. This is the normal way of life.We are not talking about large amounts of money. We are not talking about millionaires. We are not talking about people who can throw $50,000 around at the drop of a hat. We are talking about the ability of a person to be able to average out $3,000 as a starting balance. They are not cheating. They are not doing anything wrong, I argue. Simply by allowing some commonsense to prevail, you can assume that they can have up to half of the student income bank already in the bank when they start their year. I cannot understand why this would not be acceptable.13:33:002935Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—This is a problem that the opposition also recognises. With the changeover, students under 25 who were previously receiving Austudy go onto the youth allowance and those who are over 25 go onto the new form of Austudy. As part of this package of changes, there has been a transfer from a means test that previously was based on annual income to one based on a fortnightly income test. That puts it in line with many other social security payments. We have had the discussion before about the consequence of that and some of the benefits and some of the adverse effects. I will not canvass those again.But a difficulty has been created, particularly with the introduction of the income bank in the middle of the year and when many students are in the middle of a holiday period. There may well be situations in which students, because they happen to be working full-time during the holiday period, may find that they lose their Austudy or youth allowance payment for a number of weeks. Certainly we would not want to see that happen.But the remedy being proposed by the Greens is a bit of a blunt instrument. In fact, it far exceeds what is necessary to remedy this particular problem. The effect of doing what is set out in the Greens' request would be to give the capacity for students to earn virtually any sort of income for about a six-month period, and we do not believe that is appropriate in the circumstances. We are moving our own request for amendment, which I think is the last item—request No. 1—listed on sheet 986. This will have the effect of giving a credit of $3,000 only to those people who were previously on Austudy and are now either transferring to the youth allowance or the new Austudy. This remedies the existing problem while at the same time not exceeding what is required to remedy the problem of that group of people. The opposition will be opposing this request proposed by the Greens, but we will putting forward our own request in similar terms later in the debate.13:36:002935Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I indicate the Democrats' support for this amendment which probably will not get up. At least the issues that are addressed in relation to ensuring that the student income bank operates equitably are going to be addressed in a different format down the track, if with slightly less impact.13:37:002935Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—What has been described by Senator Neal obviously is a reasonable transition proposal. There would be an incredible problem if people who already have certain understandings about their ability to average out their income over a year are not told that they will miss out on any means of support for several weeks until they run whatever they have in the bank down to the level that the government says is now acceptable. That obviously is a problem—it is a problem that will not be solved even by announcing over loudspeakers or on television that it is no longer reasonable or that there is no longer any expectation that students can earn income over the Christmas holidays and so on. There is going to be a problem because not everybody will know. You will get a whole lot of very angry people lining up, assuming that they are entitled to some kind of student assistance, and not getting it.I do not think it is the answer. I think it is unjust, and it is not actually reasonable. I agree it is unjust that you should suddenly pull out the rug from under those people who come under the current scheme. But I am suggesting that for all students it is not unreasonable; it is not a blunt instrument. It does not mean, as Senator Neal suggested, that we are saying people can earn whatever they like in six months. That is not true. The rules in relation to income bank still apply.However, we are suggesting that they not be cut off from receiving student benefits simply because they have earned up to half of that student income bank before they start to study. That is the reality. Whatever scheme they come under, the problem will be that students are going to be in an extremely difficult position actually knowing that whatever they earn before they get their student assistance is going to be simply eaten up by a greedy government, in this case maybe supported by a greedy opposition, that cannot see the injustice of what has been proposed.13:39:002936Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I am disappointed because I think that Senator Margetts really did not listen to or understand at all what I was saying. Our amendment will deal exactly with that position. The difficulty is that there was an income bank previously but, because the means test was based on your annual income, you could earn a lot during holiday periods—up to $3,000—and it did not affect your capacity to receive Austudy. The means test is now based on your fortnightly income. So, if you happen to look at the most recent fortnightly period when you, as a student, may have been working full time during the holidays, you might have found that you exceeded the means test and would not receive Austudy.To remedy that unnecessary or unfair imposition, the government allowed the provision of an income bank so that, if you earned less than the income level, you could get a credit so that when you made up for that lost income—and maybe over a holiday period—you would not lose out. Because this bill is to take effect in the middle of the year—and in fact in the middle of a holiday period—most people will be starting their fortnightly income test during a period when they may well be earning quite substantial amounts of money, as students tend to do when they work full time during holiday periods. Our amendment is aimed at ensuring that students on very low incomes who had been studying earlier in the year and who, if the scheme had started on 1 January, would in fact have earned some sorts of credits, are not adversely affected just because this scheme has come into effect in the middle of the year and in the middle of a holiday period.The opposition's amendment clearly deals with that problem. Any statement by Senator Margetts that the opposition is not dealing with this problem or is acting inequitably is completely unfounded. Frankly, as a member of the opposition, I find it quite offensive that, despite my attempt to explain the position to Senator Margetts, she feels the need to state that our position is otherwise. Our view is that those students in that position should not be adversely affected and our amendment is directed to remedying it. We do not support an unfair position which gives credit to those who have not been living in circumstances where they would have otherwise received a credit.Senator Margetts is putting forward the proposal that those people who, if the scheme had started on 1 January, would not have earned any credits at all should just receive this windfall of credits notwithstanding. We will not go that far. We do not believe that Senator Margetts's amendment fairly remedies the unfair position that has been created by the government by bringing this bill into effect in the middle of the year.13:43:002937Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It might be appropriate at this time just to indicate that the government is not prepared to support Senator Margetts's amendment but is prepared to accept the amendment that will be coming later from the opposition.13:43:002937Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—We are not talking about governments giving people $3,000; we are talking about people who engage in various forms of holiday employment. It could have been working on a crayboat, it could have been picking grapes, it could have been picking strawberries. I can tell you that I have picked strawberries and it is very hard work to raise $3,000 in picking of various sorts—B36NEALSenator Neal—Apples are a lot heavier.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Right. We have all done those kinds of jobs over time. We are not talking about people who suddenly looked up to the heavens and got $3,000 necessarily dumped in their hands. We are talking about people who have paid tax, who have done the work and who have actually put together a small amount. Three thousand dollars is not a large amount of money. We are talking about a small amount of money which, as a matter of commonsense I would have thought, students put in the bank at the start of a university year in order to be able to cover any of the contingencies that may occur—and do occur.We are not talking about people being given anything—not a windfall or anything. We are talking about the injustice of having a $6,000 income bank, but having people having to draw down their savings—even if they are not up to $6,000; they are only $3,000—and being excluded from receiving assistance no matter what they were doing before that. We are talking about the ability of people to live as students. What we are trying to address here is whether or not what is being done is unfair for those people having to survive on the income that they receive, and whether or not we are creating a very silly situation—artificially silly.The student income bank is a relatively good idea. I do not think there is anyone who does not think that a student income bank is a good idea. But we are talking about whether or not it is silly to have a starting balance of zero. We are not talking about anyone giving anything—a windfall. We are talking about the ability to access the basic means of existence and the ability to average that starting from $3,000, which I believe does not mean that the person can earn over $6,000 in the year. We are saying that perhaps $3,000 of that $6,000 might already be there, which still only gives them the chance to earn $3,000 during that year. Nothing extra, no windfall, just commonsense consistent with the realities of what it takes to survive as a student on a student income.13:46:002937Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I know it is not necessary for Senator Margetts to respond to me, but I might pose a question to her. Why should someone who commences as a student at the beginning of the second semester receive a credit of $3,000? That would be the effect of your amendment.13:46:002937Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My understanding is that, if they have the ability to have $6,000 over a year, they will not be able to raise another $3,000. That will mean that for half a year—if they are only studying for half a year—they still have that $3,000 which will be averaged over that half year. There is no difference there. It just means commonsense about whether or not you make the starting balance zero, or assume that people are going to need to have that income to survive at some stage—to have to draw on their savings for something at some stage during the year.Requests not agreed to.13:47:002937Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(4) Schedule 2, page 119 (after line 28), after item 24, insert:24A At the end of section 1067BAdd:; and (f) is not 25 years or older.On the outskirts of this debate that we have had, the Senate was in agreement on the injustice of making a demarcation between living at home and living away from home for over-25s for determining the maximum rate of payment for Austudy. The rationale for agreeing to remove that injustice was consistency. Of course, that was most welcome and not only because it removed the injustice for about 1,000 people waking up to $90 less per fortnight from 1 July, but also because it recognised how ridiculous it was for those over 25 to receive a reduced amount of income because they happen to live in their elderly parents' home.Greens (WA) amendment No. 4 extends the logic of the amendments which have already been agreed to. The ALP and others have correctly argued—and the government has accepted—that, if you are 25 or over, it should make no difference whether you live at home or not. That was done for the argument of consistency. However, the amendments that have been agreed to do not address that, in the future, many students over 25 will be in receipt of youth allowance—though I always thought that was a bit odd. I do believe that perhaps an over-25-year-old is not a youth in any legal sense, but they still receive the youth allowance, not the new Austudy payment.The Senate would be aware that, if you begin study when 23 or 24, you stay on the youth allowance until you finish your course, which could be when you are 27 or 28. If the Senate wishes to be consistent—and this is what the youth allowance is supposed to be about—then those students 25 years or older who happen to be on youth allowance, should not be subject to a reduced living at home rate either. If this Senate is going to say to Austudy payment recipients, `Okay, you're 25; it doesn't matter whether you live at home or not.' it should logically and fairly extend the same argument to those over 25 who happen to be on youth allowance. As the rent assistance issue has shown, there has been far too much inconsistency with these measures. The inconsistency is usually argued on the basis of bottom line and, where it happens to be cheaper to be consistent, funnily enough, it is argued on the basis of consistency. One group of students is being granted a benefit which other students are denied, and we argue on an arbitrary basis. Let us not compound the problem on this issue. I urge all senators to support this amendment.13:51:002938Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I indicate the Democrats' support for this amendment on the grounds outlined by Senator Margetts in relation to consistency in removing the distinction between living at home and living away from home for students over the age of 25.13:51:002938Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—This is a similar position to one raised earlier. As I have said, in a situation which gives students an increase in payment when they reach the age of 25 years, the opposition will be dealing with our policy position in relation to Austudy as a whole rather than on this sort of ad hoc basis in the context of the government's program of legislation, and any increase in payments will be dealt with as part of the opposition's entire package and will be announced in the campaign context.13:52:002938Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—To the many people who are unable to listen to this debate today, I would suggest they read the Hansard . But as for those student groups and representatives who are listening, I am sure that they will not swallow what has just been said by Senator Neal.The reality is that this is still grossly unfair; it is inconsistent and illogical. If there are angry people as a result of this debate, then I guess that the Labor Party has brought it on their own head. For them to suggest or pretend they are promising that at some later date, after they are elected, they might do something and that that is the time they should act fairly does not seem to ring true. It tends to ring more of pork-barrelling than showing a commitment to fairness and equity.If there is something wrong with this bill—and we believe there is—this is the time to deal with it rather than to suggest that at some later date there might be an announcement which might deal with the issue. If it is unfair now, it should be dealt with now. This is the opportunity to deal with it.13:53:002938Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—It might well be the approach of the minor parties—the Greens, the Democrats and others—to deal with matters on an ad hoc basis, I suppose, having little stabs at legislation as it passes through the Senate. But the opposition, being a party of government, has to look at things in a different way; we have to decide our priorities in an entire program. You would understand that your position is vastly different from ours.There have been a number of places in this bill where payments have been reduced, and we have opposed it because it is unfair. But certainly we cannot, just on an ad hoc basis, give additional payments or increased payments without looking at it in the whole context.There probably will be a short period between 1 July, when this bill comes into effect, and the election, but I suspect it will be a very, very short period—less than six weeks. I believe that a better public policy position is to announce the program for Austudy and education as a whole rather than doing it this way. But, of course, being a minor party, that is the only option you have.13:54:002939Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—What an advantage not to have such a thin hide. I find it interesting that the same argument is being used on this inconsistency as has been used on a number of the gay and lesbian issues that have been brought up in terms of actual rationality and fairness. Any time we have chosen to amend a bill on the basis of commonsense and what potentially is, I would think, the policies of the Labor Party—that is, to provide for reasonable education opportunities, equity and fairness, and so on—somehow or another, amending a bill, in context, is ad hoc. That is a very interesting argument. I would think suggesting that some time later in the future there might be a pork barrel offered is an ad hoc approach to education.This is amending a bill in context, based on what the community is saying to you, what the student groups are saying to you. If that is ad hoc, that is a very odd idea of what is out of context. It seems to me that simply throwing around promises at election is a very ad hoc way of approaching education fairness. It is something either you believe in or you do not believe in. You have to worry about what is likely to happen if Labor get back into power—that they suggest they can only change that policy if they happen to get back into power.I am very concerned about that whole issue. It seems that that excuse will be used again and again—`Look, we might be fair at some stage,' and `Maybe if we get into government,' and `Some other time, some other generation.' That seems to me to be an ad hoc approach. Either one believes in fairness and equity or one does not—and it seems to me that in the Labor Party's case the answer is not.13:56:002939Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—As this bill has been around in this chamber for some weeks now, I would just make it clear that the government will not be opposing the next three amendments. So there is some possibility of completing the committee stage before 2 o'clock, if we really get our running shoes on.13:57:002939Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I have to say that I would love to cooperate with the minister but, in light of the provocation I have received from Senator Margetts, I feel it is necessary to say something. This sort of view that, if you announce your education policy as a whole, somehow it is pork-barrelling is quite an extraordinary proposition. It may well be that a minor party can deal with matters in this way because they do not have to look at the entire context; they are in a much easier position. But, as a potential government, the opposition has to look at it as a whole plan.Senator Faulkner interjecting—B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—Exactly. Our education policy will be announced as a whole, and we will have costed it. We will not get out there and just irresponsibly promise anything, because we cannot do that. We have to make it add up in the long run. You may be able to do that, but certainly we cannot allow that situation to come about.We will be announcing a total education policy. It will be costed. It will contain detailed expenditure promises. And it will be balanced against all the other areas we have an interest in—health, child care, family services, employment. All those things will be taken into account. It will be dealt with in that comprehensive fashion at the appropriate time.13:59:002940Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In the one minute available to me, I would ask for clarification. I think it is important for future reference that, when we get back to this bill—and given that the Democrats obviously will be moving many amendments—Senator Neal, representing the Labor Party on social security issues, give us a little clearer definition of what exactly is `ad hoc'. Perhaps she could also explain how it is that, when we actually move amendments to try to ensure consistency in a piece of legislation that addresses people throughout the country, somehow or other that is an ad hoc thing. Perhaps she could elaborate on that for us. I am sure that, the next time you want to move amendments in an attempt to improve the situation for somebody, you will need to know whether or not those amendments from your perspective also are ad hoc.13:59:002940Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I realise that I only have about 30 seconds available. I think the reality is: what has been ad hoc in recent times are vague statements in relation to tax handbacks for middle and low income people—those people who have deserved it or earned it supposedly by working; and one can only read from that, as opposed to those people who have not deserved or earned some special benefits or assistance. It seems to me what we are hearing is saving money for some sort of tax handout.Progress reported.Miscellaneous29402940The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—From 13 to 15 May this year the third national schools constitutional convention met in Canberra—over 120 students from 110 schools. I attended their final session and accepted from them the communique prepared by them and a photograph of Parliament House bearing all of their signatures. I propose to table the photograph and signatures and have the communique incorporated in Hansard so senators are able to see it.The communique read as follows—NATIONAL SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION13-15 May 1998, Old Parliament House CanberraCOMMUNIQUEThe third National Schools Constitutional Convention was held in the Senate Chamber, Old Parliament House, Canberra on 13-15 May 1998.One hundred and twenty student delegates from 110 schools from all Australian states and territories took part in the Convention organised by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation.The Schools Constitutional Conventions are a project of the Foundation to promote understanding and informed discussion amongst young Australians about the Australian Constitution and system of government. Student delegates from every Australian school in the catholic, government and independent education sectors are given the opportunity to participate in regional and state/territory schools constitutional conventions, where they are either selected or elected to attend the National Convention.The Convention was opened by Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison, Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. Convention sessions were chaired by Professor Cheryl Saunders, Deputy Chair of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. Other speakers included: His Excellency Dr. Bhadra Ranchod, South African High Commissioner, Ms Tan Le. Young Australian of the Year 1998, journalist David Marr and His Excellency Mr Dominique Girard, Ambassador to France.Student delegates were addressed by His Excellency the Honourable Sir William Deane, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia at a welcome reception at Government House. As part of the Convention program, delegates attended Question Time in the House of Representatives and met with the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament at afternoon tea.The ACT Minister for Education and Training, Mr. Bill Stefaniak, welcomed the students to Canberra at an evening function at the National Science and Technology Centre.Students were also addressed by Justice Kenneth Hayne at the convention dinner at the High Court of Australia.Assistance for the Convention was provided by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, with sponsorship from the National Council for the Centenary of Federation and BHP.The Convention delegates discussed two issues: . The Constitutional Preamble. CitizenshipThe conclusions of the Convention on these issues were:1. CITIZENSHIP. That the Australian constitution should recognise Australian citizenship.. That the constitution should give citizens the following rights: - the right to vote - the right to stand for elected office - the right to free elections (except as necessary under the rule of law). The constitution should allow people with dual citizenship to stand for Parliament unless there is a conflict of interest. That parliament should determine what is a conflict of interest. The reference to `subjects of the Queen' in section 117 of the Australian constitution should be changed to `citizens and permanent residents'2. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREAMBLE. The Australian Constitution should have its own preamble. A new preamble should be drafted but that it should incorporate elements of the old preamble. The Constitutional preamble should begin with `We the people of Australia'The preamble should also include reference to:. origins of the Constitution. evolution of the Commonwealth into an independent democratic and sovereign nation under the crown. democratic ideals. the rule of law. recognition of the original occupancy and custodianship of Australia by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. Australia's cultural diversity. respect for the unique land and environment. If Australia agrees to become a republic, the preamble should refer to the agreement of Australians to reconstitute their system of government as a republic. ongoing consideration of constitutional change. care should be taken to draft the preamble in such a way that limits the implication for interpretation of the constitution. the preamble should be written in plain english That the Australian government undertake an education campaign to inform Australians about civic responsibilities and constitutional issues.Questions Without Notice294129412941Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services. What progress is the government making towards achieving its pre-election promise to the Australian people that 40 per cent of the population would be in private health insurance by the year 2000?2941Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—As Senator Reynolds knows, the biggest fall that ever occurred in the history of private health insurance was under the Labor Party. It fell from 70 per cent to less than 40 per cent. We inherited that. After 13 years of Labor's attacking the private health insurance industry, deliberately trying to get rid of it so that everybody was dependent on the public hospital system, we instituted, as Senator Reynolds would know, a subsidy system for private health insurance. It was always claimed that it would slow down—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It's still going down!VW4Senator HERRON—It has slowed down the fall in private health insurance. I can tell you, Senator Sherry, that Senator Reynolds is probably totally ignorant of the fact that it has plateaued at about 30 per cent in her own state of Queensland—for 13 years it has plateaued. I confidently expect that it will plateau at a level which is acceptable to the public at the time. Just imagine what it would be like if we had not subsidised private health insurance. It would be about zero now under the Labor Party policies we inherited. We inherited those policies and we are trying to fix them, Senator Reynolds. We will fix them.One of the things we cannot fix is the rapidly ageing population. Senator Sherry will have to do something about it. There are 1.8 children born for every woman in the country and we have got a rapidly ageing population. We have to do something. We cannot be held responsible for the rapidly ageing population and certainly I cannot personally be held responsible. But the fact of the matter is that we have got a rapidly ageing population, we have increasing technology and increasing cost. When people go to private hospitals they have a problem with the increasing cost of that hospitalisation, so it becomes immensely expensive. We are attacking the problem in a way which will ensure that people will be helped to obtain private health insurance. It is not as good as we had hoped, but we are certainly attempting to do something about the problem; whereas the Labor Party, at the time they were in power, intentionally tried to destroy the private health system.2942Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, thank you for acknowledging that there is a problem and thank you for giving the Senate your commitment that your government will fix the problem. But does your government stand by its promise that 40 per cent of Australians will be in private health insurance by the year 2000?2942Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—We would like to go better than that; we would like to bring it back to a system where as many people as possible who can afford private health insurance have it. We brought in the surcharge for people on high incomes, like all those senators on the other side, who did not take out private health insurance. It is no wonder they are squirming because if they did not take out private health insurance they will be penalised. We brought that in. We believe that the mechanisms that we are instituting with that original subsidy, and other mechanisms that are being considered at present, will mean that more people will be in. Senator Reynolds may have a crystal ball but I have not. I cannot tell you what percentage of people are going to be privately insured in any era in the future but it is in the interests of the public hospital system that more people be privately insured because as all the state premiers will tell you—(Time expired)29422942Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. On the eve of National Reconciliation Week, will the minister outline the government's achievements in indigenous affairs, particularly the significant initiatives in health, housing, education and economic development? Will the minister comment on how this record contrasts with the Labor Party's dismal record of failure in this critical area?2942Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Eggleston for the question. Being a medical practitioner, he is aware of the significant health problems that we inherited when we came into government. This government has taken a practical and responsible approach to indigenous affairs. We have introduced stringent accountability measures to ensure the large amounts of government funding targeted to indigenous programs are being spent properly. We have focused on priority areas of health, housing, education, employment and economic development. This government is about achievable outcomes. We are working to improve the circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, an opportunity that was squandered by 13 years of Labor government.Within our first 2½ years, for example, we have opened an extra 35 new health service centres in remote areas. We sent the army in to communities which desperately required urgent action to services to provide basic essentials such as clean drinking water, housing, health care, sewage treatment, roads and airstrips. Madam President, you would remember when former Senator Richardson was the Minister for Health he appeared on the Sunday program going up to Wallaby camp, outside Katherine, to turn on a tap! I am pleased to relate we have turned lots of taps on in the last 2½ years, unlike the Labor Party and the great grandstanding that went on. We are on about practical things.Already these initiatives have created practical improvements in the lives of many of this nation's most disadvantaged. Over the next four years the government will spend an extra $73 million to assist in improving primary health care to indigenous Australians. We have boosted funding to indigenous businesses and we have released a discussion paper which addresses helping indigenous Australians become economically independent. This would help improve self-esteem and help to remove the welfare shackles which Labor encouraged under a regime of handouts; a regime without accountability and without measured outcomes.B36NEALSenator Neal—Oh, come on!VW4Senator HERRON—Quite correct, Senator Neal: without measured outcomes. We are also providing seed funding training and other support. We are making a difference and we have achieved this in our first term.But there is more work to be done. In 1998-99, $387 million will be spent on indigenous specific housing and infrastructure programs. Again, the army initiative—which was condemned by the opposition; they said it was paternalistic, if you recall—is ensuring that skills in construction and ongoing maintenance are transferred to community members. This project has been very positively received by the communities involved, but their voices were not heard above the criticism of the opposition.In 1998-99 the indigenous education strategic initiatives program will receive $118½ million for literacy, numeracy and education program retention rates. There are now 9,000 indigenous university students, and 30,000 indigenous students are either doing TAFE courses or are in secondary schools. More than 4,000 indigenous Australians will commence traineeships this financial year, yet only three years ago there were 800 indigenous trainees. That is good news, and I trust the media is aware of the good news: 4,000 traineeships, 9,000 university students and 30,000 doing TAFE courses or in secondary school. There are actually 60 medical students and 24 graduate indigenous doctors in this country—great news for everybody, and particularly for the indigenous people.Labor had 13 years to address the many disadvantages facing indigenous Australians. They poured about $16,000 million into indigenous affairs without any real attempt to ensure it was producing outcomes. They made empty promises and failed to markedly improve health, housing, employment and education opportunities. As I have already said, we are making inroads into the Labor legacy but there is much more work to be done. Reconciliation week begins on Wednesday. It is an opportunity for all Australians to come together to address the many disadvantages faced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Non-indigenous and indigenous Australians have a right to be disappointed by the lack of improvement in the essential areas that I have mentioned. (Time expired)2943Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister like to further comment on reconciliation week and what the government is doing for the whole process of reconciliation?2943Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Eggleston for his supplementary question because there is a lot more that needs to be done. There needs to be far more cooperation and less political point scoring on these issues. All of us know that reconciliation has to come from the grassroots.Opposition senators interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Well may they scoff, Madam President. Their record of 13 years condemns them—well may they scoff! I want to see what they are doing about reconciliation. I urge clubs, schools and other community groups to become proactive in getting to know and understand indigenous members of the community and their cultures. There are three elements to lasting reconciliation: mutual acceptance of the importance of working together; an honest and realistic acknowledgment of injustices of the past; and a shared commitment to overcoming indigenous disadvantage and providing equality of opportunity for all Australians.29432943Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the minister aware that the Howard government has now completely alienated every group involved in health care in Australia, including patients and potential patients; clients of private health funds; health fund operators; nursing home operators; doctors, nurses and other staff; and state and territory governments which are attempting to keep the public health system afloat? Can the minister confirm that the doctors' professional association, the AMA, is now refusing to speak to the minister, Dr Wooldridge, and will only negotiate directly with the Prime Minister because of the poisonous relationship Dr Wooldridge has established with them? Isn't it time that the government admitted that the crisis in public hospitals, in private health insurance and in aged care is beyond the capacity of Minister Wooldridge, as the AMA clearly already believes?2944Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Forshaw obviously believes everything he reads in the papers. Are we going to run this government on press releases, Madam President? We certainly are not. I will have to drag out the Crowley file or the Richo file. I can tell you the same AMA fought with the government of the day—there is no question about it. I can trot out the things on which they attacked the then minister, Senator Richardson.The interesting thing about that, Madam President, is that when Senator Richardson stood down I attended a talk that he gave. I would be very happy to relate what was in that talk where he said the truth was out: `I will now speak what I believe to be the truth, and that is that we were responsible'—`we' the Labor Party—`for the downgrading of private health insurance,' and where the Prime Minister skited about the fact that he had no private health insurance.Also, it is history that organisations such as the AMA attack the government. They are like all organisations—they want more. They want more recognition. The state health ministers are the same—they want more funding. As you know, the health agreement has been signed by the Queensland and ACT governments because those two governments recognise the significance of the agreement.Specifically in relation to the allegations that that newspaper made, I will get the minister to find out the facts of the matter and respond to the question. The newspaper also mentioned a meeting with officials of the department—as is their right. As to whether there is anything to that allegation, I will get a response from the minister.2944Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is interesting to note that apparently the minister does not even read newspapers, let alone press releases or indeed the specific comments of the representatives of the AMA. Along with the AMA and the various other organisations involved in health care that I have referred to in my question, we now even have ministers, colleagues of Dr Wooldridge, expressing their concern. Minister, when will the Howard government respond to Minister Newman's call to `do more on health'? Minister, does not Senator Newman's comment, together with those from the Treasurer, Mr Costello, and from all the state coalition health ministers clearly indicate that even coalition colleagues are very unhappy with Minister Wooldridge's performance in the health portfolio?2944Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—All of us on this side are concerned about the health care system of this country, as I have stated already. I know that Senator Newman is, Senator Alston is and I am. We are all in private health insurance and we recognise the problems that are related to that. I am sure that all his ministerial colleagues support Dr Wooldridge. He is doing a great job. He is attempting to fix up the problems that we inherited. The Labor Party cannot blame us after two years in government and after inheriting the shambles that has occurred in the health system. Even Senator Forshaw would know that to change the health system of this country requires a considerable amount of time to redress the problems that existed prior to our coming into government. As to his specific statement, I think it does not have any credence whatsoever. As I said in my previous answer, I will ask the minister for his response.29442944Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Following the renewed court action initiated by this government to seize Mr Christopher Skase's assets, the cancelled passport of this fugitive businessman has been returned to the Australian government by Spanish authorities. Will the minister outline to the Senate the consequences of this action by the Spanish government? How do the actions of the coalition compare with those of the former Labor government?2945Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—As Senator Abetz indicates, Mr Skase's cancelled Australian passport has been returned to Australian authorities. The return of that passport follows representations made by this government to the Spanish government. It was understood that Mr Skase would have to submit a passport when applying for the renewal of his residency permit in Spain, and we understand that his residency permit expired on 13 May. In expectation of the possibility that Mr Skase would nonetheless put his cancelled passport in as a means of seeking to apply for an extension of his residency permit, we asked Spanish authorities, should that happen, to seize the passport and return it to us. Spanish authorities complied with that request, and the Australian government is grateful for that cooperation from them.We have asked the Spanish authorities to refuse Mr Skase's application to renew his residency permit, and Spain is still considering that request. The confiscation of the passport does make life more difficult for Mr Skase. He may find it more difficult to renew his Spanish residency, unless he has a passport from another country—that is, unless in the meantime he has managed to acquire dual citizenship or manages to produce illegal documents that are not spotted as being illegal documents. However, whether we can renew his Spanish residency is a matter for the Spanish authorities, and we await their decision. No-one should be under the misunderstanding that this means Mr Skase will return to Australia. It does not mean that, but it does make it very difficult for him to stay in Spain, and it makes it more difficult for him to travel elsewhere.There have been reports that Mr Skase can nonetheless travel freely in the European Union without a valid Australian passport. The practicality of that may be true; the legality might be otherwise. There are European countries that require visas from some nations and not from others. In order to demonstrate that you do not need a visa, you may need a passport—to demonstrate that, for example, you are an Australian, for example, and therefore do not need a visa. Mr Skase is no longer in possession of such a passport, and that could create a significant difficulty for him. Equally, with his Spanish residency now in doubt, that may make travel through Europe even more difficult. If Mr Skase chooses to travel out of Spain, where he now rests comfortably in the knowledge that Labor failed in the extradition process and that that extradition process cannot be renewed, it would give us an opportunity to try an extradition process from another country. We would look forward to his travelling out of Spain.The comparison with Labor is fairly clear. The coalition government continues to show a commitment to doing all it can to secure Skase's return to face trial on serious corporate crime charges. We have renewed court action to seize Skase's assets. We have had Skase's passport both cancelled and returned to Australia. In comparison, under Labor Skase was allowed to leave Australia. They failed in their attempt to extradite him back from Spain. They even renewed his passport while he was living in Spain. Labor in opposition has obstructed our attempts to secure the assets. This is the passport that Labor renewed. This is the passport they failed to cancel. This is the passport we cancelled. This is the passport we have had returned.29452945Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Can the minister confirm that Centrelink is causing long delays in transferring the existing unemployed to the new job agencies? Is it not a fact that the job agencies cannot claim payments from the government without referrals of the jobless? Is the minister aware that, as a consequence of the delays being caused by Centrelink, some of the new job agencies are becoming cash strapped to the point of not being able to cover their interest payments? What action is the minister taking to overcome these problems?2945Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I have seen reports of these claims. I do not have any information that that is the truth, and I would be happy to get a more detailed response. The minister, Dr Kemp, has not expressed concerns about this matter to me and I will certainly take it up and get more information if it is available.2946Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister taking this on notice to provide the Senate with more detailed information, but what guarantees can the minister give, especially given the nature of the response today, that these delays will be overcome quickly?2946Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I will ask the Centrelink CEO to give me information and her assurances.29462946Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill. Minister, this year you announced that gill netting would be banned in several new dugong sanctuaries along the Australian coast to save this declining species from extinction.Is it true, as revealed on the ABC's Quantum program, that, between the announcement and the establishment of these sanctuaries, you intervened to water down protection of the dugong after heavy pressure from the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation? Is it true that dugong sanctuaries are now so small they will not allow the dugong population to recover? Given that the decision to reduce the dugong sanctuaries was not supported by science, will you admit your decision was political and that you have failed in your duty as Minister for the Environment?2946Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—This is an extraordinary question. Senator Woodley could perhaps have prefaced it by saying, `I congratulate the government on being the first government in the world to put in place dugong protection areas—a set of areas to protect dugong. No other government in the world has taken that initiative, Senator Woodley. You may also have made mention, in such a preface to the question, that it is a matter of regret that in 13 years of Labor in government, when the significant decline in dugong numbers occurred in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef, Labor did nothing about it at all.Shortly after we came to government, it was put to me that the numbers of dugong in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef were seriously declining; so much as to put the existence of the species in that part of the reef in jeopardy. Picking up on another point, I point out that there is no question that the dugong is facing extinction per se, but in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef, which extends over something like 1,800 kilometres, numbers have declined significantly.I believe—and I am reading what was put before me—that we should take action to preserve the animal in that area. We took the best scientific advice that we could. We set in place these dugong protected areas and we paid compensation to fishermen who have been forced out of business in relation to certain gill net fishing. We believe, on the best advice available to us, that it has given the species its greatest chance of survival in that region.The honourable senator should also be aware that gill netting is only one of the activities that prejudices dugong. Other matters that concern them are, obviously, pollutants washing offshore and significant natural events. If Senator Woodley is interested in this matter, he would know that, in some of the areas of significant decline, it has occurred after major natural events that have had a detrimental effect upon the seagrasses. They are also affected by boat strikes and we have taken certain action in that regard as well. In other words, we have sought to look at the range of activities that detrimentally affect the dugong and we have introduced restraint in one of the key areas in which we believe we can influence a better outcome and that is, as the honourable senator has said, in relation to gill netting.We are very pleased that not only were we able to take up this initiative, but also we were able to put it into action within a very short period of time. In the end, we were able to get the support of the Queensland government—which is important for enforcement reasons—and to largely get the support of the fishing industry, even though it was going to put some of their own members out of business. Nobody, including the fishing industry, wants to destroy the dugong, and we very much appreciated the cooperation we got from the industry in the end. The government is very proud of this initiative that it took in marine conservation and it represents world leadership in this area of marine conservation.2947Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, as a matter of fact, I did congratulate you when you announced the program. The disappointment came later, when I discovered how ineffectual it was going to be. Do you agree that the Minister for the Environment making a decision that is detrimental to the environment after pressure from an industry group gives the impression of undue influence? If you did not allow yourself to be unduly influenced, will you table the scientific evidence that your decision to reduce the dugong sanctuaries was in the best interests of the endangered species you are responsible for protecting?2947Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—It was not an issue of reducing the dugong sanctuaries; it was an issue of working out, with our scientific advisers—who were the best we could find in the country—and some international advice as well, the most effective way to contribute to the survival and recovery of this particular species in that area. It is in relation to their advice that we have so acted, and we are confident that what we have put in place gives the species the best opportunity not only to survive, but also, as I have said, to recover. We are very pleased with that particular initiative in marine conservation.29472947Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister endorse the comments of Peter Storey, the head of Employment National, in a recent staff circular when he effectively accused community groups of unnecessarily griping about the start-up problems of Job Network and of trying to `sabotage Employment National'? Minister, on exactly how many days, since the official start-up date of Employment National, have there been no computer breakdowns, no communications hitches and no job seeker or employer told to pay up-front fees for services that were previously free? Just how have community group concerns about the operations of Employment National produced these useless computers, dead telephones and desperately disappointed job seekers? Aren't these the real problems with Employment National, not the concerns being expressed by community groups?2947Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The concerns expressed by Senator Mackay are totally unfounded. On day one there were computer program problems and they have since been sorted out. We have increased greatly the number of sites available for job seekers to go to and look for work. In fact, 310 organisations have replaced the CES.Senator Carr interjecting—9X5Senator ELLISON—I would like to correct the opposition—especially Senator Carr—in relation to this matter: Employment National did not replace the CES; 310 organisations did, and that is the added resource that job seekers in Australia have today. This is the revolution that we have offered to job seekers in Australia; a greatly enhanced opportunity to look for work. In fact, we have now assessed more than 200,000 thousand people in relation to intensive assistance.As Senator Mackay would know, we are targeting the most essential part of the unemployed work force. These people have been unemployed for a period of time and suffered disadvantage. We are processing these people very well through Centrelink and through the other providers who are handling those people. We have three systems in place; job matching, job search assistance and intensive assistance for those long-term unemployed.The opposition does not want to look at the fact that we have reduced unemployment to a level below eight per cent for the first time since 1990, and that is great news indeed.Jobs growth is on the rise, and we have in place a system which will give job seekers a much better chance of finding work.2947Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I invite the minister to (a), try to find his local Employment National office, and (b), try to place a call to them; it is very difficult. Can the minister advise the Senate how many employers, particularly small business employers, have given up using Employment National altogether because of the prohibitively expensive fees ranging from $300 to $2,000 that Employment National is charging for services previously provided at no cost by the CES?2948Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I mentioned earlier that there are some 310 organisations involved in this exercise and some might choose to charge a fee, others not. It is a question of choice. It has always been open for employers to find their own workers. The CES charges fees in relation to employment plus. Fee charging in this area is nothing new. It is up to those providers as to whether they charge fees in relation to those people. For those eligible, no fee is applicable and that is part of the contract of the providers.29482948Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is directed to Treasurer. Does the government believe that investors in managed funds should be prohibited from using supervising trustees to monitor and safeguard their investments? If so, what other country in the world does this? Has the British government announced a review of financial legislation of overseas territories to prevent them from being used for investment fraud? If Australia's investors in managed funds are to be prohibited from using supervising trustees, will this leave Australia with a level of investor protection lower than presently exists in the Channel Islands, for example?2948Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In reference to Senator Harradine's question, I should make it clear that trustee companies will be able to act as a custodian of the scheme assets, as a fund manager will be able to contract with them to hold the assets. However, it is worth pointing out that the manager will not be able to contract away their responsibility for the assets to the investors. The underlying foundations of the new legislative scheme are to ensure that the manager who raises the funds from an investor is solely responsible to the investor. Madam President, this matter has been handled for a considerable time by Senator Ian Campbell, who has worked very closely with all interested parties, and a bill will shortly be coming before the Senate to deal with this matter.It is worth pointing out that the government has accepted the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee, which recommended the move to a regulatory regime where there was a single responsible entity accountable for investors' funds. This was also endorsed by the Wallis inquiry on the Australian financial system.In developing the Managed Investments Bill—and this touches on one of the matters raised by Senator Harradine—the government has focused on providing safeguards to investors. The problem from the investors' viewpoint with the current two-party structure is that it involves divided responsibilities, leading to reduced accountability for both trustees and management companies and the shuffling of blame. This has certainly occurred in the past with a number of problems which have emerged in industry and the shuffling of blame when something goes wrong.Under the responsible entity structure, investors' interests will be enhanced by there being a simpler structure for schemes and clear duties on responsible entities.Senator Murray interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—The senator is aware—as I am, and everybody else in the chamber is—of the problems that have emerged under the previous dual structure. As I have mentioned, the government has accepted reports that this is the way to go. There has been intensive consultation by Senator Campbell with all interested parties. Again in reference to Senator Harradine's question, there will also been a new statutory right.Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—It is a bit difficult because of the abuse coming from the other side. I will repeat myself; I will not be deterred. There will also be a new statutory right for investors to take action against the responsible entity when they suffer losses from a breach of those duties.The bill's approach to reforming the regulation of the managed investments industry has been supported in a report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, and the committee recommended the passage of the bill in its current form. I will conclude by saying that the government is keen to secure early passage of the bill to remove uncertainty about the industry's future and to deliver the bill's benefits to investors in the industry.29492949Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Did the minister warn the coal industry at the recent Australian coal conference that the industry faces hard times in the wake of the Asian economic meltdown? Can he also confirm that he stated that the industry must now act to access new and emerging markets using new technologies? When the minister made these comments was he speaking as the Howard government's lame duck Minister for Resources and Energy or was he speaking as a significant personal investor in the coal industry who can regain his beneficial interest in the Jellinbah coal mine within minutes—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On a point of order, either way this question is clearly casting aspersions on Senator Parer. To describe him as a lame duck is clearly designed to reflect on his reputation. To go on further and put the proposition that he is essentially speaking as an investor in the industry is nothing more or less than a very sloppy attempt to denigrate Senator Parer rather than to elicit any useful information. The question ought to be ruled out of order on that basis.5K4Senator FAULKNER—On the point of order raised by Senator Alston: Madam President, I thought it would have been perfectly proper to describe a minister in this government, a proven lame duck, as a lame duck. I have described him as a lame duck Minister for Resources and Energy—precisely what he is.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I feel that the terms being applied do not add to the question that you are asking. You are asking a question about the minister's portfolio and it should be done without the calling of names.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Did he make these comments as Minister for Resources and Energy or as a significant personal investor in the coal industry who can regain his beneficial interest in Jellinbah coal mine within minutes of relinquishing his responsibility as minister for coal?