1998-05-263817SENATE305901998-05-26The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice305930593059Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston. Has the minister sought a briefing from his department on the veracity or otherwise of the claims of the heads of two auditing companies, Consulcom and Billbusters, that Telstra derived more than $800 million of its profit last year from overcharging customer accounts? Has the minister sought a report from Telstra? Does the minister consider there is any substance to these claims? If so, what action does he propose to take?3059Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I did see the reports. I also saw a strenuous denial by a spokesman for Telstra. They are, of course, matters of concern to the government, particularly the quantum alleged, and we would certainly expect the matters to be properly investigated by the communications authority, the ACCC, or even the TIO. There are plenty of people who have direct responsibility for aspects of charging and billing and we would expect them to be pursuing those matters.Certainly there is already an industry code of practice in place in relation to the accuracy and timeliness of charging and billing, and the communications authority has the power to direct any non-complying carriage service provider to comply with the code. The TIO is also able to investigate and make determinations on complaints about overcharging of certain services, including standard telephone services provided to residential and small business users, and public mobile services.The ACCC has a general mandate to protect consumers and considerable powers to investigate allegations of anti-competitive conduct. I understand that Telstra has already written to the ACCC claiming that the allegations constitute misleading and deceptive conduct. There is clearly an area of dispute, but it is not one that needs to be resolved by the government at this point in time or that requires more than an expression of concern; from that will flow all the necessary and proper inquiries.3059Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Minister, in view of your concern—but it was not clear whether you had sought information or had asked the ACCC or any other regulatory body to investigate the claim and provide you with information, or whether as minister you had referred it to any of those bodies for investigation—are you aware that Mr Paul Morris, the head of Consulcom, has provided details of overcharges on 65 businesses his company assessed? Is the minister aware that Consulcom assessed an average $23,000 overcharge for each business and that billing errors ranged from tens of dollars for small operations to $625,980 for Woolworths? Again, Minister, in view of the seriousness of these charges, can you confirm that you have actually sought information or asked the relevant regulatory agencies that you mentioned to investigate these very serious claims?3059Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—All Senator Schacht has done really is to repeat the substance of the allegations, and as I have said, on the face of it, a substantial sum of money is involved. These are matters of concern.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Have you raised them with the relevant authorities?LD4Senator ALSTON—I have not gone out of my way to make specific inquiries, but certainly I gave a press interview at the time indicating that I wanted the matters to be looked at by all the relevant authorities. My understanding from the department is that that is already occurring. Indeed, as I have already said to you, Telstra hotly contests these allegations to the point of alleging bad faith on the part of at least one of those who have conducted the survey.AW5CARRSenator Carr—They always do! They always do.Senator Schacht interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—We know where your prejudices are coming from. I would have thought that you would be prepared to await the outcome of those various inquiries and then pass judgment, and not do what silly old Senator Carr seems to think is the appropriate approach—that is, bagging Telstra every time he gets half a chance.In fact, you ought to concentrate a bit more on getting those branch stacking allegations clarified. I can understand why you do not want to, because you would be terrified if they actually adopted a merit based preselection process. You would have no hope at all. (Time expired)30603060Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Tomorrow marks the start of National Reconciliation Week. Will the minister outline the government's approach to the important issue of national reconciliation and how all Australians can participate in achieving genuine reconciliation?3060Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Heffernan for the question and I acknowledge his interest in Aboriginal affairs. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the Senate that tomorrow is the start of National Reconciliation Week. This is an important week for all of us. It is an opportunity for all Australians to come together to address the many disadvantages faced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We need to strive for equality of opportunity for all Australians.This government has tackled the hard issues head-on. We have taken a practical and responsible approach to indigenous affairs, and we are making a difference, but there is more work to be done. We are taking a significantly different approach from that of the previous government. Instead of throwing bucketfuls of money at problems, we are ensuring accountability and measured outcomes. We sent the army into communities which desperately required urgent action. These were communities which lacked basic essentials. Now they are getting clean drinking water, housing, health care, sewage treat ment, roads and airstrips. This initiative is also creating practical improvements in the lives of many of this nation's most disadvantaged by ensuring that skills in construction and ongoing maintenance are transferred to community members.Australians, indigenous and non-indigenous, have a right to be disappointed by the lack of improvement in the lives of Aboriginal people over the last 13 years under Labor. It is a source of frustration for all of us and has damaged the reconciliation process. Reconciliation needs to begin at the grassroots level—on the street, in the supermarket aisle, at the local football club. We can all play a part, and I urge all Australians to get involved. Today is National Sorry Day. Sorry Day is a private event organised by the council for reconciliation—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, there is far too much noise in the chamber and your voice can scarcely be heard.AW5CARRSenator Carr—He's embarrassed!VW4Senator HERRON—Those on the other side are embarrassed for the 13 years of neglect and what they have produced. Today is National Sorry Day. Sorry Day is a private event, organised by the council for reconciliation and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement today that public donations to the stolen children's support fund will be made tax deductible. The government will amend the income tax law to allow deductions for donations of $2 or more to assist in providing counselling, education and monitoring of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were separated from their families.The government has already provided a $63 million package to address the recommendations of the Bringing them home report. This includes practical measures to assist in family reunion and counselling. As I have stated many times already, the Prime Minister and I deeply regret the past injustices which were committed against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Acknowledging that European settlement had tragic consequences is part of the healing process.This event, National Sorry Day, should not be allowed to turn people off reconciliation. People have expressed to me their concern about the concept of a sorry day; others have said they just cannot relate to it. There is division in the community about a formal apology. People should not be made to feel guilty for something that they had no direct part in. It is up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to say sorry. I have already expressed my regret for the past policies of separation but that does not seem to be recognised by the other side.We need to work on uniting the community, uniting all Australians. Reconciliation Week is an opportunity for that. The seed must be planted in the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians. It is not something the government can legislate for. Reconciliation must grow upwards from the community.30613061Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to growing criticisms of his appointment of Kerry Blackman to the augmented review panel examining redistributed boundaries for ATSIC's Rockhampton and Roma regional councils? Is it a fact that the Roma Regional Council has written complaining about Mr Blackman's appointment? Can the minister confirm that ATSIC's Rockhampton Chairman, David Wragge, has written to him to express his concerns about Mr Blackman's appointment and to point out Mr Blackman's removal as an ATSIC councillor in 1994, in controversial circumstances, for breaching ATSIC guidelines? Given Mr Blackman's personal and controversial involvement in ATSIC politics in the region, why does the minister consider him to be an appropriate person to conduct such a sensitive political task as an electoral boundary review?3061Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I can confirm the structure of the remarks made by Senator Reynolds. It is true that I have appointed Mr Kerry Blackman, an outstanding Australian and a member of the reconciliation council. I have questioned him about the allegations made. He denies them completely. It is interesting that auditors have been put in to some of the organisations that are critical of him. I have received a letter from Mr Wragge, as mentioned. I suggest that Senator Reynolds should hold off until she sees the outcome of those investigations, particularly other material that will come out in the course of events, before she supports allegations which will, I expect, turn out to be baseless.3061Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given the sensitivity of this electoral review and the circumstances I outlined, precisely which qualities, experience or skills do you believe that Mr Blackman can bring to this sensitive task?3061Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Mr Blackman was an ATSIC commissioner at one stage, he is a very active businessman in the community, and he is knowledgeable in electoral affairs. I am very happy to back him in his judgment against those of his opponents, as I understand it at the moment. We will all have wait to see the outcome of investigations before seeing whether there is any validity that can be attached to allegations made about him.30613061Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone. As a result of the return of the Skase passport to Australia, Mr Skase has attempted to gain a passport from the Republic of Seychelles. What steps has the government taken to prevent Mr Skase from obtaining a passport from a third country? How do the actions of the coalition government in chasing Mr Skase compare with those of the former Labor government?3061Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Coonan for the question. Yesterday in the Senate, I made it clear that the government had secured the return of Mr Skase's cancelled Australian passport.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Which has never been used!7E4Senator VANSTONE—Despite the claims of the opposition, supported by Senator Bolkus saying, `Which has never been used'—he clearly does not understand the variety of uses of a passport—it has presented difficulties for Skase. He has attempted to obtain a passport from the Republic of Seychelles. The government has urged the Seychelles not to issue a passport or other document for travel to Mr Skase. Mr Downer has instructed his department to urge foreign governments not to issue Mr Skase with a passport. Skase's efforts to obtain a Seychelles passport demonstrate the value of cancelling his passport.The question that needs to be asked is this: why didn't Labor's Minister for Foreign Affairs, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Gareth Evans, take that action himself? Why did Gareth Evans allow Skase to be reissued with a passport? Why did he not cancel Mr Skase's passport? Labor issued Skase with a 10-year passport. Gareth Evans could have issued Mr Skase with a passport for a period of less than 10 years; he could have issued him with a three-year passport; he could have issued him with a one-way travel document back to Australia.Senator Evans allowed the issuing of the passport and subsequently failed to cancel the passport when the Department of Foreign Affairs had put a special alert on his passport. This was not a case of just a passport coming in out of the blue; there was a special tag on this passport and the tag said, `Do not reissue unless you go back to Canberra.' I am advised that the particular file had an annotation on it with an instruction that then Minister Evans be notified in the event that Skase applied for a passport.So now the question needs to be asked: what did then Minister Evans do when he was presumably notified that Mr Skase was seeking a passport? I understand that Canberra was notified on 7 July 1993 and that he actually applied on Friday the 9th. Then we had the weekend—and people in the gallery might like to think about this: if you apply for a passport on Friday, do you reckon you normally get told on the Saturday that you can have it?Opposition senators interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—You wouldn't expect to get it on the Saturday or the Sunday, and a normal citizen wouldn't expect to get it on the Monday or Tuesday—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You get the booby prize.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are far too many interventions.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Guess what Madam President? On the Tuesday, after hardly any consideration, Canberra notified Madrid that Skase could be issued with a new passport that took him up to the year 2003. Mr Skase needs to stay in Spain only until 2002 to possibly qualify for Spanish citizenship. So the dilatoriness, the laziness and the incompetence of the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs, who stood in this place lecturing us on our incompetence, inflating his own intelligence and ego—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Not one stamp in five years.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, cease interjecting.7E4Senator VANSTONE—It is that incompetence, dilatoriness, laziness and complete hopelessness that gave Skase a passport that would entitle him to stay in Spain, in all other circumstances, until the year 2003. He might become qualified for citizenship in 2002 and if this government had not acted to cancel his passport, that might have happened.30623062West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister outline what, if any, action Employment National has undertaken to assist people with disabilities to gain access to their services? Can the minister explain why Employment National has set up an office in Bathurst on the first floor of a building with no lift or other apparent means of assisting people with disabilities to access the office? How many other Employment National offices are similarly situated?3062Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I am not aware of the situation of the Bathurst office but I can say that there are facilities for disadvantaged people to make inquiries about jobs. That can be done through any Centrelink office, not necessarily Employment National. There are another 309 job providers that they can make a choice from. So it not only Employment National's office they can go to. What these people have available to them—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ellison—9X5Senator ELLISON—is another 309 organisations.