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister should answer with respect to his portfolio interests.2949Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—We are used to the low slurs of Senator Faulkner, but I will answer the substantive question asked by him. There is no doubt that the Asian crisis has caused problems to the coal industry. It is not just the Asian financial meltdown but also some uncertainty about the future of demand created by the signing-on of the greenhouse gas emissions at the Kyoto conference. In some aspects the Asian crisis has opened up opportunities for what is our biggest export industry. One of the things we did as a government that has helped that has been the removal of the export controls. The export controls forced our major buyers overseas—whether it be Japan, Korea or Taiwan—to diversify their source of supplies to other countries. It was at some cost to those countries—particularly with a Labor government in power as they could not trust that government not to lower the boom on them in difficult times. The sole purpose of removing those controls was to say to overseas customers, `You no longer have to diversify between countries; you can now diversify within a country and that country should be Australia.' That is what we are doing to help promote the industry and in the difficult times it is encountering to improve the job opportunities within this industry.Yes, we did say that they should look at new and emerging markets. It is important for the industry from an Australian point of view to diversify its markets. We also made the point that they should participate in more energy efficiency type programs. I know that this is something that the industry itself is keen to do and is hopeful that it will get the encouragement of overseas buyers also to participate in those particular programs.2950Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister also warn at that conference of the increasing regional reliance on spot markets for coal, perhaps to the extent of 20 million tonnes a year? Is it the case that prices on the spot market are often up to $10 a tonne lower than the contract benchmark price, currently $US34.50 a tonne? Can he confirm that in 1997 Jellinbah coal was bought by his Japanese partners for $US40.37 per tonne? Isn't it the case that this price differential is unlikely to affect current and future investors in mines such as Jellinbah, whose export output is under secure contract with Japanese buyers, such as those that this lame duck minister met on his ministerial trip in October 1996?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I ask you to withdraw that description of the minister and refer to him as the Minister for Resources and Energy.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: the reason I used the terminology is that I thought you had just ruled that lame duck was not unparliamentary.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I asked you to rephrase your question without it and I ask you not to use it. It is making implications about a minister, which I believe is in contravention of the standing orders.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, if you are now ruling that lame duck is unparliamentary I will withdraw it. But, with respect, I would ask you to check in the Hansard record the fact that you have not ruled it unparliamentary previously.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I thought that it was clear from what was said earlier, and your withdrawal of it, that it was a matter withdrawn. The matter is concluded.2950Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—As regards the coal industry, Senator Faulkner would not have a clue; he has no interest in the coal industry, neither does the Labor Party, neither do they have any interest in the people who work in the industry—and that includes all the miners. If you did you would not ask such a stupid and impotent question.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections on both sides.KI4Senator PARER—As I pointed out, there is oversupply in the industry, and in this particular climate more of the companies which in the past relied very much on long-term contracts are now relying more and more on spot sales, particularly in the thermal coal market. This is coal for the power stations. It is not necessarily the case at this stage, as I understand it, for the coking coal market.29502950Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. The government is committed to providing a greater range of CDs at lower prices for Australian consumers. Is the minister aware of alternative proposals regarding CD imports, and what consequences would there be for consumers if these proposals were implemented?2950Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I thank Senator Coonan for her question. The fact is that we are very much committed to lower CD prices. Of course, the ACA agrees with us in spades. In fact, they are concerned that there is a considerable risk that prices will go up by another $2 if these amendments are not passed. That is what the consumer association says. The Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics and the ACCC have both spelt out on a number of occasions how prices will fall as a result of this approach, and Woolworth's told a Senate committee recently that our plans would lead to reductions of between 25 and 30 per cent in the retail price of CDs. Sanity made similar comments. The ACA survey indicates that, of 22 consumer organisations in Europe, Asia and America, our CDs are about $6 higher by price than world standards.It ought to be fairly clear, Madam President, that we are on the side of the angels on this one. But let me just tell you who isn't. Let me tell you who launched their anti-cheaper CDs policy yesterday: Mr Beazley. Mr Beazley started off by saying this:I'm not going to pretend to be an expert about contemporary Australian music. Not a bad start; not a bad studied insult if you really want to rub it into them in the lead-up to an election. We know he said last year he was no genius, but why do you want to tell the punters when it is getting critical? This is the opposition's policy. He went on to say:I know what it takes to set up a small business.Of course he does. He was the finance minister when he put in place record deficits. He not only set them up, he king hit them, and small business is only just starting to recover. If we look at what the policy goes on to say, we see that it says this:In government we will assist the industry by ensuring that the ban on parallel imports remains in place, but in return we will ask the major record companies to increase their production and promotion of contemporary Australian music.How cynical can you get? What an absolute joke. More than 12 months before the 1996 election, they got the industry supposedly signed up on an industry assistance package of $270 million. I have got to say that is despite the best endeavours of people like Senator Cook, who were violently opposed to this approach because they knew the record industry's track record. What happened? The record industry never delivered; they welshed. Over a 15-month period they never delivered. And to think that the ALP's policy now is to ask the record industry to increase its production and promotion. It really just shows you what a hollow charade this is. They are going to encourage local commercial radio stations to play more contemporary music, then they introduce a backdoor arrangement in terms of a quota that will actually result in less.It gets worse. They go on and pledge themselves to a contemporary music development fund, $6 million over four years. Is this in addition to or in replacement for our contemporary music development fund, which is already funding people to go offshore, and our expansion of the Playing Australia and the festivals initiatives, which again are designed to assist?This policy is really one that is demonstrating beyond doubt that the Labor Party has learned nothing from the last election. They are captive to elites. They are simply determined to ensure that one particular group does better than the rest. One thing is absolutely for sure: the ALP will get much more out of the record industry and its record profits than will contemporary music artists. All I can say in conclusion is that I have to agree entirely with Senator Schacht when he said a couple of years back:The Australian Record Industry Association, which has been conducting what I can only call a wicked campaign of misinformation about what would happen if changes to parallel imports were allowed in the record industry . . . which in my view has been putting forward some demonstrably false claims.He said it all. He does not resile from it, and I agree with him entirely. (Time expired)29512951O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Parer representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Isn't it the case that the minister has been for some time fully aware of the difficulties facing the Australian pork industry, that these conditions have deteriorated further since the beginning of this year and that in fact they are the worst Senator Ferguson, who has considerable expertise and experience in this industry, says he has seen? Why has the government been so slow in reacting to this disastrous situation, which now threatens the future of not only thousands of pork producers but also tens of thousands of Australians who depend on this industry for their jobs?2951Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Minister Anderson is acutely aware of the concerns of the pig producers regarding pork imports and the difficulties being experienced by many producers as a result of the collapse of the domestic pig meat industry over recent months. There is a strongly held view in the industry that the dramatic decline in profitability is largely caused by imports of pork from Canada, but the situation is considerably more complex. A number of significant factors have contributed to recent low pig meat prices, decreased domestic consumption and reduced and negative profitability. These include the residual effects of smallgoods scares; strong competition from low-priced beef—a phenomenon being experienced worldwide; global oversupply of pork; and relatively high feed prices as a result of the drought.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Not one pig producer believes this. Throw the brief away.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you can have your contribution later.KI4Senator PARER—The government has been conscious of the intensifying pressures on the industry for quite some time, including the potential effects of increased pig meat imports, and the government is keen to ensure the long-term viability of Australia's pig industry. One demonstration of this commitment is the establishment by the coalition government of the $10 million national pork industry development package specifically to address this challenge. This package provides an excellent opportunity for all industry sectors to work together to increase industry competitiveness and develop export market opportunities. The NPIDP complements the range of government assistance already available to all rural producers.The government has also acted on the industry's concerns regarding product labelling, with legislation presently before the parliament. Legislation to overhaul our anti-dumping countervailing system is also before the parliament—B36NEALSenator Neal—Why does it take two years?KI4Senator PARER—and the government's changes will provide a simpler, fairer and faster process for Australian industry. The interjection is, `You've known it for years.' They were in government for 13 years and did absolutely nothing, like on so many other issues.Let me point out that imports of pig meats have had an impact on domestic prices; however, their significance must be placed in context. Pork imports have been permitted since 1990 under protocols put in place by the former Labor government. I understand that the opposition's primary industry spokesman, Mr O'Keefe, is running around the bush saying that the government has ambushed the industry. This is patently untrue. All the pig meat imported to date has come in under protocols put in place by Labor. The coalition supports these protocols but let us put the lie to what the opposition is now saying.2952O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the dramatic increase in imported pig meat has been identified as a major contributor to the current state of the market, why is the minister now progressing applications to import pig meat from the United States, Mexico, South Africa and a number of EU countries before a comprehensive strategy to secure the future of this important industry has been fully implemented?2952Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The minister is aware of a media release by the Pork Council, and that is what Senator O'Brien will be talking about. He is advised by AQIS that it has not commenced the import risk analysis, as claimed by the Pork Council. AQIS has foreshadowed that an import risk analysis will be conducted and Australia has an obligation, under the World Trade Organisation rules, to deal in a timely manner with requests for access to our markets. In the case of pig meat, we have a number of longstanding applications that must be dealt with.When AQIS commences the import risk analysis it will be conducted in accordance with the process the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy announced last year. The risk analysis will consider the importation of pig meat from any source and will include assessment of all potential disease agents which may be introduced to Australia. It will be undertaken in a structured, open and transparent manner and will provide extensive opportunity for public and industry comment. The process is expected to take over 15 months. 29522952Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Does the minister acknowledge that acid sulfate soils are one of Queensland's biggest coastal environmental problems, with many millions of litres of sulfuric acid run-off? Does the minister agree with Australia's leading soil scientists that the potential environmental impacts are enormous, ranging from fish kills and diseases to loss of marine habitat and major impacts on the Great Barrier Reef? Does the minister also acknowledge that the expansion of land clearing in Queensland increases the exposure of acid sulfate soils, thus increasing the potential impact? Why has the government cut funding to the CSIRO and Australian geoscientific organisations, resulting in the loss of scientific programs which can identify and deal with those soils?2953Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I agree with much of what was stated in the question. I have said in here before that acid sulfate is a significant problem. Of course, this is not a new issue; it has been around for a very long period of time. Where we are advantaged now is that we have a better understanding of the consequences of run-off of acid sulfate. Furthermore, we also now have a better understanding as to what if not causes it at least facilitates that run-off. Clearly, particular farming practices can facilitate the run-off and it means that farming and developments along the Australian coast—and it is not just the Queensland coast, it is really all the way up the eastern coast—will need to adopt best practices to minimise if not avoid such run-off. Where the honourable senator is not correct is that we have funded and are continuing to fund a number of programs to even further develop our knowledge of the problem and, secondly, and most importantly, to encourage the adoption of practices that will minimise the ongoing risk from this particular problem.The Australian Democrats are correct in reminding us again of this particular challenge that we face in natural resource development in this country to minimise the detrimental consequences of acid sulfate run-off. We are, however, aware of that and we have in place a number of programs, and a few extra programs that were funded under the Natural Heritage Trust in this first round, to minimise the damage that is being caused.2953Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I am pleased that the minister acknowledges the extent of this problem. According to recent media reports, despite the efforts that he suggests, the problem is increasing rather than decreasing. Perhaps the minister could confirm the precise total of funding that is available to the CSIRO and other organisations to address this problem and whether that amount has increased or decreased since he became the minister, ensuring that their ability to identify, monitor and address this problem has actually been enhanced, as he suggests in his answer. Can he also indicate what contact he or his department have, and information they receive, with experts in the field and where his office does get their information from on this matter?2953Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I will put together an information package for the honourable senator. In fact, I think most of that I have provided in answers to questions on notice before, but I will get details of the programs that we are supporting, and the initiatives that we have taken in the last few years. The point is that we really do not know whether it is increasing or decreasing. We are now more aware of it simply because we are now better informed on the problem. But I will get as much of the information as I can for the honourable senator's interest.29532953Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware that last week the Prime Minister blamed the slide in the Aussie dollar on `poorly informed, economically illiterate' currency traders who could not distinguish between Australia and the rest of Asia? Is the minister also aware that the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Ted Evans, has stated that the depreciation of the dollar has been orderly and that the financial markets have in fact differentiated between Australia and Asia? Can the Assistant Treasurer tell us which one is correct?2953Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—For many years I have listened to Senator Cook make comments on a variety of issues. Senator Cook said one thing which was very wise, which is very relevant to this question. He said it was very unwise to comment on the value of the dollar, its direction or otherwise.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. I think Senator Kemp is reflecting on the Prime Minister, who did speculate on the dollar, and the value therein. 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. That is a fairly weak effort even for you, Robert. I tend to follow that principle and I will not be commenting on the value of the dollar.2954Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. How does the Minister respond to the reported comments of Miss Lisa Finstrom, the senior currency and interest rate analyst at Salomon Smith Barney in New York, that Mr Howard's comments were similar to remarks made by Dr Mahathir last year and, when coupled with what she described as `Costello's snafus', could be damaging to the government's credibility?2954Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Can I say that was a very weak follow-up. I would have thought that Senator Quirke would have shown more flair than that. But that is always the problem when you have a written follow-up—you do not bounce off the answer. I have nothing further to add to my first comments.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice2954295415:02:002954Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—On 12 May Senator Harradine asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General, some questions about legal aid for asylum seekers. I indicated that, if the Attorney had more to add, we would provide an answer. I have that answer and I seek leave incorporate it in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Senator VANSTONE : On 12 May 1998 Senator Harradine asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General, the following questions about legal aid for asylum seekers:(1) Will there be a guarantee that there will be no diminution in the amount of finds available to those asylum seekers who, on the face of it, have genuine claims and who have suffered persecution and require that sort of advice in order to negotiate the complex legal system that Australia has adopted; and(2) Is it a fact that legal aid has provided thus far 75 per cent of the subsidised advice given to those asylum seekers.Senator VANSTONE : I am advised that the answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows:(1) The Government is committed to ensuring that all asylum seekers found to be refugees are treated in accordance with Australia's international obligations under the Refugees Convention and Protocol. It is not accepted that meeting this commitment requires lawyers to assist asylum seekers with their applications.Every asylum seeker in detention will have access to assistance at Government expense to help them make an application for a protection visa. Assistance will also be provided to those protection visa applicants in the community who, due to financial hardship and other factors such as being from a non English speaking background, cultural differences, illiteracy or due to a physical or psychological disability, are unable to obtain assistance themselves. This assistance is provided under contract by registered migration agents and some legal aid commissions.The service provided is immigration advice and assistance for applications at the primary stage and the review stage. Legal aid however, continues to be available for matters where there are differences of judicial opinion which have not been settled by the Full Court of the Federal Court or the High Court, or where proceedings seek to challenge the lawfulness of detention.The changes made to the guidelines for legal aid funding in refugee matters recognises that Australia has a world class system for determining claims for Australia' s protection and that genuine refugees need only be able to relate their story to officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs or to the Refugee Review Tribunal. This is not "a complex legal system" and legal expertise is not necessary in order for applicants to present their claims for protection.(2) The figures available to us do not support Senator Harradine' s estimate. I am advised that legal aid commissions spent an estimated $1.35m on refugee matters in 1995/96. This is in addition to the $1.89m available annually to assist visa applicants eligible under the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme administered by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.The Government' s intention in introducing the new legal aid guideline is to ensure that legal aid funds are not spent on the unnecessary duplication of services already provided through the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. We accept that the new guidelines may result in legal aid commissions doing less work on refugee matters. However it is too soon to conclude that the effect will be to reduce the availability of advice services for asylum seekers.The intention of the new guideline is to enable the redistribution of scarce legal aid resources so that, from the Attorney's point of view, more legal assistance can be directed to matters of priority to the Commonwealth arising under Commonwealth law.Miscellaneous295515:03:002955Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I seek leave to make a short statement on behalf of myself and Senator Hill.Leave granted.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—On Wednesday, 13 May, the Senate agreed to a motion moved by Senator Murray for the production of various documents relating to waterfront reform. The Senate resolved that I table today, no later than 3 p.m., all copies of reports, correspondence or advice commissioned by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business on the waterfront. There are also two outstanding questions on notice from Senator O'Brien.In respect of the documents—the subject matter of these motions—I would advise the Senate as follows: the government is at present unable to release any such documents, but I am advised by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business that the government is currently working on the matter. It may or may not be in a position to provide the Senate with documents concerning the waterfront at a later date.The motion moved by Senator Murray requires a large volume of work by the departments of Transport and Regional Development and Workplace Relations and Small Business. The government is at present also required under the discovery process to provide documents to the Federal Court. I am advised by the Minister for Workplace Rela tions and Small Business that the issue of sub judice may apply and that matters awaiting adjudication before a court of law should not be brought forward in debate, motions or questions.15:05:002955Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—My understanding from the minister's remarks is not that the government have refused to provide the information requested but that they are still considering the form, manner and extent of the information that shall be provided. I, as the mover of the original return to order motion, have no objection to that material provision being delayed until later this sitting week. I would accept, as the mover, such an approach, if it was provided at a later date this week.I should indicate that I and my party, and I presume those who voted for the return to order, remain of the opinion that this is a grave matter of public interest and that the public interest would be served by the provision of such information which does not conflict with the government's duties in terms of its response to the courts. Accordingly, I would indicate to the government that the Democrats would accept provision of that material later this week.15:06:002955Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—by leave—So that Senator Murray is not under any misunderstanding: the statement which I have just read to the Senate does not indicate that the government will release certain documents but it is really only a matter of when. The statement read that the government `may or may not be in a position to provide the Senate with documents concerning the waterfront at a later date'. What Senator Murray does with that statement is a matter for him, but all it is indicating is that the government has the entire matter under review, including whether or not any documents may or may not be able to be released at a later point in time.15:07:002955Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I must say I interpret the minister's statement, and I heard most of the original statement by Senator Alston, much differently from the way Senator Murray has interpreted it. The opposition, through Senator O'Brien, a long time ago moved two returns to order for the production of documents in the Senate. Both of those found majority support amongst senators in the chamber and the government has consistently refused to comply with those orders of the Senate. Senator Murray's subsequent motion—which also found majority support within the Senate—for production of documents appears to me to have had a response that is not dissimilar to the one that was the government's approach to the first two motions that were agreed to that stood in the name of Senator O'Brien.The point needs to be made that we have a situation where well in excess of $1 million of public money has been spent on a variety of reports and consultancies in relation to the waterfront. Those consultants' fees and those reports that have been produced for government, only a small proportion of which have been made available for senators to peruse, I think ought to be quite clearly made available for the benefit of the parliament and the benefit of the public.We believe that the Australian people are entitled to see how the government has spent this money. We are very concerned about the use of taxpayers' money for what we believe is blatantly political market research, public misinformation and public relations campaigns. We believe that these consultancies, campaigns and reports ought to be made available.Of the consultants to the government on the waterfront, we have had Mr Paul Houlihan, who is a former IR specialist with the National Farmers Federation and director of P&C Stevedores, and that consultancy was $20,000. We have had two reports from ACIL Australia, and the second ACIL Australia report included a number of subcontracts. Those subcontractors involve people like Mr Mark Textor, the Liberal Party polling consultant, and Jonathan Gaul of Canberra Liaison. We have the consultancy of Dr Stephen Webster on Mr Reith's staff, that of Dr John Davies and a range of other legal and media consultancies that have been paid for by taxpayers that have obviously been fundamental in the government developing its waterfront strategy. The opposition continues to say we are entitled to sight, given their significance in relation to public policy in this country and given their significance in the development of Mr Reith's and Mr Howard's strategy on the waterfront.We do know at a minimum that at least $1,191,989 has been paid to a range of consultants for a range of consultancies that we know have been contracted by this particular government. We say that the vast majority of those that have not been made available for parliamentary and public perusal ought to be. I interpret Senator Alston's statement to the Senate very differently from Senator Murray. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, we have made it absolutely clear what our view will be. Contingent on the government's failure to provide this material, which we believe is in the public interest and in the parliament's interest—if that material is not provided—the opposition will be proceeding with its proposal to establish a select committee into why that material has not been provided and a range of other matters in relation to the waterfront dispute.15:13:002956Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—Thank you—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Oh, no!3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Thank you Madam President, and I thank the Senate, with the exception of Senator Abetz, who, I think, disagrees. Let me make it clear so that there can be no misunderstanding: what I was suggesting to the government was that we would accept a delay until later this week. We do not resile from the principle—and it has been clearly expressed by the Leader of the Opposition—that we expect, in the public interest, that as many of those documents as the government is capable of producing should be produced. The only limitation we put on that production is if, for some very good legal reason which is accepted by the Senate as a whole, those documents could not be presented because they were material to a court case.It is not our intention to interfere with the process of law. However, that cannot and must not be the situation with regard to the complete scope of those documents and those consultancies paid for by the government. We are informed—and, Minister, you can apprise us as to whether it is true—that not all consultants' documents and not all reports are subject to discovery. We believe that you should move to meet the Senate's needs as urgently and as fully as you can. We believe—and let me make it absolutely clear—that those documents must be provided this week; otherwise you leave no alternative for the Senate but to consider other means of procuring the information which it has every right to request from the government.Questions Without Notice2957295715:15:002957O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), to a question without notice asked by Senator O'Brien today, relating to the pork industry.In relation to Senator Parer's answer, I noted that he said that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) had been advised by AQIS that it had no intention of conducting a risk assessment into the importation of pork from other countries. I have in my possession a copy of an animal quarantine policy memorandum, under AQIS's letterhead, dated 18 May and under the signature of Dr Sarah Kahn, Assistant Director, Animal Quarantine Policy Branch, in which AQIS was seeking comments on a proposed approach to a review of quarantine policy on the importation of pig meat. Amongst other things, that document says:AQIS intends to conduct a quarantine import risk analysis (IRA) which will consider the importation of pig meat from any source, ie a generic IRA.The IRA will include assessment of all potential disease agents that may be introduced to Australia via the importation of pig meat, including human and animal pathogens.AQIS was seeking comment on the proposal. It is interesting that the return date for comment on that proposal was 18 June, and I am given to understand that the intention was to proceed. Senator Parer did not say that the minister had asked AQIS not to proceed, and certainly the memorandum that I have was not directed to the minister but to members of the industry, the National Farmers Federation, the EU delegation, state and territory veterinary officers, et cetera. So what we have now is that either AQIS has, prior to the closing deadline for its own memorandum, made a decision and conveyed it to the minister or it has made a quick political decision and decided that it was not politic for this matter to be in the public domain at the moment.It is of concern to the Labor Party that everyone except the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and the Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) appreciates the gravity of the situation currently facing the pork industry. The Senate does because it supported my motion on 7 April to investigate the impact of the flood of imports on domestic prices. State ministers for agriculture certainly do. They have been pressuring Mr Anderson to move quickly to protect the interests of pork producers and those who depend on that industry for their livelihoods. The Liberal and National Party backbench certainly appreciates the gravity of the situation. Members and senators know first-hand just how bad the situation is because of the pressure that is being applied in their own electorates. They had in excess of 40 people at their committee meeting a couple of weeks ago interested to hear pork producers. Even the personal staff of the Prime Minister do because they have been ringing producers direct to find out what is going on.The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy needs to understand that government action in support of the pork industry is time sensitive. Mr Anderson does not have the luxury of directing agencies to inquire into this matter at their leisure. He does not have the luxury of having the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council travelling around looking at the state of the industry and then spending weeks preparing a report that is handed to him for consideration and to then spend weeks looking at that. The intensive nature of the industry means that Mr Anderson must act, and must act now.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—What would you do? Break the protocol?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Producers have no choice but to feed their pigs and once they reach a certain weight the pigs must be sold, and you know that, Senator Ferguson. If the current prices mean that the average producers are losing, then lose they will: I am told that producers are losing around $1,200 a week. It is not like waiting for rains before you plant a crop, or holding your cattle until the price picks up, or storing your woolclip until the prices improve. I think the Senate has taken action to get the minister to do something. Unfortunately, the minister has chosen to act in a rather slow fashion; so slow that he has infuriated this industry Australia wide. My office has had a lot of calls about the problems this industry is facing. No doubt coalition senators are receiving the same sorts of calls and hence the concern of some of the coalition backbenchers because there will be pressure from their electorates. Pork producers are seeing this government as a government of inaction; a government that will not do what is necessary to give them some temporary relief, as is permitted under the GATT rules.15:20:002958Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—I think the Senate just heard a very well-prepared speech but one that was very poorly delivered by Senator O'Brien.Yes, we on the government side are receiving representations about the difficulties currently being faced by the pig industry. But you have to ask the questions: how come? And why are these difficulties being experienced? It should be remembered that, prior to 1990, Australia's quarantine protocols prohibited imports of live pigs and fresh or processed pig meat except for canned hams and some imports of fresh pork. Imports of uncooked, frozen Canadian pig meat have been permitted since July 1990.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Who allowed it in?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Ferguson asks, rhetorically: who allowed this to occur? It was the Labor Party whilst in government. It was before your time, Senator O'Brien, and so you might not have realised that what you were stumbling into was in fact a very harsh criticism of the way your former Labor government did business in relation to these matters. The problems that we are experiencing today relate quite clearly to the changes that were made during the previous regime.A lot has been said about the Canadian pig imports, and import levels are small in absolute terms. For 1996-97, for example, they represented 5.36 per cent of domestic consumption, albeit that the high value leg market represented some 27.14 per cent. So there are clearly some difficulties.Yet in recent months import levels have decreased substantially from an average of 1,065.85 tonnes per month for the December 1997 quarter to an average of 604.48 tonnes per month for the March 1998 quarter. This suggests that the current drop in pig meat prices may well be attributable to a range of factors and not solely caused by pig meat imports.Indeed, if we have a look at the other side of the equation, it is very interesting to see that, in dollar terms, pig meat exports seem to be outweighing pig meat imports. The value of exports to Japan, for example, rose from $1.7 million in 1996 to $15.2 million in 1997. But this, of course, reflected the difficulties that Taiwan was having.Further, Woolworths has recently announced that it has contracted to supply a Japanese customer with pork valued at $20 million per year; and exports to the Russian Federation have also been increasing steadily. What is more, Mr Fischer has just led a trade delegation to the Russian Federation, and representatives of the industry joined with that delegation with a view to increasing sales to the Russian Federation.In the period July 1997 to February 1998, Australian pork exports, including wild pig, were valued at $40.3 million, still in excess of the rising value of imports for the same period of $28.9 million. For the benefit of Senator O'Brien, they are figures sourced from the Australian Pork Corporation. So there are a number of issues.One issue that is of real importance in this whole debate is product labelling—something that the Labor government never got together, but which we have. We are now pursuing truth in labelling, under the Trade Practices Act, to clarify claims of product of Australia. I am sure that the Australian consumer will benefit from that legislation and, more importantly, so will the pig producers in this country.The real difficulty that Labor faces in this debate is that they are trying to make cheap political capital out of a situation which has been occasioned by the Labor Party's embrace of protocols which were entered into prior to this government coming into office.15:25:002959Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I listened very carefully to Senator Abetz, and I guess the pig council listened very carefully too—and I am sure that they are convinced there is no problem. I am sure that now they will all go away and be quite happy; they will tell their bank managers, `Look, really, you think that we're going down the tube, but Senator Abetz in the Senate has convinced us all that there's really no problem.' So there are no pig producers who are going out of production; there are no pig producers who are down on their uppers; there are no problems in Queensland or South Australia or Western Australia!However, unfortunately, the pig industry itself does not have the same view as you, Senator Abetz. I have here from the Pork Council of Australia a document which talks about the pig industry being `an industry in crisis'.Government senators interjecting—HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Let me put a few things on the record, over and against all the interjections I am getting from the other side—because they are very nervous about this debate; they are really hurting.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—When was the last time were you in a piggery?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Just a few months ago, as a matter of fact. Let me put on the record what the pork industry itself says, over and against all the good news we are getting from the other side which I am afraid nobody in the pork industry believes. You might believe it; and, Senator Ferguson, you had better go and visit the pork producers in South Australia. From what they say here in their letters to me—which I am sure you have received, Senator Ferguson—they certainly do not have the kind of confidence which is being expressed by your side.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Woodley, would you like to address the chair, please?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Certainly, Madam Deputy President, and I accept your rebuke. I did get carried away. I will watch myself.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you. Ignore the interjections, they are unruly, and address the chair.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Yes, they are, as a matter of fact; you are dead right. But I understand them, because I understand how nervous people on the other side are.Let me tell you about a phone call I had from Russell Henis. He is one of a number of pig producers who ring me and visit my office regularly. He is very angry, particularly with Tim Fischer, the Deputy Prime Minister. He is insulted by the claim made by Tim Fischer that `Imports aren't the problem,' and the comment that Mr Fischer made that `The industry had 20 years to adjust; what are they whingeing about?' That kind of response from a Deputy Prime Minister who is the Leader of the National Party is not appreciated by farmers, I can assure you.Another problem relates to one of the issues that was addressed by Senator Abetz—and the Democrats will be very keen to see the legislation on labelling when it comes into the Senate because, having had a look at it, I am quite sure that it will need an awful lot of amendment to make it of any use whatsoever. This problem is the issue of unpackaged pork, and that will not be covered by labelling laws—even though Senator O'Chee has said that it will be covered by the middle of 1998. Of course, the problem is that we have to get the Liberals and the members of the National Party to talk together, because Trish Worth has said that unpackaged pork is not a problem, that we do not have to cover it with our labelling laws.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—When did she say that?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I am quoting Russell Henis; you will have to ring him up and ask him. You should talk to the pork producers in Queensland, Senator Boswell, and they would tell you. The West Australian Pork Producers Association states:Pig farmers are angry that no reciprocal rights to trade have been made with the importing countries. Our trade negotiators seem hell bent to show the world the advantages of free trade between countries, when every country we deal with has some form of protection, whether it be subsidy on their grain they feed to their pigs, or tariffs on over quota pigmeat.Profarm Trading Propriety Limited in South Australia says:I have been astounded by the current government policies and attitude towards the pig industry, especially in relation to the importation of pig meat products. My disappointment in this government who will not implement policies to encourage people like myself to continue supporting Liberal government policies—(Time expired)15:30:002960Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—Could I just make a comment on the contribution by Senator Woodley to the debate and say to Senator Woodley through you, Madam Deputy President, that that is one of the most misleading, disgraceful explanations I have ever heard in this place. I feel very sad because I have found you a very balanced, sensible person on most of the issues.Government senators interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I have gone too far, I accept that, but that was absolutely, totally misleading. We need to look at this in its total context and in terms of the source of the problem we have today. The problem comes from the inadequate completion of the job that was started back in 1990 by the previous government. That is where the fundamental problem lies today in terms of the importation of pork into this country.There is another aspect we need to look at very carefully when we deal with this. I am sure Senator O'Brien, although his adviser may not be up to it in terms of that, is sensible enough to realise that the collapse in the beef market and the collapse of the lamb market are having a far greater impact on the price of pork today than any import into this country at this particular time.While we continue to have the current situation in Indonesia and a huge surplus of cattle in the north of this country, the pressure on all prices, whether lamb, pork or anything else, is going to be extreme for a considerable period of time. But can I deal with a couple of the issues here. It was certainly believed in terms of the GATT round and what occurred then that it was important to put some rules around agriculture. That was sought right across this country by all major political parties—I will not include some of the minor political parties in this, because they were not part of it. But the previous government fell down in three major areas. One was the emergency WTO safeguards. They can talk all they like about it, but in that process when they negotiated it, they never put in any mechanisms by which Australia could deal with these aspects.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—They bound them.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Yes, that is absolutely right, Senator Boswell. They never put in any mechanism, nor did they put in place any arrangements by which imports could be phased into this country as you opened up the trade.In particular, I want to deal with Canada. It must be recognised that, in total world terms, we export five times the amount of food we import and, with Canada, four times more meat than we import from them. Where Senator Woodley was very misleading in terms of his comments is that there is no tariff or any barriers against pork into Canada. You could export pork into Canada tomorrow, if you wanted to put things together and go and do it. Whether or not you would make any money doing it is another question. But that can be done tomorrow.The full range of the products that we are exporting to Canada through the NAFTA arrangements must also be recognised. The recent announcements on wool, for example, have been very beneficial and will be very beneficial in the future. When we look at other aspects in terms of beef, we see we have an oversupply on the domestic market in Australia right now. If we were to move to restrict pork, what do you think the Canadians would do? They would immediately restrict our beef going into Canada. What would happen from that? You would have even more beef on the domestic market and even more depression of the prices than we have now. So there has to be a bit of commonsense and rationality on this.We have to resist taking a political swipe when a much more commonsense approach to the problem needs to be adopted by everybody in this chamber. Senator O'Brien, we supported your motion in a sensible and proper manner. You need to work on solutions to the problem. Let me deal with three of them. We are activating immediately these exceptional circumstances, and that is being fast tracked through the process. Right now, as has already been mentioned, we have moved on the implementation of truth in labelling. Why haven't you people on the other side of the chamber done something since 1990 on truth in labelling?8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—We did.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You did not. Let us go a bit further. We have brought in—and it is before this place right now—countervailing and anti-dumping legislation. That is being done right now by this government. You should have been dealing with these issues, as a walk through, when you negotiated the changes. You have left half the job undone. We have had to pick that up. That is the fundamental problem we have in terms of this today, combined with the collapse in the other areas of the meat market. If you do not believe it has collapsed, just go to a lamb sale and see how the price of lamb has gone down; go into a butcher shop or to one of the major retailers and see what the pricing structure is today. Beef is meeting the market. Beef has gone under the price of pork. What are consumers doing? They are buying beef in preference to pork. That is a major problem, combined with a major increase in production. (Time expired)15:35:002961Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—We are taking note of the answer to the question asked by Senator O'Brien with regard to why AQIS is commencing import risk analysis at this time, given the circumstances confronting the pork industry.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—It isn't.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—It is, Senator Boswell, exactly what we are talking about. What obligation is AQIS under, given the current circumstances? I suggest they are not under any obligation; they are probably being directed by this minister, a minister from the National Party, who is supposed to represent all interests in rural Australia and is simply not doing the job. He is being criticised not only by the pig industry but also by a whole range of other people within the agricultural sector. Senator Abetz wanted us to believe that, somehow, because we are improving our exports of pork, everything is okay. But that is not the case.The other adage that this government seems to use because it does not really want to accept its responsibility as being a government is, `Don't blame us, blame them. They didn't do anything for 13 years.' With regard to the pig industry and the labelling issue on which they say we did nothing, I say we did do something. We had an agreed set of rules—something the industry supported. We would have had them implemented but we had an election. You won government and you would not front up to your responsibilities—and you scratched them.Two years on they say, `Oh, we've done something. We're about to introduce into the parliament a new bill on labelling laws.' Two years! Likewise, anti-dumping and countervailing. What have you done as a government? We have had to drag you up to the line on every occasion on industry policy. It does not matter whether it is the car industry, the textiles, clothing and footwear industry or in this case the pig industry, we have had to keep dragging you up to the line.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Murphy, would you please address the chair and not the government members. Thank you.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Yes, Madam Deputy President. As I said, we have had to keep dragging this government up to the line to get them to take some action rather than constant ly carping, `Well, blame them over there.' The fact of the matter is that they have to realise that they are in government. They are responsible for taking decisions. I think it was Senator Abetz who said, `There's not a problem in the pig industry.' At least John Anderson, the minister, recognises there is a problem. He put out a press release saying:MINISTER ACTS ON PORK COUNCIL REQUESTSThere are a number of factors which have affected pigmeat prices during the last six months, and I am acutely aware of the difficulties currently facing the pork industry.That is recognition of the fact that there are difficulties. Some strategic thinking is needed within the government—which is currently lacking—about what sort of policy, what sort of direction, is required to provide some benefits to this industry and how the government might ensure that the pig industry in this country continues to survive. That is what this is about.The government cannot achieve that by directing the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service to go off and conduct a free-for-all risk analysis of pork to be imported from anywhere in the world. If the government does not have in place a strategy for its own industry, it should not do that. We have not only seen the government doing this to the pork industry; it has occurred in other industries. It has occurred in the salmon industry and it has occurred in the chicken industry, and yet this government has not taken any steps toward getting in place a proper industry strategy for any of these agricultural industries. Nothing the government has done will secure for these industries a long-term future.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—They are a failure.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I will respond to the interjection by Senator Faulkner: they have failed. They are a failure. We have had to drag them up to the line on every occasion to get some sort of policy for industry development in this country and we are going to do it again with regard to the pig industry.Senator Ferguson, I am sure the people within the pork industry will be very pleased to know that you laughed about that. I would have thought you would be one of the people on their side. I notice your colleague Senator Boswell from the National Party has now vacated the premises. As he does so, he vacates his responsibility to the agriculture industry, in particular the pork industry of this country.15:40:002962Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Senator Murphy has just given a bit of truth to that old saying: an empty vessel makes the most noise. In Senator Murphy's case, he has been rattling around on issues that he knows nothing about, and certainly he is not inclined to support the position of the previous government—his government—on all these issues.One of the sad things about this debate is the way in which Senator O'Brien and others have continued to use this chamber to build up some false hopes for the pig producers of Australia. They have led the pork producers of Australia to think that they can fix the problems when in fact they cannot do anything at all because all the things that we are trying to fix are things that they put in place when they negotiated the protocols that are currently in place.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—And you voted for it.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I have never denied that we voted for it, Senator Margetts. The point I am making is that the Labor Party who are now crying wolf are the ones who are responsible for putting those protocols in place.Senator O'Brien has raised this issue on a number of occasions. The information that Senator O'Brien is getting is well sourced because he has a staffer who was involved in primary industry prior to this. But the information that he is getting is information that we are all well aware of.I was really amazed to see Senator Woodley make a fleeting visit to the chamber—and it was not much more than a fleeting visit. He came in and told us that he has received a number of letters from the pork producers of Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland—I am sure Senator O'Brien has exactly the same letters, and we have exactly the same letters—and he then told us he is so knowledgeable about the industry because several months ago he visited a piggery. Senator Woodley really ought to know that pigs need to be fed seven days a week and usually twice a day. If Senator Woodley only makes fleeting visits to piggeries as often as that it is not surprising how little he knows when it comes to the issues that confront the pork industry today.Senator O'Brien mentioned a backbench committee meeting that some 40 members of the coalition attended because they were so concerned about the situation in the pork industry. Senator O'Brien, Senator Crane happens to chair that committee. It is always a very well attended committee. One of the reasons that 40 people attend every week is that we happen to hold 42 out of the 45 rural and regional seats, and a number of other senators attend on top of that. So it is no wonder that in excess of 40 people attend the backbench primary industries meeting. That is what happens every week.All the members of that committee are particularly interested in primary industry matters and any other matters that relate to rural and regional affairs. They attend regularly and service their electorates and their communities so well because they are aware of exactly what is happening. They are doing everything in their power under the protocols that the previous government put in place to make sure that we as a government can deliver some relief for those people in the pig industry in Australia who are suffering—we acknowledge the fact, and I did so the other night in a speech, Senator O'Brien—as badly as I can ever remember.As Senator Crane so rightly mentioned in his contribution, many of these problems are associated with factors that are outside the control of pig meat producers. They are due to a downturn in the market for beef and lamb and all meat production. All meat products are currently much cheaper than they have been for a long time.In conjunction with all these matters that we have to contend with, a particular issue is affecting the pig industry at this time. The minister concerned, the minister for primary industries, has put his mind to it, as have all his staff, because they realise the urgency that is confronting the pig industry. We know and you know as well, Senator O'Brien, that in this industry the costs are far greater on a week by week basis than they are for all those other industries like the beef industry and the lamb industry where, unless the animals are fed in a feedlot, the expenses are not as great as they are for this particular industry.When it comes to supporting the industry, I can promise you, Senator O'Brien, that all those rural electorates which are currently represented by coalition members will, after an election, continue to be represented by coalition members because you proved during 13 years of government that you were not prepared to do anything at all for these people. You were not prepared to do anything at all for them to make sure that their future was secure under the protocols, negotiations and agreements you made while you were in government. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.296310001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:296335DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 35 citizens)29636310000VICE-CHAIRMANTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the Sexuality Discrimination Bill (SBD) which is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the near future. In particular, the petitioners wish to alert the Senate to concerns that this legislation will:Whilst granting special rights to homosexuals, take away significant rights from the majority of Australians.Force citizens to employ/tolerate homosexuals and their activities—where this is contrary to their beliefs.Further validate homosexual partnerships and pave the way for same-sex marriage and adoption rights.Burden proof on employers, churches, schools, etc, as to why they should be exempt from this legislation.Not exempt groups receiving government funding and thus force compliance under threat of loss of funds.Override States' rights, invalidate existing laws and put Australia at the mercy of international treaties.Curtail freedom of speech in churches when proclaiming scriptural truth on issue of family, sexuality, etc.