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ellison, I am trying to ask you to resume your seat. The level of interjection is so high that when I call a senator he cannot hear. Senators at the other end of the chamber would not be able to hear and the level of noise in the vicinity of the chair is outrageous.Senator Carr interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I am warning you that if you keep shouting after I have spoken to you, I will take action.9X5Senator ELLISON—What I can say is that in November last year it was announced that, as from 1 May this year, Centrelink would have a new referral process which would assist job seekers with disabilities. That is primarily the substance of the question from Senator West to me. What we are talking about is making it easier for those people with disabilities to seek jobs. As for that particular instance in Bathurst I am not aware of that but that is not the only office that job seekers have to go to. As I said, there are another 309 organisations that they can choose from. Centrelink has improved its referral process and its facilities for disabled people.3063West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government taken any action to ensure that the other 309 contracted job agencies are siting their offices in locations that can be accessed by people with disabilities?3063Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—In the contract with the job providers there is a code of conduct which they agree to. One item is the provision of such services. If Senator West is aware of any problems, she should bring them to the notice of the government and we will have a look at it.30633063Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Minister, I refer you to the resignation statement today by former Liberal MP Tony Smith, the third backbencher in as many months to quit the Liberal government, bringing to six—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—What about your leader?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Abetz and Senator Ferguson will cease interjecting.8U4Senator LEES—This brings to six the number of ex-Liberals sitting in the House of Representatives. Minister, do you agree with Mr Smith that the government plans to dump the GST and its tax package on the electorate without proper debate? Can you assure the Senate that Mr Smith's concern is ill-founded and that, indeed, your tax package will not be dumped on us without providing the Australian people with proper time to consider it? In other words, how far out from the election are you going to release your package and what do you consider to be the minimum amount of time that the Australian people will need to fully evaluate its fairness or otherwise?3063Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—At least Mr Tony Smith is not joining the Labor Party! We all, on occasions, suffer resignations in this business. I suspect that this resignation might have had more to do with a pending preselection than with any other particular matter. I am also not surprised that Mr Tony Smith, upon resigning, put out a statement in which he raised other issues that he uses to seek to justify his resignation.In relation to the GST, we can assure Mr Tony Smith and the Australian Democrats that this country is badly in need of tax reform. We can say that we have tackled a number of the major economic issues facing Australia. We have got expenditure under control. We were able to do it through taking hard but fair decisions that cut back public expenditure, which has contributed to getting interest rates down to the lowest level in 30 years— something from which all Australians can benefit.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—No increases in tax.BH4Senator HILL—Yes, I will take the interjection. There have been no increases in income tax in three budgets, no increases in capital gains tax in three budgets and no new increases in wholesale sales tax in three budgets. When has all this occurred before? Okay. We took the hard decisions on expenditure. We have kept down taxes. We have taken sensible decisions on industrial relations which give all Australians the opportunity for more sustainable jobs and better opportunities for the future. But there is one major area of economic reform that is badly in need of attention, and that is the taxation system. Everyone knows that that is so. They know that the existing system is unfair. They know that it places an undue burden on production.8U4LEESSenator Lees—Madam President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I have waited two minutes and the minister still—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I am entitled to hear Senator Lees's point of order.8U4LEESSenator Lees—My question was not on the need for tax reform. My question was: what is the time line for the government's version of the tax reform they believe that we are supposed to be getting?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, I just remind you of the question if you have matters to comment on.BH4Senator HILL—Yes, Madam President. I was getting to that. I was trying to put it in context and explain to Senator Lees why the matter is actually so important—the need for tax reform in this country. Obviously, we want to take the Australian people with us on that. That is why I am taking the opportunity to explain its importance. We are, in this era of globalisation, disadvantaged when we have extra taxes on production as opposed to our competitors. We need to get those taxes off production so we can provide even more jobs, and that will mean a switch in the incidence of some taxes.We will ensure that that comprehensive package—which is not an issue of indirect taxes; it is an issue of the appropriate level of income taxes and what level of incentive is necessary through the taxation system—which will deliver to Australia an updated, contemporary, economically efficient and fair taxation system, is put before the Australian people well before the election.3064Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. We would just like to know when `well before the election' is. I ask the minister if he is aware of the level of general concern within the community? They do not trust you, Minister. They believe that we need—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators should listen to the question.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right!8U4Senator LEES—Minister, you have a number of backbenchers—the last one to be quoted is Paul Marek—who are also calling for an early release. I ask: are you keeping your members as much in the dark as you are keeping the rest of us? For the final time, what is your version of `sufficient time before an election'?3064Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—It is our side of politics that is seeking to engender a debate on the issue of taxation. We do not want to keep anyone in the dark. I can tell Senator Lees that the election is due before March next year and the policy will be delivered well before March next year. It is our intention through the election to build upon the debate that we have commenced on taxation. Senator Lees might not appreciate the fact that most Australians actually do believe there is a need for taxation reform. Most Australians do believe the current system is unfair. Most Australians believe that, under the Labor Party in 13 years, they paid too much tax—and they are right. They want reform in this area. They will get it from this government, because this is a government that has demonstrated that it is prepared to take the hard economic decisions in order to provide better opportunities for all Australians.30653065Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the minister's attempt to keep his conflict of interest secret by not declaring his shareholdings to parliament for two years. Has the minister attempted the same trick in not declaring his significant coalfield property holdings through Kiskin Pty Ltd, including some 25 properties in the Bowen coal basin? Can the minister now explain to the Senate how many of Kiskin's property holdings have a direct or indirect relationship to the minister's portfolio responsibilities and, in particular, how many of the properties have coal deposits within them?3065Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I disclosed, as required, the interests that my family trust had in the various properties. One of the areas where they did have an interest—Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you have been interjecting too frequently.KI4Senator PARER—and, I might say, a very minor interest, was in the Kiskin trust, which had real estate—property, that sort of thing. Madam President, I do not know the actual make-up of those particular properties, but I can take you back to 1995 or pre-1996.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Schacht!KI4Senator PARER—I know we had a breathless reporter ringing around various shires asking, `What sorts of properties does Kiskin have? I have done searches and so on.' I think he quoted 25 or something; I read the newspaper article too. All I can say is that I have no idea what they are at this stage, but in those days the vast majority of those properties were in towns called Bluff and Blackwater. There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about it. Bluff is a tiny whistlestop village closer to the Jellinbah mine than is Blackwater. If the reporter had checked he would have found that the vast majority of those properties were houses for employees and contractors to live in.3065Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. As the minister appears not to be able to answer the questions I have asked him, he might care to take them on notice. Minister, is this failure to disclose property holdings just another inadvertent breach of the duty to fully disclose relevant holdings, as was claimed to be the case with extensive shareholdings in companies such as Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd? Further, can the Senate expect another amendment to the Register of Pecuniary Interests, or can the minister now see the clear public perception of conflict of interests between ministerial duties and private share and property holdings?3065Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I have made a full disclosure. I provided the disclosure as required up until 1996. Senator Faulkner is well aware of the fact that I was unaware of the change that occurred. As soon as the changes occurred, I agree that he asked me a question in this place; I said I would make a full disclosure, so I did that. But in the meantime, of course, any interests that my wife or I had in the family trust have been disposed of and are now in the hands of the children that we have.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Contrary to the Prime Minister's code.KI4Senator PARER—Madam President, it is quite obvious from the shouts coming from Senator Faulkner that, while he survives, the big-mouth owl will not be an endangered species.Senator Faulkner is aware that a full disclosure was made both pre the dates when I was aware of the changes and post the dates when we disposed of the assets. (Time expired)30653065Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill. In the light of the release yesterday of the public consultation paper in relation to the WA regional forest agreement, I refer the minister to the story in today's West Australian , and in particular to the serious concerns raised about the validity or accuracy of the RFA following the destruction of the Hilliger block near Nannup. I ask: is it true that a senior officer in your department advised you on 22 January this year that the Hilliger block is `of very high conservation significance', and that there were concerns that the WA Minister for the Environment was not aware of that fact? What action did the minister take to alert the WA minister in relation to this issue to ensure that Hilliger was protected at least until the finalisation of the RFA? Does the minister not agree that the destruction of the Hilliger block highlights the real agenda of the WA Department of Conservation and Land Management, which is to actively support the continued logging of high conservation forests?3066Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I welcome the honourable senator reminding the Senate of the consultation paper that has just been issued in relation to the Western Australian regional forest agreement. After the debacle of Labor in relation to forest policy, the government, on the one hand, set about putting in place in this country a world-class set of reserves—world-class in terms of area and quality—and, on the other hand, sought to provide for the forest industry certainty of resource within a sustainable environment, and by `sustainable' I mean both economically sustainable and ecologically sustainable. If we can achieve those objectives, I think that most Australians would believe that we had done an excellent job in an area that has always been very controversial.I am pleased that we have been able to establish such a regional forest agreement in Tasmania, in East Gippsland and in the Central Highlands of Victoria, and I am pleased that we are making good progress towards the settlement of a regional forest agreement in Western Australia and another one in Eden in New South Wales. It will demonstrate that, by March of next year, we will have broken the back of this very difficult, but nevertheless very important, task in relation to both industry and conservation.In relation to the Western Australian RFA, there will always be particular blocks that are in dispute. The one to which Senator Margetts refers actually is not included within the deferred area at all. There is a debate about its conservation values. The argument of the Western Australian authorities is that it has been degraded and that that part which is to be harvested is from the degraded part. These debates will continue and will be taken up within the next stage of this process, which is the public consultation and then the ultimate negotiation between governments.We have six weeks for this period of public consultation. I hope Senator Margetts will put her point of view. I have been a little bit disappointed by the lack of contribution by conservation elements within Western Australia. I think they have missed an opportunity to constructively contribute to this process in Western Australia. But it is not too late. In the next six weeks, I look forward to the conservation movement's contribution to this debate.In relation to the matter which was referred to in the newspaper, yes I read that an apparent document from my department was leaked, and that is unfortunate. But, unfortunately, these things happen. In relation to the contents of that document, certainly, as would reasonably be expected, I have had discussions with Minister Cheryl Edwardes about that particular block. As I said, the issue of the values of that block can be taken up in the final stages of the RFA process in Western Australia. Even though that particular block was not within the deferred area, while the deferred area gives a guide, it is nevertheless not the end of the picture as to which parts of the forest will ultimately be conserved under what I am confident will be a first-class conservation reserve that reflects the other quality conservation reserves that have come out of this process around Australia.3066Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have a supplementary question, Madam President. The area is certainly degraded now that it has been destroyed from its values. The minister mentions the conservation movement not being part of the process, and that, of course, has been mentioned to you by them, that they recognised the process for the farce that it was, as exemplified by what has happened in relation to Hilliger. Would the minister be prepared to table any advice or correspondence he received re Hilliger block; if so, when would that be received?3067Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—If you have read it in the newspapers, you do not need to have it tabled. I am not going to dispute that there is a difference of view as to the conservation values of that particular block. I do not actually know of any forest block in Australia where there is not a debate about its qualities. That is reasonable and that is what you would expect. What I have been at pains to ensure through this process is that the debate is on the basis of sound scientific knowledge. I take this opportunity to thank the many dozens of scientists and other experts and volunteers who have constructively contributed to the process in Western Australia. It is on the basis of their contribution and on the basis of good science that I can be so confident that the outcome will be an outcome that is not only good for sustainable forest industry but particularly good for conservation as well.30673067Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to Senator Parer, the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the tender specifications for the recent Cluster 3 IT outsourcing contract specified that public servants involved in tender evaluations could not be offered a position with a successful bidder? Is the minister aware that EDS Australia was recently selected by the Australian Customs Service to provide computing service over the next five years? Can the minister confirm that the chairman of the working group which chose EDS and a member of the tender process steering committee now have both been employed by EDS Australia? Has the minister satisfied himself that the Guide on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants in relation to the identification of a conflict of interest has been followed in this case?3067Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am unaware of the detail raised by Senator Ray, therefore I am indebted to Senator Kemp for passing me a note on this matter. As I understand it, the facts are that the outsourcing of the Customs Service information technology function was conducted in accordance with the Department of Finance and Administration's guidelines on competitive tendering and contracting and that EDS, as Senator Ray said, was the successful tenderer. The two officers named in the article acted according to the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission's guidelines on outsourcing, which allow redundant staff to accept a voluntary retrenchment package and then to pursue employment elsewhere. The article acknowledges that the two staff did not break the rules. The Public Service and Merit Protection Commission's guidelines on official conduct have not been breached.There is no evidence, according to the minister, that the two former officers have made any unauthorised disclosures and no evidence that they unduly influenced the outcome of the tender negotiations to their benefit. The Crimes Act 1914 prohibits the unauthorised disclosure after leaving Commonwealth employment of information which an officer would have been prohibited from disclosing while they were still employed. This prohibition never ceases. As former employees, they are free to engage in other employment. The Commonwealth has a legislative and guidelines framework which safeguards official information and defines the parameters for tendering and outsourcing processes. The government demands high ethical standards of its employees, and as a measure of this the government included a code of conduct in the Public Service Bill. The code of conduct is explicit about the need to act honestly with integrity.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Just as well you are not a public servant.KI4Senator PARER—You would not know what that meant, would you, honesty and integrity? It also requires public servants to disclose conflict of interest and take reasonable steps to avoid this. These are critical to ensuring the highest standards of integrity among public servants.3067Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Minister, you mentioned duties of public servants. Do those duties go to disclosing an apparent or perceived conflict of interest or just an actual conflict of interest, or a conflict of interest where one enriches themselves? Secondly, what is the appropriate role model for these public servants? Is it the Minister for Resources and Energy in his behaviour or is it the former Assistant Treasurer, Senator Short, Senator Gibson or Mr Prosser? What sort of example has the government set, and which of those examples would you recommend that public servants follow?3068Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Those on the other side have been going on and on about conflict of interest, and they came to the unhappy conclusion in the end that there was no conflict of interest and no perceived conflict of interest on my part or anybody else's in respect of this. They know that, so they started to change tack. We have seen it all before.Senator Conroy interjecting—KI4Senator PARER—So we hear Senator Conroy over there talking about trusts. There are 400,000 people in the Australian community who have trusts which they operated quite legitimately under the previous government. These trusts are all much the same. There are 20,000 farmers who have trusts and most business people have them as well. Senator Ray, you are flogging a dead horse. You do not have the support of the general public out there who are recognising the fact over and over again that you are not interested in getting this country right. You brought it to its knees. We have rescued it, and all you can do is puddle around in mud.30683068Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. The minister will be aware of the editorial in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald entitled `No policy' referring to the opposition's `threadbare offering' on education that `lacks much merit'. `No policy' it said. I hope you note that, Senator Carr. The minister would also be aware of misleading statements made recently by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, in relation to school funding. Minister, will you correct the record and indicate how low and middle income earning Australians have benefited under this government's policies?3068Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I thank Senator Tierney for this very good question and acknowledge his longstanding interest in education. Of course, he is right—there was an editorial in today's Sydney Morning Herald which was entitled `No policy'. In fact, it referred to a `threadbare offering' in relation to the education policy mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition on the weekend. Let me say at the outset, not only the Leader of the Opposition but also the Australian Education Union has been intent on distorting this government's commitment to the future generation of this country and this government's education policy. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said over the weekend. He said that if they got into government—fat chance of that—they would have a review of education in this country. It was only two years ago that they were in power—and they were in power for 13 years. In other words, all they can come up with is a review.But not only that, the Leader of the Opposition has gone back to the dark ages and said that they will do away with our current policy, which opened up choice for parents when we did away with the new schools policy. We gave the parents of Australia the choice between a strong government sector and a strong non-government sector. This government is committed to a strong government school sector and a strong non-government school sector so that parents can have a viable choice. But the Leader of the Opposition did away with that on the weekend: he said that if they get back into power they are going to do way with that choice and bring back the old new schools policy.Look at what the Sydney Morning Herald went on to say in its editorial:What these federations—it means by that the Education Union—want is not necessarily what education funding in Australia really requires. Mr Beazley has given his game away, in fact, with the promise of a "ground-up review of the entire Australian education system." This review creates a subsidised vehicle for the federations to drive their agendas forward.That is what that editorial said and how right it is. Never mind the real issues of literacy, numeracy, drugs, civics education and vocational education in schools; let us just talk about doing away with the new school policy and having a ground-up review.The other aspect of Senator Tierney's question relates to the distortion that is going on in relation to the funding and the commitment that this government has to schools and education in this country. Let us have a look at the facts. Compared with 1996, Labor's last year in office, this government has increased funding for schools by $580 million. When you look at that in relation to government schools the figure is $382 million. That is an increase since Labor was last in power of $382 million for this year. That is totally opposite to the distortion the Leader of the Opposition stated when he said that this government was likely to cut funds by $90 million over last year's figures. What we have in fact done is increase funding for government schools by $382 million in this year compared to the last year of Labor in power.There are other aspects that this government is committed to. I mentioned numeracy and literacy. With the cooperation of the states and territories we have achieved national benchmarks in relation to literacy. We have also announced recent funding in relation to national Asian languages—$42 million odd there. We have announced funding of $187 million for a program of vocational education in schools until the year 2000—vocational education which will address the needs of those 70 per cent of students who do not go on to university. This is the commitment that this government has to the children of Australia. (Time expired)30693069Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Can the minister confirm the government's promise to maintain the real value of housing programs for Aboriginal Australians? Has this promise been repeated by the minister at page 9 of his budget statement, `Addressing priorities in indigenous affairs'? Is the minister aware that the 1997-98 budget papers clearly show that there is a significant fall in funding for ATSIC's community housing and infrastructure program from $236.8 million in the 1997-98 revised estimates to $217.1 million in the 1998-99 estimates, both of which are well below the $238.5 million actually spent in 1995-96? Is the minister further aware that the ATSIC home ownership program is also shown to fall by over $5 million to $38.2 million in the coming year? (Time expired)XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Very good question. Try to answer that!3069Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—No problem! I suggest Senator Neal do a numeracy program that Senator Ellison was talking about and then she might be able to read the budget figures. We are in fact spending $700 million more in our first four years of government than the Labor Party did in their last four years. So there is actually more money going in. Senator Neal was here two years ago when I said that we were quarantining the funding for housing. And it was quarantined. ATSIC complained about it at the time but we have quarantined the reductions we had to make because we did have a $10.3 billion budget deficit that those on the other side seem to have forgotten about. We had to find savings within that budget because if we had projected on with the forward projections in that budget we would have been in a much more desperate position than we would be if the Labor Party was in power. So we do not resile from that. There were savings but we quarantined the amount of funding in relation to housing.The second part of Senator Neal's question was in relation to the home ownership program. The reality is that 50 per cent of Aboriginal people are totally dependent on welfare and 60 per cent are partially dependent on welfare. There are very few people who can actually access the program. So the amount of funding that went to the home ownership program has decreased to a degree because people do not want to take it up—they cannot afford it because of the Labor Party policies. They cannot afford it because for 13 years the Labor Party ran them into a desperate situation in relation to their own funding, making 50 per cent of them totally welfare dependent. There are very few people who can take up that program; in fact, only a little over 450 people actually take up that program.If Senator Neal were to go to the trouble of looking at the booklet Rebutting the Myths, the home ownership program is all spelt out in that. I suggest that she reads this material so that she can see that we are improving, that we are devoting our attention to the basics of health, housing and education. That is what we are doing; that is what we have done in the first couple of years. We will continue to do so and we will not resile from that. We are putting more funds into housing, we are putting more funds into health and we are putting more funds into education. It is all in the budget papers. I am happy to provide Senator Neal with a graph which demonstrates quite clearly that the amount of funding is increasing and will increase over our first four years of government.3070Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister also aware that the Aboriginal rental housing program, run by your colleague Senator Newman, has been pegged at the level of $91 million again, thereby continuing this government's trend of reducing the real value of this important program? If the Howard government cannot bring itself to say `sorry' for the trauma of the stolen generation, will you at least apologise for those blatant breaches of commitments to concentrate on services on the ground for Aboriginal Australians?3070Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—We are concentrating on services on the ground. Talking about apologies, I think they should ask Gareth Evans to apologise to the Prime Minister for stating that he was only interested in bashing blackfellas. When are you going to get him to apologise? They are apologies all around the place. The Labor Party seems to be in the crying game these days. What wimps—all of them—dropping down and crying all over the place. I do not believe that is leadership.