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject the Sexuality Discrimination Bill in its entirety and thereby protect the status and the rights of the vast majority of Australians.The President10000The President(from 63 citizens)2964287TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major non-curfewed international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) western Sydney already suffers the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney basin will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of many thousands of citizens living and working within the Sydney basin.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney basin.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 287 citizens)29643904TW4 XI4Bourne Sen Vicki; Reynolds Sen MargaretTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations3. Not sign the MAI unless substantive amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be heldSenator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 3,885 citizens)Senator ReynoldsXI4Senator Reynolds(from 19 citizens)Petitions received.Notices296429642964Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following Government business orders of the day may be taken together for their remaining stages:No. 4 Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 and 10 associated billsNo. 5 Managed Investments Bill 1997 Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998.29642964O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move that the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan Direction No. NFPD 17 made under subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement about the committee's concerns with the legislation.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Subclauses 4.2 and 4.3 appear to impose a liability on each person on a boat at the time that it was apprehended as being in alleged breach of the direction. This would impose strict liability, as some members of the crew may have had nothing to do with the alleged breach or may not have even been on the boat at that time. The committee has written to the minister for advice.29652965Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law, in order to help protect the entitlements of employees. Employment Security Bill 1998 .29652965O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2 to 5 and 7 to 10 standing in my name for seven sitting days after today for the disallowance of the following instruments:Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendments), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 381 and made under the Customs Act 1901 .Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 386 and made under the Customs Act 1901 .Financial Management and Accountability Orders 1997, made under section 63 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 .Financial Management and Accountability Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 328 and made under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 .Public Service Regulations (Amendment—Interim Reforms), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 23 and made under the Public Service Act 1992 .Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 371 and made under the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997 . Telecommunications (Arbitration) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 350 and made under the Telecommunications Act 1997 .Veteran's Entitlements Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 372 and made under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 .I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—On 2 April 1998 I reported to the Senate on the committee's concerns with these instruments which related to a wide range of deficiencies under all four of its terms of references. The relevant ministers have now either agreed to amend their instruments or have provided information which meets our concerns. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning these instruments.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 No 381 Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 No 3865 March 1998The Hon Warren Truss MPMinister for Customs and Consumer AffairsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 381 and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 386.Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 381The regulations prohibit the exportation of all material which has been refused classification by the Classification Board because of its portrayal of violence. These regulations provide for a system of censorship of books, magazine, films and computer games which might be better placed in primary legislation where it would be subject to full debate by the Parliament.Although the decision to deny export to a particular publication is generally subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, subregulation 3(9) permits the Attorney-General to issue a conclusive certificate denying that right, if in his opinion it is in the public interest to do so. The Explanatory Statement does not provide an explanation for this provision. Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 386Paragraph 1 in the second column to new item 13 of Schedule 3 would grant to the Minister or an authorised person the apparently unfettered discretion to allow the importation of marked fuel that is not designated fuel. The Explanatory Statement gives no indication of whether the exercise of this discretion is subject to any sort of review.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator Bill O'CheeChairmanSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesThe SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 26002 April 1998Dear Senator O'CheeI refer to your letter of 5 March 1998 in relation to Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 No. 381.The amendments contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No 381 were processed by the Australian Customs Service at the behest of the Attorney-General's Department, which has broad policy control in respect of the controls on objectionable material (ie pornographic material, and the like). In instructing for these amendments for export controls, the Attorney-General's Department required similar provisions to those import controls which exist in regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, for which that Department has administrative responsibility under the Administrative Arrangements Order. Those import controls were introduced by the Attorney in 1990 (Statutory Rules 1990 No. 39) having been processed by his Department, and conferring on the Attorney the power to issue a conclusive certificate in certain circumstances.—it was this power which was duplicated in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 381.The Attorney-General's Department is therefore exclusively possessed of the policy background pertaining to the power to issue a conclusive certificate, and which was commented on by the Committee.I have therefore referred this matter to the Attorney-General, for his reply direct to the Committee. I trust this meets the concerns of the Committee.Yours sincerelyWARREN TRUSSSenator Bill O'CheeChairmanSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesThe SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 26002 April 1998Dear Senator O'CheeI refer to your letter of 5 March 1998 in relation to Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations Statutory Rules 1997 No.386.The Committee correctly observes that the decision of the "authorised officer" or the Minister as the case may be, is not subject to review. This is intentional, for the background policy reasons set out below. Before passing to those reasons however, it is worth noting 2 matters in relation to the exercise of the discretion:Firstly, the terms of the regulation itself narrowly limit the exercise of the discretion in the hands of the "authorised officer"—the "authorised officer" may only grant the permission on the condition that the "marked fuel" is converted to "clean fuel" or "designated fuel". This effectively means that imported "marked fuel" will never be permitted to enter the commerce of Australia. As such, the scope of the discretion in the hands of the "authorised officer'' is so precisely limited to that sole circumstance as to render review unnecessary. (The public policy reasons for bestowing this very limited discretion on the "authorised officer" are set out below.)Secondly it is worth observing that the regulations do not permit an authorised officer to make a decision refusing a permission; subregulation 4(1AA) of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations provide that, where an authorised officer forms the view that a permission should not be granted, the authorised person is to refer the application to the Minister.BackgroundBy way of background, this amendment to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations gives effect to an essential element of the Government's legislative measures to combat the practice of fuel substitution. For the reasons set out below, it is intended that "marked fuel" will never be permitted to be imported into Australia unless it is converted to either "clean fuel" or "designated fuel" . During the previous parliamentary sittings Parliament passed the Government's Fuel Substitution package—a package of seven Acts designed to give effect to the Government's announcement in the 1997-1998 Budget that it would take action to crack down on the practice of fuel substitution.These 7 Acts are:EXCISE TARIFF (FUEL RATES AMENDMENT) ACT 1997CUSTOMS TARIFF (FUEL RATES AMENDMENT) ACT 1997FUEL MISUSE (PENALTY SURCHARGE) ACT 1997FUEL SALE (PENALTY SURCHARGE) ACT 1997FUEL BLENDING (PENALTY SURCHARGE) ACT 1997FUEL (PENALTY SURCHARGES) ADMINISTRATION ACT 1997CUSTOMS AND EXCISE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2) 1997The seven Acts in this legislation package provide the authority to ensure that both excisable and imported fuels which are cleared from Customs control at a concessional or free rate of duty, for use otherwise than for on road transport, contain a prescribed chemical marker before the fuels enter home consumption. The presence of the marker is designed to ensure post clearance audit of sale and use.The above Acts provide authority to impose a severe penalty surcharge when designated fuel has been misused, sold for use other than the intended use, or blended with unmarked fuel, and severe penalties are imposed for various offences under the legislation.Central to the fair and efficient operation of the above legislation package are the provisions which ensure that the chemical marker is added to both locally-produced and imported fuel in the correct proportion prior to that fuel proceeding into home consumption. Concessional fuel which has the correct proportion of the chemical marker is referred to in the legislation as "designated fuel'.Importantly, the threshold level of the chemical marker at which the sanctions and penalty provisions apply is significantly less than the level required to identify the fuel as "designated fuel". Such fuel is referred to in the legislation as "marked fuel", and the significantly lower level of marker prescribed in the legislation for this purpose recognises the mischief to which the legislation is directed, namely the blending of "designated fuel" with unmarked fuel, such that the chemical marker contained therein is diluted. Great care is required on the part of local manufacturers to ensure that "designated fuel" (ie the concessional fuel) contains the correct amount of chemical marker, since carelessness at this stage could result in "marked fuel" being unwittingly passed on to consumers, exposing them to penalties under the legislation. Locally-produced fuel is closely monitored at the time of its entry into home consumption under the Excise legislation to ensure that it contains the correct amount of chemical marker.In relation to imported fuel, this task is not quite as straightforward. In the case of a vessel arriving at these shores with incorrectly marked fuel, it might cause great hardship to deny entry of the "marked fuel" at the barrier. For this reason, the amending regulation allows importation of that fuel, but subject to the condition that the fuel be converted into "clean fuel" or "designated fuel" . It is not intended that this decision be subject to review, as the public interest requires that no "marked fuel" should be capable of finding its way into the general commerce of the country, thereby exposing the public to the severe penalties contained in the legislation.I trust this meets the concerns of the Committee.Yours sincerelyWARREN TRUSSFinancial Management and Accountability Orders 1997 made under s.63 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997Financial Management and Accountability Regulations Statutory Rules 1997 No 32811 March 1998The Hon John Fahey MPMinister for Finance and AdministrationParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations, Statutory Rules 1997 No 328, and the Financial Management and Accountability Orders 1997, which give effect to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 .Financial Management and Accountability RegulationsRegulation 6 provides for the Chief Executive of an Agency to issue Instructions. Similarly, rr. 7 and 19 permit the Finance Minister to issue Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines and the Minister for Justice to issue Fraud Control Guidelines. A reference to the guidelines issued by the Minister for Justice is also found in suborder 2.2.1 of the Financial Management and Accountability Orders 1997. These provisions appear to authorise the delegation of a legislative function which is sanctioned by the enabling Act. That Act does not, however, require either the Instructions or the Guidelines to be tabled or to be subject to disallowance. The Committee understands that the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines were previously subject to this requirement. The Committee considers that it would be appropriate to amend the Act to ensure that these instruments are subject to proper Parliamentary scrutiny.Paragraph 22(b) extends the definition of authorised investment in the enabling Act to include a professionally managed money market trust, but only on the condition that the Minister is satisfied of certain specified matters. This discretion has considerable commercial implications but there does not appear to be a right of AAT review.Regulation 23 permits the disposal of property found on Commonwealth premises. Subregulation 23(4) requires the Commonwealth to pay to the prior owner the amount received on the sale of the property, and subregulation 23(5) extinguishes any rights held by any person in the property on its sale by the Commonwealth. While subregulation 23(5) may be regarded as acceptable in relation to a person who was the owner of goods or other property immediately before its sale, the provision would appear to affect adversely any person who held a right other than ownership in the property, such as a lessee or bailee. Such a person would appear to be deprived of those rights by subregulation 23(5), but would not have any claim to recompense for that loss under subregulation 23(4).Financial Management and Accountability Orders 1997Suborder 6.2.1 appears to allow the Finance Chief Executive to issue determinations which may be legislative in character as they appear to provide for a set of general principles and not for the resolution of a particular issue. This suborder would thus provide for a subdelegation of legislative power which does not appear to be authorised by the enabling Act.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairman20 April 1998Senator Bill O'CheeChairmanSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600 Thank you for your letter of 11 March 1998 seeking my advice on four matters of concern to the Committee in the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations and the Financial Management and Accountability Orders.First, the Committee suggested that the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (the FMA Act) should be amended so that certain instruments made under the authority of the regulations would be disallowable. Those instruments are: Chief Executive Instructions issued under regulation 6; the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines issued under regulation 7; and, the Fraud Control Guidelines issued under regulation 19.While the instruments are of a legislative character, in my view they only cover matters of administrative practice within Agencies, are directed only to officials and have no impact on the rights or obligations of others. I am aware that under the Audit Act 1901, the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines were disallowable instruments. However, as noted in the Explanatory Memorandum to the FMA Act for section 64 (which allows the regulations to authorise Ministers to issue guidelines), "the reason for this change is in the light of experience, including that the provision is little used and that control by the Parliament can be effectively exercised at the regulation making stage"—that is, control over the scope of the guidelines. Accordingly, I do not favour amending the FMA Act as suggested and suggest that no purpose would be served by making them disallowable. Indeed, in the case of Chief Executive Instructions, it would make simple modifications of basic procedures quite cumbersome.Second, the Committee notes that paragraph 22(b) of the regulations extends the definition of "authorised investment" in section 39 of the FMA Act to include professionally managed money market trusts. This is subject to the Finance Minister (or delegate) being satisfied that individual trusts meet two prudential criteria, namely:. the trust's investments are only in the other forms of "authorised investments"—securities of, or guaranteed by, the Commonwealth or a State or a Territory, deposits with a bank, and bills of exchange accepted or endorsed only by a bank;. no charge over the assets of the trust is incurred in support of borrowings.The Committee is concerned that this "discretion" has considerable commercial implication but is not subject to AAT review.I am not convinced that what is involved here is a discretion, rather, whether or not a particular trust meets these prudential criteria, can be ascertained as a matter of fact. If a trust met those criteria, it would simply be one of a range of investments between which a delegate could choose to invest or not. There seems to be no compelling reason to amend the regulations to create a right of review.Third, the Committee is concerned that regulation 23 may operate to adversely affect the rights of persons who hold a right other than ownership in property found on Commonwealth premises when that property has been disposed of in accordance with the regulation. The examples of such persons were bailees and lessees.This is a matter that would probably require legal advice, perhaps on a case-by-case basis. There may be other remedies available to such persons. However, the regulation mirrors provisions which had been in regulations made under the Audit Act 1901 for many years. I am advised that no issues of this kind are known to have arisen in that time.Finally, you have raised FMA Order 6.2.1 which permits the Finance Chief Executive to determine that certain Agency operations should be treated as "business operations". The Committee is concerned that the Order provides for a subdelegation of legislative power which is not authorised by the FMA Act.The determinations, if any, will be made on a case-by-case basis for particular Agency operations. The intention, as noted in the Explanatory Statement, is to provide a trigger for the production of separate, auditable financial reports, in accordance with the FMA Act, for those particular business operations.Yours sincerelyJOHN FAHEYPublic Service Regulations (Amendment—Interim Reforms) Statutory Rules 1998 No 2326 March 1998The Hon Dr David Kemp MPMinister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public ServiceParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Public Service Regulations (Amendment—Interim Reforms), Statutory Rules 1998 No 23, which seek to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and ethics of the Australian Public Service.The Committee understands that the Public Service Bill 1997 was reintroduced into the House of Representative on 5 March 1998. This Bill proposes to introduce far-reaching reforms to the APS and the Committee suggests that, given the timing of this legislation, it may be appropriate for the Regulations to be delayed until the fate of that Bill has been determined. The Committee suggests also that it may be appropriate for some of the content of these Regulations to be placed in that Bill rather than in delegated legislation. Regulation 12 provides merely that the Commissioner must report to the Minister on the state of the Service, and that the Minister is to present that report to the Parliament. There is, however, no provision specifying the time within which the Minister must present the report to Parliament after it has been received. The Committee considers that it would be appropriate that the Minister be required to present the report to Parliament within seven sitting days of receiving it.The Appendix to the Explanatory Statement helpfully divides its explanation of the provisions in the Schedule to the Regulations into two parts, the second of which relates to the technical and consequential amendments made by the Schedule. This Part advises, for instance, that provisions relating to the Public Service Board are omitted some 11 years after the abolition of the Board. The entry for 42.1 advises that r.74B omits an obsolete reference to a repealed Act, which appears to be the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920-1934 . This Act also seems to have been repealed some time ago. The Committee would appreciate the reasons for this apparent delay in bringing the Regulations up to date.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesThe SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear SenatorI refer to your letter of 26 March 1998 which raises a number of issues arising from the recent Public Service Regulations (Amendment—Interim Reforms), Statutory Rules 1998 No 23.First, the Committee has suggested that the Regulations be delayed until the fate of the Public Service Bill 1997 has been determined. The House of Representatives has now rejected the amendments passed by the Senate to the Bill and has resolved that the Bill be laid aside. If the Bill had passed, it would have included in it the substantive provisions of the Regulations in relation to the Australian Public Service (APS) Values, the Code of Conduct, Public Interest Whistleblowing, the State of the Service Report and amendments to the application of the Part IV mobility arrangements. I agree with the Committee that this would have been the preferable course. However, in the absence of such a Bill, it is essential that we deal with these important issues, if we are to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and the ethics of the APS.Second, the Committee suggested that regulation 12 might be amended to include a provision that the Minister be required to present the State of the Service Report to Parliament within seven sitting days of receiving it. I think that that would be a useful requirement, which would increase the Minister's accountability to Parliament. I agree that such an amendment should be made and I will amend the Regulations to include that requirement.Third, the Committee questioned why there has been an apparent delay in bringing the Regulations up to date. With the passage of the Administrative Arrangements Act 1987, the Public Service Act 1922 was amended to repeal those provisions establishing the Public Service Board and to substitute provisions establishing the office of Public Service Commissioner. While various separate consequential amendments to the Public Service Regulations have been made since then, it appears that no comprehensive set of amendments were drafted. These matters ante-date my responsibility as Minister but I understand that there was an expectation that in the longer term the 1922 Act and its Regulations would be replaced. A number of reviews of the Act have been carried out in recent years, including that chaired by Mr RN McLeod AM in 1994. The timeframe for implementing legislative change has been subject to a number of delays. It was only when significant amendments were being made to the regulations earlier this year, that the opportunity was available to repeal those regulations which have become obsolete since 1987. I agree that the time taken to complete the updating is unfortunate. I would hope that such a delay would not occur again.I hope that these comments are helpful to the Committee's consideration of the amendments to the regulations.Yours sincerelyDAVID KEMPSuperannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Regulations Statutory Rules 1997 No 3715 March 1998Senator the Hon Rod KempAssistant TreasurerParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Regula tions, Statutory Rules 1997 No 371, which implement aspects of the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997 .Regulation 14 permits the Superannuation Commissioner to request any person, whether or not they have a connection with the superannuation funds with which these regulations are concerned, to provide information about the operation of the enabling Act and the regulations. Is a person required to comply with such a request? If so then there would appear to be no protection of privacy or against self-incrimination. On the other hand, if there is no obligation on the part of the person to comply with the request then it is difficult to see the purpose of this regulation. The regulation also does not specify whether the request must be written or oral, or the form of the response.Subregulation 15(2) raises various presumptions relating to the service of notices by the Commissioner, but there is no corresponding provision relating to the receipt of documents by the Commissioner. The inclusion of a provision specifying the circumstances in which any individual may be assured that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, a document or other notices has been received by the Commissioner would seem to be appropriate.Regulation 19 and Schedule 5 specify the expenses which a witness may claim if he or she is required to attend a hearing under s.32 of the enabling Act. Schedule 5 provides that such expenses are to be the same as those specified in the High Court Rules. The effect of Schedule 5, when read with the High Court Rules, is that a person who is remunerated by salary, wages or fees may recover the full amount of that remuneration which is lost through attendance as a witness, whereas one who is remunerated in any other way—such as by commission, or out of the profits of a small business—may claim no more than $64.40 per day. This would appear to operate unfairly.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulations And OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 5 March 1998 concerning the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Regulations, Statutory Rules 1997 No. 371.Regulation 14The Committee seeks advice as to whether a person is required to comply with a request to provide information to the Commissioner of Taxation about the operation of the enabling Act and the regulations.Both the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997 (the Act) and the Regulations allow the Commissioner of Taxation (not the Superannuation Commissioner) to require any person or class of persons to give information. A person is obliged to comply with any request to give information to the Commissioner of Taxation.The provision in the Act and the regulation are in line with similar provisions and regulations in other taxing statutes. They have been inserted to facilitate the assessment and collection of the surcharge from members of constitutionally protected superannuation funds.When administering any tax laws, the ATO collects information about taxpayers and entities. This information may be obtained from the taxpayer or other parties. There are laws that operate to protect the privacy of individuals in relation to this information and to keep the information confidential. The Commissioner is bound by these laws.Any request by the Commissioner will be in writing and will give the person sufficient time to provide that information.Subregulation 15(2)The Committee asks why there is no corresponding provision relating to the receipt of documents by the Commissioner of Taxation.The Commissioner sends out many notices/documents that can create liabilities for individuals. In many cases, the Commissioner of Taxation is called on to prove service (for example, to enable the Commissioner to pursue a liability established by way of assessment). In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Regulation provides the Commissioner with certainty in relation to service.The need to prove service does not generally arise for individuals. The Commissioner's address in each State is well known to postal authorities and service of documents or notices is not an issue. Regulation 19 and schedule 5The Committee is concerned that the scale of fees for attending to give information or evidence may operate unfairly on those whose remuneration is other than by salary, wages or fees.The High Court Rules in force for remunerating persons attending set the benchmark. The Rules are used in most Commonwealth legislation to establish the amount to be paid to persons required under the various Acts to attend and give evidence.Those Rules provide flexibility in that they allow for specific remuneration for different classes of witness, depending on whether they are expert witnesses, witnesses in receipt of salary, wages or fees or witnesses receiving some other form of remuneration.I trust this information will be of assistance to you.Your sincerelyRod KempTelecommunications (Arbitration) Regulations Statutory Rules 1997 No 3505 March 1998Senator the Hon Richard AlstonMinister for Communications, the Information Economy and the ArtsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Telecommunications (Arbitration) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1997 No 350, which establish a framework of rules and procedures relating to a dispute before the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).Subregulation 8(3) gives to the ACCC the power subjectively to determine whether any matters are relevant, and then to take them into account. This contrasts with paragraphs 11(2)(b) and 20(1)(c) where the ACCC is either bound or permitted to take account of matters which are objectively relevant to the issue. The Explanatory Statement provides no explanation for this difference.Subregulation 9(1) requires the ACCC to provide the parties to a dispute with a draft determination, prior to making a formal determination under subregulation 9(2), of a dispute that has gone to arbitration. The regulation, however, does not provide for any minimum time between the delivery of the draft and the final determination. The Committee suggests that this safeguard would be negated unless a minimum time is specified between the delivery of those two documents.Paragraph 10(1)(d) and subregulation 10(2) give the ACCC two possible bases for terminating an arbitration. In light of the protection intended to be provided by subregulation 9(1), the Committee suggests that it would be appropriate to provide for the provision of a preliminary finding or draft conclusion for persons who may receive an adverse decision under these two provisions.Subregulation 17(1) permits the presiding member at an arbitration to summon witnesses, whether with or without documents, but makes no provision for such a witness to claim travelling expenses. As witnesses summoned before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are entitled to be paid fees and allowances, a similar provision in relation to telecommunication arbitration would appear to be appropriate.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairman7 April 1998Senator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 5 March 1998 concerning the Telecommunications (Arbitration) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1997 No 350, made under the Telecommunications Act 1997.As noted in the Explanatory Statement, the rules and procedures for notification and arbitration of disputes set out in these regulations are based on provisions of Division 8 of Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Trade Practices Regulations, which deal with disputes about access to telecommunications services that have been "declared" for access by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner (ACCC). I understand that the Department of Communications and the Arts advised the Office of Legislative Drafting (OLD) on a number of occasions of the importance of consistency in the formulation of the two sets of provisions, given that some disputes may be arbitrated under either the Telecommunications Act or the Trade Practices Act and the resulting potential for forum "shopping" by parties to disputes. However, I am advised that OLD reserved its right to vary the formulation where itconsidered there was scope to improve on the formulation of the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act or the Trade Practices Regulations.Subregulation 8(3) and paragraph 20(1)(c) of the regulations follow the formulations used in the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Paragraph 11(2)(b) differs from the formulation used in paragraph 152CT(5)(b) of the Trade Practices Act, on which it is based. Paragraph 152CT(5)(b) provides that the ACCC must have regard to "such other matters as the Commission considers relevant". Had this formulation been followed by OLD, as requested by the Department of Communications and the Arts, it would have been a subjective test like the test in subregulation 8(3). I will ensure that paragraph 11(2)(b) is amended at the next available opportunity to make it consistent with paragraph 152CT(5)(b) of the Trade Practices Act.Subregulation 9(1) is based on subsections 152CP(1), (4) and (5) in Part XIC of the Trade Practices Act, dealing with the telecommunications specific access regime. These subsections are in turn based on subsections 44V(1), (4) and (5) in Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act, which sets out the general access regime. I have asked the Department of Communications and the Arts to consult with the Department of the Treasury and the ACCC on whether a minimum time period between delivery of draft and final determinations should be specified in both the Telecommunications (Arbitration) Regulations and the Trade Practices Regulations. I acknowledge that the absence of a minimum time period tends to weaken the safeguard provided by the requirement for a draft determination, however I would also note the benefits to parties to disputes of a fast and effective dispute resolution process.Regulation 10 is based on section 152CS of the Trade Practices Act, which is in turn based on section 44Y. Neither section 152CS nor section 44Y provides for the delivery of a preliminary finding or draft conclusion for persons who may be adversely affected by a decision to terminate an arbitration.As for subregulation 9(1), I have asked the Department of Communications and the Arts to consult with the Department of the Treasury and the ACCC on whether the Telecommunications (Arbitration) Regulations and the Trade Practices Regulations should both be amended to provide for the delivery of a preliminary finding or draft conclusion for persons who may be adversely affected by a decision to terminate an arbitration. Again, I would however note that both sets of regulations are intended to provide a process which is as fast and efficient as possible.Subregulation 17(1) is based on subsections 152DD(2) and 44ZH(2) of the Trade Practices Act, which permit the presiding member of the ACCC to summon witnesses to arbitrations of access disputes. Neither of these provisions makes provision for such witnesses to claim travelling expenses. I have asked the Department of Communications and the Arts to consult with the Department of the Treasury and the ACCC on whether the Telecommunications (Arbitration) Regulations and the Trade Practices Regulations should both be amended to make such provision.I trust this information addresses the Committee's concerns.Yours sincerelyRICHARD ALSTONMinister for Communications, the Information Economy and the ArtsVeterans' Entitlements Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 No 3725 March 1998The Hon Bruce Scott MPMinister for Veterans' AffairsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Veterans' Entitlements Regulations (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1997 No 372, which seek to simplify the administration of the payment of travelling expenses for veterans.New paragraph 9AF(1)(a) allows the Commission to question, and seek written evidence for, travel claims made by a veteran at any time within six months of the completion of the travel. This appears to be a long period in which to ask a veteran to keep detailed records of his or her travel expenses. It is also a long period within which the Commission may decide whether or not to audit a travel claim, and then raise queries about it.The Committee also notes that if the Commission has reconsidered one of its decisions, and in the course of that reconsideration has set aside the earlier finding and substituted a new conclusion, the latter part of new subregulation 9AI(2) requires the Commission to consider only the evidence that was before it when it made the first decision. This requirement appears to be at odds with the normal process of appeal, in which tribunals and courts generally take into account not only the evidence initially relied on but also any new evidence which has come to light. The Explanatory Statement does not offer any justification for this provision.The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanSenator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesAustralian Senate Parliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 5 March concerning the Veterans' Entitlements Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 No. 372 concerning payment of travelling expenses for veterans. In your letter you have sought my advice on various issues concerning the Regulations and my comments are as follows.Firstly, you observe that paragraph 9AF(l)(a) allows the Commission to question and seek written evidence for travel claims made by a veteran at any time within six months of the completion of the travel. The Commission must do so within that time frame otherwise it cannot refuse to authorise payment or request repayment under paragraph 9AF(2).Pursuant to paragraph 170B(5)(b)(ii) of the Veterans ` Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA), an application for payment of travelling expenses must be made ". . . within three months after the end of the travel. . . ". The six month period may be a long period for the Commission to raise queries where an application has been lodged immediately after the veteran has completed his or her travel. However, in a situation where a veteran was to lodge his or her application towards the end of the three months period as stipulated in paragraph 170B(5)(b)(ii) of the VEA the Commission technically only has three months to request the evidence. This circumstance is likely to be not uncommon. The inclusion of the six month period is to cover this scenario. If the period was three months it could expire at the same time as the veteran lodges his or her claim.In any event, in most cases, the relevant documentary evidence will accompany the application as required by subsection 170B(5)(c) of the VEA. Further, in the event of a veteran not keeping records of his or her travel, the Commission will accept a statutory declaration.In relation to your second query, in light of your comments, the Office of Legislative Drafting will be instructed to amend this subregulation and delete reference to the requirement to take into consideration only the evidence that was before the Commission when it made the first decision.I hope these comments are of some assistance.Yours sincerelyBRUCE SCOTT9 April 199829732973Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) condemns the Northern Territory Government for sanctioning the arrest and charging by Northern Territory police of Mirrar senior traditional owner, Yvonne Margarula, on 19 May 1998 for `trespassing' on her land near the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine site; and(b) calls on the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron): (i) to immediately write to the Northern Territory Chief Minister and Minister for Police seeking: (a) a full and detailed explanation of the decision by the Northern Territory police to arrest and charge Yvonne Margarula for trespassing on her own land, and (b) a full and detailed explanation of the Northern Territory Government's current policy with regard to the access rights of traditional owners, and (ii) to send a letter of apology to Yvonne Margarula for the indignity and violation of rights she has suffered.29742974Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) views Indonesia's leadership succession as the beginning rather than the end of a process of change and reform needed to create political and economic stability based on the full participation of the Indonesian people and on respect for human rights;(b) calls on the Indonesian Government to adopt Amnesty International's agenda for human rights reform, and in particular its call for: (i) the immediate release of all political prisoners in Indonesia and East Timor, (ii) a public commission of inquiry into recent killings and disappearances in Indonesia, (iii) ensuring the independence of Komnas Ham, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights, to investigate cases of killing and disappearance and allow it to act on its findings, (iv) the repeal of the anti-subversion law and the articles of its criminal code which are used to repress and detain political activists, and (v) access for the international human rights organisations to Indonesia and East Timor; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) suspend its military assistance program until free and fair elections have been held, and (ii) publicly support the work of Komnas Ham in Indonesia and provide support through technical assistance.29742974Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator Knowles, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move:That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 29 May 1998 to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998.29742974Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) a Melbourne hospital, the Angliss Health Service, plans to penalise general practitioners (GPs) whose patients stay in hospital longer than the State average, as determined by the Commonwealth Medical Benefits Scheme, (ii) under the contracts being offered by the hospital, doctors stand to lose up to 16 per cent of their fees if patients need to spend a longer than average period in hospital, and (iii) GPs wanting to admit their patients to the hospital have been informed they have no choice but accept the new contracts being offered by the hospital;(b) condemns: (i) this practice on the grounds that the Commonwealth criteria do not take into account how quickly an individual patient is healing or whether he or she has nursing help upon being returned home, (ii) this misuse of the Commonwealth scheme, which puts at risk the elderly, the frail, patients suffering complications and those not responding to treatment, and (iii) the subjugation of appropriate patient care to doctors' income; and(c) urges the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) to categorically condemn this misuse of Commonwealth funds and take the necessary steps within his power to abolish the practice.29752975Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate calls on President Habibi of Indonesia to:(a) release Xanana Gusmao immediately and ensure his unhindered freedom as an advocate for East Timor; and(b) allow East Timor a free vote on self-determination, including the option of unfettered independence.29752975Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I wish to withdraw general business notice of motion No. 1114 standing in my name.29752975Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), no later than 6 pm on 26 May 1998, a copy of any advice from his office, or his department, to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) and a copy of any advice to the Minister for the Environment from his department with respect to the environmental assessment of the on-site mill alternative for the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine.29752975Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table, no later than 3 pm on 27 May 1998, by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston):(a) any document identifying by locality, town or suburb, the location of the reductions in the number of Telstra employees; and(b) any document, generated by the Department of Communications and the Arts, or commissioned by the department, from any person or corporation about the pricing of the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra or the costs associated with the float of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra.29752975Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone), no later than 5 pm on 27 May 1998, the report by Professor Kate Warner of the University of Tasmania on the implementation by the States and Territories of the 1996 Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions.29752975Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator MacGibbon, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 29 May 1998, in Brisbane, to take evidence for the committee's inquiries into the circumstances of the sinking of the HMAS Sydney and into military justice procedures.29752975Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Kemp), no later than 3 pm on 27 May 1998:(a) all documents identifying the estimates of probable return from the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra and the detailed breakdown of the $580 million estimated cost of the sale; and(b) all documents identifying the costs incurred in the sale of the first third of Telstra by the Government or any department of the Government.29752975Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the overwhelming endorsement of the agreement concluded in Belfast on Good Friday 1998 by the population of Ireland, both North and South, at a referendum on 22 May 1998;(b) congratulates all those involved in the process, particularly the Irish Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister (Mr Blair) as well as Mr George Mitchell and his two co-chairmen involved in the original talks;(c) expresses, with much delight, the good wishes of the Irish-Australian Parliamentary Friendship Group to the Australian-Irish Parliamentary Group of the Dail on this historic occasion;(d) endorses the confirmed support by successive Australian Governments to the International Fund for Ireland; and(e) pledges the continued support of members of the Irish-Australian Parliamentary Friendship Group in any positive way to the ongoing process of peace in Ireland.29762976Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Due to the belated downfall of President Suharto in Indonesia, I withdraw motion No. 1119 standing in my name.29762976Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—On behalf of Senator Stott Despoja, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) Medical Research Week 1998, to be held from 29 May to 5 June 1998, and (ii) that this is a time to reflect on the significant place of medical research in Australia; and(b) encourages the broad participation of the community in the activities of Medical Research Week.29762976Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the closure of the Keith Turnbull Institute, which is one of Australia's pre-eminent research facilities into vermin and weed control, (ii) that the closure is a result of Victorian State budget cuts, and will result in a total of 50 staff being axed from various agricultural research institutes, (iii) that key programs at the Institute, including programs relating to European wasps, Dutch elm disease, and fox and rabbit control, will now be referred to other institutes, the resources of which are already stretched to capacity, (iv) that programs which have little or no industry support are being terminated, and (v) that weed and pathogen control requires a coordinated approach at government level, as farmers cannot be expected to have the expertise or funds to initiate control programs;(b) condemns: (i) the Kennett Government for these short-sighted cuts, which will exacerbate some of Victoria's most pressing environmental problems, and (ii) the prioritising of industry imperatives that generate financial returns at the expense of financing programs desperately needed to preserve Australia's environment and rural sectors; and(c) calls on the Victorian Government to recognise the future costs to farmers, industry and the general community that will result from failure to combat these problems with rigorous and properly resourced programs.Business29762976Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1123 standing in the name of Senator Colston for today, relating to the One Nation Party, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2976Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 1069 (relating to the failure of the government to respond to questions and reports on education) and No. 1073 (the Government's response to a question asked at an estimates hearing) standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, be postponed till 22 June 1998.2976Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 641 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minster for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Senator Alston), be postponed till 22 June 1998.2977Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 1089 (relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act) and no. 1121 (the division of senators into two classes for the purposes of rotation) standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, be postponed till 28 May 1998.2977Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1120 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to nuclear tests by the Indian Government, be postponed till the next day of sitting.2977Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 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 28 May 1998.Committees297729772977Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 be extended till 27 May 1998.Business29772977Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 923 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the introduction of the Captioning for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bill 1997, be postponed till 28 May 1998.2977Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Lundy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1099 standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today, relating to copyright, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous2977Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the launch in Melbourne on 11 May 1998 of the National Human Rights Register, which will record new developments in Australia's human rights performance at federal and State level, (ii) that the register's scope will be comprehensive, including the rights of children, refugees and migrants, and legal aid issues, and will register instances where Australia fails to honour its domestic and international human rights obligations, for example, breaches of the Racial Discrimination Act, and (iii) the register will monitor both positive and negative human rights developments;(b) condemns the Federal Government's restructuring of, and funding cuts to, the Human Rights Commission, which have seriously weakened its capacity to monitor and act on human rights development; and(c) welcomes this initiative, which will enhance information exchanges between States and help to curb government complacency on human rights issues.Miscellaneous2977Motion (by Senator McKiernan and Senator George Campbell)—as amended by leave—agreed to: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) notes that this agreement has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, North and South, in referendums on 22 May 1998;(c) 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-chairmen, and all involved in bringing the negotiations to a fruitful conclusion;(d) recognises that this agreement represents the outcome of the most inclusive and comprehensive negotiations ever undertaken on the future of Northern Ireland;(e) notes, with satisfaction: (i) the fact that the document has 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;(f) believes the agreement lays the foundation for the peoples of Ireland, North and South, to move forward together to a secure and peaceful future;(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. Committees29782978297810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, I present the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous2978Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous297810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, I present a response from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Stone, to a resolution of the Senate of 7 April 1998 concerning the practice of face branding of cattle.Miscellaneous297810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, I present a response from the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, the Hon. John Moore MP, to a resolution of the Senate of 7 April 1998 concerning the Australian pork industry.16:06:002978O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.It is true that this matter has been the subject of debate quite recently in the Senate—in fact, during taking note. However, the taking note debate is very time constrained and I want to put some additional matters before the Senate concerning this issue.This matter has the focus of rural Australia fairly and squarely upon it. It is interesting that, even though the document has been presented to the Senate, it has not been communicated to the Senate. Our office was not made aware of the contents of this response, even though it has been on the Notice Paper since this morning.In relation to that matter, I have had quite a number of contacts from pig producers and from the Pork Council. I have had visits to my office in Launceston from producers who are extremely concerned that action needs to be taken swiftly to deal with the problems of this industry. I have said it before and I reiterate: these producers cannot hold their pigs for sale until the market suits the sale of pigs; they have to sell them or dispose of them. As a result there have been articles, Senator O'Chee, in Queensland newspapers about producers shooting their producing sows because they are just not in a position to continue in the industry on the scale they are currently involved, if at all, because of the problems that they are facing.I did say earlier that Minister Anderson has been rather slow in taking action in relation to this matter. I note that the response regarding the Australian pork industry is from the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism and I am curious to know why the response is not equally from the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, who I would have thought would have had a critical role in the drafting of any response to the Senate's resolution on this matter. Coalition senators have conceded in this place that the industry is in one of the worse crises that it has faced over many years. Senator Ferguson was unequivocal in that regard, saying that this industry has had its crises but that in his experience this is the worst crisis it has faced. He said that he has been involved—I am relying on my memory—for 28 years and he has not seen a crisis as bad as that which faces the pork industry at the moment.We were debating earlier the question of whether access to the Australian market would be opened up to other markets as a result of an animal quarantine policy inquiry by AQIS. At the moment the problems in the industry are significant enough to render this industry extremely fearful of even talk of opening it up to external markets because it is just not able to cope with the situation at present. It has been suggested that the real problem for this industry lies in the overall economic circumstances that producers are facing resulting from perhaps the crisis in Indonesia and the general Asian financial economic crisis, which is forcing down the prices of other commodities in Australia and causing price competition between pork and beef, for example, in the Australian market.If it is the case that there are severe economic problems in this industry combined with an increase in imports then surely this government is in a position to activate its rights under the World Trade Organisation rules with regard to special and interim protection—and I do stress that it is interim protection because I think the Labor Party would have the agreement of the coalition that a protection measure is not an option for a permanent long-term solution for this industry. But the government does have the ability to take action to introduce a temporary measure. If the circumstances are as described, that is, that a combination of the introduction of greater imports together with the economic circumstances of the industry caused by the Asian economic crisis have given rise to this problem—and that is the implication I have received from the statements made by coalition senators in the debate earlier today—then the government needs to expeditiously put in place measures to protect the industry while it is faced with that temporary crisis, if indeed the government is saying that it is a temporary crisis.On the other hand, if the government is saying, `This is a permanent crisis. This industry does not have any means of extricating itself from this problem in the short term; this is a long-term problem,' then the government really holds no hope out to pork producers in this country. The government is effectively saying, `We can't deal with this problem in the short term. The industry is going to have to restructure itself. That is going to mean that a lot of people are going to have to go bust. That will remove a lot of product from the Australian market and perhaps then people can survive.' I hope that if the government is not saying that the industry does not have a great deal of hope that someone is going to put clearly on the record that that is not what they are saying. I for one believe that there is the opportunity for the government to take action to put in place interim emergency measures having regard to its rights under the trade treaties that this country is party to. Japan has in place interim emergency measures in relation to pork products at the moment. That measure is triggered by a certain level of imports. That measure was introduced earlier this year. If Japan can do it, why can't Australia?I did hear an argument earlier today that if we took such a step it would trigger a protection measure by Canada in relation to the import of beef. That was the argument that was presented earlier today—that if Australia took action as permitted under the provisions of its trade treaties to give interim emergency protection to the pork industry that would trigger a trade war over beef with Canada. I suggest that that is a rather alarmist statement. Not only is that extremely unlikely to occur but there is no logic in the statement. Canada, and any other country, would be looking for access on a long-term basis to any market on equitable terms. Canada would not be interested in being involved in a trade war about any product, be it beef, pork or any other, which would have the effect of causing a long-term deterioration in trade relationships.Having said that, I want to have a close look at the response by Minister Moore in relation to the Senate's resolution. I had expected the response to be from Minister Anderson. Be that as it may, I seek leave to continue my remarks later in the week after I have had a close look at this document.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous2980298010000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Pursuant to standing order 166, I present a corrigendum to the Department of Social Security portfolio budget statements which was presented to the President on 20 May 1998. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the document was authorised.Miscellaneous29802980Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I present a proposal by the National Capital Authority on behalf of the National Archives of Australia proposing the erection of signage on its headquarters, formerly known as East Block, in the Parliamentary Zone, together with supporting documentation, and seek leave to give a notice of motion relating to the proposal.Leave granted.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority, on behalf of the National Archives of Australia, for signage on its new headquarters, formerly known as East Block in the Parliamentary Zone.Miscellaneous298029802980Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I table a corrigendum to the portfolio budget statements 1998-99 for the Primary Industries and Energy portfolio. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.Miscellaneous2980298029802980O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in response to the 1997-98 additional estimates hearings.298029802980O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Patterson, I present additional information received by the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee in response to the 1997-98 additional estimates hearings, together with transcripts of evidence relating to the hearings.Committees2981298129812981MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present a report entitled The Asian Currency crisis: Report on a seminar on the Asian currency crisis and its effect on Australia , 19 March 1998, together with minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The report I am tabling today is a record of the proceedings of a Seminar conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in March this year. This seminar assembled some of the most authoritative speakers from across Australian government departments, business and academic fields, to share their views on the origins, the regional economic and political ramifications and the likely effects on Australia of the so called `Asian Currency Crisis'.It is well known that since the floating of the Thai baht in July 1997, a number of regional economies have seen the value of their currency plummet by record amounts. The reactions of Governments as they sought to meet the effects of the financial crisis have seen marked political turmoil, and in some cases social unrest with dramatic consequences, as we have witnessed over the last week. The crisis is set against a seven year period of stagnation in the region's largest economy, Japan. With Japan as Australia's largest trading partner and 20 per cent of our GDP derived from trade with the embattled South East Asian countries, many had speculated on what might be the effects on Australia? Whilst the Government and a variety of analysts had forecast a down turn in the Australian growth rate, the Committee felt it was appropriate to consider the wider ramifications for Australia. Hence this seminar sought to inform the Parliament, and the wider public through open discussion of the impact of the crisis in Asia on AustraliaThe Deputy Prime Minister, in opening the seminar, commented upon the Australian Government's response to the situation, highlighting the contribution to the IMF assistance packages for Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia—an action that has received bipartisan support. There is little doubt that there would be an impact on the Australian export performance, but Australia remains committed to Asia as more than just a fair-weather friend. The recovery period will not be without some pain for Australia, but in the end should provide opportunity and gain.It is interesting to note that the prospects for Indonesia were covered in three of the presentations and whilst the possible scenarios included the essence of what we have all witnessed over the last two weeks, it is fair to say that no one was able to predict the rapid fall of President Suharto.From the initial discussion of the countries most effected by the crisis—Thailand, The Philippines, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia—it became apparent that each had its own set of unique challenges to contend with. A `standard' remedy was therefore probably not appropriate. The various responses, under the auspices the IMF, subsequently came under critical analysis. Why did a package that called for profound macro economic reform appear to work in one country, whilst in another it was considered too insistent and extending too far into the sovereign rights of the effected country? Was there a distinct east-west discord developing? These issues were addressed by a number of the seminar presentations.Similarly, the effectiveness of the role of the regional forums, such as ASEAN and APEC, was carefully considered during the seminar. On examination of the prospects for China, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore it is evident that regionally, nations are divided in their views as to what to do. Subsequently, ASEAN and APEC were seen as unlikely fora for addressing the core problems of the crisis. Whilst it can be argued, in APECs case, that it not designed to address financial issues, it was determined during the seminar to have the best prospects of any regional organisation to address politics in the region. That it failed to exert any real influence during this crisis should not preclude its use in the future to provide coordination, by various regional agencies, to assist countries in the region to set circumstances to avoid the same situation reoccuring.Acknowledging that the direct impact of the crisis on Australia is an unfolding situation, a number of broad points of consensus were discussed. These ranged from the current state of the domestic economy, impacts on specific export sectors, effects at State and Territory level and the prospects for employment growth. These issues, together with the presentation on the prospects for Australian business, provide a number of interesting viewpoints on which to reflect as the real effects become apparent over the next financial year or so.The Committee, in reporting its views of the seminar, chose to keep its remarks brief. In so doing, the words of the individual speakers have been allowed to stand by themselves. While individually noteworthy, these presentations collectively provide a comprehensive overview of the social, economic and political impact of the crisis, not just on Australia, but also for other regional nations.In conclusion, I would like to thank the many members of the foreign affairs, academic, business and diplomatic communities who participated in the seminar, and particularly the talented group of speakers who generously contributed their time to ensure its success through the quality of their presentations. I believe their efforts have contributed to the creation of a valuable reference source on the initial effects of the Asian Currency crisis on Australia. I commend the report to the Senate.YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.298210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The President has received letters from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Economics Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator O'Brien to replace Senator Collins for the consideration of the 1998-99 Budget estimatesEmployment, Education and Training Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator FaulknerLegal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator FaulknerRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Faulkner.Bills2982r491Billsr4902982Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.298216:20:002982Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I move:That these bills 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—Today I take pleasure in introducing a package of two bills, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1998 and the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998. The bills amend the legislative framework for the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) for heavy vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce.The amendment proposed by the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1998 will provide a formula for calculating registration charges for periods of less than one year for heavy vehicles registered under FIRS. The Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998 takes account of self government in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and provides for the appointment of additional enforcement officers in the ACT.The Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 provides for registration charges on FIRS registered vehicles. All revenue from charges, collected by the States and Territories, acting as agents of the Commonwealth, is returned to the States and Territories for expenditure on road maintenance.At present this Act provides only for annual registration charges. The Act needs to provide for less than one year registration charges to allow charging to reflect the amendments to the Interstate Road Transport Regulations which permit less than one year registration of FIRS vehicles.The proposed amendment reflects the charging formula to be used in the Road Transport Reform (Heavy Vehicles) Registration regime, which is to be adopted by States and Territories. Both the Federal and State-based schemes will, therefore, have the same charging formula.The general provision of registration periods of less than one year is one of the ten priority road transport reform initiatives, endorsed by the Ministerial Council for Road Transport at its February 1997 meeting. The package was developed by the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) in conjunction with Federal, State and Territory governments and the road transport industry.Short term registration provides flexibility to operators who wish to register their vehicles for periods of less than one year. This flexibility provides reduced costs to the operator. For example, farmers can nominate a period which coincides with when they need to transport crops, instead of paying for a full year's registration, and smaller operators may opt to pay registration charges at three-monthly intervals, helping to maintain their cash-flow.The amendment demonstrates the Federal Government's commitment to road transport reform and its recognition of the important role the road transport industry plays in Australia's economy.The second bill in the package, the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998 is required to enable the appointment of additional enforcement officers in the Australian Capital Territory. Following self government in the ACT, the Commonwealth can no longer appoint ACT enforcement officers. The amendment will enable the appointment of inspectors by the ACT Government.Other minor amendments to this Act convert the existing monetary penalties to equivalent penalty units and insert appropriate references to provisions of the Crimes Act 1914.The net budgetary impact of the amendments will be nil.The amendments are to come into force on the day on which they receive Royal Assent.Debate (on motion by Senator Conroy) adjourned.Bills2983r496Billsr498Billsr5052983Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.298316:21:002983Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY BILL 1998This bill introduces regulatory controls for all Commonwealth radiation and nuclear safety activities for the first time in Australia. It is designed to protect the health and safety of persons and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation practices undertaken under the auspices of the Commonwealth.The bill applies to Commonwealth entities and their employees and to non-Commonwealth entities when these are contracted to the Commonwealth. The bill covers, therefore, Commonwealth Departments such as Defence, bodies corporate such as CSIRO and ANSTO, and any person who is a party to a contract with a Commonwealth entity.Under the bill, no Commonwealth entity can deal with radioactive materials or radiation apparatus, or any aspect of a nuclear facility, unless licensed to do so in accordance with this legislation.The bill provides for exemptions to the general prohibition, including specific exemptions for certain defence and security activities in the national interest.This legislation was a key recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste report, No Time to Waste', which was produced with the close involvement of all political parties. This bill delivers on the Government's commitment to close the regulatory gap identified by that Committee, whereby Commonwealth agencies have operated without comprehensive Commonwealth oversight and regulation.This is one reason why this legislation is strongly supported by all State and Territory Governments.From 1 July 1998 the functions and resources of the Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Australian Radiation Laboratory will be combined to form the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—ARPANSA—within the Department of Health and Family ServicesThe bill establishes the statutory office of the CEO of the ARPANSA to: . regulate activities within the Commonwealth which involve radiation and nuclear safety;. work with the States and Territories to develop uniform regulatory controls throughout Australia;. inform and advise the Government and the public on radiation protection and nuclear safety; and. undertake related research and provide services of a high standardThe bill also provides for the establishment of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council to provide expert advice to the CEO.This bill will result in a centre of excellence for regulation, advice, research and services supporting nuclear safety and radiation protection of employees, the public and the environment.AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY (LICENCE CHARGES) BILL 1998This bill is an adjunct to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (ARPANS) Bill.The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 provides a capacity for annual charges to be made for licences issued under the ARPANS Bill, in line with the Government's decisions to establish the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.The annual fees and application fees will be payable by those entities regulated under the ARPANS Bill. As annual charges are treated as taxes, this separate bill has been prepared.For the purposes of establishing appropriate annual fees, the Commonwealth will employ an independent consultant to advise on appropriate cost recovery processes and fees and charges. Introduction of annual charges and licence fees will be postponed until this process is complete. In the interim, any additional costs resulting from regulating radiation and nuclear practices will be met by the Department of Health and Family Services.AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998This bill is an adjunct to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (ARPANS) Bill 1998.This bill details changes to The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 (the ANSTO Act) resulting from the introduction of the ARPANS Bill. Changes include repealing those parts which established the Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Safety Review Committee.These changes are necessary because once the ARPANS Bill is passed, the Nuclear Safety Bureau will be incorporated into the new Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Safety Review Committee will become redundant.This bill ensures that the current powers of the Director of the Nuclear Safety Bureau, as set out in the ANSTO Act, are conferred on the CEO of ARPANSA to ensure seamless and continued regulation of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.Debate (on motion by Senator Conroy) adjourned.Bills2984r4542984Consideration resumed.16:23:002984Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I think the issue really is about the existing policies of parties—not whether or not they are going to promise something at elections—in this case the major parties in this chamber, the dinosaur parties. It is about what they actually say and whether or not such policies say that they are in favour of hiving off a particular group of people and making their conditions such that it is harder for them to achieve equity than others. That is what we come down to. It is not a matter of revealing in advance; we are talking about a situation where we are being asked to vote, now, on basic equity principles in relation to rent assistance. The issues are absolutely current. Those people who are involved need not to find out whether or not parties like the Labor Party may think about becoming fair and equitable in the future but whether or not they are operating as if they are an equitable party now. If they are not now, what makes anybody think that they would change their mind in the future?The issue, as Senator Neal has suggested, is that it would cost too much.B36NEALSenator Neal—I didn't ever say that.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Senator Neal has indicated that it is all right for the minor parties to say this but they are the party in waiting to be government and therefore they cannot simply make—what was the terminology?—ad hoc decisions outside of the context of their entire package. What are they saying? Are they saying they are not going to try to hive off money to fund a glitzy tax giveaway? Or are they actually going make up for some of the inequities that have existed in the education system over the last few years? That is not very obvious here.It is not a matter of ad hoc decisions, it is about whether or not you can suggest that a party who may not be operating along a line of principles now will suddenly become principled, supposedly leading up to an election, or whether or not what we are being told is intended to take the pressure off now because afterwards it will be too late. We will not know later but of course, at the moment, when we are being asked to make a decision, we are being told that it is the wrong time, the wrong question, out of context, ad hoc—let us find another excuse. That is what we are left with today.16:25:002985Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I would like to agree with the comments made by Senator Margetts on behalf of the Greens (WA) and add the Democrats's concerns to this debate. I would also like to read, for the benefit of certainly the government but also the opposition, a last-minute plea issued by the National Union of Students today, saying:NUS calls on the Opposition to support minor party amendments to the Bill which give students aged over 25 the same incentives to study as those available to younger Australians.That is the final paragraph of a media release by the education officer of the National Union of Students, Katrina Curry, who, like many other students, is concerned about the abnormal situation that is being created through this legislation in relation to the discrimination against full-time students over the age of 25 in respect of these payments. The Democrats have long called on the ALP to explain why they are allowing this anomaly, this bizarre distinction, between those aged 25 and under and those aged 25 and over. I think it is important to put on record that the peak national representative body of students in Australia are calling on the opposition to change their position in this debate. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Margetts's ) be agreed to.16:32:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.48Abetz, E. Bishop, M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. *Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Herron, J.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lundy, K.Macdonald, S. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.16:35:002985Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I wish to move an amended request for amendment which is on sheet 995 and which will replace the request for amendment which is contained on the original sheet 995 that has been circulated. I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Schedule 2, page 119 (after line 28), after item 24, insert: 24A At the end of section 1067B (but before the Note) Add: ;and (f) is not a person who: (i) qualified for the independent living allowance under the AUSTUDY scheme, as in force immediately before the commencement of Schedule 11 to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Act 1998 , only under AUSTUDY Regulation 68, as in force at that time; and (ii) had not, at that time, turned 25.The effect of this request for an amendment is that people between the ages of 22 and 24, who became independent when the opposition reduced the age of independence from 25 to 22 under what used to be the old Austudy, and have not yet reached the age of 25, will receive slightly more than they do at present. Without this amendment that particular group of people would have been adversely affected in that their income would have dropped to $174. Under the effect of this request for amendment, upon reaching 25 they will receive either $265 or $322 per fortnight, which is an improvement on what their position would have been before this bill was dealt with by this chamber. I would commend it to senators.16:38:002986Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My understanding of the amendment before us, which has been moved by the opposition, is that it preserves the independent status of approximately 950 students who are currently on Austudy and who qualify for the independent age rate by virtue of being over 22 years of age when this government raised the age of independence to 25 years.The Democrats support this amendment. Senator Neal commended it to the chamber and we commend it, but we should note that this amendment would not be necessary—and, Senator Neal, there is no point in hanging your head in shame on this one—B36NEALSenator Neal—I am not hanging it in shame. I am just exhausted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—The fact is this amendment would not be necessary if the opposition decided not to support the government's position in relation to what constitutes the age of independence. We know that the common youth allowance determines an independent age for unemployed people at 21 and for students at 25 years. All through this debate on this consequential bill and on the bill before it, the Democrats have raised our objections to defining a student as being a child until independent at the age of 25. It is ridiculous. It is a ludicrous, shameful, concocted notion of independence that determines that people until the age of 25, if they are full-time students, should therefore be financially and otherwise dependent on their families. All through this debate the Democrats have said that that is inappropriate.For that reason we will support this measure as a measure that alleviates for at least 950 students the potential pain or economic hardship that this legislation would otherwise impose. We will support this amendment so as to alleviate the worst aspects of this bill, but we will not let it go past without acknowledging and putting on record the fact that this amendment would not be necessary in the first place if the opposition actually had the guts to stand up to the government and say, look, 25 is a ridiculous notion. It is a ridiculous age at which to define independence for full-time students. It is ridiculous to assume that 25 is the age of independence when in nearly every other area of law, certainly where governments can save money, it is convenient to determine independence at the age of 16, 17 or, usually, 18. Whether it is the Child Support Act or the tax rebates for families, we notice that they do not define the age of independence as over 18 or indeed over 20, let alone 25.Again, I put our very strong objections on record and I draw to the attention of the opposition a press release that I read from earlier from the President of the National Union of Students, Rose Tracey, and its education officer, Katrina Curry, who plead with the opposition to reverse its stance so that people are treated fairly and treated as independents at a rightful and appropriate age, as opposed to 25. I find it ridiculous that we are even referring to people theoretically as children—and they are 25 years of age!So a commendation to the ALP for this particular amendment that alleviates one nasty, but shame on them for not actually going the whole hog and ensuring that students are treated as independent ideally at 18, less preferably at 21 but definitely not at 25.16:42:002987Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I back what Senator Stott Despoja was saying on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The Greens (WA) have seen some extraordinary arguments used during this whole process. We heard today that we can have 28-year-old youth in Australia who can still be treated as children by this government with the support of the opposition. So, yes, this is better than not having this particular measure but, no, it is certainly not good enough. Funnily enough, those young people—the 28-year-old youth—can vote and I think they will do as result of what will be happening today.Request agreed to.16:42:002987Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:(5) Schedule 9, item 17, page 213 (line 13), at the end of paragraph (e), add:, including: (iii) up front course fees; and (iv) HECS payments; and (v) union fees; and (vi) costs of text books; and (vii) costs of any tools or equipment required to undertake the course, including computer software; and (viii) expenses directly related to any field trips undertaken for the purposes of the course; and (ix) such other expenses as are approved by the Secretary.(6) Schedule 9, item 17, page 213 (lines 14 to 17), omit the note.Greens (WA) amendments 5 and 6 relate to the liquid assets test. They seek to clarify, specify and allow scope for the expansion of the deductions which students can make from their assessable assets under the liquid assets test. We have heard today some explanation— although that explanation largely fell on deaf ears with both the government and the opposition—in relation to what students can reasonably expect to spend or need to spend. This impacts of course on things like their income bank and their assessable income.We have asked that we add to the end of paragraph (e) at schedule 9, item 17, page 213, line 13 that it includes up-front course fees; HECS payments; union fees; costs of text books; costs of any tools or equipment required to undertake the course, including computer software; expenses directly related to any field trips undertaken for the purposes of the course; and such other expenses as are approved by the Secretary. We believe it does clarify the situation better, and hopefully we will be supported by the majority of the chamber.16:44:002987Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing this amendment, but we do have some concerns about amendment No. 5 and amendment No. 6 which facilitates amendment 5. Obviously the intention of the Greens is to clarify the issue and to ensure that the scope of the provision is as wide as possible. But, because of the way our statutory interpretation goes, by having a list of inclusions you effectively narrow the general statement. I think it is a very important issue but I think the effect of the amendment is to narrow the scope of the provision of those liquid assets, and it would concern me very much if that were the case. As I said, we will not be opposing it, but I suspect that you should seek some clarification from someone with some expertise in statutory interpretation.16:45:002987Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank Senator Neal for her response and I thank the Labor Party for their support for these proposals. I just remind the Senate that section 9 says, `such other expenses as are approved by the Secretary'. Other than that, I think it leaves people unsure about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. At least with clarification people know where they stand. They also know that they have the opportunity of arguing a case with the secretary if there are elements that are not actually covered in the other specifically mentioned categories.16:46:002988Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will also be supporting the amendment. I recognise that, in relation to deductions, this amendment does not differ markedly from the current situation. We did not see it as a narrowing of the criteria but rather as just more clarification. I now seek clarification from the government as to whether they see it as having that effect—that is, narrowing in some way. Specifically, we see amendment No. 5, which adds up-front course fees, HECS payments, union fees, textbooks and, of course, related materials and field trip expenses, as an appropriate clarification and listing.16:47:002988Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The government does not oppose this amendment for the reason that it is very consistent with what we were planning to put in the guidelines.Amendments agreed to.16:47:002988Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the House of Representativs be requested to make the following amendment:(1) Schedule 10, item 2, page 271 (after line 30), after clause 111, insert:111A $3,000 opening balance for student income bank for students transferring from AUSTUDY (1) If an AUSTUDY living allowance was payable, or is to be taken to have been payable, immediately before 1 July 1998, to or in respect of a person who is of youth allowance age on that day, then Step 1 of the Method Statement in point 1067G-J3 applies to the person as if the reference in that Step to zero were a reference to $3,000. (2) If an AUSTUDY living allowance was payable, or is to be taken to have been payable, immediately before 1 July 1998, to or in respect of a person who is of AUSTUDY age on that day, then Step 1 of the Method Statement in point 1067L-E2 applies to the person as if the reference in that Step to zero were a reference to $3,000.This request relates to the provisions of the income bank. This matter was discussed at some length previously, so I do not wish to go over it at length again. Essentially, it covers the difficulty that arises from the provisions of this bill coming into effect in the middle of the year and most probably during a period when students are not studying. This gives students a credit so that, when they actually earn that initial income, they will not lose eligibility for Austudy. In fact, it directly relates to people who were already either on youth allowance or Austudy and who would therefore be adversely affected by this change.This remedies the situation. It does not go as far as the Greens did, but it certainly remedies the situation created by the changes contained in this bill. I recommend this request to the Senate.16:48:002988Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The government does not oppose this request.16:48:002988Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I do not know whether it is unreasonable to ask the government what the rationale is for opposing not putting something on people unexpectedly that might create great difficulties for them. What would be the reason for opposing this request?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The government is not opposing the request.Request agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to, with requests.Bill reported with amendments subject to requests; report adopted.Bills2988r4212988Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)16:52:002988Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—We are continuing debate on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), which deals with the issues relating to choice of superannuation—or the deregulation of the retail delivery of superannuation. I would like to comment on the experiences in the United Kingdom and Chile in respect of the introduction of choice, because we do have two case studies of what occurred with those two systems.In the United Kingdom, in the 1980s, the then Thatcher government decided to allow employees to opt out of their company pension fund and, instead, to set up a personal pension arrangement. Many employees were persuaded to give up a generous employer financed benefit and move into a personal pension vehicle, where the only contributions were their own. Employees in many cases were inappropriately lured into these products by life insurance salesmen using unrealistic projections of expected retirement benefits. So many people were disadvantaged by this system that the Thatcher government was forced to introduce a complex system under which those disadvantaged could claim compensation and/or be reinstated in their former scheme. The whole affair is now universally acknowledged to be a total debacle, and the mess is still being sorted out.Although the circumstances differ slightly, similar risks apply in Australia under a proposed choice of fund regime. There is a danger that members of well run and generous enterprise based funds or industry funds will be persuaded by aggressive sales techniques to give up existing entitlements and rights to future benefit accruals for other arrangements that are less attuned to their needs.Just an update on the United Kingdom pension problems: the misselling scandal losses to consumers were recently revised upwards from £4 billion to £11 billion. Ninety per cent of the 560,000 people who transferred out of their occupational products were literally ripped off and, interestingly, the then Thatcher conservative government launched its initiative, wrapped in the rhetoric of freedom and, of course, the words `choice for the individual'.Briefly, to Chile. Chile operates a compulsory accumulation style private sector superannuation system. Most of the population is in one of 15 private sector funds, all of which compete actively for members. The Institutional Investor magazine reported in its June 1997 edition that 29 per cent of members switched funds in the previous 12 months. Much of the switching is triggered by sales people working for the funds being paid for each switch. Some 38 per cent of the entire cost of managing the Chilean superannuation system is related to switching between funds. Members are convinced, cajoled, induced and even seduced by a wide range of offers to switch to a new fund, with gifts such as mobile phones, mountain bikes, and many other initiatives. Such practices are illegal in Chile but widespread, nonetheless.I seek leave to table two documents: one on choice in Chile, and the other on lessons from the United Kingdom that were presented to the recent conference of major superannuation funds. These documents are very informative.Leave granted.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—The last issue I want to deal with is what I think is likely to happen under choice in Australia, in addition to the comments that I have made earlier about Chile and the United Kingdom. I seek leave to incorporate a document headed `The benefits generated by an industry fund compared with leading master trust providers', prepared by Industry Fund Services, dated 22 May 1998.Leave granted.The document read as follows—THE BENEFITS GENERATED BY AN INDUSTRY FUND COMPARED WITH LEADING MASTER TRUST PROVIDERSSource: INDUSTRY FUND SERVICES, 22 May 1998Table B2. Master Trust Fee StructuresA flat $ monthly feeA % or each contribution A % of the value of the clients accumulation Various transaction fees— exit fees switching feesTable CFEE COMPARISONProviderContributions $pm%Management (% Assets)ExitColonial Master FundxxxxIOOF Master FundxxxxAMP Flexible Life Time SuperxxxxNational All in One (a) Nil Entry Fee Optionx(b) Entry Fee Option Lump SumxxRegular ContributionxxMercantile Mutual IntegraxxxxZurich LifestylexxB.T.xxTable DFEE COMPARISONContributionsManagementProvider$pm%(% Assets)Colonial Master Fund3.904.51.5IOOF Master Fund5.704.01.1AMP Flexible Life Time Super5.824.51.3National All in One (a) Nil Entry Fee Option--1.95(b) Entry Fee Option Lump Sum-4.01.6Regular Contribution-1.51.6Mercantile Mutual Integra5.425.01.4Zurich Lifestyle-5.01.6B.T.-3.01.85Table EAssumptionsOrganisationIndustry FundColonialMercantile MutualAMPYear one wage—$32,000Wage increases at year endWage inflation:3%3%3%3%Admin charges increase in line with wage increasesAdmin charge:$1.00$0.90$1.24$1.35Additional admin charge:n/a4.5%5.0%4.5%Contribution rate:9.0%9.0%9.0%9.0%Investment management charge:0.40%1.50%1.40%1.30%Table FManager declared return: 6%Years in fundIndustry Fund Balance at RetirementColonial Balance at Retirement((1)-(2))/(2) %AMP Balance at Retirement((1)-(3)/(3) %Mercantile Mutual Balance at Retirement((1)-(4))/(4) %(1)(2)(3)(4)1$1,635$1,5565.1%$1,5346.6%$1,5306.8%6$12,116$11,2497.7%$11,1538.6%$11,0999.2%11$27,466$24,85410.5%$24,78810.8%$24,60211.6%16$49,464$43,57513.5%$43,71913.1%$43,27114.3%21$80,485$68,95316.7%$69,59615.6%$68,69217.2%26$123,694$102,95520.1%$104,54118.3%$102,89120.2%31$183,303$148,08223.8%$151,27321.2%$148,46023.5%36$264,903$207,51027.7%$213,27824.2%$208,70226.9%41$375,911$285,26931.8%$295,00827.4%$287,82630.6%Table GManager declared return: 8%Years in fundIndustry Fund Balance at RetirementColonial Balance at Retirement((1) -(2))/(2) %AMP Balance at Retirement((1)-(3))/(3) %Mercantile Mutual Balance at Retirement((1)-(4))/(4) %(1)(2)(3)(4)1$1,651$1,5715.1%$1,5496.6%$1,5456.8%6$12,845$11,9267.7%$11,8248.6%$11,7679.2%11$30,657$27,71310.6%$27,64210.9%$27,43311.8%16$58,279$51,19913.8%$51,38413.4%$50,84814.6%21$100,360$85,52717.3%$86,38116.2%$85,22517.8%26$163,649$135,05321.2%$137,28619.2%$135,03221.2%31$257,943$205,79925.3%$210,59422.5%$206,47624.9%36$397,435$306,07829.8%$315,34526.0%$308,16229.0%41$602,672$447,35434.7%$464,12029.9%$452,01033.3%ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—This document, prepared by Industry Fund Services, shows the benefits generated by an industry fund compared with those by a trio of leading master trust providers. They are not selected because they are the worst performers; they are, in fact, among the better ones. Under most master trust structures, small-scale employer based members and personal direct-paying members are treated identically. The old distinction between the two styles of product have largely disappeared. So the worst excesses of the personal superannuation products are behind us in respect of high front-end loading commission. There are still a few small operators selling this form of product—and, frankly, this form of product is largely rubbish.The real issue with master trusts is not the additional administration fees; the impact they have on end benefits is only a fraction of that of the management fee levied by the promoters in addition to the investment managed fees levied by the fund managers. Typically, fund managers charge between 0.5 and 0.6 per cent for wholesale funds, and up to 1.2 per cent for retail fund management. Master trust providers charge an additional one to two per cent. So it is not unusual for two per cent of the actual fund accumulated by the member to be levied each and every year, especially as many fund managers charge their retail, rather than their wholesale, rates in master trust investment funds.What is the outcome of this? The document that I have had incorporated, as I have said, is a comparison between industry funds on average and three leading master trust providers—and the three leading master trust providers are Colonial, AMP balanced and Mercantile Mutual balanced. The comparison shows that a person earning $32,000 a year, contributing over a period of 41 years, with a declared return of six per cent under an industry fund would end up with a total balance of some $376,000. With Colonial balanced, the final balance would be $285,000; AMP, $295,000; and Mercantile Mutual, $287,000.In other words, the comparison shows that in three what are reasonable, by any private industry standards, balanced funds, with Colonial you would be $90,000 worse off at retirement, with AMP balanced you would be $80,000 worse off and with Mercantile Mutual you would be $87,000 worse off. That is, approximately one-quarter of your final retirement income is reduced as a consequence of being in what are not, frankly, unreasonable products, compared with what is the best product on the market—and that is an average industry fund.This highlights the most significant problem that will emerge as a result of the govern ment's so-called choice of superannuation model: it is deregulation of superannuation at the retail end of the market; it is deregulation in an environment where people will simply not have the product knowledge in order to make an informed choice. Competition, per se, is good, but competition is based on individuals having product knowledge. As I have already said in this debate, how on earth do the, at the very least, 2½ million people in this country who are either certainly illiterate but also functionally illiterate develop the product knowledge in order to make an informed choice and be better off? Labor disagrees with this government's proposed choice of fund model and I hope the amendments we put forward will be supported.(Time expired)17:01:002993Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise in this debate on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 to look at a number of issues. Before so doing I just want to look at the background against which this issue of choice is set. I think it is summed up very well in the evidence that was given before the Select Committee on Superannuation's inquiry on Thursday, 19 February 1998, in Sydney by two witnesses: Mr Rankin, the Executive Director of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia; and Mr Kenneth Lockery, Principal of Towers Perrin. Dealing firstly with Mr Rankin's evidence: he said:. . . if choice is not properly exercised, there will be no net benefit to the individuals trying to accumulate savings for their retirement, and no benefit to the nation. If choice is poorly exercised, individuals and the nation will both be the losers. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that, without the capacity to make informed choices—that is, without addressing this asymmetry of information problem—people are likely to make poor choices. They will make choices which are either too conservative for their personal circumstances or too risky for their personal circumstances.That is the very point that Senator Sherry has been making in this debate. The problem that we are confronted with is people making proper choices, not poorly exercised choices, choices that are either too conservative or too risky, but choices that will provide them with a net benefit. Clearly, the evidence of Mr Rankin throws real doubts upon this whole issue of choice. One could look further, at what Mr Lockery of Towers Perrin said in response to the view that the government has taken on the issue of choice. This is what he said the government believes this will lead to:. . . greater competition leading to improved investment returns and lower administrative costs.Indeed, some members of smaller funds may achieve these benefits. On the other hand, we submit that such economic benefits will not be achieved for the vast majority of employees in large employer based or industry funds. Instead, in aggregate such employees are likely to suffer a net economic loss as a result of greater individual choice of superannuation funds.Whilst they are two opinions, I believe those two opinions do sum up the problems facing this issue of choice of fund, because we see that choice not properly exercised will have no net benefit, and we find that—and this was reasonably well supported by evidence before the committee—greater competition will not provide improved returns, will not lower administration costs and, whilst some in smaller funds may benefit, the vast majority of people will have no net benefit whatsoever.One must remember that superannuation is a retirement benefit and as such it must be worked to maximise the benefit for the employee. There is a misconception around that superannuation money is the employer's money, the insurance company's money, the bank's money or the fund manager's money, but it is by no stretch of the imagination any of theirs whatsoever. It is purely and simply the funds of the member and it should be maximised so that person can have a reasonable expectation of a reasonable retirement. There is an overriding moral obligation, I would put to you, for those entrusted with the money of the members of a fund to maximise that return and not to be frittering it away in the useless exercises which seem to be giving people, or pretend to be giving people, additional retirement benefits.Choice is not, or should not be, about lining the pockets of some individuals or corporate entities. Choice must be informed. That was the key thing in the evidence that was presented to the committee at all stages: choice must be informed. Otherwise, we are going to end up with the British or Chilean experience, as outlined by Senator Sherry. I have real doubts about, firstly, many people's ability to make an informed choice—I will come to that in a few moments—and, secondly, whether many people want to make an informed or real choice at all.The ability to make an informed choice, as my colleague Senator Sherry alluded to, is very much governed by their capacity to interpret the data on the various funds that will be put before them in key feature statements. To that end I want to refer as well to the ABS survey, `Aspects of Literacy: Assessed Skill Levels Australia 1996', where there was a ranking of levels 1 to 5. That particular survey showed that some 2.6 million Australians were at level 1—that is, of very poor skills in terms of literacy and numeracy—and 47 per cent were at levels 1 and 2. That meant that there were some or considerable difficulties in using many of the printed materials encountered in daily life. If that is the case, one must have real doubts that many Australians will be able to make an informed choice.It is interesting to look at opinion on the issue of the social costs of adequate literacy by looking at an article by Robyn Hartley on that very issue: `The Social Costs of Inadequate Literacy'—a report to an international literacy year symposium in 1989. On social costs, she says:Even highly literate people have trouble understanding some documents and forms. Those with inadequate literacy skills have no chance of understanding them. Documents which are based on legislation often tend to be particularly obscure.She goes on to say:However, much still remains to be done. Re-design of forms may well help the majority of people, but those who cannot read will still be unable to cope without assistance.That is the problem being confronted in this issue of choice of fund. Many of the people who will be called upon to make a choice of fund do not have the requisite skills to be able to read the literature to make an informed choice, so we have a major problem with the proposition that is being put forward in this legislation. Many people will not be so disposed to make a properly informed decision such that there will be a net benefit to them in the longer term, because we are not just dealing with `choice' but with `informed choice'.Whilst we have the international experience in the UK and Chile on the issue of choice of funds, we have no similar experience in Australia. But it is interesting to look at the issue of choice of investment where there is an opportunity under Australian law for members of superannuation funds—where a choice is made available to them—to so make a choice. I looked in particular at one company in Melbourne which had 1,400 to 1,500 employees. Over a five-month period they put their employees through sessions of up to one hour at a time. The employees were presented with very sophisticated communications techniques on the issue of choice of investment as opposed to choice of fund. At the end of a rather protracted period of time—as I said, five months—where there had been considerable employer cooperation and sponsorship, less than 25 per cent of employees made a choice of investment.The reason that they made a choice of investment was that the older members at that particular site wanted to see their money invested in a more conservative investment—to be put into cash—whilst younger members went very much for more equity in their mix of investment. The remainder, 75 per cent, opted for the default fund because in that they saw there was a reasonable return for them.Mrs Birkensleigh of Coopers and Lybrand gave evidence to the committee of choice of investment in a number of other funds. For example, in 1995 in the Hesta fund, a very substantial fund indeed, only 54 people out of 125 exercised choice. In First State Super, 10 per cent made a choice, according to Mrs Birkensleigh's evidence, while 90 per cent did not. In BOC Gases, 12 out of 2,000 made a choice of investment. Coca-Cola Amatil won the prize for the best communication program for employees on choice of investment. Coca-Cola Amatil's experience was that, even with a prize-winning communication program, only 64 per cent made a choice, so 36 per cent chose to remain with the default option in terms of investment. In Telstra, a more recent example, only two per cent out of 72,000 made a choice of investment, whilst in 1996 Optus ran an intensive campaign which saw some 75 to 80 per cent make a choice of investment.In the limited experience with choice of investment, there seems to be no clamouring on the part of those people who are participating in funds out there now to want to make even a choice of investment, let alone be devilled with the option of having to choose a fund. On the contrary, the evidence that the inquiry received showed that 70 per cent of people would not want to make a choice at all, which is contrary to the belief that people are clamouring to make a choice of superannuation fund in which to invest their money.If this legislation is to proceed there needs to be some substantial amendments to take cognisance of the fact that, firstly, there is a literacy and numeracy problem and, secondly, there is not an overwhelming demand for choice of fund. Choice of fund cannot, of course, rely on a default fund which is simply low risk and low return; that ignores the moral obligation of the trustees of the fund to maximise the return because it is a retirement benefit for those people who are members of the fund.Likewise, it cannot be a high risk product. So the quality of a default fund becomes most important in the issue of choice of fund. It seems to me that there needs to be some mechanism by which a middle of the road fund which meets the aspirations of most people is somehow the default fund, and in many instances that is the existing industry fund.In the brief time that I have left I want to mention the issue of education. It seems to me that, if choice of fund is to proceed, education will be paramount. There is no doubt in my mind from the evidence that came before a select committee of the Senate that it cannot be a one-off, glossy campaign. It is not a hit and miss issue. If informed choice is to be made, then the material that is used needs to be appropriate to the varying educational needs of those targeted by the campaign. There is a general lack of awareness of superannuation in the marketplace. So any campaign needs to be not a flash in the pan, one-off campaign but an ongoing con certed campaign. It needs to be directed not only at employees but also employers, particularly small business employers for whom I believe this will pose a number of concerns. They have enough on their plate trying to run their business.The other group that we heard from during the inquiry could be broadly described as community employers, the likes of P&Cs at schools and some community organisations such as child-care centres, where the people serving on these P&Cs and community organisations serve for only a relatively short period of time and are not across the minutiae of superannuation legislation. There would need to be a specially constructed campaign to meet their needs. Whilst they are not a large group, they are nonetheless an important group. If the legislation is to be complied with, their needs must be met.Without a proper program, I believe we will see misinformation flourishing. As misinformation flourishes, any purpose that may have been there in giving people the right to exercise choice will be defeated completely. Choice is about one thing: that is, providing people with a better benefit. It is not about a reduction in benefit. As I have already stated, there seems to be a degree of scepticism about the ability of choice of fund as opposed to choice of investment to provide people with a better return for their retirement.The government should not proceed with choice, in my view, and in the view of those who participated in the inquiry, until it can be satisfied that, as per the non-government senators' report at page 93 on choice of fund, there is a substantial recognition of what choice of fund means and how it applies. This is a challenge in itself, because it means overcoming the literacy and numeracy problems that seem to be so deep and profound in the community. If this is not done properly, we will not have informed choice. The words that kept ringing in my ears throughout the whole of the inquiry was that people had to make an informed choice—not just choice but an informed choice.If choice is not properly exercised, it will not be of benefit to anyone. The education program needs to be well tested to allow an informed choice. Otherwise we will see people making a choice that is too conservative or too risky. There seems to be no real demand for choice, and that must be a mitigating factor in the final package that is delivered if choice is to be made available to people. There is not a clamouring out there in the community by a large number of people to be able to make a choice. The majority are not going to benefit, in my opinion, from the option of making a choice of fund. They are likely in many instances to face a net economic loss. The bill needs to be modified to protect the interests of the owners of superannuation money—that is, the fund members. Fund members are entitled to have an expectation that there will be a maximisation of the return on their investment for their retirement. They are entitled to a retirement in dignity.17:21:002996Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 —or the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill No. 7 1997, as it was titled before it went before the Senate Economics Legislation Committee—includes a large number of unrelated taxation matters. Whilst, like others, I might be tempted to focus on the very important issue of choice of funds in superannuation, I am leaving those issues to my colleagues because I think it is equally important in the brief time I have in my speech during the second debate to deal with some of the other measures covered by this bill. In my speech I will be focusing on the restriction of choices in relation to anti-avoidance measures included in amendments to schedules 8 and 9 and the savings rebate scheme.These tax measures beg the question of why are we proceeding with this bill in the climate of anticipation of the government's tax plan for the election; why are we proceeding now with these measures? It was put to the committee that it was a priority of the government to proceed with the issues relating to superannuation, but there were other options than to try to rush, as this government did—or, in Senator Murray's words, to squeeze—this process through the parliamentary process.The other big question I will be focusing on in this speech is how effective will these anti-avoidance measures and the savings rebate scheme be, given the limited consideration that has occurred of the proposals in the bill. In fact, we have considered various amendments also, as it became obvious that the original framing was inadequate. If in our consideration there are still areas of serious concern, why proceed now? Why not wait until these measures can be incorporated into the wonderful tax plan that we are all anticipating will come from the government in the next few weeks?I would like to refer to comments made by Labor members of the Economics Legislation Committee in their report on these issues. We said quite clearly that Labor senators considered that the whole process adopted regarding this bill reflected poorly on the government and, regrettably, on the Senate process. The report was brief because we had very limited opportunities to consider concerns raised by various parties. Labor senators noted in the report:The government has engaged in an appalling process which involved rushed hearings and inadequate public consultation. The Assistant Treasurer released 49 amendments to the legislation at 4 p.m. on Friday, 27 March, in the full knowledge that the hearings on the legislation were scheduled for the following Monday morning. Not surprisingly, the witnesses were not adequately able to deal with the legislation and the amendments and the quality of evidence was compromised.To attempt to overcome this disgraceful performance by the government, the Labor senators proposed to the Senate that the committee report in May. This motion was amended, by the government and the Democrats, to the current inadequate reporting schedule. However, this action by Labor at least ensured another day of hearings was facilitated on 3 April 1998. Incredibly, when this further hearing was held, witnesses to the committee still did not have the complete bill to provide evidence about. In addition, the witnesses had to deal with the untenable situation where the government had introduced further legislation, Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 , earlier in the week, which impacts on the operation of the bill before the committee. Why is the government pushing through these initiatives when we are waiting for that very broad plan?I reiterate that it reflects the management by the government of these tax bills, but it also reflects the management that the government is going to put in relation to the overall tax debate. Adopting Senator Murray's phrase, I think we will be looking at a squeeze on the GST, where it will be impossible to have a rational assessment of the overall proposals in an attempt to squeeze through an alternative measure. The government does not want to line up some of these measures before us now with the GST, so it is trying to push them through now.Let me start with schedule 8, with respect to dividend streaming. Senator Cook, in his speech during this debate, has already addressed this issue and applied what I will call the Parer test of efficacy. Again, the big question is: how effective will these measures be? Senator Cook and I are awaiting the minister's response about whether these anti-avoidance measures will void the behaviour of the likes of Senator Parer in avoiding their obligations.With respect to schedule 9, there are two areas I would like to comment on. The relevant amendments look at distributions from private companies. This area covers measures directed at $110 million over three years, according to the Treasurer, Peter Costello, in what he is calling tax rorts.Senator Cook briefly touched on a concept called notional dividends, which are declared as shares not yet issued but disguised as non-taxable loans. Again, we have another Parer test. The really concerning thing about this Parer test arose in questioning before the Australian Taxation Office during the estimates process. The tax office indicated that they do not even understand the concept of notional dividends. If this is the case, the tax office has a fair bit of work to do in order to bring themselves up to speed if they are going to enforce this legislation and deal with practices in relation to these sorts of avoidance rorts. If these fairly blatant ones, which have become public through Senator Parer's behav iour, cannot be dealt with, what are they going to do with the more complex cases?I would appreciate the minister's views on the arrangement masterminded by Senator Parer on whether notional dividends disguised as shareholder loans will be caught by this legislation. If the minister is unable to provide an appropriate answer in his speech at the conclusion of the second reading debate, then I suggest that he should be prepared for the committee stage, where we will be seeking—in the more detailed discussions of the bill—an explanation as to how they would apply. We will not have very effective anti-avoidance measures if we are not able to pick up this sort of behaviour, but that also does not seem to concern the government greatly.Another area in relation to schedule 9 that Senator Murray touched on was that of employee ownership schemes. Senator Murray had a concern—and it was raised in discussions in relation to the bill—that such schemes might be caught up in schedule 9. Whilst the Labor Party supports employee ownership schemes and incentives towards such schemes, we do not do so with respect to schemes that would operate at the expense of revenue. In other words, not all schemes are appropriate as employee ownership schemes. Again, the Parer test highlights the issue that, in some cases, employee ownership is really a fraud because it is not open to employees—it is only open to some very select employees who get a massive tax advantage.Let us look at the QCMM (ESP) scheme and highlight the problem there. The employee share plan was, in essence, an executive remuneration scheme for Senator Parer and his fellow directors. Ralph Willis described such schemes—in response to Peter Costello's announcement that the then opposition would oppose a crackdown on such arrangements—as schemes designed to convert salary into shares or share rights in order to take advantage of the open-ended tax deferral opportunities.As in the Parer case, three associated companies—QCMM Pty Ltd, AQRM Pty Ltd and Tremell Pty Ltd—collectively contributed $2.7 million to QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd in consideration of the issue of UNC employer class shares. However, the purchase of these shares was tax deductible, yet, in essence, no economic loss was borne by the companies involved. Parer and his fellow directors, in turn, subscribed for employee class shares—Senator Parer, employee class shares! QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd paid to the value of 1c each. They then became entitled to the pool of $2.7 million, through the creation of employee contribution accounts, in proportion to the number of shares they had subscribed for. In Senator Parer's case, it was a total of 44 one cent shares.The tax lurk is that the companies can immediately claim $2.7 million in tax deductions yet no tax is payable by any of the holders of the employee class shares until they redeem them with QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd. This is where the unlimited tax deferral opportunity arose, and I am interested in how the minister will respond in relation to whether the proposed amendments will effectively deal with this sort of rort.Lastly, I would like to look at the government's discredited savings rebate. This measure is so important to the government that we are only now debating it, one year after it was announced, and it is within a mixture of unrelated tax measures. The fact that we are debating it after the 1998-99 budget has been announced shows how important the government thinks it is. What we know, though, is that, far from making a contribution to national savings, it will actually lead to dissavings, thus Senator Cook's suggestion that it should be called the dissavings rebate.When announced last year, it carried with it a $3.8 billion cost to revenue over three years. So before we see any contribution to national savings—again, the efficacy test—this $3.8 billion has to be made up through increased private sector savings. The cat was let out of the bag—although we had been saying it for some time—that to qualify for the savings rebate all you had to do was receive income outside of the PAYE system. As Annamaria Carey of the Taxation Institute stated:The savings rebate in reality is a tax cut because income—not savings—is the sole criteria for the rebate.So we have a tax cut before the government's income tax cuts that are meant to be coming. Why are we dealing with this now if this is meant to fit in with an overall tax reform? The answer is obviously that it is not genuine.It is also significant that 74.5 per cent of all income generated in Australia is from salary and wages and therefore will not qualify for the rebate, as opposed to trusts and partnerships which comprise 7.4 per cent of all income and gross rent at 3.4 per cent. This means that the two top sources of income in Australia after salary and wages, which only comprise 10.8 per cent of all income generated in Australia, will qualify amongst other sources for the savings rebate. And, as we know, there are not too many battlers out there with partnerships and trusts, unless we are talking to the battlers from Brighton or the struggling families from Toorak.But, as we know, this government—particularly half of its front bench—has put its trust in trusts. Who is at the epicentre of the trust owning members of the coalition? It is none other than Senator Parer. Who stands to gain from the savings rebate? Again, it is the Parer test. We have Parer, a battler, a struggler—he has remained in the ministry—and the very type of person that this government intends to benefit from the savings rebate! After all, there are hundreds of thousands of struggling Australian families out there with $60,000 just sitting in the bank earning five per cent interest, or $3,000, in order to qualify for the maximum rebate!But the best part is that every beneficiary of the Parer family coal trust who receives $3,000 by way of suspect trust distribution—the things we are trying to avoid—will receive the full $450 rebate and, what is more, they do not even have to save it. Not a bad lurk, one might say. But, for Senator Parer and his like, this is par for the course or probably a bit at the low end of the tax minimisation scale. For some, paying tax has become an optional exercise and this government now subscribes to the Parer principle: don't pay what you don't have to and, importantly, don't get caught.We will continue to highlight the hypocrisy of this government: it wants to impose a GST on battling Australian families yet is quite happy to allow or, I should say, assist the likes of Senator Parer to milk the system for what it is worth, regardless of the public cost. I therefore seek an explanation, again related to the Parer test, from the minister on how the mere distribution of moneys from a trust such as Senator Parer's contributes to national savings when the money is received by beneficiaries who do not even have to save it.