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the substance of the supplementary question.VW4Senator HERRON—Yes, Madam President. In reply to Senator Neal, we are devoting resources to things on the ground—the practical things. We sent the army in. Remember Senator Richardson wanting to turn a tap on and breaking down over the terrible things? I put the army in. We introduced the army-ATSIC program. We are about basics. We are about health, we are about housing and we are about education. We are putting $1.8 billion in. We are putting $700 million more in in our first four years of government than the Labor Party put in in their last four years. I suggest that Senator Neal should go back to the budget papers. (Time expired)30703070Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: has the Australian government been asked to provide any form of assistance in President Habibie's review of government business dealings with former President Suharto and his family? Is the government aware of calls in Indonesia to locate the Suharto family wealth around the world, and will the Australian government work with the Indonesian administration in trying to locate the Suharto fortune in an effort to return to the Indonesian people some of the wealth amassed by that family and now located in Australia? Finally, does the government believe that the release of two political prisoners and the announcement of presidential elections within 12 months means that real democratic change is now probable in Indonesia?3070Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I am not aware of any such calls as suggested by Senator Bourne, but I will make inquiries in relation to that. Yes, we welcome the release of the two political prisoners. We see that as a positive sign and it is certainly a step in the right direction. We think that the best thing Australia can do at the moment is to be supportive of Indonesia, which is going through an economic crisis and a time of very dramatic political change.All Indonesians have suffered as a result of this economic crisis in terms of increased prices for basic essentials, lost jobs, lower income returns and the like. This has, as I have said before, contributed to significant social stress. The social stress has now played out its part in political change. As I said, I think that the most the constructive thing Australia can do is to be supportive of Indonesia during these difficult times; not to lecture or seek to impose outside solutions but to welcome positive change as it occurs. Hopefully we will witness a situation where the IMF support package might be further implemented as quickly as possible. That is the constructive and positive approach that this Australian government has taken to the difficulties in Indonesia, and that is where we stand on the issue at present.3071Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, I thank the minister for that answer. I note that he said that he does not believe that we can do an awful lot in Indonesia. But I also note that the Prime Minister was in the newspapers this morning saying that he believes, as I am sure most Australians do, that East Timor is a very important part of reform in Indonesia. Can the minister tell us what the government believes would be the most useful way to progress the situation in East Timor?3071Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Madam President, I did not think the honourable senator referred to East Timor in her question. In any event, in relation to the supplementary question, we have taken a position where we believe that a greater degree of autonomy is important in East Timor, as is a reduction in troop levels and the need to continue to provide aid—and I think Australia provides more aid to East Timor directly than any other country. These are efforts we can make to help overcome particularly the economic disadvantages of the people of East Timor. All of these are constructive and positive moves that Australia can play and is playing. I must correct the honourable senator: if she interpreted what I said to be that we could not do an awful lot, that is not exactly what I said. I think we are playing a very worthwhile and constructive role and will continue to do so.30713071Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of recent comments by small business operators that employment services they used to receive free from the CES will now cost them up wards of $18,000 a year? Is the minister further aware that employers have said they are likely to turn to recruiting from backpackers hostels, thereby replacing young Australians with overseas tourists, directly as a result of this new tax on employment? How can the Howard government explain to Australian small businesses, such as the operators of the Glendambo truck-stop and the Marla Travellers Rest complex, that this new employment tax will better serve their recruitment needs?3071Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Senator Mackay, there is a teleservice vacancy centre, and you can phone that on 131715. I repeat that: 131715. There is no cost associated with that, and job seekers have access to that touch screen. As I said to you yesterday, Senator Mackay, there are some 310 organisations involved. Some of those may charge fees; some may not. It is a question of choice in relation to job seekers. But the service I just mentioned to you on 131715 is a free service and for eligible workers—job seekers, as I mentioned—there is of course no fee attached.On your question in relation to backpackers, I do not believe that will impinge upon the chances of Australian job seekers. I believe that, with the new program we have, there are only more opportunities than there were previously for job seekers in this country to find work.3071Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Minister, I remind you that the Employment National fee schedule is $300 to $2,000. If the government continues to parade the fallacy that these new commercial and expensive labour market services will produce better results for Australian employers, why aren't employers swallowing the government's line? Why are they turning instead to advertising at backpacker hostels? Doesn't this just back up the complaints being made about the new labour market arrangements by the government's own backbenchers or will the government be ignoring the serious complaints of the members for the Northern Territory, Richmond and Capricornia?3071Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I repeat myself: with the increase in the number of organisations—some 310 organisations—people in regional Australia now have more organisations available to help them. We have increased vastly the number of CES sites. We have some 1,400 sites in place, which is vastly better for job seekers than the previous number of CES sites, which was very much less. What we have now is a question of choice. Employment National will have to face its competitors in the market place. It is a question of choice for job seekers. Employers and small businesses can go to those people who do not charge—it is up to them.30723072Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Minister, the tax burden on low-and middle-income earners massively increased during 13 years of a Labor government. Is the minister aware of alternative tax proposals, and how do these compare with the Howard government's assistance for families and small businesses?3072Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I am pleased that we have been able to squeeze this question in because it is a very important issue.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is necessary for me to hear the answer. Those listening on television and radio are also entitled to hear.BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, it is a very important issue. We heard Mr Beazley at the weekend promise lower taxes. This is the Labor Party promising lower taxes! The problem is that the Labor Party has form on the subject of taxation. They cannot be believed on taxation because they are the high-tax alternative of Australian politics. Think of the 1993 budget: that was the L-A-W tax promise—not a promise but law. The Australian people can rely on it, said the Labor Prime Minister. What happened after the election? It disappeared. Instead the Australian people got increases in petrol tax; increases in tobacco excise; increases in fringe benefits tax; wholesale sales taxes went up.The people can look to the 1995 budget only two years later. What happened there? Sales tax on cars went from 15 per cent to 22 per cent; the Medicare levy was increased; in creased pharmaceutical charges; company taxes increased from 33 to 36 per cent; the provisional uplift factor increased of course under Labor. This is what Labor is all about. In 1995-96 alone, there was a 9.3 per cent real increase in the tax take. That is because Labor is the high-tax alternative of Australian politics—and we know just below the surface it is still there.What did former senator Gareth Evans, now the shadow Treasurer, say in October 1996? He said Australia is `so undertaxed'. The shadow Treasurer is saying Labor is undertaxing when Mr Beazley, the leader, is saying Labor will give you taxation reductions. Who could believe him? Mr Evans said Australia is so undertaxed by all relevant international standards that there is a case for having some overall revenue increases. Mr Evans is saying revenue increases, and he talked about possible death duties, property taxes, income tax surcharges—this is what Mr Evans is talking about—and increased payroll taxes.Even yesterday what did Mr Evans say? He said Labor could not rule out new taxes. Mr Beazley last weekend was saying to the Australian people, `We will reduce taxes.' Mr Evans, the shadow Treasurer, said that we cannot rule out new taxes. What he said was:It's not so much a matter of new taxes and charges, perhaps a little bit of rearrangement or broadening of existing tax scales elsewhere.So who can believe the Labor leader when at the same time his shadow Treasurer is going out and not ruling out tax increases? When you combine their form, their form is to increase taxes. With the statements from Mr Evans, their shadow Treasurer, the Australian people can be confident that all they would get from Labor is increased taxes, new taxes, expanded taxes and broadened taxes. That is what the Labor Party is all about—and what a contrast it is with the current government, which has got through three budgets without any new taxes.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Miscellaneous3073307315:08:003073Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Yesterday in question time Senator Jacinta Collins asked me some questions without notice about referrals of unemployed people by Centrelink to new employment agencies, and I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Yesterday in the Senate, Senator Jacinta Collins asked me questions without notice about referrals of unemployed people by Centrelink to new employment agenciesI am now in a position to respond I am advised that:. by 25 May, Centrelink had assessed over 277,000 jobseekers and referred over 77,800 jobseekers to Intensive Assistance (the most personalised and intensive service for disadvantaged jobseekers) Over 4,300 jobseekers have been referred to Job Search Training (providing training in job search techniques) by Centrelink and thousands of new jobs have been lodged on the National Vacancy Data Base by Job Network Members;. referrals from Centrelink to Intensive Assistance have reached 82% of the 95,000 target of referrals to Job Network Members for Intensive Assistance to be achieved by the end of May and 87% of the Job Search Training referral target;. the targets will be achieved in most regions Centrelink has put in place strategies to meet the referral targets. Any shortfall that may arise will be addressed in June;. Job Network members are not guaranteed a set number of referrals It is up to jobseekers to choose the organisation which best suits their needs As planned and subject to jobseeker choice, Job Network Members can expect to have close to full capacity soon after the start of the new financial year;. compared with how long it took to get a much smaller change fully operational with Case Management arrangements under the previous Government—the introduction of Job Network has been an outstanding success.In respect of aspects of the question relating to the financial circumstances of the new job agencies, I have been advised by Dr Kemp's office that. Job Network members have always been fully aware that they will be paid on the basis of results—that is, they will be paid the bulk of their fees when a jobseeker has been placed in a job for 13 weeks and then 26 weeks—so the bulk of fees would not be received until some time after the market commenced307315:08:003073Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday Senator Forshaw asked me a question in relation to the Minister for Health and the AMA. I have been provided with an answer to that question, and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—SENATOR FORSHAW : My question is to Senator Herron, 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?SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION SENATOR FORSHAW : 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. Minister, 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? The report regarding the AMA is without foundation Over the past two years, the AMA has met from time to time with staff of the Prime Minister Over the same period, the AMA has met far more frequently with the Minister for Health and Family Services, his office and his Department The AMA is represented on many committees and working parties in the Health portfolio In terms of recent comment, when commenting on the 1998-99 Budget, the President of the AMA said that few Health Ministers could claim to have taken initiatives which would save lives, but that Dr Wooldridge, through his initiatives to provide flu vaccine free of charge for older Australians, could confidently make this claim I would again remind honourable Senators, especially Senator Forshaw, that you obviously can't believe everything you read in the papers.Miscellaneous3074307415:09:003074Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask Senator Herron, the minister representing the Minister for Health, why I have not been provided with an answer to question on notice No. 864, which is now the grand total of 239 days overdue. I also ask why I have not received an answer to question No. 1168, which is also overdue.I do stress that, in relation to the first question, it is 239 days overdue and, even by the measure of this government, that does seem an extraordinarily long period of time.15:09:003074Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I contacted the minister's office and I am advised by the office of the Minister for Health and Family Services that answers to these questions will be provided to the Senate as soon as possible after Dr Wooldridge returns from overseas next week.15:09:003074Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the explanation.In the circumstances of a debate about to take place on taking note of questions, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.Miscellaneous307415:10:003074Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Senator Ellison), to questions without notice asked by Senators Mackay and West and today, relating to the provision of employment services.Let us have a look at what this government has done with regard to the new employment services market. As we have travelled around Australia on the regional unemployment inquiry, my colleagues Senator George Campbell, Senator Crowley and Senator Carr and I have had it amply demonstrated to us just what a mess this new system is. There is absolutely no doubt.It is riddled with inconsistencies and with complete imponderables as to how the tender process was awarded and what type of decision making process was in fact instituted. I think it is quite bizarre. We have talked to groups that missed out to find out why they missed out, but they themselves are saying, `We have no idea in terms of feedback.'Let us look at the reality. Operator after operator and provider after provider have been impeccable in terms of service delivery. In fact, out of ESRA's top ten service delivery agencies for case management last year, only four got a guernsey in the new employment services market. ESRA is now defunct. but it was the agency responsible for determining which organisations are the most productive and efficient in terms of providing services. Out of that whole top ten, only four got a guernsey in terms of any FLEX whatsoever.Despite the minister's obfuscation, there is no doubt that there have been massive cuts in service provision, massive cuts in the number of sites available to unemployed people and massive cuts in expenditure. This is a matter of some interest.Through estimates and also through questions on notice we have been trying to obtain details of the commitment that the minister gave at his media conference when he announced the new employment services market. He said he would provide details of how much money was available, how much money the whole system was costing, how much money was going to FLEX 1, FLEX 2, FLEX 3 and entry level training, and so on. He gave that commitment to the entire press gallery, but we have not been able to get the information. I will bet that they have not been able to get it either.As we talk to groups around Australia, they are extremely confused and bewildered. In many instances they are hurt as to why they got nothing. They were told in feedback interviews that the whole system was actually based on profit, despite the tender documents themselves saying that a demonstrable history of service provision would be taken into account and had equal weighting with the issue of profit in terms of criterion. They have just been told they are not profitable.We have no way of no knowing this, because the government hides behind commercial-in-confidence and we cannot get hold of any of the information. They say, `Trust us. We are from the government.' Excuse me; we don't.The government's mantra is, `Competition is good. If you put it out to competition, the free market will produce better outcomes.' I will quote the New Zealand Minister of Employment whom we saw last week when we were in New Zealand. The New Zealand coalition government is not noted for its left of centre politics by any stretch of the imagination. He said:I am opposed to what you are doing in Australia. I am opposed to the high level of competition in the employment area. It doesn't work.This is coming from New Zealand; land of laissez faire, land of the free market, where anything is regarded as a market distortion, but the Minister of Employment there is saying, `We are not going to do what this government has done in Australia, because I do not believe it works.'I turn now to the whole issue of Employment National. The reality is that Employment National is not a private company, despite what Peter Storey likes to tell you. It is not a private company. Employment National has received $130 million over two years of taxpayers' money to provide a service. It is outrageous that Employment National is trying to say, `We are not accountable.' They are accountable. They are accountable to the people of Australia through the provision of that money, and they are also accountable with regard to estimates.In that regard, we now have the situation where Employment National is charging small business—the very constituency that this government attempts to purport to represent—between $300 and $2,000 for services that the CES previously provided for free. I think that is absolutely outrageous. I believe that the bottom line is that this is a de facto jobs tax. It is something that small businesses never anticipated would happen, and now they are starting to scream.15:15:003075Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I found it interesting listening to Senator Mackay's remarks on this motion to take note of answers. Of course, she was not around for very much of the former Labor government, which had such a disgraceful record on unemployment. When the opposition now starts to criticise the current government for its policies on unemployment, its members should think back to their own record and how hopeless that was.Senator Mackay, you mentioned the CES, but what you did not mention was the success rate of the CES of placing people in jobs—or, should I say, Senator Mackay, the lack of success rate. Isn't that the bottom line of employment programs? Surely the bottom line is not how much money is spent on those programs; the bottom line is how many people at the end get jobs. Under the program that you had, under the CES that you propped up year after year at great expense, was very little job outcome.When you brought in Working Nation, you had a similar sort of result. You spent hundreds of millions on it—hundreds of millions. Yet what was the job outcome? Two-thirds of those individuals ended up back on the dole queues. What a brilliant outcome that was!Obviously the approach had to be different, and this government is taking a very different approach. The Senate Committee on Employment, Education and Training decided that it would go around Australia and have a look at these things, thinking that around Australia, particularly in regional Australia, there would be terrific outrage about this new scheme when compared with the old scheme. A reasonable measure of what the outrage is, I suppose, would be the number of people putting in submissions to these inquiries.One spot we plan to go to is Launceston and, as of last week, four submissions had been received; in Burnie, zero submissions. Then the plane will go to Ballarat, from which two submissions have been received. But the classic is Nowra—one submission from Nowra.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—How many submissions?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—One in Nowra.Then the committee will go to the Hunter Valley and the central coast; two submissions have been received from that area.5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—How much does the committee cost?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—On our estimates, it costs somewhere up around $100,000 for all of this, seeing very few people at all. Then we go out to western Sydney; certainly complaints would be expected to be found out there. There have been three submissions: one from Blacktown council, one from Liverpool council and one from Fairfield council. But where is the hearing held? The hearing is held in Parramatta. Why Parramatta? These people do not know their geography. It is being held in Parramatta—5L6FERRISSenator Ferris—Is it a marginal seat?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Yes, you have got it. Thank you very much for reminding me of that.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Tierney, would you like to address the chair, please?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Through you, Madam Chair. It is just absolutely amazing—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, to me.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—that, out of the 17 spots this committee is visiting, 15 happen to be marginal seats held by the Liberal Party. It is backfiring. Come into New South Wales and it will really backfire, because who dismantled labour market programs in New South Wales? The Carr government. You come to New South Wales and we will tell you all about that in the hearing. That government just gave up, withdrew, got out of employment programs.What this government is doing is actually putting in place programs that will work. Under the CES, it did not work. But, under this new approach with Jobs Network and the other providers, we are providing over 300 centres where people can go to get assistance with employment. The people who are putting up these programs, to get their full money in the end, will have to provide real jobs at the end—not like your previous programs.Working Nation was training for jobs that did not exist. If you did not get a job, you went on another training program. How disheartening to these people. We have set up a totally different approach—an approach which will mean that people at the end are much more likely to get jobs. That is what I thought job market programs were all about.15:19:003076Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—What a ridiculous little contribution that was. Senator, what we are debating here is the insufficiency of Senator Ellison's answer to questions from this side. The first thing Senator Ellison said was, `I'm not aware.' That would describe not only the minister but also the government. They are not aware.Senator Ellison is not aware that you have to go up one floor to get to the Bathurst office—and that is an impossibility for people with disability. He is not aware of the fact that so many people in the community who applied to get some of these contracts have been overlooked, while people with no office, no money, no staff—no anything—have been paid $1 million in one case, and $15 million in the case of Hospitality Horizons, and organisation which is supposed to be out of Sydney helping people, for one part, in South Australia.The other interesting thing is that Hospitality Horizons does not necessarily provide anything itself. It will be subcontracting all of those 310 jobs, or whatever number it is. Senator Tierney, I note, is leaving the cham ber because he is not prepared to stay and take the facts.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—He does the same thing at the inquiries—he takes off and doesn't listen anyway.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—That is a very good point—in fact, for those times he attends at all. Hospitality Horizons is subcontracting to other organisations, and very often indeed to organisations in the community that previously applied and were rejected by this government. Now Hospitality Horizons, for one example, is getting those people back onto the books—but, when it does do that, it takes a commission. So, every time that organisation subcontracts, taxpayers' hard earned dollars are now going for a commission. And can we establish the value of that commission? No.Why should taxpayers be subsidising an organisation to take a cut or a kickback every time it subcontracts to those organisations already on the ground who were denied the continuance of that work by this government? Every time they are brought back into the fold, Hospitality Horizons, one for one, is taking a cut.Senator Hill, you should be interested—through you, Madam Deputy President—because a lot of that organisation's work out of Sydney is to go to South Australia. When we were in South Australia—in Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie, north and south of Adelaide—not one of those positions had been filled. There was nobody providing job assistance. There was nobody there to provide any of this. According to the department, the money has been paid, but nobody is providing any service at all.When we were in Craigieburn one of the people there said, `I would like to tell you what has happened to us. I rang this number to find out where my nearest unemployment agent office was.' Somebody on the phone asked, `How can I help you?' This woman said, `I am in Craigieburn and I want to know where my nearest Employment National office is or any office that can assist me.' The lady said, `Where is Craigieburn?' `Oh,' said the woman ringing up. `Where are you?' She said, `I am in Perth. I do not know anything about Craigieburn.'The big message from this inquiry is that what the community wants—if the minister or any of those coalition members over them went—is local knowledge. They want people who know about the jobs in their area, who want to know about unemployment in their area, who want to know about the skills and talents of the people in that area. They do not want people miles away across the nation down a telephone answering questions about Melbourne from Perth when the people in Perth properly have no expert knowledge at all.The system, as far as we have been able to discover it and explore it to this point, is a total, unmitigated fiasco. We have had the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) telling us about security, safety and stability. According to the lot over there, I think those three `s's should be replaced with others; namely, smugness and self-satisfaction. You are sitting there complacently. We just heard Senator Tierney saying that things will be much better. They are not; they are a shambles. We are unable to discover how many taxpayers' dollars are going where under this veil of commercial in confidence. You should take no satisfaction from this. It is a disaster. It is a disaster that is already happening.People are very disinterested and disappointed with what you have put in place. As Senator Ellison said, `If the office in Bathurst cannot help you, go to another one.' As one of my colleagues has said, it is a long way in a wheelchair to another employment agency. What kind of government, what kind of compassion, security or stability will that give people when they are told by the minister, `I am not aware, I do not know.' It is a disaster out there. It is not waiting to happen; it is happening right now. Coalition colleagues should stand utterly condemned, and you will be at the next election.15:24:003077Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Yet again we have heard another barrage of scaremongering on the part of Labor senators opposite. What needs to be understood is that this government has introduced a new system of employment services because of the failure of Labor's system. The system that Labor had in place for all their years in office proved to be a dismal failure. Their system did not succeed through the old CES in placing unemployed people in real, long-term jobs in any significant numbers. As I said, it is because of that failure that the government has taken the initiative and set up a new system which will provide a much better service. The previous arrangement simply did not work effectively in getting people into jobs.Too often under Labor, job seekers were merely churned through costly, ineffective and complex so-called training programs with little regard for the individual needs of the particular unemployed person concerned or with no job involved at the end of it. The focus was on process and program placements rather than the needs of the individual and the job opportunities that were available. What we had under Labor was training for training's sake rather than effective placement in a job. Job seekers were expected to fit the program rather than, as should have been the case and as will be the case under the new employment services programs initiated