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I have sat and listened with interest to Senator Collins's contribution but she continually addresses our colleague by his incorrect title. He is a senator and she is making some assertions that I do not believe are correct. Nevertheless, I am not going to take her up on that, but perhaps you might draw to her attention her inconsistencies in the way in which she addresses Senator Parer.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—On the point of order, I was not aware that Senator Collins was at any point directly addressing the minister, so I think it is a point of order that you should rule out of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—I do not think there is a point of order, but it is proper that the senator's proper title be used whenever it is appropriate. Senator Collins, I did hear you, on a couple of occasions, refer to the `Parer family trust', which I understand is the proper title of the trust, but I would remind you that if it is appropriate you should use the senator's full title.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Perhaps that gives me the note on which to conclude my remarks. I had indeed intended to be very careful when referring to Senator or Mr Parer to use his title, but, of course, I was counter-indicating that with what I have characterised as the Parer test. I will perhaps conclude my remarks with what was the final Parer test. I will be seeking an explanation from the minister as to how the mere distribution of moneys from a trust such as Senator Parer's contributes to the national savings when the moneys received by the beneficiaries do not even have to be saved. I look forward to this explanation.17:38:003000Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—In this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 , I rise to speak mainly about the choice of fund question but also about the savings rebate—and possibly Senator Parer may also get a mention.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Don't forget Mr Keating: he didn't send in two tax returns.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—He did not owe any money, Senator Calvert—he was owed money by the tax office. But let us stick to the topic, which is to do with superannuation. The context of the whole debate on choice of fund is: why was compulsory superannuation introduced in the early 1990s by the Labor government? It was introduced because this country had a national savings problem and it had a potential problem down the track of coping with the aging baby boomer generation. Those were the twin objectives; that is what superannuation was about. Probably the most malicious policies that have been followed by this government since it came to office have been in superannuation and they have been put in place on the surface to improve national savings and deal with these issues. But when you strip them down and actually have a look at them, you find that each of these proposals has actually sabotaged those aims and objectives.First we saw RSAs—retirement savings accounts. If ever there was a crock, it is an RSA. If ever there was a payback to their mates who financed them in the last campaign—the banks—it is RSAs. They are a low return product guaranteed to leave you hundreds and thousands of dollars worse off if you are a young worker and you are put into an RSA and you stick with it. There was no attempt to give what was known as a `health warning' to try to cap it so that if your RSA got to $10,000 you would be given real information by the supplier of that product. No, you could just sit there for your working life and at the end of the day find yourself hundreds of thousands of dollars worse off.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—That even had visions on the pension.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is exactly right, Senator Campbell. Then we have as part of this bill today the savings rebate. This is a reverse Robin Hood mechanism; this is $4 billion of moneys that was going to go into ordinary workers' superannuation accounts. What did this government do? It came up with the savings rebate—it called it its `alternative vehicle' of delivery. That was its election promise: `we reserve the right—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—It was its debt truck.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Exactly.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Maybe it's the same vehicle.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It could be the same vehicle, Senator Campbell. You saw $2 billion go immediately into consolidated revenue—back into the pocket of the government—and $2 billion to be given to the rich—those who already have the money; those who already have the savings. They do not need to save any extra. They can actually dissave and receive the savings rebate.We saw the surcharge. Ordinary workers' superannuation funds paying; their returns reduced because of the extra administrative costs introduced by this government—reducing the returns to funds and the retirement incomes of ordinary working Australians. Again, coming up soon to the Senate we have superannuation to be taken out as an industrial matter—an attempt by the government to again reduce the impact on national savings. As shown in information given to the Senate Committee on Superannuation by the Institute of Actuaries, if you move from the award obligation of monthly payments to the minimum SGC requirement of annual payments you are, on average, three to four per cent worse off just by the stroke of a pen—that is $20,000 to $30,000 worse off at the end of your working life just because the government have a fixation. That is less national savings yet again.And now we have choice of fund. After all this time you might begin to ponder why the government is actually pursuing this policy. Mr Miles, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, when introducing the first of the backgrounds on this bill, which was the implementation date, said, and I am quoting from Hansard:It is clear that the opposition amendments are all about denying Australian workers the choice of superannuation funds. This really is the Labor Party's agenda, similar to what the agenda was many years ago when these other funds—other funds—which the Labor Party set up came in.That is what this really is about. This is about a mean spirited, ignorant understanding and an attack on industry funds.What sort of national policy premise is the vindictive approach of this coalition—an approach to undermine and destroy industry funds? That is what it is all about. Mr Miles is the one who has finally let the cat out of the bag. We all knew it in here. We have talked about it before. That is what it is about: the Labor Party's other agenda. I would like to talk about that other agenda item, industry funds. Since their inception in the early 1980s, industry funds have provided for rapid and sustained reductions in costs to their membership. In that time weekly admin fees have fallen from an average of $4 to less than $1 today. These charges compare most favourably with those imposed by banks on, for example, their business transactions. According to Christopher Butler, managing director of Sedgwick Noble Lowndes, in the Financial Review dated 9 January 1998, page 19, the average charges for non-profit industry and corporate funds are half the average of those funds that are in the market for profit—half of the profit. I plead guilty to that agenda. We have halved the costs in that area alone in the few years since industry funds were created. I plead guilty to that agenda any day of the week.The most significant improvements in service delivery are the adoption of member protection of small account balances, the administration of the extremely complex `surcharge' arrangements and the implementa tion of member investment choice within the one fund. That is right; industry funds are at the cutting edge of member investment—not holding back, trying to keep members' funds. Fund asset management charges have been halved, from 0.6 per cent of assets under management to about 0.3 per cent today. Industry funds have introduced bulk death and invalidity insurance, and they have also provided these at about half the cost of the same retail insurance product. Half the management fees gone and half those on death and disability gone. I will plead guilty to that any day of the week, because that is what industry funds have done.Before Senator Kemp comes into the chamber and says, `But, Senator Conroy, you have not mentioned where you used to work,' I proudly state that I used to work for an industry fund, the TWU superannuation fund. I am absolutely proud to declare that I have been a part of reducing those charges. `What about returns?' you might say. `Those industry funds run by unions must be not delivering to their members in terms of investment returns.' At the same time industry funds have credited members with investment returns in excess of 10 per cent on average each year since their inception. This demonstrates that industry funds have delivered superior returns to their membership by comparison to other super vehicles. The AMPs and the National Mutuals have not been able to deliver that sort of return. National Mutual practically went broke and gave $100 million to John Elliott to go and play with in a little frolic with Elders.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—AMP is too busy turning itself into a bank.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Exactly, Senator Campbell—a bank. So what we have seen is a vicious attack by this government on workers' retirement incomes because it is paranoid about industry funds. It does not matter that these funds have improved national savings; it does not matter that they pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars back into retirement incomes; it does not matter that they have introduced competition—what the government says it is about here today. Industry funds are the competition in this issue.But who has asked for choice? Have employees asked for choice? Have employers asked for choice? The answer is no. There is no demand for choice, except from one sector. No prizes: banks and life insurance offices.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—The finance sector.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The finance sector. Exactly. No prizes for guessing. That is who has been after them. This legislation about choice is not employee choice. It is not the choice of the person who owns the money. This legislation gives employer choice. You may think, because it is called choice of fund, that in actual fact employees are going to get to choose their fund. Well, they are not; they are quite specifically not. It is their money but, despite the deception of the name of this bill, they are still not going to get choice of fund.Probably the most vital question, though, that has to be dealt with by the chamber and by the government is the question of an informed choice. There was not one witness, not even the government itself, that was prepared to say, `We don't want informed choice.' That is the nub of the argument if this legislation gets passed in its current form: informed choice. We have got a situation where this choice is going to have onerous administrative costs and possible legal action down the track. It has attempted to take away some of the liability. Whether that is able to be achieved is still a matter of some discussion. There was plenty of evidence before the committee that it was not going to be able to take away the liability. Even the government admitted that there is still the common law. There are legal aspects that cannot be legislated away.The government have failed on all counts on this bill to deliver to Australian workers. Choice will not lower the costs. Probably the biggest furphy in this debate is a claim that choice, through their competitive process, will lower the costs to ordinary Australian workers. We had the Commonwealth Bank come before us and I asked them, `After choice has been introduced, the winds of competition, can you guarantee me that your RSA product will be one cent cheaper in one year's time than it is today?' They had to say that no, they could not. The banks could not even promise that an RSA would be cheaper after the winds of competition have swept through.Who is benefiting, then? It is certainly not the workers. It is the competition that we introduced that has forced down the costs—not the bogus competition that this government are introducing.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Real competition.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Real competition. We introduced it into this area, not the government. Many of the submissions illustrated to us the increased costs, especially in marketing. There is no question that marketing is going to have to massively increase. One industry fund said to me that they are going to have to double their admin budget just to cope with the possible marketing extras. They are going to be up against the AMPs and the National Mutuals and all the TV advertising, and they are still going to be competing. I have got a prediction for the government and their narrow-minded agenda here: not only will industry funds survive choice but they will prosper. Down the track, when the government sits back and thinks, `How much damage have we done to industry funds?', they are going to say, `We have failed.' Industry funds will grow under this legislation. Industry funds are not afraid of this legislation. Industry funds are happy with choice, but they want employee choice, not employer choice.The government's model increases costs. It sees employees possibly forced into expensive entry management and exit fee regimes. That is what the choice is here. You could see employees forced into funds, especially new employees, that in actual fact are far more expensive with lower returns. And they do not have to be in RSA. We have already had Senator Sherry give us some excellent examples, tabled in the chamber, of how much more expensive, with poorer returns, master trusts can be. One example that I have, based on an eight per cent return and a range of other figures, is that you can be, over your working life, $30,000 worse off again by being forced into a master super trust instead of your industry fund. Another $30,000 of national savings gone, of a worker's retirement income gone, just because the government want to be narrow-minded.We will be asking Senator Kemp or Senator Ellison, if he is here for the committee stage, some questions about the education campaign. If the government is really fair dinkum about this bill, they will tell us what sort of budget they are looking at—what sort of education campaign. We introduced what at the time was the biggest change in superannuation in years, in the early 1990s, and we spent about $14 million on the money tree campaigns. There were a couple of them. Most people would remember them nowadays—the little growing money tree you saw on telly. That was a national campaign, on prime-time television, just to educate people that compulsory superannuation was coming. It was the most basic of concepts. But this shake-up we are seeing is even bigger. If you looked at our campaign in the early 1990s, which in today's dollars was probably about $16 million or $17 million, you would think that this was a bigger change and that you would therefore need a bigger campaign. What have we seen so far from this government? Four million dollars. You could not run any decent sort of advertising campaign anywhere with $4 million on even the simplest of concepts.This government is not fair dinkum about this issue. Key feature statements are probably the most critical part. Where is the government at on key feature statements? We had all sorts of evidence, some of which has been referred to—the literacy question, for example. Forty per cent of people cannot even read a bus timetable.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Thirty.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—They are going to be handed, by their employer, up to six pages of a key feature statement from four different funds.Senator Calvert interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Those are the facts, Senator Calvert. It is horrifying but true. And you are going to give them six pages times four of detailed financial information to compare. These are ABS statistics. These are not made up, these are the facts. These are what you do not want to look at.You have a situation where, with calling number display, you are prepared to say, `If 75 per cent of the community do not understand the implications of calling number display, then we will not do it.' Are you fair dinkum about this education campaign? If you go out there and test your education campaign, and still 50 or 60 per cent of the people do not understand the choice they are going to have to make, are you prepared to not introduce choice until enough people understand so that they cannot do themselves long-term damage? Are you prepared to do that? Those are the questions you are going to have to answer when we get to the committee stage.I could go on extensively but I am running out of time and I did want to get to the savings rebate. As has already been mentioned, the great lie of the savings rebate is that it will improve national savings. It will not. Why do I say it will not? Because Ted Evans, the Secretary to the Treasury, has admitted it will not. He has admitted that it is possible to obtain the full rebate if you have not only not increased your savings but also if you have decreased your savings. You still get the rebate. How can you justify, on equity grounds or even economic efficiency grounds, a rebate that is completely contrary to your policy, on the admission of your senior bureaucrat?In my last minute I would like to turn to an article in the `Smart Money' section of the Financial Review on 2 May 1998. The heading is `Rebate can be milked for more'. The report is by Alison Kahler and it reads:At first glance, $225 seems a trifling amount but the new savings rebate can be milked for much more. Conceivably, a family of four with a sufficient income flow could receive a total rebate of $900—without saving a cent.Income—not savings—is the sole criteria for the rebate, according to Annamaria Carey of the Taxation Institute of Australia.`In reality, the savings rebate is a tax cut for any income generated outside of wages and salary. If you receive rental income, for example, you qualify for the rebate. The income does not have to be saved, just received,' she says.Carey says the income can come from just about any source, including bank accounts, share dividends, trust distributions, partnerships or business interests and contract or consulting work.After-tax superannuation contributions also count towards the rebate, as do some pensions . . .(Time expired) 17:59:003004Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) has a number of components, and I would primarily like to comment on the choice of superannuation fund and the savings rebate provisions in the bill. There has been a continual call from the Greens to ensure a greater level of choice in obligatory retirement savings schemes. The Greens WA believe that choice, in principle, is a worthy goal that allows consumers to identify and promote their individual interest. It allows them to have control and ownership of their investments and to choose to support investment companies that are in line with their own financial or ethical interests.Choice gives credence to different values, priorities and ideas. Choice is a great concept in theory. In reality, the choice scheme presented by the government comes with a whole lot of problems for consumers, employers and fund providers. In reality, the problems are so significant that it is dubious that there will be an overall positive outcome for this regime.Before I launch into a discussion of the bill at hand, I would like to make a point that I have made many times before. There has been a call from the Greens to recognise that obligatory investment programs, such as compulsory superannuation or RSAs, are not necessarily the best investment vehicle for workers. We have continually pointed out that investment in such things as a small business or a home may provide more substantial and far reaching benefits. This goes beyond the direct benefits as financial investments and recognises that there may be substantial or ongoing human benefits in terms of use value of such investments and, in the case of investment in small business, ensuring the capacity of older people to continue working.Getting back to the bill, there is a plethora of extremely worrying issues in relation to the issue of choice in superannuation funds. The government's approach is haphazard, inconsistent and ideological, and it fails to recognise the realities of the superannuation marketplace. The government has been claiming it has been doing a wondrous thing for Australia's citizens by providing them with choice in their superannuation funds. The reality is less than wondrous.Firstly, the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation received a substantial amount of evidence indicating that employees were not especially interested in choice, nor were they equipped to handle it. The government's push for choice seemed largely based on an ideology that sees liberty as paramount in all circumstances, rather than on a genuine pragmatic interest in responding to community desires.Secondly, the regime provided is significantly substandard. What they have really provided is a regime that offers employers choice. Employers are the ones that choose what range of choice they will offer their employees. Employers will benevolently decide to offer unlimited choice, and employers will still have the power of veto over their employees' choices. To rub salt in the wound, there is no independent arbiter to whom the employee can appeal.It is a regime that leaves underinformed consumers with an uphill battle to understand the differences in funds. It is a regime that diminishes the longstanding union involvement that has protected union rights. It is a regime that gives consumers few opportunities to gain redress if funds are sold for the wrong reasons. It is a regime that increases compliance for employers, and marketing costs for fund holders. It is interesting that this government, which calls welfare beneficiaries `customers', seems to think that the customers of superannuation do not have the right to have some accountability in what has been happening.It is a regime that may not actually usher in real investment choice. A choice of four different funds does not necessarily translate into four substantially different investment choices. The focus of choice is not on which financial institutions can make similar investments but on the choice of investment targets. It is a regime that does not consider or accommodate people who may want to invest ethically or locally. Despite all these problems, it is a system that, until a short time ago, the government was attempting to rush through parliament before 1 July 1998.Let us look at real choice. The crux of offering real choice, we believe, could be seen as threefold. Firstly, real choice offers the ability for employees to choose substantially different funds. The funds must provide the ability to choose the level of risk and growth, the locality of the investment—it could be off-shore or in Australia, and it could be regional—or the type of investment, ethical or otherwise.The Greens WA have continued to call for options that support the Australian economy and employment within an ethical context. We have frequently pursued options within superannuation funds for investment in locally or regionally owned small or medium business; ecologically sustainable investment; non-military oriented, peaceful investment; investment that does not exploit people from developing nations; or options which do not force individuals to invest in industries that they believe are unethical—because my ethics may not be the same as everybody else's, and in fact I am sure they will not be.Secondly, real choice requires comprehensive education so that each individual can determine what their interests are and which fund matches those interests most closely. Thirdly, real choice involves uniform disclosure among competing funds. Consumers must be able to accurately and confidently distinguish between the products offered. Associated with education and disclosure is the notion that real choice involves the absence of unrelated influencing factors. The lure of a kickback for an employer or the promise of a get-rich-quick scheme by rascally commission agents should not be considerations. It is broadly agreed that education and uniform disclosure standards are crucial.These suggestions have been coming from a whole range of participants in the industry. Yet the government plans to make this change without ensuring or providing the resources for education, as Senator Conroy has mentioned. The resources are downright inadequate to provide clear and easily accessible information on which to base decisions. The Australian Consumers Association has estimated, by looking at the budget of the Australian Taxation Office, that the government has allocated the hearty sum of $1.60 per fund member, to be spent over four years. Whoopee!The decision about which super fund to invest in is, for many people, perhaps the most significant investment in their lives, and the government gives them that princely sum to find out what they are doing. Without adequate resources, even the most creative education campaign cannot operate effectively. The government's pledge of $12 million over four years is judged to be hopelessly deficient on all fronts.The Greens WA applaud the deferral of the operation of the choice provisions in the bill. The deferral was ostensibly necessary for a proper education campaign to occur. The government, however, did not indicate that they would defer the starting date for such substantive reasons. Their commitment to proper education, therefore, is questionable. The deferral was actually out of necessity, because the legislation was slow in moving through the parliament.The other fundamental prerequisite for real consumer choice is the establishment of uniform and comparable disclosure requirements. The committee report extensively outlines the need for clear information that is easily digestible and allows consumers to make accurate comparisons between different options. Simple and meaningful key features need to be in a standard format to enable rational and accurate comparisons. The Greens acknowledge that the government is working on this aspect, and we will be keen to scrutinise the regulations.Let us go to the default fund. The government's treatment of the default fund shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the superannuation marketplace. There is a fundamental refusal to accept the realities of the willing ness, or lack thereof, of the community to take an interest in superannuation. The government has provided that the default fund can be any fund that the employer chooses. There is a fundamental refusal to accept that there are risks involved in leaving this choice to employers. Those people who do not think that coercion exists in the workplace are naive in the extreme.Let us look for a moment at the inconsistent reasoning behind this whole issue. Let us look at the reason that Australia has decided to have a compulsory superannuation scheme in the first place. The very first point that comes to mind is demographics. It raises a good question: why did this happen? I guess partly it was because Labor did not want to look at what was necessary to provide properly funded pensions, but one fundamental reason is possibly that they thought it was impossible to rely on all Australians to make long-term financial decisions in their own interests.Of course, on a deeper, structural level, compulsory superannuation was introduced to ensure that government could reduce its obligation in respect of older people on a per capita basis. It is a crucial step on the road to dismantling and stigmatising the universal pension. It fits very neatly with the economic fundamentalist philosophy of absolving governments from all responsibility to maintain equitable living standards for all Australians throughout their lives.Where there is a compulsory superannuation scheme in place, there will always be a certain number of people who will not actively choose a super fund. Regardless of the amount of education that is offered by the government, there will always be a certain percentage of people who will not investigate which super fund will best meet their needs. It may be for reasons of financial illiteracy or because it is not an issue that they care to turn their minds to, but realistically there will always be this percentage. Indeed, this has been the experience in state schemes in New South Wales and Queensland offering choice, and where choice has been offered between funds. The government, however, has a naive belief that its education campaign can overcome all apathy or ignorance in the communi ty. Clearly this is at odds with reality and experience.When the reality of apathy is taken into account, the default fund becomes a crucial and important instrument. The employees who do not actively choose a super fund will be left to the whim of what the employer chooses. Granted, this may not always be a bad thing: some employers may choose very good funds to have as default funds. However, this is not assured. On a most conservative calculation, if only one per cent of the work force end up in bad default funds and they lose only $20,000 each, this will total a loss of $2 billion. This possibility does not seem to concern the government.A major concern is that employers are not subject to any legal action if they fail to act prudently. Employees effectively have no legal redress for negligent decisions by employers. The government has stripped the AIRC of its power to arbitrate on superannuation matters, and the constitutionality of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal is questionable. Employers will have a distinct incentive to go with the fund that offers the lowest rate of compliance cost or some kind of kickback. There is a clear need for an impartial dispute resolutions body in light of the introduction of the high level of discretion for employers.The Greens (WA) support the committee's view that minimum requirements should be applied to default funds to ensure their integrity. Such requirements are not especially burdensome as many funds worth their salt would comply with the minimum standards anyway. In addition, the Greens (WA) see merit in determining the default fund by reference to the relevant industrial award where that is applicable.As I have made clear on previous occasions, I clearly reject the right of an employer to influence in any way the membership of an employee in a retirement savings account. There are clear drawbacks to these accounts. They have no minimal control of some group at least theoretically representing their contributors. RSAs represent investment that is not transparent and which is determined by banks.Investment in the banking sector is open to international players. Increasingly, even those banks whose character is presented as `Australian' have substantial investments, including ownership of banks, abroad. Ownership of foreign banks often entails a management structure where foreign interests are directly represented and funds are freely transferred and invested in any nation, and assets collected in this nation may be lent in any nation. The interests of management in such banks may be totally divorced from the interests of Australia, Australian investors, Australian industry or the Australian economy. The Greens will be supporting measures to ensure that incentives to commission agents and any kickbacks to employers are prohibited.The legislation seeks to strip superannuation of its status as an industrial relations issue. Significant superannuation gains have been made by unions through both the judicial and legislative process. The industrial setting of superannuation is currently manifested by union representation on industry funds and superannuation clauses in awards. This bill effectively removes superannuation clauses from industrial awards and establishes super as an issue for direct determination between an employer and an employee. Any kind of collective decision making for superannuation arrangements will be watered down significantly. The expertise built up by unions and their important role in consumer protection will be largely lost.I believe the industry funds have been sensible, secure and valuable investment funds for members in the past. Many of the industry funds already provide choices to employees regarding how their funds are invested. The presence of the unions has meant that many workers have had a strong and informed voice to advocate for consumer benefits on their behalf. In addition, many industry funds were able to keep administrative fees low by economies of scale and minimal marketing.The proposed choice regime is supposed to provide, as indicated in the minister's second reading speech on the bill, `greater choice and control over their superannuation savings'. As outlined, there is no assurance it will provide choice, and whether it will provide control is highly questionable when many employees have little education or expertise in investment funds.This industrial relations change is a significant change that should not be lightly dismissed. I notice the Democrats and the ALP have recognised this significance: their respective positions on this issue both attempt to ensure that superannuation remains within the award system. This, we believe, is a valuable goal. The issue for the Greens is going to be whether or not the issues of choice within this bill and within these schemes are realised; so we have a dilemma and we are still listening to the debate as it goes on.This change is indicative of a broader government plan that undermines unions and other longstanding institutions that were formed to address systematic inequalities of wealth and power. We have the work for the dole scheme and its transfer-the-problem-to-the-individual musical theme of `search for the hero inside yourself'; so if you do not have a job, it is your fault because you have not looked for that hero far enough inside yourself.The problem comes down to putting the finger on making people feel bad about being recipients of welfare. There are a lot of issues here tied up in these kinds of things about whether or not people have the right to continue to be involved with industry funds, but there is also the issue of whether or not these industry funds can offer the real range of ethical choices that exist.The savings rebate—or the `tax offset' as it is referred to—is totally inappropriate in the context of the government cutting the services and benefits for the most disadvantaged in our society. It does not even come close to ameliorating the wads of funding the Treasurer has slashed in the last few budgets. The savings rebate is a replacement of the Keating-Willis superannuation contribution matching where the government could match employee contributions. As we pointed out at the time, that scheme had major problems as it used taxpayers' money collected from all to fund retirement incomes on the basis that those who have more shall receive more and those who have less shall receive less. It amplified and extended the imbalances in working life into retirement.Despite this fundamental inequity, the Keating-Willis plan was worth nearly seven times the benefit of this Costello rebate. The rebate promises a maximum of 15c in the dollar, as opposed to a superannuation contribution that was matched dollar for dollar—thus there is an 85 per cent reduction in benefit. Worker contributions of $1,000 would have gained an extra $1,000 under the Keating-Willis plan. Under the Costello plan, they receive a princely $150.The savings rebate is typical of the kind of smoke and mirrors approach the government tries to use when it is trying to sell an inequitable measure as a positive for all. For the savings rebate to be characterised as a benefit for all, certain assumptions must be made. There must be an assumption that everyone is financially capable of making superannuation contributions, or that everyone has sufficient savings or investment income to be able to take advantage of the rebate. Clearly, these assumptions bear no resemblance to reality.Low wage earners and social security recipients spend a high proportion of their income on basic necessities and have a limited capacity to save. Even if these people could save, the level of savings would not enable them to take full advantage of the rebate. They would have to contribute $3,000 per annum to superannuation or save between $50,000 and $100,000 in other savings vehicles to receive the full $450 rebate each year. The main beneficiaries of this rebate are high income earners and wealthy retirees. It is not a progressive measure.With respect to payment of PAYE, PPS, RPS and so on to the Australian Taxation Office, this bill requires remittances by electronic means. The government has created a curious situation. While an attempt to rationalise and streamline the system of remittance is positive, negative and unfair implications have been ignored. The government has obviously turned a blind eye to the implications that the change has for business. Forwarding payments by cheque has previous ly been a perfectly legitimate form of commercial transaction in this country. Now it is not even an option for large remitters. Beyond the expensive and time consuming compliance measures that businesses are faced with, it will be an offence, and there will be a penalty, for failing to pay electronically. These fines are downright unfair and misguided. They are not aimed at what they are trying to prevent—that is, stopping large payers from deferring payment because a cheque is not cleared for some days.All in all, I think there are some major problems. The situation that has been presented to us is clearly unacceptable and unfair. It is another example of the government turning a relatively simple concept into a dog's dinner. The bill is a disaster. Nearly every aspect contains anomalies and injustices. This is not a bill to be proud of. It is an embarrassing bill that has wasted a lot of people's valuable time and energy.18:19:003008Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My remarks on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 will go mainly to the question of the choice of fund provisions contained in the bill. In the short time available to me this evening, I would like to make some comments on that issue and I will also make some comments during the committee stage of the bill.It is important to say at the outset that superannuation in Australia is compulsory and the Australian population is ageing. So superannuation is a particularly important issue, and it is particularly important that parliament deals with it very seriously and provides not only good laws in terms of superannuation but also clear policy that allows people to have confidence in the superannuation system and to plan for their retirement in a secure environment.The shemozzle that we have seen in relation to the government's plans for choice has worked against confidence in the superannuation system in Australia and has provided people with reasons to be concerned about the future of the superannuation industry and about their retirement income. I think that is unfortunate. The government's decision to defer some of the measures proposed in terms of choice is a good one, but it would have been much better if, in doing so, the government had dealt with a range of other concerns—some of which I will allude to tonight—that have been raised by people in Australia involved in the industry.I think it would be a good thing if the national superannuation policy encouraged real choice so that people could choose investments which were as secure and as rewarding as possible so as to provide them with the best possible retirement income. It is very hard for anyone to oppose the principle of choice, but when you try to implement the principle it is much more difficult to ensure that you give effect to the very laudable motives that it represents.The government is very keen on the theory of competition, which will make for lower prices in superannuation and greater efficiency. It says, `If you give choice, the market will apply those pressures and we'll all be better off as a result.' I think that is far too simplistic a notion. It does not take account of a range of issues like the costs of advertising and other competition costs that will be built into profit margins. The government really has to make the case for its model to prove that it is more efficient and that competition will deliver some of the things that the government claims. I do not think the government has made that case out.We in the Labor Party think that a good superannuation policy should be based on a range of key principles. They include: availability to all workers; real choice through education, freedom from employer pressure, and dispute resolution; secure, higher returns; and administrative simplicity. When you apply those sorts of criteria to the government's proposal in this bill, it really fails the test. What the Labor Party has been arguing for in recent months provides sounder principles on which to build a choice regime in Australian superannuation policy and, obviously, we will be seeking support for amendments to reflect what we think is a sounder basis for a choice regime.Tonight I will not have time to cover all of the issues I would like to in this debate, and obviously we will do that in the committee stage. However, the first thing I would say is that this bill ought to deliver a real choice of products to people who are on superannuation in Australia and that the government would have been better off taking an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, approach in dealing with this policy.I believe that requiring choice internal to funds would have been a better first step. It would have allowed for a more gradual introduction of a choice regime which, in turn, would allow for education and for monitoring of the take-up and the experiences of providing choice to people. As I say, I believe an evolutionary approach rather than a revolutionary approach would have been a far sounder way of dealing with this very major change to superannuation in this country.As we have seen in the international experience, competition and the opening up of superannuation do not necessarily lead to the sorts of outcomes that we all think are desirable. You only have to look at the British or Chilean experience to know that there are real pitfalls in this area if we do not proceed with caution. So, while one can agree with the theory and the principle of choice, one does have to take very responsible attitude to the implementation of that theory. I believe that the government has allowed its ideology to override proper, sound principles and caution in the development of the choice regime.One of the real ironies of this whole thing is that the government's proposition, as it has finally evolved, gives most of the choice to the employer. The employee does not enjoy the widest choice available; in fact, they get to choose between schemes offered by their employer, schemes chosen by their employer. So this is very much a question of employer choice as much as employee choice. That is the government's reaction to the very real difficulties of providing unlimited choices.No-one pretends that there are not real administrative and other difficulties associated with providing an open choice of any fund to any employee. But the government, in responding to that difficulty, has very much taken the availability of choice away from employees and put that choice in the hands of employers. That is of great concern because I think it gives too much ability to the employers to apply pressure to employees, and it upsets the balance that I believe should be established in terms of the choice regime.Coming from Western Australia as I do, I have seen this choice theory applied in industrial relations by the Western Australian state government. The experience there has been that a regime of offering choice in terms of award or workplace agreements to employees has, in fact, now seen the state government implementing a system where they only provide the choice of workplace agreements to new starters. The choice that supposedly surrounded the rhetoric of the new industrial relations regime has been replaced by conditions that remove any choice of the employee. So I am a bit cynical about the Liberal Party's attitude and understanding of choice. As I say, the industrial relations experience in Western Australia means that that has given power to the employer rather than the employees. I believe that that is a real concern also in this area of superannuation.There is also the question about prevention of the pressure on employees from sorts of high pressure sales techniques. One of the good things about the development of superannuation in this country over the last 10 years is that a lot of those practices that were evident in the personal superannuation and life insurance area 15 to 20 years ago have gone. The complaints you used to get about people buying products they did not want, the lack of understanding by people purchasing products not delivering what they thought they would deliver—all of those complaints about insurance sales and superannuation sales—have not been eradicated totally but have been greatly diminished as the superannuation regime and proper accountability measures have been put in place by this parliament.I very much worry about what this choice regime will do in terms of the reintroduction of commissioned selling agents and the pressure for people to go out and sell various schemes in competition with other schemes. We should be very concerned that we do not take a backwards step to the days where that sort of pressure, manipulation and coercion really hurt people in very serious ways and resulted in people making very poor choices about their financial affairs, as I say, in terms of superannuation and insurance.That leads me to a whole range of issues like education—which has been talked about by other speakers and which is obviously very important—about disclosure and the need for the key feature statements to be a key part of any regime. The government still has not provided satisfactory progress on the key feature statements, in my view and in the view of a number of senior commentators in the financial area. That is a very important part of any regime of choice—that people are able to make an informed decision between various products and have standard reporting of fees and conditions. That is not, I think, satisfactorily in place at this stage.There is a range of other issues, which we will debate in the committee stage, regarding the likelihood of employees choosing the appropriate investments. The theory that people will necessarily choose the best investment option for themselves is, I think, not supported in practice. My own personal experience of trying to encourage people in a fund that I had some responsibility for was that they often took very conservative choices—particularly women—which did not result in their getting the best benefit at the end of their time. These are serious issues that will impact on people's retirement incomes and lifestyles; they will affect the whole Australian community.So there is a whole range of issues that I believe really needs to be taken much more seriously by the government and the parliament. The fiasco regarding the timing of the introduction of the choice and the concern about the government failing to respond to industry criticisms have led to a sapping of confidence in superannuation and a confusion about where we are going. The government really has to step back from its sort of neo-liberal idea of choice at all costs and work with the parliament and the industry to have a much more constructive outcome than the one it currently proposes.