by these changes, the programs fitting the job seeker.Another thing that needs to be understood is that the Commonwealth Employment Service under the old system had only a very limited share of the available vacancies—about 20 per cent. Most of the jobs that were available in the community in small, medium and large business were filled through advertising, word of mouth or other means rather than by placement by the Commonwealth Employment Service. We needed to change that and get a results driven system into place that would serve the needs of the unemployed. That is exactly what we have done. We have introduced a results driven system. Jobs network members will be paid to place unemployed people in jobs and not simply to continue managing the unemployed.Another thing that became evident under Labor was that those involved had a long-term interest in dependency on government, in keeping people dependent on government, instead of making them independent of government by finding them appropriate employment and by being required to place them in jobs rather than managing their unemployment. That is the essence of the changes that have been made under the new scheme which came into effect at the beginning of this month—the replacement of the Commonwealth Employment Service by the new jobs network. This is a national network of more than 300 private, community and government organisations specialising in finding jobs for unemployed people, and especially dealing with the long-term unemployed and finding the right jobs for them.In making these changes, the government is making employment services more effective and is focusing on the outcomes, on the results, getting unemployed people into jobs and providing help that genuinely makes a difference to them. Jobs network members will be paid to place unemployed people in jobs. Because of the broad spread—and I said that some 300 or so organisations were involved in this—there will be three to four times more sites than were available under the CES as a source of assistance for unemployed people. Similarly, employers will have a far greater choice of organisations to find the right person for their job vacancies.As far as Commonwealth services relating to employment assistance and other Commonwealth assistance is concerned, Centrelink has now been well established and is operating effectively in providing an easier, better and more efficient way for people to obtain those Commonwealth services. That is now the base where unemployed people register for work and receive their unemployment benefit and government assistance. Centrelink provides the initial gateway entry for benefits for those on unemployment benefits to obtain that assistance, and it is also the gateway to the jobs network. It will be Centrelink that provides the link, very appropriately, between unemployed people and the jobs network members in their area. A very effective system has been established by the government to overcome the dismal failures of the previous Labor government system which did not succeed. (Time expired)15:29:003079Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—It is worth noting that this new scheme, or Jobs Network, only came into effect on 1 May. It has been, in fact, in operation for 25 days and already there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to suggest that it will turn out to be an absolute national disgrace; an absolute national disgrace in terms of what it is projected to do compared with what it will do. My colleagues Senator Crowley and Senator Mackay gave some examples—anecdotal evidence—of what is occurring in practice out in the field with Jobs Network. I have also come across a few examples.When we were on the regional unemployment inquiry in Broken Hill, we were told by people in Broken Hill that the company that had won the contract—the people who were providing the employment services in Broken Hill—was located in Bendigo—a considerable distance, I would suggest, away from Broken Hill. In fact, I dare say that they had never visited Broken Hill in the whole period of their existence.Another example was given to me the other day by Senator Sherry who was approached by one of his constituents who had rung up the service which was providing employment services to Burnie. After spending a considerable period of time waiting in the queue, she spoke to the person at the other end of the line. After going through the procedures and processes they said, `Where do you live?' She said, `I am located in Burnie.' They said, `Isn't that a suburb of Hobart?' Where was the person located that was providing this service to Burnie? In Sydney! There is a range of examples already starting to emerge to suggest that this will turn into a national disgrace.Senator Chapman said that employers were happy about the new service being provided by Employment National. An article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 May that would tend to suggest otherwise. It referred to the experiences of a Mr Richard Bullock, who runs a restaurant in Lane Cove in Sydney. He said that over the years—free of charge—the CES would provide a list of unemployed candidates from which he could pick workers for his Lane Cove restaurant. The article states:So when Mr Bullock called Chatswood CES recently looking for a kitchenhand, he was surprised to find that not only did the CES no longer exist—but its replacement, Employment National, wanted to charge $250 to send him the resumes of three suitable candidates.And if he wanted a `fully-screened' prospective employee, he would have to pay $800.It was a case of welcome to the user-pays, deregulated employment market, Mr Bullock said.He went on to say:"They have taken away a source of employees for employers which worked extremely well. Some of my best employees have been long-term unemployed people the CES found.". . . . . . . . .The changes have angered small businessmen such as Mr Bullock, who said that a free service that encouraged employers to take on workers—especially the long-term unemployed—had disappeared.A spokesman for Employment National said the services that were provided through the CES were no longer available but that there was no fee for an employer simply to lodge notice of a vacancy.Well done! It continues:The spokesman said that if employers wanted unscreened workers for no charge, other employment agencies offered this service.We do not know where those other unemployment agencies are. They do not appear to exist because they all seem to be very focused on earning a buck. Those comments of Mr Bullock are very important in understanding the dimension of this problem; the dimension that you people on the other side of this chamber have created in terms of the capacity of unemployed people to get into jobs and into jobs quickly—because Mr Bullock, as far we know, is not a supporter of the Labor Party but a very committed supporter of the Liberal Party. But he has got enough gumption and commonsense, in running a business, to understand. (Time expired)15:35:003079Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I also rise to speak on the answers given by Senator Ellison. We have heard from senators opposite today words such as `outrageous', from Senator Mackay; a `lack of compassion' and `a disaster', from Senator Crowley; and from Senator George Campbell we heard anecdotal evidence of a `disgrace.' What we actually have here is evidence that is best summed up by the member for Sydney and a former Minister for Education, Peter Baldwin, when he said Labor's policies failed young people, and: Accommodating the needs of those not intending to proceed directly to university in the final years of schooling is something that we did not do enough of in government.There is nothing anecdotal about the evidence of the problem that we inherited when we came into government in 1996. What we found was no anecdotal evidence of a disgrace, it was an actual disgrace; it was outrageous; and, if Senator Crowley was here, it certainly lacked compassion and you could describe it as a total disaster. We had hundreds of thousands of our young people with no jobs, no job prospects, churned through make-work job schemes. Working Nation could not have been worse named if you had sat down and thought about the name for a week.We gave those young people a clear message: they did not need to get out of bed, they did not need to get off the couch, they did not need to leave the video shop or the television screen. They had no prospects at all. They had no chance of getting work and they knew it. The previous government did nothing to address the concerns of those young people. Many of them, I am sad to say, were in my own state of South Australia, and the ongoing evidence of the disaster created by some of those policies was brought before the committee that I also have the privilege to serve on, which Senator Tierney referred to earlier in this place.What we have tried to do, in giving these young people a chance to get some work, is to create job opportunities in a different form. Let us just have a look at what we have offered: of the 310 Job Network organisations, 148 are private, 143 are community and 19 are government—including of course the federal government owned Employment National. The benefits for job seekers and employers under the Job Network include access to more than 1,400 Job Network sites across this country—more than four times the 296 CES sites that were previously available. Thousands of extra job vacancies will be on the touch screens at the Centrelink offices, when the CES in fact had only 20 per cent of all job vacancies. What we are trying to do in providing these opportunities is to give those young people who choose not to go on to university a chance to find a real job—a chance to be educated and then have some job opportunities.When I looked at the alternative opportunity that the Labor Party in government would offer as part of their education policy, I was very interested to note a description offered by the Sydney Morning Herald, in its editorial of just a day or so ago, that it was `a threadbare offering that lacks much merit.' So what was this other opportunity? It was yet another round table, a policy review. As I calculate it now, that makes four: an education round table, a native title round table, a tax round table and a waterfront round table. This is going to be some sort of a table; it is going to be a very big table; there are going to be lots of little round knees under it. People will be sitting on little round chairs, talking empty words and trying to address the disgraceful problems that were left to this government when we took office: the problem of the Native Title Act, the problem of an antiquated tax system, the disgraceful problem on the waterfront, and now the difficulties that we are having in trying to find jobs for those thousands of young people who were without work at the time when we came to office. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.308010001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:30807TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate the Australian Government's hesitation in signing the Ottawa Treaty to ban the production, sale, stockpiling, transfer and use of landmines. Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. actively support the Ottawa process2. immediately sign the Ottawa Treaty to ban landmines.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 7 citizens)308126TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or current operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 26 citizens)308135UI4Ray Sen RobertTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal; and3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. Those affected appreciate the belated, partial recognition. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Senator Robert RayUI4Senator Robert Ray(from 35 citizens)3081166TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) Western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 166 citizens)Petitions received.Notices308130813081Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate considers:(a) that the requirement that the analogue mobile phone service (AMPS) be phased out by the year 2000 is the result of the Labor Government's disastrous technology-specific decision made in 1992, a decision which subsequent governments are locked into as a result of contracts and other commitments made by the Labor Government;(b) Labor's 1992 decision made no provision for those areas of regional Australia which, as at the time of phase out, receive mobile coverage from AMPS but not from other mobile phone technologies; and(c) the current Government's policy, which is designed to ensure that all areas of regional Australia which currently receive mobile phone coverage will continue to enjoy reasonably equivalent coverage after 1 January 2000, either through the retention of AMPS service in the area, or through the introduction of reasonably equivalent digital coverage before 1 July 2000, represents a practical and workable solution to the very serious problem which it inherited from the previous Government.30823082Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that 26 May 1998 has been designated National Sorry Day, and (ii) that the Australian Democrats senators have added their names to those of thousands of Australians who said `sorry' to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were forcibly removed from their families;(b) acknowledges the pain and suffering felt by indigenous people as a result of policies; and(c) on 26 May 1998, shared the grief of indigenous Australians, a national grief for a national shame that cannot be ignored and must be healed for Australia to progress as a nation.30823082Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone), no later than 4 pm on 23 June 1998, any briefing papers prepared by the Commonwealth relating to the proposed non-violent erotica classification provided to the members of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General prior to the past three meetings where the proposal was discussed.30823082Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Codex Food Labelling Committee is meeting in Ottowa, Canada, from 25 May to 29 May 1998 to set international stand ards for the labelling of genetically-modified foods, and (ii) Australia has already decided only to label some genetically-modified foods;(b) encourages the Government to review its decision to label only some genetically-modified foods; and(c) asks the Government to argue for the labelling of all foods which are genetically-modified.30823082Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998 be extended to 23 June 1998.30823082Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the general business order of the day in relation to the Privacy Amendment Bill 1997 be discharged from the Notice Paper .30823082Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Pursuant to the notice given on the last day of sitting, on behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2 to 5 and 7 to 10 standing in his name for six sitting days after today.30833083Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) welcomes the report of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on its inquiry into the treatment of the census forms entitled, Retention of census data;(b) acknowledges the many individuals and organisations who have worked tirelessly over many years to raise the level of awareness of this important issue, including the Census Working Party of the Australian Federation of History Organisations, the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Advisory Council on Australian Archives, the Australian Family Tree Connections magazine, the Sydney Morning Herald and 10 450 petitioners; and(c) calls on the Government to adopt the committee's unanimous proposals to save the census and preserve our history for future generations of Australians.30833083Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine is passionately opposed by many Australians, (ii) that the opposition of the Aboriginal traditional owners to this mine, (iii) protesters have been holding peaceful demonstrations against the mine at the blockade site at the request of the Aboriginal owners of that country, and (iv) that construction of the mine is the subject of a court injunction;(b) condemns the breaking-up of the peaceful protest by the Northern Territory Tactical Response Group in the early hours of 26 May 1998 in a pre-dawn raid; and(c) calls on the Federal Government to intervene to uphold the rights of ordinary citizens to peaceful protest. 30833083Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 26 May 1998 is National Sorry Day, and (ii) acknowledgement of past wrongs is necessary for healing to begin; and(b) calls on the Federal Government to progress self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.30833083Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the abolition of 300 jobs in the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment, as a result of the recent State Budget, (ii) that the cuts are ostensibly to provide funds for health and education programs, (iii) that staff have been performing vital work in the areas of sustainable agriculture, biodiversity conservation, management of commercial and recreational fisheries, and forests and land administration, (iv) that the department has over the past 8 years already sustained significant cuts and restructuring, resulting in reduced services, and (v) the departure of senior professionals within the department as a result of under-resourcing;(b) condemns: (i) the Coalition's insistence at federal and state level that looking after the environment comes at the expense of job creation and the provision of basic health and education services, (ii) the Victorian Government's failure to adopt a meaningful approach to caring for the environment, and (iii) the Victorian Government's cavalier attitude to rural areas, exemplified in the statement by the Deputy Premier (Mr McNamara) that the cuts would have no effect in these areas; and(c) urges the Victorian Government to reverse these cuts, given that the State's finances are healthy enough even for the Kennett Government to be unable to justify such harsh treatment of a vital area.Business30843084Motion (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.3084Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business notices of motion No 1 standing in the name of Senator Campbell for today (relating to consideration of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 ) and No 3 standing in the name of the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Senator Ellison) for today, approval of works in the Parliamentary Zone), be postponed till the next day of sitting.3084Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1138 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to medical research, be postponed till the next day of sitting.3084Motion (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.Miscellaneous3084Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That the Senate observes one minute's silence as a mark of respect for the Stolen Children National Sorry Day and that this minute's silence be observed at approximately 5 p.m. today, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking.Bills3084s1643084Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.308415:51:003084Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Madam President, the Employment Security Bill 1998 amends the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law. The Labor Party is moving these amendments in order to help protect the entitlements of employees.The aim of this bill is to put an end to the Patrick-style scams where companies seek to avoid their legal obligations to their employees.Madam President, job security, is a vital and fundamental issue for all Australians.Job security is fundamental to all aspects of family life and it is a matter of concern to the entire community.Many Australian workers are anxious about the security of their jobs and their future, and they are right to be anxious because they have a government which has set out to destroy job security.This objective of the government is not new. Senator Vanstone let the cat out of the bag back in September 1997 when she talked about the need for "lessened job security".The federal government has pursued this objective with such vigour and such a degree of ideological zeal that we have seen the government actively participate and connive with Patricks in the sacking of 1400 workers. The Minister for Workplace Relations and the Prime Minister boastfully confirmed their support for what can only be described as a corporate `scam' by Patrick to sack its workforce.This government schemed with Patricks to break its own workplace relations act, in actions that 10 out of 11 judges found to be arguably illegal. By this government's actions it has created an unprecedented sense of job insecurity amongst Australians and has allowed a dubious employer to evade the law and, in fact, to become a law unto itself.The Labor Party will not be a party to this laissez-faire, "leave it to the market" approach to industrial relations.The Labor Party will not abrogate its responsibility to Australian families and we will not stand by and watch this government threaten workers' job security.The government's spin doctors have tried to ameliorate the community outrage by saying that the Patrick's circumstances are unique. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!It can happen again and with this compliant and supportive government, it is likely to do so.This bill, Madam President, is to ensure that workers are protected from these sorts of scams and that workers are given a measure of job security.The bill explicitly addresses the circumstances of the corporate scam Patrick engaged in when it sacked its workforce.For the benefit of the Coalition, I will now highlight the exact nature of Patrick's scam, as it appears that they have up to now been either unable or unwilling to grasp the pervasive implications of these actions.The scam originated in the Minister's Department. Mr Derren Gillespie, in a minute to the Minister, told Mr Reith that the entire workforce had to be dismissed. The next step was Mr Corrigan's. He orchestrated a corporate structure which accommodated this.The Patrick companies that employed the labour within the Patrick group were stripped of their assets. Most of these assets went upstream to other companies in the Patrick Group.The only significant asset left with the Patrick employing companies was a contract to supply labour to the rest of the Patrick group. This had a provision, which the administrators described in their report as onerous, providing that if there was any interruption in the supply of labour by, for example, industrial action, the Patrick group could terminate the labour hire contract and obtain their labour from other sources.These changes in the Patrick corporate structure were made without the knowledge of the workforce.The workers did not know that they were actually employed by companies that were little more than $2 companies. The workers did not know that the company's contract to supply labour to the Patrick group could be terminated on such easy grounds.I will remind senators of the circumstances when Patrick `terminated' their entire workforce of 1,400 workers. I quote from the Herald Sun (9/4/98):"Patrick Stevedoring Company's clandestine sacking of 1400 waterside workers is a tragedy . . . It is a sad when confrontation reaches the point where one side regards dismissal enforced by savage dogs and anonymous security guards as the only way forward . . . This brings a new dimension to industrial relations in this country."The editorial went on to say:". . . the reaction of Mr Reith and the Prime Minister, John Howard, makes it clear that the government was involved in the strategy which led to the sackings. So much so, that it immediately committed itself to putting up $250 million so Patrick can make redundancy payments to its sacked workers."The image of masked security guards and savage dogs is an image foreign to Australians and it is an image that will not be easily forgotten by the Australian community, I can assure you.Patrick relied on this new structure to sack its workforce. The Patrick group determined that grounds had been made out to terminate the labour hire contracts with the Patrick employing companies, and those contracts were terminated. The Patrick group then determined that they were free to hire labour from other sources—which they did, hiring labour from the National Farmers' Federation Company, P&C Stevedores.At the same time the Patrick employing companies were placed in receivership, having lost their only significant asset—the contract to supply labour to the Patrick group.The employees of the Patrick labour hire companies were, as a result, left without their two most important rights:1. Any claims for accrued entitlements—like annual leave and sick pay, redundancy pay, and long service leave—could only be made against their direct employer, the $2 Patrick labour hire companies, now in receivership.2. Their right to be protected against unlawful termination was rendered meaningless.The workers could only be reinstated to their direct employer—the Patrick employing companies—but those companies were in receivership, and, in any event, the Patrick Group would be under no obligation to take labour from those companies. A reinstatement order is therefore of no practical effect, even though the workers were sacked illegally, because they were union members. This is a clear breach of the workplace relations provisions concerning freedom of association.The Prime Minister confessed on `A Current Affair' that the reason why the entire Patrick workforce was dismissed, was because "they're all part of the one union". He went on to say:"One of the consequences of having a bargaining monopoly, ruthlessly used in the hands of the union that won't listen to reason, is that some innocent people get affected."This is clearly unlawful and I will remind the senators opposite of what the Workplace Relations Act says in this regard. Subsection 170CK(2), states, in part:". . . . An employer must not terminate an employee's employment for any one or more of the following reasons, . . . ."And one of the reasons stated is:"(b) trade union membership or participation in trade union activities outside working hours or, with the employer's consent, during working hours;"As I said before, the government has tried to say that the circumstances of the Patrick corporate scam were unique. That is just plain wrong.Any corporate group could organise their structure so that employees are employed by internal labour hire company, with a tenuous agreement to supply labour to the rest of the group.Indeed, many corporate groups, for quite legitimate reasons, already have separate companies within the group that employ the labour, just as separate companies own the assets, own the land, hold the debt, or hold the tax losses. A corporate group could easily alter this structure so that they could do what Patrick did.Any employee who is employed in this sort of structure is effectively without any job security.They still have a legal entitlement to redundancy pay, long service leave, accrued holiday and sick pay, but that is only enforceable against a company which is only a $2 company. There will be no assets to provide these entitlements on termination. So, in actuality they stand to lose all their entitlements.Employees have a legal right not to be sacked illegally, but any reinstatement order is only enforceable against the direct employer, which may not have work to provide to the employees.This is why our bill is so important. The Patrick scam could happen to anyone. Any employee could be left without an effective means of getting reinstated to their job, or getting their accrued legal entitlements.This bill ensures that this cannot happen again. It gives employees a measure of job security.It does so by making amendments to both the Workplace Relations Act and the Corporations Law.I will now briefly describe our intention. The two amendments to the Workplace Relations Act are as follows:. First, section 170JI of the bill, allows the Court or Commission, when it finds that an employee has been unlawfully or unfairly dismissed and should be reinstated, to make the reinstatement order against companies that are related to the direct employer. At present reinstatement can only be ordered against the direct employer itself.. The Court or Commission can make a reinstatement order against a related company if it deems it just to do so.. The matters to which the Court or Commission will have regard are:. the extent to which reinstatement of the employee by the direct employer is impractical because the employer is in receivership or is in the course of being wound up;. the extent to which the related company took part in the management of the direct employer;. the extent to which the circumstances that gave rise to the receivership or to the winding up of the direct employer are attributable to the actions of the related company; and. any other relevant matters.The Court or Commission will also have an associated power to make any other orders that are necessary to give practical effect to the reinstatement order.In the Patrick's situation, this provision would have permitted the Court to make an order reinstating the sacked employees to other companies in the Patrick group. The various requirements would have been easily satisfied because:. reinstatement to the Patrick labour hire companies would be impractical because those companies were in receivership;. clearly the Patrick group played a substantial part in the management of the Patrick employing companies;. the circumstances which gave rise to the receivership of the Patrick employing companies were clearly attributable to the actions of the Patrick group—it was they who orchestrated the corporate scam which lead to the companies being in receivership.This provision will therefore ensure that companies can not use the Patrick corporate scam to leave their workers without any effective remedy against unfair and unlawful termination.Secondly, section 178A of the bill allows employees to claim accrued legal entitlements against a related company of their direct employer in certain circumstances.The related company will be liable for the payment of any legal entitlements of unpaid employees in the following circumstances:. the related company has entered into a contract for the carrying out of work for or on its behalf the direct employer, including a contract or arrangement to hire labour from the employer;. the direct employer has contracted to undertake work for or on behalf of the related company, including the provision of labour services to the related company;. the work is carried out in connection with a business undertaking of the related company;. the relevant employees are, or at the time of the non payment were, subject to an award, an order of the Commission, a