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:003011Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I wish to speak on just one aspect of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 tonight and that is the schedule dealing with superannuation choice. This aspect of the bill has been the subject of a comprehensive Senate inquiry and in the course of that inquiry I think there were some very substantial holes identified in the government's choice policy provisions.The government has claimed that its choice policy will increase competitiveness and efficiency in the superannuation industry and lead to improved returns on superannuation savings. However, the evidence to the committee put this claim into some considerable doubt. The simple problem is that it is unlikely that the vast majority of workers are in a position to make an educated or informed choice on superannuation or, I suggest, are actually interested in doing so. Evidence from the United States suggests that workers are very risk averse in respect of superannuation and often opt for low risk profiles, with the result that their final returns are reduced considerably.The choice proposal also opens up the compulsory award based super system to competition from the commercial funds like the AMP, National Mutual, MLC and such like. These funds carry considerably higher administration costs than the award based industry funds because of the need to advertise and to build up market share. The superannuation committee heard evidence that industry fund admin costs were up to 80 per cent lower than that of commercial funds, particularly when commissions, marketing and exit fees were taken into account.The choice regime will also add quite considerably to competition costs of the superannuation system because of the need for funds to handle what could be frequent transfers between funds. Certainly this has been the experience in Britain and Chile where choice regimes have been introduced. In short, I think that the government has failed to make out a compelling case that their choice arrangements will reduce costs or add to industry efficiency. I think in fact the exact opposite will occur.So that leaves the argument that competition will increase returns to members. That assumes that members want to choose higher risk funds to get higher returns. The risk averse nature of workers with low levels of knowledge of superannuation is in fact likely to see returns reduced over time compared with leaving the decision on risk return balances to trustees.But the government also downplays the level of competition already existing in the superannuation industry. We know that trustees are forcing fund managers to compete intensely in their investment returns. Investment managers that fail to shape up are very likely to be replaced quite quickly and fund administrators who fail to deliver low costs are also likely to be moved on.The trustees in pursuit of their onerous trustee obligations are expected to keep these issues under constant review, and experience suggests that they certainly do that. The evidence tends to suggest that, as a result of the intense competition at the finance management level, industry funds are delivering average rates of return at least comparable with the commercial funds. And when you take into account the low fee structure, the overall result is one where the industry funds on average are delivering better retirement income outcomes over time than most commercial funds.The real attraction of having competition at the fund management level rather than the fund level is that the trustees are in a position to make a fully informed decision on investment returns and risk profiles. Few fund members would be in command of as much independent advice, knowledge and experience as their fund trustees. The trustees are acting in the interests of the members. So again I doubt that the benefits of competition on returns will on average deliver a better result for the vast majority of workers than existing arrangements. An article by Beth Quinlivian in Personal Investment magazine recently concluded that the low fee nature of industry super funds would result in a final super payout $100,000 higher than the average master trust fund. That is the sort of outcome which is at risk from the government's choice model proposal.There is a further flaw in the government's plan, which rests on the removal of award clauses on superannuation as a condition for their scheme to operate. With the demise of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, the removal of superannuation as an allowable award matter would also prevent the Australian Industrial Relations Commission from determining disputes about superannuation. So there would be nowhere other than the courts to which workers could take a dispute about superannuation and, given that superannuation became universal only as a result of industrial disputes and given the enormous power over the nature of choice offered that this bill gives to employers, I do not believe that it is good policy not to provide for an effective dispute resolution mechanism.Superannuation is part of remuneration. Remuneration is at the heart of industrial relations, a decision which was confirmed by several High Court cases. To deny workers access to dispute resolution on a key aspect of remuneration is quite clearly contrary to the intention of industrial laws in this country. Yet without deleting award clauses, the government's choice regime cannot operate. I think that is a most unsatisfactory policy outcome.So, in short, after careful analysis the Democrats have concluded that the government's choice model will not deliver the objectives that the government has set for it. It could add quite considerably to disputation about superannuation and it provides no avenue for effective resolution of such disputes. I do not believe that the vast majority of workers will benefit from the government's choice model. Some will, but most probably will not. The real beneficiaries will be the big financial institutions which will be able to get around award clauses and access occupational superannuation. That is what this bill was always about: delivering superannuation to the government's financial backers in the banking, insurance and finance sectors.So what do we do about choice? I think that a better approach is to look at the occupational superannuation industry that we already have and work out how it can be improved. The better industry funds are moving from strength to strength, reducing administrative costs as economies of scale improve, becoming more aggressive about investment strategies and choices and providing better information back to their members. But of course there are duds. Workers do need to be able to exit industry funds that are not performing.Further, industry funds are not sufficiently portable. There remains the problem that moving from one industry to another too often results in moving from one industry fund to another. We are a country of eight million and workers and 18 million superannuation accounts, and that is not an efficient outcome. I believe that there is a case for modifying current award clauses to provide some flexibility to improve the operation of industry funds. These amendments should allow employees to leave a fund which is not performing, allow workers to take a fund which is performing with them to another employer and provide them with more choice within the fund on how their money is invested.Last week the Democrats announced our own managed choice proposal to improve the operation of the award based industry superannuation system. Our proposals sought to retain the key benefits of the existing industry based award super schemes while giving employed within that system more options if they choose to exercise them. Our first proposal is to require the AIRC to amend award clauses to provide for choice of at least two industry funds. It should be noted of course that many and probably most award clauses already provide choice of at least two industry funds. We propose that, by 1 July 2000, the AIRC extend this to all award clauses.These funds would be required to provide employers with information for distribution to their employees so that employees can make a choice between the two funds based on their performance and change that choice if necessary if they fail to perform. On top of that, an employee should be able to take their industry fund with them. Provided the employer agrees, this should be an automatic exception to the award clauses, and our choice model would allow for that. But choice should be more restricted when an employee wants to move outside the award system. Here, the employee needs to be clear about what they want and why. The decision to move outside the industry fund must be employee driven. it must not be driven by employers, banks or finance companies, but by employees.Our model provides for this but, as it would be an exception to the relevant award clauses, the employee would need to apply for such an exception to be granted. We have proposed that this be done through the Office of the Employment Advocate. The advocate would simply check that the decision was that of the employee, not the employer, that the employee knows what they are doing, and then tick it off, as it were. This safety valve would prevent employers delivering their work forces en bloc to some inappropriate financial institution. It would also be a safety valve to prevent less informed workers being sold inappropriate and ultimately costly superannuation products. It would also be flexible enough to allow workers who know what they are doing to actually go ahead and run their superannuation as they see fit.The final change that we are proposing is to give employees investment choice within their fund. This is, I believe, the most essential issue in building up employee ownership of their superannuation. Investment choice should cover not just risk profiles but also investment vehicles. I believe that many workers would, for example, want to have a say in how much of their superannuation is invested overseas, creating work opportunities in other countries. They might also like to have a say in how much is invested in venture capital, R&D infrastructure, housing and so forth in this country. At present, the onerous duties on trustees prevent them making these sorts of policy decisions because of the need to pursue the highest return wherever it is available. Giving employees more choice about where and how their money is invested could, over time, help bring some of the $60 billion in superannuation invested offshore back into Australia, creating new Australian job opportunities.In conclusion, I believe that the choice model of the Democrats avoids the problems inherent in the government's proposals whilst addressing some of the problems with the current system. It retains the benefits offered in the existing system whilst also fixing some of its shortcomings. As such, I think it represents a fair and reasonable evolutionary improvement to current superannuation arrangements. It is my hope that the Senate supports our amendments when I move them during the committee stage.19:42:003013Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I want to take up the issue of choice which has been taken up again and again by those who have spoken before me and which will, I think, lead to a very interesting discussion in the committee stage. In that context, I would like to go to chapter 5 of the explanatory memorandum to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 , which talks about choice of superannuation funds. I do so because if we are going to debate this bill, as we certainly will, it would be very useful to know on what basis the government is insisting upon giving choice to the people involved. Paragraph 5.13 says:The Government announced in the 1997-98 Budget, that it would introduce measures that provide employees with greater choice as to the superannuation fund or RSA to which their superannuation is paid. As a result of extensive consultation with superannuation funds, industry associations and employer and employee representatives, the government announced on 25 November 1997 a range of enhancements to the original Budget proposal. These enhancements are designed to significantly reduce the administrative burden on employers while ensuring the key objective of providing choice of funds to employees is achieved.I am not sure whether choice of funds is given the importance that it is in this explanatory memorandum because of employees' civil rights—therefore, since they have civil rights they ought to have choice—or whether they are given the choice because choice is an economic force which will increase the resources of a person if that force is allowed to operate properly.I think that is a significant distinction to make because if employees are being given choice because of their civil rights then not a great deal of argument can be made about that because civil rights are self-evident truths. I know that the minister is a great reader of Thomas Jefferson's declaration of independence in 1776.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Quite right!SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—He established the proposition that the truths that we talk about, including civil rights and the rule of law, are self-evident truths. If, on the other hand, a person ought to have choice because of the economic principles involved, then that is a different matter. In those circumstances, the truths are not as self-evident. As I think any economist would agree, there has to be some evidence about that before we go ahead with the proposition. As has been pointed out by speakers before me, there is no evidence that has been brought forward, at least in this explanatory memorandum, which would support that proposition. Senator Sherry said during the meal adjournment that if I quoted the United Kingdom and Chile, those supporting this bill would know that they were cases in which the proposal put forward here did not succeed.I think it is time that explanatory memorandums were more informative about evidence. I know that we have standing committees and legislation committees which bring forward a lot of evidence, but I think it would be useful for people writing explanatory memorandums to put in such evidence as they have to support the bill that is being explained by the explanatory memorandum. I say that for two reasons. First of all, I think it would clarify in the minds of the people who prepared the explanatory memorandum, and who no doubt had a significant part to play in the preparation of the bill, the parts of the particular bill that are not supported by evidence. It would also help people who do not attend upon the legislation committee understand what the government is putting forward.A lot of explanatory memorandums are like opinions or advice from consultants, not from lawyers because lawyers are very serious about the advice and opinions that they give. At times an opinion or advice is just run off to suit the reader for whom it is meant. It is not a good thing to use a language that will be attractive and not have any real thought put into what is put. For example, paragraph 5.6 of the explanatory memorandum states:The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings and placing downward pressure on fund administration charges.That flows like poetry to our mind because we have heard so often the words competition and efficiency, downward pressure, savings and improved returns. They are the sorts of phrases that resonate around the country and come no doubt from particular economic schools that people might have attended.When you read words like that, you are immediately on your guard that this is something that has not been thought out. It has been put down because someone has to prepare an explanatory memorandum. I imagine a lot of this stuff is on computers and that all you do is change the name of the act, press a button, there is a rumble in the system and out comes the explanatory memorandum. In my view, that is not good enough because it ignores the case that can be put against it, which has been so eloquently put by previous speakers.There is nothing here about the effectiveness or otherwise of the retirement savings accounts, which I remember some time ago were spoken about by Senator Lundy. In one of her early contributions in this chamber I think she said that there were some real problems with retirement savings accounts, but none of that is set out in this explanatory memorandum. It is my plea that we generally try to improve the quality of explanatory memorandums. We cannot always rely on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee to bring up issues. If this bill is based on the primacy of civil rights, that would be in accordance with the thoughts of the minister handling this bill at the moment, and that would be a good thing. It is my view that civil rights should receive a higher priority than they do in this parliament at times—not that they should command absolute heights but they should be given greater priority than they presently receive.Madam Acting Deputy President, over the years you have given priority to civil rights, the rule of law in indigenous people's issues, gender equality and rights of people living under the threat of nuclear disaster. People such as you have given emphasis to civil rights over the years. This is one case where the government—at least in the terms it uses—seems to have given priority to civil rights. We will be able to find out when we come to the committee stage how the issue of choice operates in the context of this explanatory memorandum.One of the rights that I think would help in this area is the right of funds to sue on behalf of employees whose employers have not made the contribution that they should have made. We could help in this area by giving funds greater rights to require contributions to be made.Much has been said tonight about choice. It has been said that people must have knowledge of all the facts to be able to make a choice, and that is right. But I am not sure how people can have that knowledge. How can we know the results of investments made by funds? If people invest in shares, are the values going to go up or down? If they invest in the money market, how much is that going to return? If they invest in property, is the property going to keep its value? These are all questions that cannot be answered, and yet the explanatory memorandum is written as if those sorts of issues are beyond doubt. In that sense, this explanatory memorandum—and perhaps the thrust of the bill itself—introduces propositions that are not supported by reality. In other words, no matter how well educated and practised you are in the share market, nobody can guarantee how those things are going to go.When you talk about choice in this context, you are talking about it in a way which is unreal and tends to give a wrong impression of what things are all about. I think that comes about because of the cavalier—and I use the word advisedly—way in which some of these explanatory memorandums are written.Let me repeat the main points. This legislation would be praiseworthy if it were based substantially on the concept of human rights. However, I think such an exercise in this case has miscarried. In other words, any attempt in this bill to try to carry out the dictates of human rights has failed because it has not addressed the issues as they should be addressed. Also, there is not enough evidence to convince us that this bill is based on economic principles. Senator Sherry has produced evidence, as have others, to indicate that there is much to be doubted in the propositions that have been put forward.This bill needs to be looked at further. It is not now in a proper state to be passed. A lot more discussion is needed. I think somebody with the generosity of heart of the minister in this case would understand the thrust with which we come at this bill and would go away and rewrite it. I do not suggest that he writes the explanatory memorandum himself—that would be imposing too much of a burden on him. But I would ask that he gets somebody who has a full understanding of this area—not someone who would go into a mantra mode of repeating the words that we have heard—to make a good and proper analysis of the issues involved.19:58:003015Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I, too, would like to add my thoughts and comments on this issue. Having had the experience of being one of the earlier participants in a particular industry fund, I come from a perspective of first-hand experience about what participation in an industry superannuation fund means as a blue-collar worker.One of Labor's great achievements has been the establishment of such funds for transient workers, workers in blue-collar industries and workers who previously had no access to superannuation generally and the dignity that it can potentially bring in one's retirement. So it has been with great dismay and concern that we have traversed a fairly rocky terrain in respect of this government's attempts to manipulate change and thwart the principles that were put in place by Labor during our period of government. Indeed, these principles were supported generally by the current government—the then opposition. It was agreed that the role of industry super funds and superannuation generally would be supported in a bipartisan way.However, since the coalition took government we have seen the structural dismantling of that superannuation retirement base for all Australians that Labor was certainly leading towards. We have had experiences with the superannuation tax. We have seen the government co-contribution for superannuation completely scuttled in return—at the time it was politically sold as some sort of recompense—for a family tax package. Ironically, those families fortunate enough to fit within the narrow confines of that family tax rebate and to benefit from it have seen it eaten away by the increases to child care due to the $821 million cut to the child-care sector.Let us look at the government's superannuation policies in the wider context and at how other policy decisions have been made in relation to retirement incomes and costs to families. We have seen policies that have stifled job growth. We have seen industrial relations policies that have hampered opportunity, particularly for blue-collar workers and those in transient industries such as the building and construction industry. This collection of policies has actively targeted and actively disadvantaged those areas.It points to a government that has a short-term approach. It is not a government that subscribes to long-term visions about where retirement incomes are going to come from. It is a government that uses these pressures to try to thwart and narrowly confine debate about taxation reform. It is a government that is prepared to compromise what was a sound and progressive program of enhancing retirement incomes for all Australians and turn it into a quick buy, a reallocation of only some of the money—not even all of it—from the potential co-contribution to a family tax rebate. This sort of petty politicking and lack of vision is something that effectively has become synonymous with the John Howard led coalition government.One of the great ironies in this debate can be highlighted by conveying to you an experience I had as an organiser for the Building Workers Industrial Union at the time that the superannuation debate was still raging within the industrial relations forums. Indeed, it was the Liberal Party at that time, and its voice in industry through employer associations, that argued so actively against the introduction of industry style funds because of the administrative burden that it imposed upon employers in those industries. It should be understood that in the building industry a large number of small subcontractors barely have the time to get their taxation records and their wage books up to scratch, because of the pressures of their work, let alone deal with the administration of a superannuation fund.From recollection, the opposition at the time argued vehemently against this notion of industry super, specifically because of what they called red tape and administrative burden. In fact, at the time, this argument was largely fought out in an industrial forum. As a union organiser, I can remember having many debates with employers about the value of having an industry fund which could support and help small employers—it did not matter what job they were working on because they only had to get to know the processes associated with one fund.There are a lot of issues relating to that but one, of course, was the recognition that small businesses in the building industry—I know this example can translate to many different industries—imposed quite a significant burden. It was a burden that was taken seriously by the Labor government at the time. Certainly it was taken seriously by the industry fund and by employer organisations, which embarked upon lengthy education programs and information seminars to try to bring the skills and knowledge of those particular subcontractors up to scratch.A lot of investment was put in place for that and I believe over time its value was certainly recognised by those employers. I cannot begin to describe the benefit and the positive impact that it had on the workers in that industry. For the first time, employees, who perhaps had had numerous employers in a given year or in any given period of that cyclical boom of the construction industry, consistently had contributions going into one fund. The debate that occurred out there where it happens—on the sites and in the site sheds—ultimately led to a fund that that industry and those workers can be particularly proud of.So we get to the debate about a choice of fund. That history, that education and that knowledge that has been built up, and the contributions that have been building up and going towards the retirements of all of those workers, are now under question by this government. With this bill, the government is proposing to undermine the system that was put in place. It is proposing to undermine it through the choice model. The government, with its lack of vision and lack of acknowledgment of the industries working in this area—as in the particular example I used—has decided that no longer is red tape an issue and that no longer is the ability of these small companies to administer their affairs an issue. Suddenly, a greater issue is to create confusion and a situation that will make it more difficult for smaller employers to participate in employer contribution schemes for superannuation.The government argues that its choice model is a question of competition. It is not a question of competition; it is not a question of efficiencies. If it were, the government would look at industry best practice. If it were, the government would look at what industry has chosen through natural evolution as the type of scheme that is best suited and it would take some stock in that, learn from that and appreciate that what is not needed out there in the small business sector is a complicated myriad of opportunities and approaches, all of which require, I presume, for many of these small businesses the hiring of yet another consultant, so many more hours with their accountant or perhaps even some legal advice in relation to the application of this new law. So not only are their administrative procedures potentially spread across four or five different superannuation schemes, funds, RSAs or whatever but, in making their assessment to check their legality in applying these new laws, small businesses will have to hire the services of advisers—professionals, I am sure. That will be very necessary given the complicated state of this legislation.So where is this government doing industry a favour in this respect? You are not doing small business any favours. They are not impressed by your arguments of choice and competition. They are only thinking about that extra bill from their accountant, their bank manager or their lawyer. And they are thinking about those extra hours spent in the office rather than out there scrounging and searching for more work—putting in their tenders and bids. That is where they need to spend their time at the moment.Let us look at it from the point of view of the worker. Choice of fund—consumer heaven. I can just see all those building workers out there taking home a pile of propaganda from a bank or industry fund and comparing it—making a detailed comparative analysis of each of the four options that are before them. They have all that time on their hands in their busy lives to make those comparisons. This government is taking these steps to undermine superannuation for workers. I do not know too many blue-collar workers who have the sort of money to purchase advice from accountants or financial advisers. Many have, but many have not. It is those who have not who are going to be unnecessarily bombarded with extra costs associated with making their analysis. They may be under pressure from their employer to go in one direction or another, given the burden that the employer has in administering perhaps four different funds from their business.Another point worth dwelling on is how the government intends to ensure the soundness of each of these options. As with any increased choice or wider variety, for effectiveness and for the quality required there must be, commonsense tells me, a greater imposition of regulation, compliance procedures and penalties for those who do not comply. So here we hit this contradiction. On the one hand you have the government saying that this choice policy is about consumer opportunity. On the other hand—and we know this from overseas examples—this form of deregulation opens the doors to players who are not always up to scratch. So another layer of analysis is required by the worker and indeed the employer, for which they will have to purchase advice to make sure that they do not breach their liabilities.It also places an additional burden on the government. Deregulation must be accompanied by specifications about compliance to a far higher degree than before—otherwise they are opening the door to failure and to providers of these services who will not comply with the regulations. Experience with this government has shown us that they are very keen to deconstruct those authorities that have been put in place to monitor and regulate the quality of the services, schemes, funds, et cetera put in place. You cannot have it both ways. Providing greater choice means that you, as a government, need to reinvest in monitoring regulations, tracking compliance actively—not passively—and ensuring that accurate and effective disincentives in the form of penalties are put in place. But we see little of this. Instead we see rhetoric based on consumer choice; rhetoric that flies in the face of all of the messages and symbols we heard from you in opposition when you argued that measures such as this were a burden on small business.Labor, on the other hand, is committed to the role of superannuation in Australian society. In every debate in this chamber about superannuation, we have reinforced our message that there is a place for a definitive, forward looking, effective and fully funded program of ideas and legislation that will lead to superannuation being an effective source of retirement income for Australians. The price for the backtracking and undermining by this government of that vision for superannuation for this country will be paid by generations who are still in the work force. The baby boomer generation was always going to be under pressure, caught in the space between having the time and the opportunity to build up their superannuation funds and the pressures on government provided pensions. Labor was addressing this problem. Our policies meant that for generations after that there was opportunity for all of us to have a dignified retirement. This opportunity has now been undermined, and with each year that the coalition remains in power this opportunity will be further reduced.Labor has a series of amendments in relation to this matter of choice. Just as we have attempted to amend previous legislation, we will continue to try to limit the damage being inflicted by this government. Labor's amendments will make this bill much fairer and will make it easier to understand. Our amendments will also still allow employees to have the opportunity to choose a superannuation fund—not to have one forced on them by an employer. If there is one thing that my experience in the building industry showed me, it is that you need the time and you need the opportunity to explain to people how it all works. A decent education program, not shrouded in rhetoric, not shrouded in tax buy-offs and short-term policies that have little to do with retirement incomes and everything to do with confusing the taxation debate, is the way that we will progress superannuation and its changing form in the workplaces of this country.Labor's amendments limit the damage of this bill but they will not stop the structural undermining of the superannuation program put in place by Labor. As I said, it will be the generations to come that will suffer. (Time expired)20:18:003018Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We are debating Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 , which has a number of important aspects to it. With the rhetoric of Senator Lundy still fresh in my mind, perhaps I could make a few brief comments on Senator Lundy's view of the world. Senator Lundy, what we are offering here is workers' choice. We are giving the workers choice. The second point I make is that your amendment is very similar to option 2 that we put forward. There are a few little extra flourishes but, make no mistake—Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Madam President, we heard the opposition in silence. I know they are sensitive on this issue. Perhaps they might care to listen. You could not believe, with the rhetorical flourishes in Senator Lundy's speech, that what we were trying to do is to offer workers choice, in other words, give workers a chance to make a choice in relation to their superannuation. Senator Lundy, whatever you say in life as you go through this chamber, small business will never believe that you have their concerns at heart. I have to say that with your track record and particularly that old union of yours, the building union.As I said, that your amendments are in fact very similar to option 2 that we put forward. I do not know whether you appreciated that, but that happens to be the case. The final point is that, as far as undermining confidence in superannuation is concerned, it has been a great year for super. Super is growing at excellent rates. I do not know how you measure confidence in super. I know how Senator Sherry does but I do not know how you do. The truth of the matter is that, by every measure, there has been very substantial growth in superannuation and people are voting with their dollars to put their money into superannuation. Talk about rhetoric!This bill implements two government initiatives: choice of superannuation funds and the savings rebate. The savings rebate commences on 1 July 1998. On 13 May 1998 I announced a new start date for the choice of superannuation measure for new employees. That will be on 1 July 1999. Secondly, it builds on the government's program of reducing compliance costs for small businesses by introducing a CGT assets register and changes to the withholding tax arrangements. Thirdly, this bill implements two important 1997 budget announcements which enhance the integrity of the tax system relating to franking credit trading, dividend streaming and private company loans.The savings rebate will particularly benefit Australian families and older Australians who have saved for their retirement and individuals who have built up their businesses and derive a return. The rebate will apply to undeducted superannuation contributions made by employees and the self-employed and net personal income from savings and investment, including net business income up to an annual cap of some $3,000. In the first year it will apply at a transitional rate of 7.5 per cent and will increase to 15 per cent thereafter. This will deliver a tax saving of up to $450 per year. I know, after many conversations I have had with people around many electorates, that there are many people who, as they should, are welcoming these proposals, which will provide further incentives for people to invest in superannuation.The rebate, overall, will provide an incentive to save in a way which is fair, allowing individuals to choose the form most suited to their needs and recognising that individuals have to save for life cycle needs as well as for retirement. The bill also implements the government's reforms to choice of fund arrangements. They are designed to give employees greater choice and control over their superannuation savings, which in turn will give them a greater sense of ownership of their savings. The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings. I will be moving amendments in the committee stage to amend the start to 1 July 1999.The bill introduces an asset register for capital gains tax purposes. This will eliminate the need for taxpayers to keep source documents for lengthy periods and will reduce the compliance costs for all taxpayers with capital gains obligations. The new three-tier system for remittance obligations under the report or payment system, pay as you earn and the prescribed payment system will give small remitters the option to remit these payments on a quarterly basis rather than on a monthly basis. This will provide over 300,000 small businesses with the opportunity to defer the remittance of $500 million in withheld amounts in 1998-99. That is certainly a very substantial number of business operators who will benefit from this.The bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to ensure that payments and loans made by a private company to a shareholder or to a shareholder's associate are treated as assessable dividends to the extent that they are realised or unrealised profits in the company. I will be moving a very minor technical amendment to this measure in committee. This measure, together with the introduction of a general anti-avoidance rule and antistreaming measures, which formed part of the 1997 budget measures to prevent franking credit trading and dividend stream ing, is designed to protect the integrity of the tax system.The supplementary explanatory memorandum, which has been circulated, contains further guidance on the intended operation of antistreaming measures and the general anti-avoidance rules targeting franking credit trading transactions. The bill will implement two further budget measures relating to tax deductibility of expenses incurred in contesting election to the Constitutional Convention and donations to the National Nurses Memorial Trust. The Labor Party has made some astonishingly extreme comments, particularly on the savings policy.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—`Rebates can be milked for more'—it's not my comment.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Particularly on the savings policy, but not exclusively, Senator Conroy. Labor's record on national savings is indescribably abysmal.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—They are pretty impressive.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—What Labor speakers failed to perhaps make clear to the chamber was, for example, that Labor's national savings rate reached, apart from the world wars and the Great Depression, its lowest level since Federation—since 1901. They did not mention the $10.3 billion budget deficit that they left us when they were thrown out of office. Not surprisingly, it was omitted in their remarks. Not only that, but many of us are aware of the $70 billion deficit that they ran up in their last five years of office. This is a huge amount of money and I am delighted that at least the shadow Treasurer (Mr Gareth Evans) was prepared to concede recently the significant nature of the deficit which he left this government. We commend that uncharacteristically straightforward comment from the shadow Treasurer. We believe the savings rebate is fair.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You're a disgrace.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy cannot contain himself. Senator Conroy, you are going to have your chance in the committee stage and I hope your behaviour improves when the committee stage is on. If you are showing such high degrees of excitement now, I do not hold out—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I can see why you are so nervous about those two other senators from Victoria.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, let us not get into the problems of the Labor Party in relation to branch stacking. I will not be diverted by Senator Conroy. We say that the savings rebate is fair and equitable, unlike Labor's never delivered L-A-W law broken promises and co-contributions. I think that is worth underlining. We believe that it is fair, it is equitable and it will be beneficial to the overall structure of this industry in Australia.Let me say why we regard the savings rebate as equitable. The opposition spokesmen in this area certainly have no right to talk about equity. They opposed a very significant move by government in recent history to improve the equity of Australia's retirement income system by their opposition to the superannuation surcharge. The surcharge was placed on those people with high income earnings, yet that was opposed by the Labor Party—not actually in the lower house but opposed in the Senate. That has always intrigued us but, in the end, that is the way the Labor Party operates.The savings rebate will flow to people earning less than $40,000 per annum. Seventy per cent of Australian wage earners earn under $40,000. This is really a benefit flowing to the overwhelming bulk of Australian wage earners. In contrast, not one of these people need pay the superannuation surcharge. The opposition has been, I believe, somewhat misleading in its comments about what the so-called battlers will get from the rebate.About one-third of wage and salary earners earning less than $40,000 a year made personal super contributions at an average of around $1,300; that is, they already passed the test for getting the rebate. We have given them the opportunity to get an even higher rebate by increasing their contributions. Those who are not making personal super contributions have a big incentive to do so. Each dollar they put in will give them back 15 cents. Not only that, but six million Australians will benefit from this rebate, the vast bulk of whom are lower and middle income earners.It has been a pity to listen to the debate on choice of funds. Let me make a couple of observations on the remarks which have been made in this debate. I come to this debate having far more confidence than, I believe, members of the opposition do in industry funds.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Now don't start on industry funds.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Yes, I do have, because what I heard was how well industry funds were doing, and that is true. A lot of industry funds have done well, and the truth of the matter is, in choice of funds, if industry funds are doing as well as everybody said, whom would the worker choose? The fact of the matter is that there will be industry funds which will perform well, and there will be industry funds which will perform less well. If you have not got confidence in industry funds, you certainly lack confidence in workers. If industry funds are doing so well, whom would workers choose, if what you say is correct?All I can say is that the rhetoric which you have proffered in this debate seems to me to underlie a certain lack of confidence in the substance. As I say, I have more confidence in industry funds than do quite a range of senators on the other side of the chamber.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Have you got a list of the ones you like?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator, can you just wait? You will get your chance. You were heard in comparative silence. We can speed the journey, if you would perhaps keep quiet a little. Choice of funds was a pre-election commitment made by the government in the lead-up to the last election, and the model the government has proposed in order to implement its promise has been the subject of extensive consultation with the superannuation industry, employers and employees. Enhancements to the government's original model outlined in the 1997-98 budget were announced in November 1997, after that consultation. The first stage of the opposition's choice of fund models involves offering investment choice within superannuation funds. Investment choice in recent years has become a key feature of the Australian superannuation environment. Consequently, many funds do offer investment choice, and it is hard to see how the Labor Party believes that is bringing about any real change in providing employees with greater choice.The second stage of the opposition's model involves offering what it considers to be `genuine' employee choice. The key features of the opposition's regime of genuine employee choice are in effect quite similar to the employees exercising choice through the informal agreement under the government model.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Not a chance.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You did not even know that, Senator Conroy. You were given a bit of paper and you did not even know that. However, there is a difference. Under the opposition model, an employee can make no choice—correct me if I am wrong—if the employee is unable to obtain the employer's agreement to the fund they nominate. Correct?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You're telling the story; we're just listening.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—That is exactly correct—unchallenged. So all this talk about the employer having the whip hand, under the model that we have put down—Senator Conroy interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, could you stop interjecting?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—This is exactly what happens under the Labor model choice. Of course, on the other hand, the government model allows employees to request their employers to make an offer of choice, if they nominate a fund but are unable to obtain the agreement of their employer.I must say, in relation to the Democrat model, that I notice that one of the superannuation industry groups today suggested that ASFA did not see the Democrats' proposal to restrict choice to two industry funds as being practicable. That was a view that was brought forward from ASFA today. We are clearly going to have a significant debate on this. The government has been open. This has been on the table for at least six months, so the government has been open to discussions. We have made offers to show people the education program that we have put forward.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I'm sitting here waiting.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You did not accept the offer, Senator. We believe that choice of funds is not only right in a philosophical sense, in order to allow people to have control over their superannuation and to provide a choice for them, but is also the democratic way to go. It is a pity that the Labor Party has become so entrenched in special interest politics that they find it difficult to see that. We will be opposing the Democrat model and the Labor model. As I said, the government has been open to discussion with groups and has sought discussions. I hope that in the course of the debate we can reach a productive outcome.In conclusion, let me say that the Australian Democrats have recently approached me and sought, in the committee stage, that we debate schedule 5, the choice of fund proposal, later in the running order, so that the amendments that they have can be circulated. The government is happy to accept this suggestion. I understand that, again depending on what the chamber wishes, it might be sensible to begin the committee stage with schedules 9 and 10—private company distributions and the savings rebate, respectively. We are in the hands of the Senate, but that seems to me the sensible way to go.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.302210000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before we commence with this bill, I would just draw people's attention to the fact that the government amendments have been circulated as requests, but there is no reason for them being presented as requests. The bill does not impose taxation. The amendments do not result in any taxpayer paying more taxation. The amendments will therefore be treated as amendments. 20:37:003022Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 14 May 1998.The bill.20:38:003022Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I am glad to see Senator Kemp has joined us for the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 . I would like to go back to some comments to do with the savings rebate that I was making earlier in my speech during the second reading debate. I draw Senator Kemp's attention to an article that was in `Smart Money' in the Australian Financial Review on 2 May 1998 entitled `Rebate can be milked for more'. I had got some of the way through it but, given that Senator Kemp is here, I would like to go over it again. The reporter is Alison Kahler and it starts:At first glance, $225 seems a trifling amount but the new savings rebate can be milked for much more. Conceivably, a family of four with a sufficient income flow could receive a total rebate of $900—without saving a cent.Income—not savings—is the sole criteria for the rebate, according to Annamaria Carey of the Taxation Institute of Australia."In reality, the savings rebate is a tax cut for any income generated outside of wages and salary. If you receive rental income, for example, you qualify for the rebate. The income does not have to be saved, just received," she says.Carey says the income can come from just about any source, including bank accounts, share dividends, trust distributions, partnerships or business interests and contract or consulting work.After-tax superannuation contributions also count towards the rebate, as do some pensions purchased with after-tax money. Even some non-investment income is relevant, including the annual leave and long service leave payments paid on resignation.We go on to spokesperson Noelle Kellaher, of Ernst & Young, and Liz Goddard, of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Liz Goddard says income splitting would mean couples could claim the rebate twice if a spouse were receiving non-salary or wages income. The article continues:Goddard makes the point that the rebate can increase the $416 tax-free threshold for children by around 50 per cent. Minors who receive distributions through family trusts—you would know about family trusts, Senator Kemp; not that you, I believe, have got one, but many of your colleagues have talked to you about them, I am sure—are the most obvious candidates, but Carey suggests it is possible to transfer shares to a child's name and that bank accounts can be opened in the name of children.Carey says the best feature of the savings rebate is that it is automatically calculated by the tax office through tax returns. Taxpayers don't have to submit extra documentation, except in the case of superannuation contributions not recorded on annual income tax returns.If that is not the most damning indictment of the so-called increase in national savings—the savings rebate—I do not know where it is possible to get a worse one because what is shown here Senator Kemp—through you, Madam Temporary Chairman—is that it is completely and utterly rortable. It says, go down and open some bank accounts for your kids, pay in some money out of your family trust and you can reap the extra money from the savings rebate.What sort of system of increasing national savings is this? There is no savings involved by these people. These are artificial schemes. This is the `Smart Money' section of the Australian Financial Review. There are no extra savings involved. Where are the extra savings in going down and opening a bank account for your kids through a family trust distribution? Is that savings? But you are going to give them money for it.I would also like to return to some of the comments that I was making earlier to do with the choice regime. In particular, I would like to quote from the report, which I recommend to all senators. Even the Australian Bankers Association—who, as I have mentioned earlier, are the strongest of possible supporters—saw education as critical to the success of the policy.Senator Kemp stands there and says no-one was interested. I have not been asked, as far as I am aware, Senator Kemp, to come and have a look at an education policy and what you are proposing. But what I have asked the tax office at estimates, when its representa tives appeared before the committee, was: can you give me the figures of what was spent on the money tree programs in the mid-nineties? My understanding is that they have passed that information on to your office and your office is withholding it. Why would you do that, Senator Kemp?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Conroy, could you please address your comments through the chair.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Sorry. Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. Through the chair I ask: would the minister give an explanation of why the Senate is not entitled to know how much was spent on those campaigns? I ask because that might be an indication of how fair dinkum this government is about trying to achieve informed choice. Most of what we have seen so far is a fairly ordinary attempt at an education campaign—even the little bits that we are aware of. The figures that have been discussed are possibly $4 million. Hopefully, through the course of this committee tonight, we will find out a bit more about the education campaign and find out how much the government intends to spend, but the rumours, the suggestions, are that it is about $4 million. I hope I am wrong; I hope I am very wrong.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You usually are.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I look forward to the minister's contribution on that. I hope you are going to stand up and absolutely prove me wrong. If the minister is not prepared, in the face of introducing the biggest shake-up—bigger even than when we introduced compulsory superannuation—to stand up and say, `This is bigger than the SGC. This needs more money. It is more complicated than the SGC. It involves serious ramifications for ordinary workers, serious potential problems if they get their choice wrong,' then the minister is not fair dinkum about the policy of education. But if you are going to hold an education campaign, then you are acknowledging that there is a need for education and that people are not well enough informed at the moment.The question that the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation put to the Tax Office was: at what point do you measure the success of your education campaign? I ask the minister: what is the success rate you believe is necessary before workers have to make the choice? Is it that 40 per cent of people have to be able to understand the education campaign and be able to identify the key feature statement and understand the comparisons that are going to be in there? Is it 50 per cent? Is it 60 per cent? Surely we should be aiming for something like 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the community that will understand the program being put forward by the government.I am sure that, after the education campaign, they are going to be champing at the bit. They will be so grateful to the government; it will have to be a big election winner for you. All those people that you say are demanding choice and the democratic process will be in a position where they will say, `Thank you, Senator Kemp. Thank you, coalition government. We have had this great education campaign. We now understand what we didn't understand before and we will be in a position where we can make an informed choice.' But if the government finds that only 40 per cent of people actually understand the education campaign—what it is about, the choices involved and what a key feature statement is—then surely the government will be willing to reassess the introduction of choice until it is successful in mounting this education campaign—until it can go back to the market and test the consumer and say, `The consumer understands the downsides and the upsides.' But if your education campaign is successful, they are going to be grateful. It is a vote winner for you if it is a good education campaign.I am hoping that the government is going to reveal all tonight. I am hoping that the government will tell us what is in its education campaign. I am hoping that the government will be prepared to accept that there are some tests that are necessary so that we can be happy and assured that we have an informed choice taking place. As I said earlier, the report says:The ABA saw a significant role for Government in the education process, which they considered should incorporate a number of elements, including TV advertising.To me, this is a real test of whether the government is fair dinkum. Is the government proposing a TV campaign of the same magnitude—as a minimum—as the `money tree' campaigns? Are Treasury and the department going to put their money where their mouths are on this free market operation that they are putting up tonight? The ABA said:It is our view that the communication and education task before us involves reaching the hearts and minds of every employee and employer—It is so nice to hear the banks talking about people's hearts and minds.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Banks!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Banks talking about the hearts and minds of employees. It was with a straight face, Senator Harradine. The ABA continued:and bringing about a culture of active interest. That is why we have recommended that the government take a high profile, active role, preferably via TV, in communicating the choice regime. A major public education campaign is also required.The report says:The ABA explained why it took the view that a strong education campaign is needed:. . . people see the system as complex, confusing and constantly changing. Average balances are still low. With compulsion, people do not feel in control. There is still a negative attitude to super as an investment in some quarters. People may find the information on super too difficult to understand. There is disinterest by some employers. There are low levels of literacy.And I will return to the low levels of literacy. The ABA continued:It is important that we understand the drivers of these views. This is critical to making the education and communication effective.And that is what we are hoping to see tonight. We are hoping to see the effective education campaign.Another of the witnesses, a Mr Silk, in his appearance before us cited—and this is where the literacy question really strikes home—an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey undertaken in 1996 that ranked adult Australians on their literacy and numeracy levels. The report says: Mr Silk stated that this survey found that almost half of the Australian population have relatively low levels of literacy and numeracy and are likely to have considerable difficulty in understanding choice of fund information such as key feature statements.This is critical; it is not something to make jokes about. It is a real problem if we are going to have genuine, informed choice, and the government, when it appeared before the committee, said, `We want genuine, informed choice.' Every single witness said, `We want genuine, informed choice.' It was strongly emphasised that a well-planned education program be introduced, Mr Silk concluded. Also, the report said:The Australian Consumers Association (ACA) also saw education as vital, and considered that there must be a `serious effort to educate employees and consumers so that they are aware of the potential implications of choice for their financial well being'. The Association listed a set of objectives for education, so that people understand, as a minimum: . . . Again, tonight, as part of the regulations and all the other measures involved in this bill, we hope to hear of the sorts of minimum standards, the minimum things that the government wants to achieve. Hopefully, the government will pick up some of these points—and I am almost out of time, which I am sure Senator Kemp will be very pleased to hear—including: why choice may be important for people's retirement income; whether they have choice and, if so, of what sort; how and when they can exercise choice; what happens if they do not make a choice; why there may be no problem if they do not choose; that they do not have to move from the fund they are currently in—that is, to a new fund; the serious implications of shifting out of defined benefit funds—we do not want a repeat of the UK debacle; and, Senator Kemp, I am sure you watched Four Corners as you were on it; where to go for further advice or information; and where to go if they have complaints problems. Those are the sorts of issues that it is critical the education campaign address—absolutely critical.My time is up, so I will finish there. But I hope to hear the answers to a lot of those questions tonight, and I am sure that other senators also want to hear those answers. (Time expired)20:53:003025Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—There are a number of matters I am very concerned about. If one were to follow what I had to say throughout the part of the hearing in which I was able to be involved—because at that stage I was filling in for Senator Sherry—it would be apparent that the thing that really caught my eye was the issue of literacy and numeracy.I really want that issue addressed this evening, after having read an article—and I think this really sums it up—in the Age of 13 September last year, by Tim Colbatch, headed `Literacy remains elusive despite teaching efforts'. That article refers to the particular ABS survey that I cited in my speech during the second reading debate. That article goes to highlight my concern about `informed choice' where it states:Suppose some interviewer hands you two diagrams, those circular ones sliced up like cakes, showing how much oil different industries used in 1970 and 1989. Could you explain from the diagrams how oil usage changed over that time?The article continues:If you can, take a bow—or more likely a curtsy, you're a rare Australian. A national survey released by the Bureau of Statistics on Monday found only one in six Australians generally understand documents of that sophistication.That is something that needs to be answered, and I do not think the answer has been forthcoming—although I am sure that during the committee stage it will be.If I expressed a concern and directed a specific question at most of the expert witnesses who appeared before the select committee, it was on the issue of literacy and numeracy. I hold the fear that very few people who are ordinary workers will have the capacity to interpret the key feature statements on which so much reliance will be placed when these people need to make an `informed' choice. That was the other word that kept ringing in my ears throughout the submissions I was privy to hear whilst serving on this particular committee—that it needed to be an `informed' choice.Another issue needing to be addressed, Minister—through you, Madam Chair—is the fact that there is a high turnover rate in Australian industry. As a result of the high turnover rate, a one-off campaign of itself will not satisfy the need to educate people about the issue of choice of funds. In my view, with such a high frequency of turnover in industry, there is the need for an ongoing education campaign.A further issue of concern, but one which did not necessarily gain a great deal of prominence in the actual hearings, was the treatment of casual employees in the education campaign, because some of them will be exposed to the issue of choice of fund. Those are two issues that I will be looking forward to hearing about from the minister. I would also like to be told how the government intends to deal with an ongoing education program, and how it will deal with the issue of the turnover of staff as well as casual staff.I was also concerned in that it would have been interesting to hear from the government on another issue on which I focused in my speech during the second reading debate—that was, how choice of investment which is currently available has not been taken up at a rapid rate. If the government is hell bent on going down this path of choice of fund, it would seem that their getting choice of investment working first would go a long way to getting the issue of choice of fund much more readily understood.The cases that I cited in my speech during the second reading showed that, with few exceptions, what we found during the hearing was that, where choice was made available for investment, it could be said that relatively few people took up that option to exercise choice of investment. So I think we really do need to get some understanding from the government as to why that is not a practical step as a first step, given—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—It already happens; it happens now.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Yes, but what I am saying, Minister—through you, Madam Chair—is that, even with there now being that right, so few people use it. I even cited the case, Minister—I think it was Coca-Cola— where they had a very extensive education campaign; it even received a prize for skills in communication with the members of the superannuation fund. Even then, under the best of circumstances, there was a limited take-up rate of investment choice—and that was in the best of circumstances.I think that the government should give us some indication as to why there is not a more phased approach, given that this is going to be the most significant choice that many people will be confronted with in their long careers in the work force. It is affecting the most important part of their life—their retirement and their retirement savings.The other thing that I would like some indication from the government on is the actual nature of the education campaign itself. I raise in particular the need to target small employers and also the need to target those employers that I describe as community employers. In Melbourne we did have evidence from a mother who was a voluntary member of the kindergarten committee. She came and pleaded that they were not aware of even superannuation changes that had previously taken place with other legislation. They found themselves in breach of the law in some instances because they had not complied with the existing legislation.I am not going to say it is a problem that is rampant throughout the community, but there are a number of community organisations now in that position, particularly the likes of parents and citizens organisations which do employ people in schools. The government education program should be targeted in a specific way at those people. I would be interested to hear the response from the minister as to how that is going to be done.Also, in that specific area, I would be interested in the government's ongoing response to those types of community organisations because one finds that the executive or the management committee of those organisations tends to change on an annual basis. There is no ongoing continuity of management other than, say, the director of the creche or the kindergarten. One finds, of course, that that person is generally not the person responsible for the management of the affairs and the finances of the creche. Those are the things in particular. There are other issues that I am interested in and will raise throughout the committee stage. Seeing that people under this legislation are having to make an informed choice, I await with interest what the minister has to say on those issues.21:03:003027Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—There are a couple of matters I do want to raise with the minister. One is the over-arching issue of the effect of these measures on private saving. There are two major schedules in this legislation that affect or impact on private saving. One relates to the rebate which formerly was to be delivered as a superannuation co-contribution. The other is in respect of the government's changes implementing `choice' with respect to superannuation, which must have some impact on private saving.Quite specifically, I would like the minister to outline in detail—it may not be tonight, it may be tomorrow or next week, hopefully not next year—with respect to the savings rebate: what is the precise addition to private and national saving of the savings rebate? I do appreciate certain assumptions would have to be made about the addition to private saving and to national saving, but it would be useful to have that modelling very precisely.Related to that, the government maintains with respect to its `choice' superannuation regime—and I am only paraphrasing from memory, I am not quoting exactly—that efficiencies will be enhanced and competition will drive down costs. The logic of that argument is that if costs do go down—I do not accept it but let us assume, Senator Kemp, the position of your government—as a result of competition, returns will be improved. What will be the net effect to private saving and national saving as a consequence of your proposed changes to the retail delivery of superannuation, which is in effect the proposed model of `choice' that you are offering in this legislation? This is an important issue.There are a couple of other issues I would like Senator Kemp to address in the context of private saving. I do not know whether he is aware but, in budget paper No. 1, it is predicted that private saving will go down. That, I think we would both agree, is a matter of concern and it has serious long-term ramifications. If private saving is going down it has an impact on investment and jobs, it has an impact on current account and it has an impact on the level of Australian ownership, vis-a-vis overseas ownership. It has those important impacts.But I am concerned about the words in Budget Paper No. 1, page 3-11, in respect of private saving—and I would like you to address each of these points, Senator Kemp. It says:There is also the prospect that the improvement in public saving at the Commonwealth level will be complemented by structural increases in private saving over the medium term.There is `a prospect', Senator Kemp. I would like you to explain the measures in the legislation we are considering. What is the view of the government, the Treasury, about how they will assist private saving? What is the medium term? Is it three, five or 10 years time? I think that is important.There are other issues relating to private saving. There is an acknowledgment that the superannuation guarantee will add 2.1 percentage points to private saving. It would have been nice if there had been an acknowledgment that this was a Labor initiative. Whenever you blame us for something that you allege is wrong, it is a Labor initiative. Whenever there is something that you hold onto, you do not acknowledge and give credit. You have carefully modelled the superannuation guarantee and its impact—I think it was actually modelled when we were in government, and you have continued to quote but not acknowledge the government that introduced it—so you certainly should be able to give us some sort of reasonable approximation of the effect of the rebate, how it will increase private saving and the measures you are introducing in the name of choice.The next subpoint in respect of the prospect of private saving increasing is the savings rebate itself, and I have dealt with that. But, Senator Kemp, the next sentence says:More generally, the tax reform now in prospect has the potential to enhance private saving. My assumption is that this is a reference to a goods and services tax. I do not want to debate that in any detail because this is not the time or the place, but I would like you to specifically address how a GST increases private saving and what comparative evidence you have for this assertion to be made in the budget paper.Finally, there is the issue of private saving. I have to acknowledge, Senator Kemp, that you did deal with the general issue of private saving in your concluding remarks in the second reading debate on this legislation. The final point made about the prospects for increase in private saving puzzles me. It says:Finally, quite apart from these policy influences, demographic change over the next decade or so is likely to see a rise in the proportion of the population in age groups which historically have been high savers and a decline in younger, low-saving age cohorts.I do not think there is any argument that we have got an ageing population. I think the current number is about 12 per cent over 65 and, by the year 2050, the number will be 22 or 23 per cent—close to one in four. They are net dissavers, and that is a slow and steady demographic ageing of our population. How can it be claimed that the steadily ageing population, who are, as I understand it, dissavers—historically, they are high savers while they are working, but then they run down their savings when they reach retirement age—will increase private saving?If you look at page 4-55 in Budget Paper No. 1, Senator Kemp, you will see that this is very well illustrated, because page 4-55 outlines assistance to the aged. By way of example, aged pensions and allowances in 1997-98 will cost the budget $13.4 billion. In 1998-99, this budget, they will cost $14.1 billion, rising in three years time—2001-02—to $16.5 billion. That is an increase in payment of aged pensions and allowances because of the ageing population. There is no doubt there is an increase in the number of people over the age of 65. That is an increase in four or years—five financial years—of $2.1 billion in assistance to the aged. I acknowledge it is quite proper and correct that that assistance should increase. It is not because of an increase in pension payments as a per centage of average weekly earnings. Then we have residential care and subsidies for the aged. They will go up as well over that five-year period. Home and community care is going up. There is also the partnering allowance.They are examples of increasing costs to the budget because of our ageing society. They are further evidence as to why I question the claim that demographic changes are likely to lead to higher private saving over the next decade or so. I would like you to deal with those issues in the context of savings.There is another matter, Senator Kemp. As you would be well aware, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 is part of the parcel of legislation that we are considering here, albeit it separately. It requires the removal of superannuation as an allowable matter from the workplace relations bill. I would have appreciated knowing that you had changed the operative date of the super choice regime—you have put the date back to 1 July 1999 for new employees. What is the precise position of the government with respect to the operative date for Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] ? You have changed the date for the operation of choice, but I have seen no announcement about the operative date for workplace relations excluding superannuation as an allowance matter should that pass the Senate. Again, I would like a response on that.Removing superannuation as an industrial matter is an important issue. We will be considering the choice regime during the committee stage tonight. For this to work, there have to be changes to the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill. You have proposed removing superannuation altogether. The Senate select committee will be reporting on this bill tomorrow, and I will probably take the opportunity to speak to it at that stage. I will give you notice of my concerns now because we are effectively dealing with the same package of legislation. Whilst you are looking at the effect of private saving modelling as a consequence of the rebate and choice, have you taken into account in that modelling, if you have carried it out, the effect of removing superannuation as an industrial matter? It has a number of effects which I think you would have to acknowledge.The removal of superannuation as an industrial matter effectively removes issues from a number of awards. Certainly the two industries that were highlighted, but by no means the only industries, were the retail industry and the hospitality industry. There was evidence—and it was not refuted—that there would be tens of thousands of employees in the retail industry and the hospitality industry who would be covered by the SG minimum of $450 per month for super contributions. There are some tens of thousands of people who would miss out on superannuation contributions who currently receive it as a consequence of removing super as an industrial matter. I would like to know whether you have taken that into account in the modelling you have done of private saving. I am raising all of these matters now because they relate to the very important issue of the modelling of private saving.A related issue is that, with the allowable move towards payment of superannuation half yearly or yearly rather than monthly or quarterly, the information that the superannuation committee received was that this would result in a reduction in end benefit of between 3½ and four per cent of superannuation over the total saving period. Have you modelled the impact of that as a consequence of payments of superannuation occurring not monthly or quarterly but half yearly and yearly? As a consequence, interest on interest is reduced, and therefore the savings in the accounts are reduced. This morning I had material incorporated in Hansard which gave examples of an industry fund at a consistent earnings rate of eight per cent, assuming 41 years in the fund, versus—(Time expired)21:19:003029Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I want to finish off some of the comments I was making earlier about the education process. Hopefully we will find out where we are going, and hopefully the government will be able to give us some information. The superannuation committee also received evidence from Ken Lockery, the principal of Towers Perrin, not someone who is naturally supporting of or opposed to choice for the sake of it. He is someone who made a very informed contribution to the debate. He stated:I guess I have already said that I think that, with the best will in the world, an education campaign will only affect a proportion of the population and that there will be a whole lot of other people who cannot benefit from that simply because of their level of English, understanding or whatever in that process.I think it was Mr Lockery who cited the example that 40 per cent of Australians had trouble understanding a bus timetable due to a whole range of factors. That is a possible indictment of the education system and the lack of resources available to it. The point is that it is a very real problem. How can we address that? How we can make sure that we compare apples with apples? That is probably the second most important part of where we have to go to with the choice debate. It is the capacity to be able to look at those key features statements and the issues within them. Hopefully during the committee stage we will hear more about these features statements or hear indications of where you see that going. That would be of genuine interest to everybody.Another witness who appeared before the committee was Ms Ann Byrne, the convenor of the Industry Funds Forum. This is the third time that I have been on my feet, Senator Kemp, and I am surprised that you have not mentioned the fact that I am a former employee of the Transport Workers Union superannuation fund. I am disappointed. I know that you normally never miss an opportunity to draw that to my attention as well as to the chamber's attention, but I put that on the record to save you the time and trouble.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—I used to think it showed you had some sort of expertise in this. I have since learnt that I was wrong.WW4Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I doubt that you have learnt anything. Ms Byrne was talking about how to deal with an apples with apples issue. In referring to comparisons of earning rates of funds, she said:Some—probably, I think, the vast majority—have a reporting date of 30 June; some, though, have a reporting date of 30 September and some have reporting dates of 31 December or 31 March. So if you are doing a comparison, particularly between the earning rates of those funds, it is very difficult unless you have the same reporting date.It cannot be an accident that these different funds have decided to have a variety of reporting dates. They are quite deliberately seeking to minimise the capacity of people to make a genuine comparison. They are making sure you cannot compare apples with apples. So it is critically important for the government and the ISC to ensure that there are common points, starting with the reporting dates.Ms Byrne also emphasised the importance of disclosing fees and charges in a form that permits comparisons to be made. She told the committee that public offer funds are already required to disclose fees and charges in their key features statements. However, the manner in which the funds disclose these charges does not always give an accurate picture. She told the committee:In the current requirements for key features statements, which are only currently required for public offer funds, when you actually put together your management expense ratio you do not always have to put in all of your indirect investment expenses. It is my understanding that if your investments are in a pooled vehicle, because the return you get on that vehicle is less the expenses then that does not have to be declared.Again, it is critical that workers are able to compare apples with apples. There is the capacity for the funds involved to disguise their management fees and their earnings ratios to make sure that you cannot make a genuine comparison. You cannot pick up two key features statements and say, `They earned X and they earned Y. Their management fees are A and theirs are B.' There is a deliberate attempt to minimise this capacity on issues like the management fees.We had one witness from Perth who gave an excellent contribution by a telephone hookup. This person, who had been in the superannuation industry for 17 years, had attempted over two hours to analyse the reports and key features statements of two reputable firms. However, she was unable to draw comparisons between the reports and key features statements of these two perfectly reputable funds. Although she had been in the superannuation industry for 17 years, she was not able to draw a comparison on the critical points regarding investment returns and fees.If someone can spend 17 years in the superannuation industry and not be able to understand the information being provided, it really puts the onus back on the government to enforce a standardised criteria. We had witnesses before the committee who were opposed to that. Disappointing as that was, we had witnesses who suggested that you cannot standardise; you cannot force various reporting mechanisms. That was very disappointing but we are hoping that, tonight and tomorrow, we will hear about those standard reporting requirements. We hope to be given an indication of where we are all going on this adventure.Another witness, Mr Grenfell, talked about some of the generic material that he hoped would be in the key features statements. He said:We envisage that the KFSs would be specific to the plan. We recommended to the ISC that in addition to the KFS you need some generic material about superannuation. It would cover issues like risk and return, preservation, taxation, the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal—if we manage to put something together collectively, which I know everybody is working on—. . . and all these issues that relate to the market as distinct to relating to the plan.What Mr Grenfell was suggesting—and this is part of the education—was not just `this is how you implement a choice.' He was recognising that, because of the compulsion aspects of the existing national superannuation plans, there would be almost a piggyback campaign—a building on earlier campaigns—to emphasise things like the benefits of super in general. Those are the sorts of issues we hope to be able to pick up and hear from the government about today and tomorrow.Helen Hewett also talked about the difficulties in evaluating fees and charges from current key features statements. I quote:Recently we had a training session where there were 17 representatives from different superannuation funds and people across the industry.So this was an industry forum—They were given a document that is put out in the marketplace by a very well-known provider of superannuation, and they were asked to calculate the fees.There were 17 industry representatives with many years' experience—many more than you or I, Senator Kemp, would probably ever desire to have in terms of industry experience. How many different answers do you think they came up with? Fourteen. Seventeen people with many years of experience in the superannuation industry looked at the same document and came up with 14 different calculations of the fees.I am sure there will be a cry from ordinary people to say, `You are forcing choice down our throats. You are making us do it because of your ideological fixation about industry funds.' This debate has been, and continues to be, about the government's attempts to run down and undermine industry funds, notwithstanding all the benefits.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That is true.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It is absolutely true. There were 14 different answers from one document. It is frightening where we could end up in this debate, if we are not careful.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Chile and the UK.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Exactly, Senator Sherry, and you have talked about them already. I am sure Senator Kemp did more than watch his own part on the Four Corners program: I am sure he watched all of the program and saw the implications from Chile and the UK. I am sure that was all taken on board. We are hoping to hear how he thinks we can improve the proposals before us tonight.One of the things the minister talked about in his second reading speech was the question of choice, and how we are on a democratic merry-go-round, and how this is about choice and that everyone is going to be better off because they have a choice. Senator Kemp did not want to illustrate that, in the first instance, for new employees, the choice of a default fund is not with the employee, it is with the employer. If the government wants to stand up in this debate and have an argument about choice, it has to be fair dinkum. That government has to admit up front that, in many circumstances, the choice is with the employer, and that every time someone leaves a job and goes to a new job they will lose a bit of choice.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—That's your model.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No, that is your model in your bill. It says that the employer chooses, not the employee. It is critically important. I mentioned RSAs in my speech on the second reading—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Crocks.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Senator Sherry. That was the exact word I used. Senator Kemp's baby is the RSAs. Does anyone have any idea what the take-up rate is? Perhaps there is someone in the gallery who would be able to tell us! It is critically important that the government accepts that some of the first people to be faced with this choice—whether their date is 1 July this year or 1 July next year—will be young people of 17, 18 and 19. How can we build it into the education system so that they can deal with it? We are hoping to hear from Senator Kemp on that.If an employer is able to pick an RSA as a default for a 17-year-old or an 18-year-old, who is a new employee, then the government is culpable, the parliament is culpable, the industry is culpable and certainly the employer will be culpable. We are hoping that the government will be prepared to stand up and say, `RSAs are out of the default.' We do not think the government should do it. It is too risky. It will lower national savings and it will absolutely cruel the retirement incomes of those young people. They could end up being hundreds of thousands of dollars worse off if they are put into an RSA product by an employer, not in a deliberate, malicious sense but in the sense of, `We just want to make this silly choice go away. We did not ask for it, the government is ramming it down our throats. Make it go away.'WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Only an election promise!3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It could have been a non-core promise. You did not have to implement it.(Time expired)21:34:003032Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to know the basis on which this legislation has been brought on. During my speech in the second reading debate, I talked about two possible sources for the legislation, whether it was for economic principles or human rights. It might have been a combination of both. If it is human rights, and we want to vindicate civil rights and the rule of law, that is the end of the argument on the Thomas Jefferson approach. If it is economic, we ought to have some indication as to whether it has been brought forward on economic principles that have come from a book, whatever book it is—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The theory of competition.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Yes, the theory of competition: `This is a great idea. We will write the act.' Or was there some evidence in the sense that you might have evidence to write a history book or evidence to run a court case? It would be good to get an answer to that. It might be the economic theory and evidence or it might be all three—civil rights, evidence and theory. We do not need a long dissertation, just a short dissertation of what were the well springs of this legislation, who the person was who was up at night with his or her glass of whisky or his or her pen. What motivated the writing of this?21:36:003032Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I will only be a brief moment. I will not hold the committee stage up since we are anxious to get on with it. Could the minister inform us about the annual choice of super funds? If that is to come about, and if there is regular use of that, what effect will that have on the employee as well as the super fund? The super fund would have to maintain a fair degree of liquidity levels to satisfy the possible demands that are involved in the right to choice of funds annually.That, I believe, is called `churning'. To what extent does the minister consider that that particular right will be taken up by individual employees? What will be the overall effect of `churning' on the super funds and consequently on the remaining fund participants? And if there is such a right, is it considered by the government that superannuation funds should then impose exit levies, for example? I would like to know the government's view about that. I am wondering about the effect on superannuation funds of that particular choice regime.21:39:003032Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I want to follow on from what Senator Harradine has just raised because it is an issue that I was going to raise later on—I have a note here. The legislation talks of a choice—I think it is every 12 months. What does that, in effect, mean? How is that going to operate? That in itself can be quite chaotic. I am sure that as we get to that part of the legislation we may get into a detailed argument about how it will exactly operate.The other thing I want to raise briefly is the issue of consumer protection. That has not been sufficiently addressed at this stage. Whilst it may be addressed in broad terms now, before we proceed into the main part of the committee's deliberation we need to know about the disclosure regulations and how they will apply in respect of SIS and the RSA legislation. Will there be clear standard disclosure by the funds, given that we are now in a new environment? In respect of consumer protection, and I know we are talking about a general education campaign, will there be any special funds put aside for a consumer rights campaign rather than just an explanation of the ins and outs of superannuation and if so what sort of campaign will that be?The third thing I want to raise is that I understand that there is a need for a consumer protection or a conduct and disclosure bill. This would be seen as a key protection against what happened in the UK experience; as I understand it, in that particular regime we saw a lot of misselling take place. What sort of protection is going to be provided to the Australian consumer? Is that legislation ready to be introduced? Will there be an overall protection there for the consumer that can be seen in black and white?The next area of consumer protection is the actual consumer protection regulator. As I understand it, we will see legislation here shortly for the establishment of the Australian securities investment commission. When that legislation is presented, will we have some idea as to what component or element of the ASIC will be for super fund regulation? Will we know what the actual funding will be to enable that section to operate and protect people's interests in the superannuation area? It would also be helpful to know whether there will be an internal task force in the ASIC dedicated to superannuation issues alone. This comes out of one of the government's initiatives—the Wallis financial sector reforms.It is also important that the government explains the relationship between the ACCC and the new ASIC in relation to superannuation. Is there going to be a relationship and if so what will that be? Will there be a superannuation monitoring group established to oversee the implementation of this new choice of funds to instil some confidence in the consumer in the new processes that the government is advocating? If the government intends to have some monitoring group, which would be highly commendable in the circumstances, then the government should consider including consumers, industry funds and the industry organisations.The last thing that needs to be raised is the issue of dispute resolution. We did hear evidence during the committee hearings of the `demise' of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. How are issues going to be resolved where there are problems with superannuation? How does one see that being handled under the new legislation?21:45:003033Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I had not intended to participate in this debate. I have been happy to sit and listen to the excellent contributions of my colleagues. But an issue that has been raised, and one that I would briefly like to comment on, is the impact of this proposed legislation and the introduction of freedom of choice in such a major way on itinerant workers. I would like the minister to treat this issue as a serious issue and I would like to get a response from him.Back in the mid-1980s, when award superannuation was first coming into being, the organisation that I was working for, the AWU, had to fight right to the end to get superannuation for rural workers in this country. The National Farmers Federation opposed it bitterly. Indeed, at that time they were represented by a gentleman by the name of Mr Peter Costello. I must say it was my good fortune to have been involved in that case, and that was one of the ones that Peter Costello did not win, though that is something he does not often refer to.In those proceedings we achieved superannuation for rural workers, the three per cent employer contribution. One of the stipulations put into the award by the commission at the time was that there could be a multiplicity of funds, because the employer organisations were split across the country. Some groups in Western Australia and South Australia wanted to support a fund run by the then federation insurance company. Other organisations, the New South Wales and Victorian Farmers Federations, wanted to support a superannuation fund run by Australian Eagle. Mr Houlihan, whose name pops up in these halls constantly, wanted to promote a fund which was run by Elders; I think he had some direct interest in that one. In Queensland, because the employees there were covered by state awards, there were a number of other funds run by other insurance companies.One of the difficulties, and it has been a major problem for a number of years, is that, whilst superannuation became available for workers for the first time ever, the fact that many workers travelled from state to state working for different employers, even though they may be in the same occupation such as shearing, meant that they often found themselves in two, three, four or five different superannuation funds, paying multiple charges as the weeks went on.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Under the current system.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Because of the stipulation made by the employers that they would not agree to an industry fund; they wanted five funds. There was no doubt a deliberate tactic at the time by the NFF to try to destroy superannuation for rural workers.I must say that eventually the NFF came to their senses—I think it is one of the few times they have come to their senses—and in recent years they have actually sat down with the union and recognised the importance and the necessity of having a single industry fund. Many of the funds that operated in the pastoral industry have been amalgamated so that you now have essentially one major fund for rural workers in this country. Surprisingly, on the board of trustees of that industry fund you have representatives of the union and the NFF. One of the difficulties that this legislation presents is to go back to that period of confusion and chaos that commenced with a multiplicity of funds in the industry, but it would be exacerbated. What you are really doing, in my view, is essentially consigning many itinerant workers to getting no benefit long term out of superannuation. I would like the minister to respond to that issue, obviously the next time the debate comes on, as to precisely how itinerant workers—and there are hundreds of thousands of them in this country—are going to be protected and their investments in their superannuation are going to be protected under this proposal, because I do not believe they will be.Progress reported.Adjournment303410000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.303421:50:003034Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I want to speak tonight on an important piece of legislation which is due to be debated in the House of Representatives later this week: the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 . This is a vital bill for the thousands of Australians involved in agriculture, food processing and packaging and the 1.1 million people employed in manufacturing—and for all Australian consumers who wish to support Australian industry and Australian workers. Through this bill, the government seeks to overhaul the rules for using the terms `Made in Australia' and `Product/Produce of Australia'.Earning the right to use these terms is a valuable one. It is a commercial advantage. It sets your goods apart from others on the shop shelf. More and more consumers, I am sure, will respect these descriptions and actively seek out products marked in this way, to promote both Australian products and Australian produce. It is important for all of us that these terms are not devalued. However, several court cases and the actions of some companies have led to some confusion already in the community about which term means what. That is why this government has pushed so hard to put some clear definitions in place.Our aims in this area are threefold. Firstly, we plan to introduce clear and simple tests to determine eligibility to use the terms. Secondly, we will make sure that both business and consumers understand the tests. Thirdly, we will be enforcing the rights rigorously against unscrupulous traders. The changes will be made by amending Part V of the Trade Practices Act.Businesses will be able to claim that their product is made in Australia only if the product passes a substantial transformation test and at least 50 per cent of the cost of production is incurred in Australia. For example, the government does not regard adding water to concentrate to produce orange juice as a substantial contribution.I know that pork producers are concerned that imported pig meat may be able to be labelled Australian after very little processing in this country. This will not be permitted under this new legislation. No goods containing imported pig meat will be allowed to carry the `Product of Australia' label. Making ham from imported pork is not considered to be a substantial transformation. Under the new arrangements, the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) will have the power to make regulations to exclude such simple processing from this test.A car is a much better example. The components are assembled into a new and different product and therefore a substantial transformation has taken place. To determine whether the car is made in Australia, we would also need to consider whether at least half of the production costs have been incurred here. If this is the case, the manufacturer can legally use the term.Materials, labour and overheads will be included in the cost of production. General business costs, such as advertising and distribution, will not. Companies would be able to claim that their product was a product or produce of Australia only if the product was 100 per cent Australian or virtually so. So, in effect, only goods that have acquired their final form in this country will be able to claim that they are made in Australia or are product or produce of Australia.Significantly, the minister will also have the power to regulate the use of special logos or labels where a particular industry wishes to set standards higher than the minimum test, to be set out in the legislation. Of course, this has been particularly so with a number of logos, like the Woolmark, which is an industry based logo that has been particularly successful in its recognition value and that will continue to be so in terms of wool mix and wool blends. Also, I understand that the `Australian Made' logo, which has been substantially devalued and has lost its legitimacy, will be able to be reinstated as something that has some value.We recognise that policing the change is imperative. We plan to instruct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to enforce the new test to ensure that foreign goods are not falsely represented as being Australian made. The government believes that clearing up some of the uncertainty in this area will be of benefit to Australian consumers, to Australian businesses and to our country's economic bottom line. We promised before the 1996 election that we would sort this problem out. Through a maze of difficulty, which the previous government found virtually impossible to work its way through or was unable to confront, we have made a substantial start. I look forward to the legislation coming into the Senate after the forthcoming debate in the House of Representatives. 303521:56:003035West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Tonight I rise to address an issue that is of major concern to people in rural areas, particularly in small rural communities. What plans does this government have in mind in relation to the changes to and the review that has been done very recently on Australia Post? In recent weeks the Labor Party candidate for Calare, Terence Corkin, has been working and talking to a number of these communities and they have expressed a great deal of concern to him about that. He organised a petition to go into a number of the small post offices. People signed with such great enthusiasm to actually register their protest that they had to stick pages of signatures on the back of the original wording, hence it is not in order. But I think it is important to recognise that, through the work of Terence, 849 people in communities such as Perthville just outside of Bathurst—with a collection of a couple of hundred people—together with Wallerawang, Portland, Kandos, Capertee, Glen Davis, Glen Alice, Carcoar, Manildra, Spring Hill and places like these around rural New South Wales in the electorate of Calare have had an opportunity to express their concerns about what they see may be the erosion of the postal services they receive in these small communities.Many of these communities have a high population of elderly people. The post office, with the closure of banks and other facilities in rural areas, has become very much the centre—though it has always been a very important part of the community—of that particular community's activities. With the closure of banks, as I said, the post office is taken over with EFTPOS and agencies, and actually now provides a facility and a resource whereby people, the elderly in particular, are able to access their pensions because of direct payments. They often also run small amounts of food items and convenience products, which means that people are not under the same pressure to find their way to the larger communities.It is a major concern to these people that the changes in the report of the review that is currently with the minister will impact upon these small post offices and will, in the long run, act upon the viability of these offices and cause them to close. That would be the final nail in the coffin for many rural communities. We have, in recent times in our areas, seen a report put out of some research done which has talked about sponge communities, the bigger communities that are attracting people from these smaller places such as Perthville, Wallerawang, Lidsdale and Portland into places such as Bathurst, Lithgow, Dubbo, Orange, Wagga Wagga and Tamworth. These people are very concerned that this is what will be happening.We know that there is a $60 million cross-subsidisation within Australia Post and that enables them to provide a community service so that people in the bush pay the same amount for their stamps as people in the city areas. People in the bush, in a lot of cases, do not get the same number of mail deliveries a week as people in the city, but they do not want to see them reduced. They want to see them at least maintained and, in some areas, they would like to see them increased.For people in rural areas, roadside mail deliveries become very important. For those that are on distance education, that is the way they get the paperwork for their schooling through to the students and pupils. That is the way the pupils get their paperwork back to their teachers to be marked. It is vitally important that people remember this.According to the report, they are saying that cross-subsidisation should cease and that the universal service obligation should be covered by a payment from the Treasury provision each year that comes down in the budget. We all know what happens when budgets are tight and they want to save a little money. We get the one per cent efficiency dividends. I can just see this happening here. What happens? There is a one per cent efficiency dividend that has got to be applied to all programs in the budget. We have seen it for the last however many years this government has been in power. How do you have an efficiency dividend on a universal service obligation? But if you put it in the program, if you put it as a line item in the budget, that is what is going to happen; and these people are very concerned about it.I want tonight to recognise the hard work of Terence Corkin, the ALP candidate for Calare, who will be the next member for Calare, and I would seek leave to table the petitions—there are 849 signatures—from, for example, Perthville, Wallerawang, Rockley, Lidsdale, Lithgow, Cullen Bullen, Meadow Flat, Carcoar, Cumnock, Manildra, Neville, Black Springs, Oberon, Kandos, Spring Hill, Millthorpe, Forest Reefs, Guyong, Capertee and Glen Davis. If you look on a map, you will see that these locations cover a significant part of regional New South Wales around the central west. Those are just a selection of the locations. I seek leave to table those petitions so that the people who have signed them can have their work and their concerns recognised, and so that the work of Terence Corkin can be recognised.Leave granted.303622:03:003036Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I rise to speak about an industrious group of Western Australians known as the West Northcliffe Tourism Group, who are being threatened both economically and environmentally by a state government intent on environmental vandalism. Firstly, for those unfamiliar with Western Australia, Northcliffe is a township 30 kilometres south of Pemberton in the south-west of the state, small in size but big in Western Australian historical significance and fighting spirit. It is situated close to the Warren River, the D'Entrecasteaux National Park and the coast at Windy Harbour. Northcliffe has everything to offer the ecotourist.In an attempt to offset high unemployment in the area, since Bunnings closed its sawmill two years ago, many people have developed, and are still developing, alternative industries, mostly centred on tourism. The West Northcliffe Tourism Group consists of a group of owner-residents whose properties border the forest area known locally as Dombakup 24, and all are reliant on the old-growth forest remaining intact for the success of their planned ventures. Most of the private land surrounding Dombakup 24 does not have a high traditional agricultural value and for this reason it has been subject to rezoning, with two locations already rezoned for multiple occupancy. This area is most suitable for the development of tourism-based businesses and alternative industries.Just over three weeks ago, the residents of West Northcliffe were alarmed to hear heavy machinery at work in the forest behind their properties. For many, this was the first they knew of plans by the Department of Conservation and Land Management, CALM, to clearfell that area of forest. Within a matter of days, some 8½ kilometres of log road had been constructed through and around Dombakup 24, with hundreds of logs felled to make way.Logging of D24 represents a direct conflict of interest with the proposed ventures of the West Northcliffe Tourism Group and the tourism industry of Northcliffe in general. CALM has made no attempt to compare the economic, cultural and social value of retaining D24 on the basis of tourism and ecotourism ad infinitum with the finite, once in a hundred years resource value of clearfelling it.As the Senate may recall, Giblett Block near Pemberton was successfully rescued from clearfelling earlier this year, because of community recognition of its heritage value as old-growth forest. Hopefully that stay will continue. However, what most people do not know is that, in order to replace those logs and keep up the quotas, CALM scouted around for another forest to log, and that is when Dombakup 24 suddenly fell under the spotlight. D24 was never part of the original logging plan for 1998; it was simply added on.CALM's planning for this project has been abysmal. The roadworks were commenced before completion of the roading checklist, before the concept plan was finished and certainly before any neighbour liaison took place—as is required. CALM has also chosen to ignore past studies on this tract of forest, but they cannot claim ignorance of Dombak up's environmental value, because much of the research was undertaken by CALM itself.For the record, the forest at Dombakup received interim listing on the National Estate Register in 1992, and CALM's own description of it in relation to national estate values is `high' and `moderate' in all six categories of vegetation and fauna. Dombakup is listed as being the habitat of two endemic and restricted fauna species and many special vegetation types. It is also registered as double value because it forms part of the proposed linkage system between D'Entrecasteaux National Park, Dombakup Conservation Park and Warren National Park.Most of the private properties bordering D24 are classified as fragile wetlands with restricted land use, meaning clearing restrictions. One such neighbour, in an agreement with the Commissioner of Soils and Land Conservation under the Soils and Lands Conservation Act, section 30, has been required to fence off 20 hectares of his own land at his own cost, to ensure its protection. Another neighbour has had to develop a management contract to protect swamplands. These are very commendable, but all this seems ludicrous in the light of CALM's plans to clearfell nearly 180 hectares right alongside these very same properties which require protection.This also directly conflicts with the federal government's plans, as stated in the Treasurer's budget speech, to introduce legislation to provide a tax rebate for landcare works. Primary producers will be able to claim the rebate for works on levee or contour banks to control soil erosion and on drainage works to control salinity. The Treasurer says his landcare rebate is an incentive for farmers with low taxable incomes to improve their land—one of our country's greatest natural resources.Dombakup 24 presents the perfect opportunity for the government of Western Australia to act in a preventative way, rather than, down the track, having to act in a remedial way. The south-west of Western Australia suffers some of the worst salinity and wetland degradation in this country. The problem is a direct result of overclearing. In an area as sensitive as that of Dombakup in Northcliffe, it is unimaginable that it be considered for such massive clearfelling operations.The argument that areas of clearfelling are promptly replanted is hollow and unconvincing. Reforestation is a painstaking process. It takes more than 100 years for regrowth to be fully effective for a range of environmental functions and, despite expensive advertising to the contrary, anyone who has seen reforestation knows it looks about as natural as a hair transplant. Aesthetically and environmentally, there is no substitute for the real thing but commercial plantations—deliberately planted and cultivated as well as, but not in place of, natural old-growth forest—is the way of the future.Based on information included in the regional forest agreement for Western Australia, I understand that plantations—tree farms—have been displacing native forests for the past 25 years and now account for two-thirds of timber for building purposes and 80 per cent of timber in paper production, a move largely unrecognised by the public and governments. Despite the commercial success of plantations, governments maintain subsidies for the commercial users of native forests: every dollar of welfare to native forest users undermines the competing, inherently superior plantation based forestry industry.Northcliffe is a battling country town but it has spirit and it has a community that wants to see it prosper. It is a government's duty to assist sustainable growth in regional areas and not frustrate it. It is a government's duty to pave the way for people trying to be self-sufficient. Clearfelling does not generate employment. With today's modern equipment it takes three men three days to clearfell 100 hectares of forest and another handful of men to cart the logs away. Dombakup 24 could be a mere memory in less than a week, after which those few men will again be looking for work. Long-term, sustainable industries create employment. Tourism and service industries will see Northcliffe survive well into the future—but not if CALM has its way. In America people pay big tourist dollars to visit big, old trees. In Western Australia, our government makes sure that the 350 year olds are cut down for charcoal, toothpicks and woodchips.The people of Northcliffe want to see their town survive. They are willing to change and seek alternative employment opportunities but they are not willing to stand by and see the Dombakup 24 forest—a vital component for their futures and the future of their generations to come—destroyed for the short-term and very short-sighted gain of government and the woodchip and charcoal industry.The WA Minister for the Environment argues that the forest must go for the benefit of all Australians. She is 100 per cent wrong: the forest must stay for the benefit of all Australians. How clearfelling 180 hectares of natural karri, marri and jarrah—more than 50 per cent of which will go straight to woodchipping—can benefit all Australians defies logic.The regional forest agreement public consultation paper was released today. It sets out how much old-growth forest should be logged over the next 20 years. It offers three alternatives, and all three involve the wholesale destruction of old-growth forest. While we fiddle, the forests continue to fall.303822:12:003038O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I propose to continue the rural and regional theme of tonight's adjournment debate. Firstly, I want to respond in part to Senator Sandy Macdonald's comments about the government's proposals regarding the introduction of labelling legislation which will ensure that product which is produced with imported raw materials is not labelled as product of Australia.The opposition of course supports any proposal to give effect to the consumer's access to knowledge about the country of origin of the product that is being produced. Labor had a similar scheme ready to go at the end of 1995 and in fact that scheme, which was supported by the industries of Australia after a substantial consultation process, could have been implemented in early 1996. Unfortunately, the government has decided that it needs to re-invent the wheel, as it were, and to proceed down its own path to arrive at the same conclusion and that appears, on the face of the information that Senator Macdonald put to us this evening, to be the situation that the government now finds itself in.It finds itself with legislation which has industry support, just as was the case at the commencement of its term, which can now be put into effect. It will give the producers of this country the opportunity to ensure that their product is recognised as product of Australia and that competitors from overseas are not able to have their products used in a way which confuses consumers and allows an unscrupulous manufacturer to say, for example, this is a product of Australia by—and I will use Senator Macdonald's example—adding water to orange juice concentrate. So, having said that we support that, we do say that this measure has been some time coming, given the position in this regard that this government found itself in when it came to office.While I am on my feet I want to touch further on the issue of the pork industry because some other information needs to be placed on the record in addition to that which was placed in the Hansard today. In relation to the Senate's resolution of 7 April which called on the government to take action assessing the circumstances of the pork industry and the effect on the industry of imported pork products, I must say that, as I indicated today, there have been a great many representations made to my office about the concerns of pork producers.Shortly after the decision of the Senate on 7 April, I wrote to both Mr Anderson and Mr Fischer on 16 April urging them to move quickly to help this industry because of concerns being raised with me, particularly about the fall in the price of the producers' pigs, which had fallen well below the cost of production. Mr Fischer responded by telling me how important international trade was to the future of Australia. Of course I agree, but I also think that the thousands of pork producers and their families are important to the future of Australia. The many thousands of working men and women who depend on this industry for their weekly pay packet are also important to the future of this country. Mr Fischer should go and ask the feed merchants in Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia how important this industry is to them. He should ask them how they are coping with customers who once happily paid their feed bills on time but who now need 60 days or 90 days, or even more, to pay their accounts. Some cannot pay their accounts at all at the moment.Despite the pain this industry is currently enduring, and despite the general recognition that a flood of imports last year was a contributor to this pain, a proposal to progress applications to import pig meat from countries such as the United States, Mexico, South Africa and a number of EU countries is under consideration. The comments by Senator Parer today in question time were to the effect that, at this time, no decision has been made in relation to such a proposal. Nevertheless, there is such a proposal on the table from AQIS, and it is under serious consideration. In fact, what might be termed a formal consultation process is under way, and that process ends on 18 June. The AQIS memorandum, dated 18 May, advises the industry—because it was sent industry wide—that, as a World Trade Organisation member, Australia must consider access requests from these countries in a timely manner. But the question is: timely for whom? I can assure the minister that, on this one, his timing could not have been worse for the Australian industry.We do have trade obligations that must be honoured, but we also have obligations and responsibilities to those industries which might be adversely affected by trade liberalisation. We are talking here about working families and we are talking about Mr Howard's small business sector, because most of these producers are small businesses. There are some very large ones but in the main they are small businesses. We have to ensure that our domestic policy framework enables us to accommodate our GATT obligations in such a way that important industries, such as the pork producers, have the time and the means to adjust.Before Mr Anderson ticks the box to allow pig meat from the USA, Mexico, South Africa and the European Union onto the shelves of Australian supermarkets, he must do a number of things. He must put in place a means by which Australia can respond quickly to surges in imports, as occurred last year. He must ensure Australian product can easily be distinguished from Canadian, South African, Mexican and USA pork. To the extent that there have been announcements about labelling, there may be some assistance in that regard, but he must significantly enhance the industry assistance package that is currently in place because assistance is needed at this time.Despite the tough situation the industry currently finds itself in, it has an important role to play in the future of regional Australia. It also has the potential to be a significant exporter, particularly into Asia. But it requires the government to work with it, not against it.This government has taken a number of decisions that have had a negative impact on this industry. The government allowed pig meat imports into this country. The government blocked grain imports, ensuring feed costs were higher than they might otherwise be, especially in times of drought. The government increased AQIS meat inspection charges by up to 300 per cent last year and only cut them back when it was forced to by the Senate. Therefore, it should be the government that puts in place a policy framework to enable the pork industry to realise its full potential.In conclusion, let me repeat my call to the minister. Until there is a comprehensive strategy in place to secure the future of the Australian pork industry, Mr Anderson should not progress applications from the USA, Mexico, South Africa and the European Union to import pig meat into this country.304022:20:003040McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I rise tonight in a state of elation over what happened in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on Friday of last week. The people of that country went to the polls and expressed their views on a referendum as to whether or not they wanted peace in that very troubled Ireland. I am very pleased to note for the record that there was overwhelming support for a proposition that had been agreed to after many months of negotiations. It was finalised on Good Friday and it was put to the people in separate referendums last Friday. It was overwhelmingly carried by some 94 per cent in the Republic of Ireland and 71 per cent in Northern Ireland.That decision has been welcomed by all of the media outlets in this country. To the best of my knowledge, it has been welcomed by all political parties in this country, and I am very pleased that that is the case. In this chamber earlier today, we unanimously carried a resolution which recognised what had gone into the matters that were culminated in Ireland on Friday of last week. My local newspaper, The West Australian, had as its front page headline, `Ireland takes first steps to peace'. They have it slightly wrong there because it is not exactly the first steps; the first steps were taken many years ago.Many individuals laid their lives and those of their families on the line to get to the position both countries got to last week. Those individuals are far too numerous to be named in a short adjournment here tonight. But I do make special mention of and pay special tribute to the work of John Hume—and not because John is a leader of a party that is an affiliate of mine. I think that my admiration for him goes far beyond that.I admire John Hume because I have actually witnessed him in action in the streets of Derry, his electorate, meeting and talking with the people. He knew a large number of individuals, and I was envious of the fact that he was able to identify so many by name—a very good member of parliament. But he was one of the few politicians at that time—and I am going back to 1989—who did not go armed in public. Also, unlike many other politicians of the time, he did not have a bodyguard accompanying him.For an Australian to make statements like that is obviously very unusual; you do not get circumstances such as those in this country, thank heavens. But in Northern Ireland it was the case that at that particular point in time politicians were armed—and, obviously, we witnessed soldiers patrolling the streets of Derry.Hume, on the day I was with him, showed me his home from the outside, particularly drawing my attention to the scars that could be seen there. The home had recently been firebombed, I think, for the fourth or fifth time. He explained the reasons why he and his wife actually had to live in some other place, that they still kept that terrace house as their home—and it is still their home—but that it had had to be reinforced. He persevered through all of this without the need to carry arms, either in private or in public, and without the need for a bodyguard. His philosophy at the time, he told me, was that to have a bodyguard and carry a gun would not enforce the view he had of wanting a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.I am sure that John Hume, as did the vast majority of the people of Ireland—and, indeed, did Irish people spread right throughout the world—celebrated wholeheartedly on Friday night, just as did we on Saturday in Australia, when the results of the referendum came through. This is, like the West Australian newspaper says, a step in the direction of peace. It is not peace in itself, as a lot of very hard work still remains to be done.Despite the overwhelming expression of opinion by the people of Ireland, north and south, there are some who even now do not appear willing to accept the views of the majority of the people—and I particularly point the finger at Northern Ireland and to the public comments of one Reverend Ian Paisley. I hope that Mr Paisley and his supporters will see some sense and start putting their efforts into bringing about a peaceful resolution to the problems of Northern Ireland. The opportunity is clearly there and, hopefully, they will do so.Today our Senate carried quite a lengthy resolution dealing with the results of the talks. When I gave that notice of motion on 14 May, I indicated that at an appropriate time I would seek leave to table a copy of the agreement which was reached in the multiparty negotiations. I do seek leave at this time to table that document; I have shown it to my colleagues on the other side of the chamber.Leave granted.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I thank the Senate. I finalise by recording again—and it is worth repeating—that Australia, through previous governments and the current government, has made some contribution towards the resolutions that were achieved in Ireland, north and south, on Friday of last week. We make mention in the motion that was carried that a former Governor-General of this country, Sir Ninian Stephen, acted as chair of some of the earlier peace negotiations. Indeed, Australia has made substantial monetary contributions towards the International Fund for Ireland. This fund is doing fabulously good work in the border counties above Northern Ireland and in southern Ireland, and we have made a contribution to that process.I think, collectively, we can all be very pleased with the progress that to date has been made. And we can hope and, indeed—for those of us who do—pray that the progress will continue and that those steps taken on Good Friday and in the referendum last Friday will bring a lasting and durable peaceful solution to the problems of Ireland.22:28:003041Senate adjourned at 10.28 p.m.Documents30413041The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 96-98.Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act—Direction under section 11, dated 30 March 1998Census and Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Statement No. 1 of 1998.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemption No. CASA 18/1998.Defence Act—Defence Determination 1998/20.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 92.Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 85. Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 88.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement describing property acquired by agreement under section 125 of the Act for specified public purposes.Migration Act—General direction under section 499— General Direction—Visa Refusal S501—No. 5. Order of Disposal of Applications for Visas—General Direction No. 6.National Health Act—Determination No. PB 9 of 1998.Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 90.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Horticultural Levy Act and Horticultural Export Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 89.Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 87.Public Service Act—Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1998/26-1998/34.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations Nos 13 and 14 of 1998.Student and Youth Assistance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 86.Superannuation Act 1976 — Declaration—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 94. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 91Superannuation Act 1990 — Declarations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 93 and 95.Superannuation Contributions Determinations SCD 98/1 and SCD 98/2.Therapeutic Goods Act—Therapeutic Goods (Manufacturing Principles) Determination No. 1 of 1998—MP1/1998.Proclamations3042A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of an Act to come into operation on the date specified:Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Act 1993 —Part 3.1—15 May 1998 (Gazette No. S214, 15 May 1998).Answers to Questions on Notice3043The following answers to questions were circulated:3043(Question No. 1010)10103043Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 November, 1997:Is it the case that non-government schools are not subject to fringe benefits tax; if so, what are the tax revenue implications of this provision.3043Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:No. Apart from the car parking exemption, non-government schools do not have an exemption from the payment of fringe benefits tax. However, they are entitled to the section 65j rebate, a rebate of 48 per cent of the employer's fringe benefit taxable value, which is available for a range of generally non-profit organisations such as religious and scientific institutions, sporting clubs, non-government schools, hospitals and so on.Non-government schools have an exemption from the payment of fringe benefits tax under subsection 58G(2) of the FBTAA where public education institutions provide either payment for car parking or car parking spaces to employees.No estimate is available of the cost of revenue of the section 65j rebate as it applies to non-government schools. The cost to revenue of the section 65j rebate as a whole is estimated at $55m in 1996-97. No estimate is available of the cost to revenue of the FBT exemption for car parking available under subsection 58G(2) of the FBTAA.3043(Question No. 1012)10123043Watson, Sen JohnSenator WatsonVJ4TASLP10 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 December 1997:With reference to a recent statement from the Australian Taxation Office that the office had appointed six officers to oversee tax issues in relation to people visiting Australia for the Olympic Games 2000:(1) Can an outline be provided of: (a) the scope of their duties; (b) the purpose of their appointment; and (c) matters that visitors and employees coming to Australia for the purpose of the Olympics should be aware of in respect of income tax, superannuation guarantee charge, capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax.(2) Is it a fact that, under international tax treaty provisions, people may be exempt from income tax, fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax, however, there would be no exemption from the superannuation guarantee charge.3043Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) The duties of this team are not confined to issues related to the Olympics. The team was established to deal with taxation issues in respect of major sporting and entertainment events, including the Olympics. Their duties include:-. providing the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) view in respect of technical and administrative matters;. undertaking a review of current tax legislation relative to participants in major international sporting and entertainment events;. facilitating the ATO's involvement in the Commonwealth's `whole of Government' approach in respect of the Olympic Games by participating in various Government forums related to the holding of this event.(1) (b) The purpose of the team is to provide an ATO co-ordination point for advice in respect of persons who participate in major international sporting and entertainment events. Resident and non-resident individuals or organisations can obtain advice from this team in respect of taxation issues arising from their participation in the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and other major international sporting and entertainment events.(1) (c) Non resident persons visiting Australia for the purposes of the Olympics will be subject to Australian tax law in respect of any income that they derive during their visit. Generally speaking, non residents are subject to Australian tax in respect of income that is sourced in Australia, however, because of the operation of the Double Taxation Agreements, (DTA) many visiting non residents who derive income in Australia in relation the Olympics may be taxed in their country of residence rather than in Australia.Australia has entered into 37 DTAs. These agreements can vary as to the taxes covered, their scope, and the particular articles included. The agreements contain articles that will affect persons visiting for the Olympics including, the taxation of dependant and independent personal services, visiting entertainers and sports people, capital gains, and other types of income.Non residents visiting Australia in relation to the Olympics may be subject to Australian capital gains tax if they dispose of a "taxable Australian asset". The term "taxable Australian asset" includes a number of categories of assets that are defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act including, land or interests in land in Australia, interests in Australian private companies and resident trusts, portfolio interests in Australian public companies and public unit trusts, and assets used in Australian businesses.Employees visiting Australia for the Olympics will not be personally liable for fringe benefits tax (FBT) and the superannuation guarantee charge (SGC) as these amounts are levied on the employer and not the employee.FBT is payable by employers on the value of certain fringe benefits that are provided to employees or their associates in respect of their employment. The main types of fringe benefits are car benefits, expense payments, housing benefits, living away from home allowances, entertainment, and transport.An employer will be generally required to provide superannuation guarantee support for non resident employees who perform work in Australia in relation to the Olympics, however employees who hold a Class 413 (Executive Overseas) visa or entry permit are classed as exempt employees for superannuation guarantee purposes. Employees who receive wages of less that $450 per month will also be exempt.(2) Double tax agreements, as mentioned above, can vary as to the taxes covered. However, they may cover taxing rights regarding income, the provision of fringe benefits and capital gains. They do not, however, exempt employers from the superannuation guarantee charge in respect of salary or wages paid to visiting non-resident employees.3044(Question No. 1115)11153044Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 30 March 1998.(1) Is the Minister aware that neither the Pundulmurra College, nor the indigenous community, was consulted prior to the announcement that the Pundulmurra College was to be amalgamated with Hedland College.(2) Can a synopsis be provided of the Federal Government's views on the amalgamation of Pun dulmurra College with Hedland College, and the processes by which this amalgamation has been implemented.(3) Has the Minister raised this matter with his Western Australian counterpart.(4) Is it the case that, according to the funding formula under the Vocational Educational Training Funding Laws Amendment Act 1996, Pundulmurra College was `underfunded' in 1996 by an amount of approximately $700,000.(5) What position does the Federal Government advocate regarding the autonomy and independence of indigenous educational institutions such as Pundulmurra College.3044Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, Senator Ellison is aware that some concerns have been expressed about the consultation process used by the Western Australian Department of Training (WADOT).(2) WADOT is the state department responsible for the distribution of funding to the vocational, education and training sector in Western Australia. The Commonwealth does not directly fund either college and their amalgamation is a State responsibility.(3) No. The matter has been raised with Mr Ian Hill, Chief Executive Officer of WADOT at Departmental officer level.(4) Commonwealth funding to assist States and Territories in the provision of vocational education and training (VET) is appropriated under the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992. There is no funding formula under this Act. Distribution of VET funding within each State and Territory, including Commonwealth funds, is determined by the individual State or Territory.(5) As a State Government established Indigenous educational institution, the amalgamation of colleges in Western Australia is a matter for State decision making, in consultation with the Indigenous community. The Commonwealth encourages the appropriate use of consultation procedures with the local Indigenous community and the relevant state government agencies.3044(Question No. 1117)11173044Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:(1) What is the status of the environmental strategy for the motor vehicle industry. (2) (a) What is the status of the National Environment Protection Measures for ambient air quality standards; and (b) standards for which substances will be included in this document.(3) If standards for benzene, toluene, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and xylene are not included: (a) why not, and on what advice; and (b) can a copy of the advice be provided.(4) What standards have been adopted for benzene, toluene, MTBE and xylene in petrol in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.(5) What are the safe levels of these substances.(6) What is the effect of these substances on human biology.(7) What steps have been taken to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions in the Commonwealth car fleet.(8) Will the Commonwealth be utilising natural gas for its car fleet; if so, can details be provided.(9) Can details be provided of the accelerated phase-out of leaded petrol, announced in November 1997.(10) What is the status of the Government's proposed network of compressed natural gas refuelling stations in metropolitan areas.(11) For what period of time will compressed natural gas be exempted from excise.3045Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Negotiations and consultation with industry sectors are progressing on the implementation of the key elements of the environmental strategy for the motor vehicle industry, which are:. improving the fuel efficiency of new passenger motor vehicles through negotiations with industry to achieve a 15% reduction in the National Average Fuel Consumption (NAFC) beyond business-as-usual by 2010;. introducing model-specific fuel efficiency labelling requiring amendments to the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989, with gazettal of the Australian Design Rule (ADR) on labelling currently scheduled for early 1999; and. conducting a study to examine bringing forward (as feasible) the phase-out of leaded fuel and higher octane fuel for general consumption.(2)(a) On 26 June 1996, Environment Ministers, meeting as the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), took a decision to develop a draft National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) for Ambient Air Quality. An official discussion paper detailing a preliminary draft of the Measure and Impact Statement was released in June 1997 for 2 months public consultation. The Draft NEPM and Impact Statement was subsequently released for 3 months public consultation on 21 November 1997. A final draft NEPM and Impact Statement will be completed by 28 April 1998 for consideration by all jurisdictions, with NEPC meeting to consider making the Measure for Ambient Air Quality on 26 June 1998.(2)(b) Standards for the ambient levels of the following substances are included in the NEPM document: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, photochemical oxidants measured as ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead and particles.(3)(a) Standards for benzene, toluene, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), xylene and other air toxics have not been included in the Ambient Air Quality NEPM. This Measure was intentionally restricted to the six core air pollutants to which the majority of Australians are currently exposed and which are known, in sufficient concentrations, to have adverse effects on human health.This decision was based on information provided in an agenda paper considered by the NEPC in June 1996, when it agreed to the development of the Draft Measure. The agenda paper noted that these six core pollutants are internationally recognised as the standard indicators of ambient air quality. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have ambient air standards, goals or guidelines for these six pollutants.The NEPM may be extended in the future to include other pollutants such as the air toxics mentioned, however, with the exception of a recommended standard for benzene in the UK, there are generally no national ambient air standards, goals or guidelines elsewhere for the named pollutants.(3)(b) A copy of the advice cannot be provided as NEPC agenda papers are not public documents.(4) The following table sets out the current fuel quality standards for benzene, aromatics including toluene and xylene, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) in the European Union (EU) and other OECD countries.Table 1SubstanceOECD CountriesStandards or Alternate ProvisionsBenzeneEU, Norway, Switzerland5% by volume maximum (v/v max). Draft Directive for EU from 1 Jan 2000 specifies 2% v/v max.Austria3% v/v max. Voluntary reduction by the oil industry for Super Plus Research Octane Number (RON) 98 to 1% v/v max from 1 June 1996 and other grades to 2% v/v max from 1 February 1997.Italy1.4% v/v max reducing to 1.0% v/v max from 1 July 1999.GermanyMoving towards a 1% v/v max. Voluntary reduction by the oil industry for Super Plus to 1% v/v max.FinlandThree grades currently available: 5% v/v, 3% v/v and 1% v/v max.SwedenOptional environmental classification system provides for 3% v/v max and suggest alignment to draft directive for EU from 1 Jan 2000.USA1.53% v/v max (summer) and 1.64% v/v max (winter). `Reformulated gasoline' requirements for major cities which fail to meet ambient ozone standards are 1% v/v max (or 0.95% v/v period average, with a 1.3% v/v absolute maximum). In California, the Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline has a 1% v/v max with 0.8% v/v average and an absolute maximum of 1.2% v/v.Mexico4.9% v/v max for unleaded petrol and 2% v/v max for city gasoline for specified urban areas.New Zealand3% v/v max.Australia5% v/v max.Aromatics including Toleune and XyleneEUCurrently no standards. Draft Directive from 1 Jan 2000 incorporates 45.0% v/v max.GermanyCurrently no standards. Does not consider the limits in draft Directive for EU from 1 Jan 2000 are sufficient. Wants limits of 30% v/v max.USA32.0% v/v (summer) and 26.4% v/v (winter). `Reformulated gasoline' requirements for major cities which fail to meet ambient ozone standards control total aromatics indirectly by a requirement to demonstrate at 15% reduction in "air toxics". In California, for Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline, total aromatics are limited to 25% v/v (or 22% v/v average, absolute maximum of 30% v/v).New Zealand48% v/v max for total aromatics, with 40% v/v max for toluene plus xylene.MTBEEUDirective 85/536/EEC directs that member states must permit fuel blends with 10% v/v max. If 15% v/v max is exceeded, the dispensing pumps must be so marked.MTBE included as an oxygenateUSAOxygenates including MTBE may be added to the fuel, provided that the amount of oxygen in the finished fuel does not exceed 2.7% by mass (m/m). Cities which do not meet ambient carbon monoxide level targets in winter are required to use oxygenates to give 2.7% m/m oxygen. In California, for Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline, oxygen in the finished fuel must range between 1.8% m/m and 2.2% m/m.(5) In relation to the listed pollutants, the following information is provided about currently known safe levels, for both occupational and non-occupational exposure:Benzene: A time-weighted average of 3.2 mg/m3 (1 ppm) over a 40 year working career has not been statistically associated with any increase in deaths from leukaemia. As this is a human carcinogen, exposures should be limited to the lowest level technically feasible. Increases in exposure level to over 32mg/m3 (10 ppm) should be avoided. (Environmental Health Criteria 150: Benzene, WHO, 1993). The Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards in the UK recommended an air quality standard for benzene of 5 ppb (16 micrograms/m3) and concluded that the risk of leukaemia in workers would not be detectable when average exposures over a working lifetime were around 500 ppb (1620 micrograms/m3). (Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards: Benzene, Department of the Environment [UK], 1994).Toluene: The available data indicate that exposure of the general population and environment to toluene does not present any health and/or environmental hazards, at present. However, long-term occupational exposure and solvent abuse may be associated with permanent pathological changes and further investigations are justified. (Environmental Health Criteria 52: Toluene, WHO, 1985).MTBE: The risk characterisation for MTBE does not indicate concern for human health with regard to current occupational and consumer exposures. Compliance with the occupational exposure limit of 90mg/m3 or 25 ppm MTBE (8-h TWA) is considered to protect workers from any potential hazards. (Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Health Risk Characterisation, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) Technical Report No 72, June 1997).Xylene: There have been no long-term controlled human studies or epidemiological studies from which a guidance value may be calculated. A guidance value of 0.87 mg/m3 (0.2 ppm) derived from the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) reported for developmental neurotoxic effects in laboratory animals is recommended. (Environmental Health Criteria 190: Xylenes, WHO, 1997).(6) The following information is provided about the effects of the named substances on human biology, as currently evidenced from recognised research.Benzene: The major effect of high chronic benzene exposure is haematopoietic toxicity with resulting anaemia, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia and ultimately leukaemia, (Reese and Kimbrough, 1993). Benzene is a known human leukaemogen listed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), (IARC, 1982). The WHO estimated unit lifetime cancer risk from benzene is 4x10-6 from a continuous exposure to 1 microgram/m3 for seventy years. (Desk Study—Octane Enhancers, RMIT, November 1994).Toluene: The primary effect of toluene is on the central nervous system (CNS). The effect may be depressant or excitatory, with euphoria in the induction phase followed by disorientation, tremulousness, mood lability, tinnitus, diplopia, hallucinations, dysarthria, ataxia, convulsions, and coma. (Environmental Health Criteria 52: Toluene, WHO, 1985).MTBE: Toxokinetic data do not indicate reasons for concern with regard to bioaccumulation of MTBE or any of its metabolites. Transient central nervous system depression and mortality occur at high doses/concentrations only. Skin and respiratory irritation are regarded as effects of prime concern following acute exposure. Following the findings in animal studies that MTBE increases the incidence of certain tumours in rodents following long term inhalation exposure, research is ongoing. The EEC has concluded that MTBE does not require classification as a carcinogen according to the criteria presented in Annex VI of Directive 67/548/EEC on Dangerous Substances (EEC, 1993b). (Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Health Risk Characterisation, European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) Technical Report No 72, June 1997). MTBE is classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a potential carcinogen. New Scientist, Vol 157 (2109), 22 Nov 1997.Xylene: Xylenes are slightly toxic by inhalation and oral routes. Effects specific to xylene inhalation exposure in humans include nose and throat irritation, severe lung congestion, pulmonary haemorrhages and oedema (Reese and Kimbrough, 1993). (Desk Study—Octane Enhancers, RMIT, November 1994).(7) The Commonwealth car fleet currently comprises self-drive vehicles provided through private leasing arrangements (mainly DASFLEET sourced) and vehicles provided through COMCAR (the government's car with driver service). With a view to improving the environmental performance of fleet cars, the recently established Joint Working Party on Energy Efficiency in Commonwealth Operations will be investigating a fuel efficiency and emissions minimisation strategy for leased fleet cars, in conjunction with fleet providers and major user agencies.(8) COMCAR is trialing LPG factory equipped Holden Caprice and Ford Fairlane vehicles. These trials are at a very early stage and it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions on the available data. Data collection and monitoring from test vehicles will be used to make informed decisions on the suitability of a more substantial inclusion of alternative fuelled vehicles within the Commonwealth fleet through the Joint Working Party on Energy Efficiency in Commonwealth Operations.(9) Environment Australia has commenced preliminary consultations on the accelerated phaseout of leaded petrol. These consultations will determine an appropriate date for industry to withdraw leaded petrol from sale.(10) The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC), local businesses, NRMA and AGL are currently cooperating in western Sydney to develop a network of users and providers of compressed natural gas (CNG). Environment Australia has provided funds in FY 1998/99 to support this initiative and construction of the first refuelling stations is expected to be commenced later this calendar year.(11) The Government is committed to a viable market for alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas, and understands the importance of the industry having some certainty with regard to future taxation arrangements. It is not possible to identify at this time how long CNG will be exempt from excise.3049(Question No. 1119)11193049O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice on 31 March, 1998:(1) Did the Government of the United Arab Emirates speak to any representative of the Federal Government about an attempt by Fynwest Pty Ltd to train stevedoring workers in Dubai, prior to 6 December 1997; if so, who was contacted, what was discussed and what action was taken.(2) Who in the Minister's Office spoke with Ms Grace Wells of Fynwest Pty Ltd or any other representatives of Fynwest Pty Ltd, regarding the facilitation of passports for stevedoring trainees seeking to travel to Dubai; (b) what assistance was provided, (c) was the Minister advised of this occurring; and (d) what discussions occurred on the matter between the Minister's Office and any other Minister or ministerial office.3049Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has no record or recollection of any conversation between the Government of the United Arab Emirates and any representative of the Australian Government prior to Mr Brereton's question in Parliament of 3 December, about the proposal by Fynwest Pty Ltd to train stevedoring workers in Dubai.Following the matters raised by the Opposition in Parliament on 3 and 4 December about the proposal by Fynwest Pty Ltd to train stevedoring workers in Dubai, on 5 December the UAE Ambassador, Mr Al-Falasi, called on officers of the Middle East and Africa Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to discuss the issue.(2) (a) (b) (c) (d) The Minister's Office has no record or recollection of having been contacted by Ms Grace Wells or other representatives of Fynwest Pty Ltd or of any reference to Fynwest in any calls or to any project involving Fynwest or stevedoring training in Dubai. The Office receives numerous inquiries seeking assistance with the issue of urgent passports, including some which are unidentified. These requests are routinely forwarded to the Department's Passport Office.3049(Question No. 1120)11203049O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:(1) (a) What checks with respect to the source and intent of advertisements placed in the Army newspaper are conducted by the Australian Defence Force (ADF); (b) were checks carried out in the case of advertisements lodged by Fynwest Pty Ltd for the 30 October and 13 November 1997 editions of the Army; if so: (i) what did they reveal, and (ii) was the Minister's office advised, and, if so, by whom and what was discussed.(2) (a) Was Fynwest Pty Ltd permitted to use ADF property for the purposes of conducting recruiting meetings; if so, when, where and on whose authority; and (b) was the Minister's office advised that this was occurring; if so, when and by whom.(3) (a) Which serving members of the ADF were given leave to enable them to go to Dubai in December 1997 to train as stevedoring workers; (b) what kind of leave was involved in each case; (c) who approved the leave in each case; and (d) did the approving officer in each case discuss the application for leave with any superior officer in the Minister's office; if so, when and with whom.(4) Have any inquiries been initiated to determine whether any leave applications which were granted involved any breach of ADF regulations; if so, what was the outcome of these inquiries and what action has been taken as a result.3050Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The relevant guidelines for the Army newspaper are contained in Chapter 7 of Volume 3 of the Army Manual of Personnel Administration. Paragraph 16 of which states:"716. Advertisements. The editor is responsible that all advertisements accepted comply with relevant legislation and policy directives issued by the Chief of Personnel from time to time. He is to ensure that the format and wording of advertisements do not indicate or imply that the advertiser has official Army sponsorship for his product or service. The Director of Legal Services—Army (DALS-A) advice is to be sought when considered necessary. Due to the time factor involved in the production of the newspaper the editor is to allow maximum time for any legal examination and DALS-A is to give priority to such examination. When in doubt the editor is to seek guidance from the Director General of Public Information."(b) Yes.(i) As the advertisements conformed with the guidance they were published.(ii) No.(2) (a) Yes, 14 November 1997, Oakleigh Barracks, Victoria, by the Barracks Commander.(b) No, the Minister was later advised in an Army Brief on 11 December 1997.(3) (a) 36 full-time ADF personnel have been identified as being involved in Dubai stevedoring training. Only one of those continues to serve in the Permanent Forces.11 Army Reserve personnel have been identified as being involved in Dubai stevedoring training. Reserve members are part-time employees and there are less stringent conditions relating to taking leave. However, 5 members notified their unavailability to parade which included notification of overseas travel.Of the 36 members in the permanent forces, the breakdown is as follows:Australian Regular ArmyArmy Reserve7 x Warrant Officer Class 11 x Captain16 x Warrant Officer Class 21 x Warrant Officer Class 11 x Staff Sergeant5 x Warrant Officer Class 23 x Sergeant1 x Sergeant4 x Corporal1 x Corporal3 x Lance Corporal1 x Lance Corporal1 x Private1 x PrivateTotal: 35Total: 11Royal Australian Air Force1 x Leading AircraftmanTotal: 1The personnel came from the following units around Australia:ADF Recruiting Unit- Melbourne1ADF Recruiting Unit- Sydney2Army Logistics Training Centre- Portsea3Command and Staff College- Portsea1Defence Centre- Perth3Directorate of Military Engineering (Army)- Melbourne7Headquarters 13 Brigade- Perth1Perth Logistics Battalion- Perth1Royal Australian Ordnance Corps- Bandiana1School of Armour- Puckapunyal1Special Air Service Regiment- Perth1 2nd Commando Company- Mosman12nd Combat Engineer Regiment- Enoggera44th Brigade Admin Support Battalion- Oakleigh South14th/19th Prince of Wales Light Horse- Macleod25th/7th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment- Liverpool15th Combat Engineer Regiment- Penrith110th Terminal Regiment (Transport)- Mosman213th Field Squadron- Perth1301 Base Wing (RAAF)- Orchard Hills1(b) Various combinations of Recreation Leave, Long Service Leave and Leave Without Pay were granted to Permanent Force personnel.(c) Commanding Officers in the Permanent Forces approve recreation leave and, in the Army, leave without pay for up to 12 months, and may support members requests for long service leave, which are approved in the Financial Conditions Branch in Canberra.(d) No requests for absence were discussed with the Minister or members of his office.(4) Yes—Legal advice has been taken which indicates that in the case of a member on pre-discharge leave there would be no breach.In the case of leave of absence, a member who is required to return to duty following leave would not be in breach of the obligation imposed by s.45 of the Defence Act during the first three months of the contract. If recalled to duty, the member could give one day's notice and return to active duty. Once the three month period has passed and the need arose to give a week's notice lawfully to terminate the contract, there may well be an inconsistency with the member's obligation under the Defence Act, depending on how quickly the member could be required to return to duty. Even then, it is possible for the member to abandon the private employment without giving notice. In that case, the member might be subject to legal action by the company for damages or the company might, pursuant to clause 10.3 (of the Australian Workers Agreement), simply treat the contract as at an end.No action was necessary.3051(Question No. 1126)11263051Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NealB36NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:(1) When is the information from the survey of child care services, conducted in the last quarter of 1997 likely to be released. (2) Has the processing of the information been given a high priority by the department.(3) Is the information to be used to inform policy in the 1998/1999 budget.3051Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The Minister for Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Two collections of child care data were made in August 1997: the annual Child Care Census and an administrative data collection undertaken to support the transfer of functions to Centrelink on 1 January 1998. When the transfer was postponed, priority was given to processing the Child Care Census as this data is superior in terms of comprehensiveness and quality. The results of the Census will be publicly released in the last quarter of 1998.(2) The 1997 Child Care Census has been given a high priority by the Department, with the allocation of additional resources to manage the processing of information on 8,000 services to allow publication in the last quarter of 1998. In previous years the Census involved some 4,000 services (information on the long day care sector and outside school hours care was collected in alternate years) and publication routinely occurred between 18 months and two years from collection.(3) Yes.3051(Question No. 1134)11343051Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 9 April 1998:With reference to the proposed introduction of salmon farms in the Tamar River in Tasmania:(1) How much federal funding has been provided in each of the past 5 years for projects to aid or restore or improve the environment of the Tamar-Esk catchment.(2) (a) What impact do fish farms have on such a riverine environment; and (b) specifically, what volume and content of waste products come from salmon farms per 1000 tonnes of salmon per annum. (3) What is the potential for infectious pancreatic necrosis, as discovered in Macquarie Harbour, to infect Tamar fisheries.(4) What say or control does the Minister have in ensuring federal monies are not spent on environments threatened by other State Government decisions, and, in particular, in this case.3052Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Since March 1996, when I became Minister for the Environment, $981,600 has been provided by the Environment Portfolio for projects to aid, restore or improve the environment of the Tamar-Esk catchment. Of this $925,900 was provided under the Riverworks Tasmania Program, $47,700 from the Waterwatch Program and $8,000 from the Coastcare Program.A small part of the Tamar-Esk catchment falls within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area and funding has been provided for the entire world heritage area under the World Heritage Program.2 (a) The advice of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) was sought in answering this question.I understand that properly managed fish farms can have a relatively low impact on riverine environments. Aquaculture, including fish farming, requires clean water to be sustainable.I understand from the CSIRO that a variety of wastes emanate from fish farms. These can include uneaten feed, excretion from fish and activities associated with the operation of the farm such as removal of fouling organisms from nets and emissions from work boats. Impacts from farm operations are typically a minor source of contamination. Excretion from the fish can either be as solids (faeces) or dissolved matter (via gills or other pathways). The components of concern are suspended solids, organic matter (usually characterised by its biological oxygen demand—BOD), and the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus. The action of these wastes is to reduce water clarity, deplete the concentration of dissolved oxygen and to increase the prospect of algal blooms.In preliminary results from a Huon River study, I understand that the CSIRO has not found significant evidence of changes in water quality within 100 metres of salmonid fish farms in the lower Huon Estuary. Changes to sediments as a result of waste deposition beneath cages appears to be constrained to the farm leases and their immediate vicinity.To date, I am informed that the CSIRO Division of Marine Research has not made any investigations of the Tamar Estuary, and are not aware of any other comprehensive work on this estuary. 2 (b) From a survey of published information on discharge of waste products from fish farms, or in studies of caged fish, I understand that the CSIRO has not found any information on salmonids (salmon and trout) under Australian conditions.I am informed that most published information on discharge of waste products from fish farms derives from aquaculture in the northern hemisphere—mainly Scandinavia, UK and North America. Wastes from fish farms vary widely as a result of environmental conditions (for example temperature, season and water quality) and aquaculture practices (for example species and age of fish, stocking density and feed composition).I understand that very recent data reported for waste loadings from a freshwater Atlantic salmon farm on the west coast of Scotland, over a two-year period, were 327-337 kg suspended solids/tonne of fish/year, 422-485 kg BOD/tonne fish/yr, 71 kg total nitrogen/tonne of fish/year (one year only) and 10.9-11.1 kg total phosphorus/tonne of fish/year (Kelly et al. 1996). There should be little difference for a farm operating in freshwater as compared to a farm in brackish waters of an estuary, and it should be reasonable to scale this figure up by 1000 for the units requested in the question.A summary of salmonid information in the late 1980s provided by the CSIRO gives the following ranges: 293-4015 kg suspended solids/tonne of fish, 285-350 kg BOD/tonne fish, 78-117 kg total nitrogen/tonne fish, 9-51 kg total phosphorus/tonne of fish. The range of these figures doubtless originate from the differences in environmental conditions and farm practices. It is likely that with the advent of improved fish farming methods that the figures are now toward the lower limits of these ranges.I understand that the CSIRO has consulted with a representative of the Tasmanian salmonid industry, and also with a member of the Marine Farms Branch, Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. They are of the opinion that the northern hemisphere data are broadly applicable to Australian conditions. Australian feed formulation is possibly slightly more digestible than European and North American feeds, which should slightly diminish waste production.(3) The Department of Primary Industries and Energy have advised that infectious pancreatic necrosis virus is not known to occur in Australia.(4) Control over funding provided by the Commonwealth for State projects varies depending on the nature and purpose of the funding. Where funding is provided for a specific purpose the Commonwealth can exercise considerable control through grant or contract conditions.Factors such as current and proposed use would be considerations in determining whether the Commonwealth provided funding to a particular area. Where State managed activities were not consistent with Commonwealth environmental objectives funding would not be provided.In the case of funding to the Tamar-Esk catchment, I am not convinced at this point that properly managed salmon farming would threaten the environment in this area. I also understand that salmon farming in the Tamar would be subject to a range of controls, including those under the Tasmanian Marine Farming Planning Act 1995, to ensure that significant environmental impacts do not occur.3053(Question No. 1137)11373053O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 15 April 1998:(1) (a) Was there search and rescue (SAR) supply dropping training undertaken in October and November 1997; if so, when and where was the training undertaken; and (b) who undertook the training.(2) What qualifications and experience did the people conducting the exercises have in the field of supply dropping.(3) (a) What supply dropping equipment was used in the exercises; and (b) have any modifications been made to that equipment following these training exercises.(4) (a) Has AusSAR conducted a review of the civil SAR unit program; if so, when was the review undertaken; (b) how long did the review take; (c) what was the nature of the review; and (d) who carried out the review.(5) What were the results of the review and can a copy be provided of the report from the review.3053Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Yes. The following table sets out the dates, location and recipient of the search and rescue supply drop training exercises conducted in October and November 1997.DateLocationCivil SAR Unit1 October 1997SydneyCareFlight4-5 October 1997EsperanceGoldfields Air Services11-12 October 1997BrisbaneGreat Western Aviation Pty Ltd13 October 1997Lake Wivenhoe, QLDQueensland Rescue14 October 1997CoolangattaGold Coast Helicopter Rescue Service Ltd15-16 October 1997AdelaideSA Police Aircraft Services17 October 1997AdelaideLloyd Helicopter Group20-21 October 1997Port LincolnLincoln Airlines Pty Ltd28-29 October 1997PerthWA Police Air Support UnitDarwinNT Police Airwing31 October—1 November 1997GoveMissionary Aviation Fellowship1-2 November 1997GeraldtonShine Aviation Services11-12 November 1997HobartTasair Pty Ltd14 November 1997HobartHelicopter Resources Pty Ltd15-16 November 1997HobartTasmanian Aero Club Inc25-26 November 1997TownsvilleRoyal Flying Doctor Service of Australia27 November 1997TownsvilleQueensland Rescue29—30 November 1997Hamilton IslandHeli-Aust Pty Ltd(b) AusSAR training instructors conducted the training.(2) The officers who provided the training have been fully trained and qualified as dropmasters and instructors in search and rescue supply dropping. The first officer has had several years experience in search and rescue supply dropping, having previously worked for Airservices Australia. The second officer has extensive experience as an instructor of flight crews/loadmasters in the Aus tralian Defence force. The third officer has extensive experience in Emergency Services, particularly as flight crew in the Victorian Police Air Wing, Defence force and civil search and rescue. The fourth officer is a qualified Chief Flying Instructor with extensive experience in general aviation.(3) (a) The following equipment was used as part of the training:. dummy raft logs (non-inflating) in both twin unit and single unit configurations;. rafts (inflating) in single unit configuration;. heliboxes (containing two water bottles and foam packing);. Mark 25 Marine Markers (white phosphorus);. Mark 3 orange smokes; and. sea dye.(b) Yes. AusSAR has since modified the dummy twin unit equipment to improve safety of supply dropping.(4) (a) A review of the Civil Search and Rescue Unit program by AusSAR is in progress.(b) The review commenced in December with the advertising of a request for expressions of interest in aerial search and rescue capability. AusSAR expects to be in a position to go to tender for the provision of aerial search and rescue capability towards the end of 1998.(c) The review is examining the national capability to respond to search and rescue incidents within the Australian area of responsibility by use of civil fixed and rotary wing aircraft.(d) The review is being undertaken by AusSAR staff.(5) The review is not complete.3054(Question No. 1138)11383054O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 15 April 1998:With reference to the answer to question on notice number 1095, in which the Minister advised that the application stated that the Boorowa Community Landcare Group would use electric fencing around tree lots for grazing management until the trees were above stock damage level:(1) Can the Minister confirm that the funding of $2000 was used to erect electric fencing around tree lots as described in the application.(2) When the project was inspected by the departmental officer, did his report confirm that fencing was erected specifically for the purpose as described in the application. (3) If the fencing was erected but not for the above purpose: (a) why was it erected; (b) was there any private benefit flowing to the property owner; and (c) how did that benefit relate to the Landcare project.3054Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE) records do not show precisely that National Landcare Program grant funds provided to the Boorowa Community Landcare Group (BCLG) in 1992-93 were used to erect electric fencing around tree lots.(2) The Departmental officer's report made no specific mention of fencing as an issue.(3) (a) Records of the BCLG, supplied to DPIE, show that BCLG spent $2,000 on fencing materials to manage demonstration areas separate from the remainder of the property.(b) DPIE records do not show the extent of private benefit flowing to the property owner from the erection of fencing.As a general observation, the Commonwealth Ombudsman in her November 1996 Report on this issue stated that there was some difficulty in assessing the extent of the benefit which the landholder received. The Ombudsman also stated:"The link between such environmental improvements and an increase in the capital value of the property is somewhat indirect and may only occur in the long term. Throughout its existence Landcare has involved grants to private landowners and it seems to be accepted by the community that there is nothing wrong with the landowner gaining an indirect benefit. The fact that Landcare grants are made to improve private property is to some extent an acknowledgment by the community that such works improve the whole catchment environment and not just the specific landholder's land."(c) Refer to the response to 3 (b) above.3054(Question No. 1142)11423054Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 April 1998.(1) Given that nine departments have now answered in full the questions placed on notice on 16 October 1997 (questions on notice 902-916, Senate Notice Paper of 21 October 1997) relating to qualitative and quantitative research, on what basis was it decided that the department would not authorise the money, time and effort involved to assemble the information required to provide an answer to the question.(2) What qualitative or quantitative research has been undertaken by the department and its agencies since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) What was the nature of the research undertaken, (sample sizes, questionnaire length, evaluation); and (b) to whom were the results of the research available.(4) In each instance, which firm or firms have been engaged to undertake this work.(5) In each instance what has been the cost of the work undertaken.3055Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) to (5) Because of the scope of the question, the Minister for Defence is not prepared to commit the staff resources required to obtain the information from departmental records. It should be noted that the honourable senator responded to similar questions in a like manner while he was Minister for Defence and would therefore be aware of the large amount of time and effort involved in providing a comprehensive response.3055(Question No. 1145)11453055O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 17 April 1998:(1) (a) What was the level of the reduction in capacity in the Northern Prawn Fishery in 1993; (b) what was the scientific basis for that reduction; and (c) has the capacity cap remained in place since that time.(2) How many boats have been operating in the fishery since the 1993 reduction occurred.(3) (a) Have three new boats entered the fishery since 1993; if so, when did the boats commence fishing in the NPF; and (b) what was the basis upon which they were granted licences.(4) (a) Has AFMA undertaken an assessment of the increased fishing effort in the NPF; and (b) did that assessment show there has been a 30 per cent increase in effort since 1993.(5) (a) Has NORMAC recommended to AFMA that there be a reduction in fishing effort in the NPF; (b) what was the level of reduction recommended; (c) how was that reduction determined; (d) what measures were used to define the reduction, and (e) has AMFA supported the recommendation. (6) How will the fishing effort in the NPF, after the above reductions, compare with the effort that existed in 1993.(7) (a) What are the annual closure dates for the NPF; and; (b) has NORMAC recommended that, in addition to the periods of closure for the entire NPF, additional closure periods for specific areas be imposed; if so, what areas are recommended for closure and what periods are proposed for the closure of these areas.(8) Has the Minister requested advice on how the closure of these separate areas will impact on the level of activity in areas that shall remain open for the normal season; if not, why not.(9) (a) How many boats operating in the NPF are based on the east coast of Australia; and (b) where are these boats based.3055Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) Fishing capacity is currently defined in terms of vessel hull volume and engine power. A formula using these terms defines an A-unit. In 1993, 30.3% of A-units were compulsorily retired from the fishery. This resulted in a reduction in the number of active fishing vessels from 171 in 1992 to 130 in 1993.(b) The reduction was based on a scientific advice from the Commonwealth Scientific Investigation & Research Organisation (CSIRO) in 1986/87 that tiger prawns were overfished and as a consequence the annual yield was sub-optimal. Short term management measures introduced to reduce effort on tiger prawn stocks, low catches and low market prices resulted in need fro a reduction on an economic basis. The 1993 reduction was based on economic advice from the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy that a reduction in fleet size would result in improved economic efficiency and vessel profitability.(c) The capacity caps on the number of A-units and the number of boats permitted to operate have remained since 1993 and is reflected in legislation under the current Management Plan for the fishery that came into effect in 1995. The maximum number of boats is 133 and the maximum is defined in the Northern Prawn fishery Management Plan.(2) The number of vessels operating has ranged from a low of 125 vessels in 1995 to a high of 130 vessels in 1993 and 1998. The maximum number of vessels that can operate is 133. This maximum is defined in the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan.(3) (a) Nineteen new vessels have entered the fishery since 1993, four of these entered the fishery in 1994, two in 1995, eight in 1996, four in 1997, and one in 1998.(b) All new vessels are replacement vessels and fish under pre-existing Statutory Fishing Rights. No new licences have been granted by AFMA, only the processing of replacement vessel nominations.(4) (a) Yes, the CSIRO has estimated that due to factors such as technological innovation and vessel replacement effective fishing effort increases by an average of 5% per year. This phenomenon is called "effort creep". The Northern Prawn Fishery Assessment Group, on behalf of AFMA, adjusts the number of actual fishing days logged for all vessels for effort creep, and annually assesses the effective levels of fishing effort applied to the NPF.(b) No, the latest assessment by the Northern Prawn Fishery Assessment Group shows that effective fishing effort applied to tiger prawns in 1997 was about 16% greater that the effective effort applied in 1993.(5) (a) Yes, the Northern Prawn Fishery management Advisory Committee (NORMAC) first recommended a reduction in fishing effort to the AFMA Board in July 1997.(b) The level of effort reduction recommended was in the order of 20 to 25% by the end of 1999.(c) The level of reduction was based upon scientific assessment that at the end of 1996 the level of effort applied to tiger prawns was 10% above that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield, and that effort creep adds, on average, a further 5% per annum.(d) The measure of reduction was effective fishing effort, although the actual reduction was proposed to be in units of net length and partial closure of some fishing grounds for one month.(e) The AFMA Board has supported the recommendation.(6) After the proposed reductions it is estimated that effective fishing effort will fall by approximately 15% from estimated 1999 levels. This will result in effective fishing effort levels about 15% above that in 1993.(7) (a) The NPF is usually closed from 1 December until 31 March and again from 16 June until 31 July inclusive.(b) Yes, in additional to permanent closures of nursery areas and specific closures of areas to protect recruiting prawns, NORMAC has recommended an additional partial closure for the month of November. This proposed closure encompasses the main tiger prawn fishing areas around Groote Eylandt, the southern Gulf of Carpentaria and Weipa. In addition, Joseph Bonaparte Gulf will also be closed at the same time to prevent an excessive translocation of fishing effort to that area.(8) AFMA is responsible under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 for managing the fisheries under Commonwealth jurisdiction. The Minister for Resources and Energy only has the power to issue directions to AMFA concerning the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers in exceptional circumstances, to ensure that the Authority's activities do not conflict with major government policies.Nonetheless, the Minister has been briefed by AFMA and DPIE on the management of the Northern Prawn Fishery. The Minister has also met with a range of prawn operators to hear their views. AFMA has considered the possible impact of translocation of fishing effort on areas remaining open after seeking advice from NORMAC. In AFMA's view there is little risk to stock sustainablility because the areas remaining open are areas that are lightly or not normally fished because prawn densities are low. It is believed that not all vessels will continue to fish the full month of November. The closure will reduce fishing pressure on tiger prawn stocks without deleterious impact on other species.(9) (a) Of 130 boats based on the east coast, 43 are based at cairns; 6 at Brisbane; 5 at Townsville; 2 each at Byron Bay, Innisfail and Hervey Bay; and 1 at Mackay.3056(Question No. 1179)11793056Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw656NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 7 May 1998:With reference to funding of $370,000 for a community speakers program on aged care:(a) which organisations will receive funding from this amount; and (b) what amount will each organisation receive.3056Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:At this stage, $297,939 has been allocated to approved organisations on the basis of proposals submitted.Funds have been allocated as follows:(a)(b)OrganisationAmountNew South WalesAged Care Services Assoc. (NSW & ACT)—ACSA (including $5,000 from the ACT)$21,000Council on the Ageing$17,245National Association of Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals (NANHPH)$23,000Alzheimer's Association$13,074Co-As-It, Italian Association of Assistance$4,200Greek Welfare Centre$7,580Australian Chinese Community Association$6,336VictoriaAustralian Nursing Home and Extended Care Association Ltd (ANHECA)$15,000Ethnic Communities Council$5,000Aged Care Victoria$15,000Victorian Council on the Ageing$5,000National Association of Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals (NANHPH)$10,000Multicultural Resource Centres$5,000QueenslandAssisted Living Association$18,240Ethnic Communities Council$8,240Council on the Ageing$7,727Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' League$10,000Queensland Council of Carers$2,370Western AustraliaNational Association of Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals (WA)$2,500Aged Care Western Australia$20,000Australian Red Cross (WA)$5,700Multicultural Aged Care$1,407Advocare$13,673Alzheimer's Association of WA$920Carers Association of WA$2,300TasmaniaAged Care Tasmania Inc$25,000Ethnic Communities Council—Tasmania$1,357Carers Association of Tasmania$3,620Northern TerritoryCouncil on the Ageing$17,450Australian Capital Territory Council on the Ageing$5,000Alzheimer's Association (ACT) and jointly Carers Association ACT$5,000Total$297,939