certified agreement or an Australian workplace agreement.It is worth noting that these provisions are based on the successful precedent of section 127 of the NSW Industrial Relations Act 1996.In the Patrick's situation, this provision would make the Patrick group of companies liable for the accrued legal entitlements of the employees of the Patrick employing companies. The requirements would have been easily satisfied:. the Patrick group and the Patrick employing companies entered into contracts for the hire of labour from those companies to the group;. the work under the contracts was carried out in connection with the stevedoring undertaking of the group;. the employees were, at the time of non-payment, subject to an award and a certified agreement.So this provision ensures that, in future, company groups will not be able to escape liability for accrued legal entitlements by leaving employees employed by $2 companies that go into receivership. In these circumstances, the group of companies will be liable for payment.The two amendments to the Corporations Act are as follows.First, Division 6A of the bill, provides that, where a company is in receivership, the Court can make an order requiring a related company to pay the debts of the other company, including debts owed to employees, like accrued entitlements.This amendment is basically for the same purpose, and is substantially to the same effect as, the new section 178A of the Workplace Relations Act. It is included for abundant caution, to ensure that both acts recognise the liability of related companies for accrued legal entitlements of employees.The requirements for liability of the related company in this case are also somewhat different.The matters which the Court will take into account in determining whether to make an order are as follows:. the extent to which the related company took part in the management of the employer;. the conduct of the related company towards the creditors of the company generally and to the creditor to which the debt or liability relates—ie, the employees;. the extent to which the circumstances that gave rise to the winding up of the employer are attributable to the actions of the related company; and. any other relevant matters.Again, this provision will give greater security to employees in relation to their accrued legal entitlements.Secondly, amended section 1317HD of the Corporations Law, will give creditors the right to bring proceedings for the recovery of debts against directors of companies acting in contravention of the Corporations Law.At present, only the company, usually the liquidator or receiver, has this right.Under this provision, creditors such as employees will be given the right.In the Patrick's case, it would mean that the employees of the Patrick companies, not just the receivers, would have the right to sue Chris Corrigan and the other Patrick directors for debts arising from breaches by them of the Corporations Law.It is ironic, that while this government was scheming with Patricks to illegally sack workers and rushing in to provide $250 million in redundancy payments, it was publicly condemning the actions in Cobar. Yet, when the Cobar miners who have lost their jobs and their entitlements ask the government for a $9 million loan to fund their redundancies, no money was forthcoming. This is hypocrisy at its finest.I noticed that the Prime Minister has finally realised that security is a vital issue to Australians, despite the Minister for Workplace Relations claiming it is not of great concern to workers. No amount of promises or weasel words will enable the government to persuade the Australian people that their jobs are safe from this sort of scam. Only action will help redress the wrong this government has committed.This action must start with supporting the Employment Security Bill 1998 which will protect workers from Patrick-style corporate scams.The Prime Minister has thus far supported Patrick in the illegal sacking of its workforce.The Prime Minister has shown the Australian people that the law is only binding on certain sections of the community, that is, unions.The Prime Minister has shown himself to be a partisan participant in the attempt to deny Australian workers the protections afforded to them by law.The Prime Minister now has an opportunity to show the Australian community that he is committed to job security by supporting this bill.If this support is not forthcoming, the Australian people can safely assume that the Prime Minister's "Triple S" pledges actually mean: `security' guards, `security' dogs and `security' fences.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.Miscellaneous3088Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed: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. Question put.15:56:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.52Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Herron, J.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. 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. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Committees308930893089Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles)—agreed to: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 1998.30893089Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator MacGibbon) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous3089Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Bolkus), agreed to: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.Miscellaneous3089Motion (by Senator Margetts) proposed: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. Question put.16:06:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Miscellaneous30893089Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I ask that government business notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name, be taken as formal.Leave not granted.Miscellaneous3090Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed:That the Senate calls on President Habibie 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. Question put.16:14:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator D.J. MacGibbon)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N.48Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.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. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous3090Motion (by Senator Bourne) proposed: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. Question put.16:22:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferris, J.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Ferguson, A. B.Conroy, S. Gibson, B. F.Cook, P. F. S. Crane, W.McKiernan, J. P. Knowles, S. C.* denotes teller(Senator Parer did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous3091Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous3091Motion (by Senator Calvert) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous309116:27:003091Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1123, standing in my name for today, relating to the One Nation Party, be taken as a formal motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? Formality is denied, Senator.Miscellaneous30913091Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Colston moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 1123.It is necessary to look at notice of motion No. 1123 in detail to indicate the urgency of this matter. No. 1123 says:That the Senate urges political parties and non-aligned candidates in Australia to:(a) acknowledge that the alarmist and divisive rhetoric employed by members of the One Nation Party has damaged Australia's social fabric and its international reputation;(b) not simply condemn but constructively campaign against the knee-jerk populism which passes for the policy platform of One Nation in order to reveal it for its inherent flaws and its inability to contribute intelligently to addressing the many issues of great concern which confront Australia today;(c) demonstrate to those constituents to whom One Nation has some appeal that the simplistic and alienating rhetoric of One Nation is no substitute for substantive policy responses to the issues presently before the nation;(d) stress to those same constituents that while diversification of party choice can foster a liberal democracy, the establishment of parties such as One Nation can only work against the national resolve required to address our society's ills;(e) admonish any action to favour political expediency over political commonsense by considering preference deals with the One Nation Party; and(f) place ONP candidates last on their recommended preferences in State and Federal elections.In relation to that notice of motion, we currently have a state campaign being waged; it looks fairly certain that we will soon have a federal election campaign, and there will be other states which will follow with elections themselves. In those circumstances, it is necessary that we address these matters outlined in this notice of motion, and address them now rather than at some future date.16:29:003092Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—We in the government do not think urgency has been made out for this motion. There is an opportunity to debate matters of general business on a Thursday. The practice used to be that attempts to suspend standing orders in order to bring on general business notices of motion were a rarity. They have become commonplace. The consequence of that of course is that government business time is lost. I am not arguing the right of Senator Colston to raise a matter that is of concern to him, but I am suggesting that it should not take the place of other business of the Senate. Therefore he should have his opportunity to call it on, as a matter of general business, on a Thursday in the way in which business used to be done. I presume, consistent with that philosophy, that this opposition has an arrangement whereby Independents and minority parties are given a fair share of the occasions on Thursdays for such debate. We believe that is the appropriate time for it.16:31:003092Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The Labor Party, the opposition in the Senate, will oppose the suspension of standing orders. I would like to point out to you, Madam President, and to the Senate, that we consider this motion to be a case of one utterly discredited Queensland politician—that is, Senator Colston—trying to discredit another utterly discredited Queensland politician—that is, Pauline Hanson. As far as the members of the opposition in the Senate are concerned, we will have no part of this grubby and absurd political exercise.The truth of the matter is that Labor's record in relation to Pauline Hanson has been clear, principled and unwavering. It stands in stark contrast to what we have seen from the Liberal Party since Ms Hanson first became prominent in Australian politics. In relation to the issue of preferences, the Labor Party has categorically made its position absolutely clear. That is a position from which we have not wavered for a very long period of time.In fact, as early as October 1996, when the inherent threats of One Nation to Australia's stable and multicultural society and economy were apparent, the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Gary Gray, stated on the Channel 9 Sunday program that we, the Australian Labor Party, would put One Nation last on our how-to-vote ticket. I might say, by the way, that so did Mr Andrew Robb, the then federal director of the Liberal Party. Remember that it was the Labor Party that sponsored, negotiated and supported a bipartisan motion in this parliament against racial intolerance, a motion which was in response to the national and international outrage over the member for Oxley, and we will have no part in this action taken in this chamber by someone as discredited as Senator Colston.We consider Senator Colston's actions also to be unprincipled, reprehensible and venal and we are not going to see the Labor Party associated in any way with any move or any exercise in which he tries to attempt to grandstand and claw back some of his lost status, standing and image in the community. We will have no part of it, and of course we also know that events have superseded the rhetoric that is contained in Senator Colston's motion.In the Queensland election, where the Liberal Party and the National Party are tying themselves in knots over the issue of preferences from the One Nation Party, Labor's position has been clear for a very long period of time. It is a principled position. We will not resile from it, we have not resiled from it, and we will be absolutely consistent in that position. We do not need an individual of the standing of Senator Colston coming in here and telling the Labor Party or the parliament how we should approach these sorts of matters.Our stand has been proper, it has been principled and it has been consistent. We will continue to stand up and provide the political leadership that is required in this nation on the issue of racism and on the issue of the rise of the One Nation Party. We remain the only major political party in this country that is willing to make that level of commitment in defence of our national cohesiveness and our international standing. Mr Acting Deputy President, I can assure you we will never support such a contemptible, low-life, despicable, political tactic from Senator Colston.16:36:003093Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Firstly, let me state that the Greens were the first party to say that we will not give One Nation preferences—it will go last—and the Queensland Greens made that clear from the outset. But this is not about that debate: this is about the right of every senator to be able to function in this place. It is a matter of democracy. It is a matter of Senator Colston, for whom I hold no particular brief, being able to function here, while ever he is a legitimate member of this Senate, no more or no less than any other member. If we proscribe Senator Colston, send him to Coventry and cut off his right to speak in this place the same as everybody else can, where does that stop? It is a matter of democratic principle at stake here.The government says, `Senator Colston can go and ask the Labor Party to bring up this motion on Thursday.' Senator Hill knows that the Labor Party will not allow that to happen. The Labor leader, Senator Faulkner, says in effect, `We are not going to support this motion because of the person who is putting it forward'—forget the principle; forget the urgency with which people on this side of the House feel that One Nation should be tackled in Queensland.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am not going to be lectured to by Colston.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate—who by the way has just voted down a motion on East Timor's independence and the freedom of its leader Gusmao—says he is not going to be dictated to by Senator Colston. This is not a matter of being dictated to; this is a matter of the right of every elected member of this Senate, while they remain in this Senate, to be able to bring forward motions, take part in debate and take part in votes as they will.Once we start to trammel the right of any member because we hold a grudge—as the Labor Party holds a deep and just now expressed grudge against its former member in Senator Colston—where does that stop? If this motion succeeds, it will be a low day in democratic principle for this chamber of the Australian Parliament. I know they will try to muddy the waters here; I know people will say, `If you get up and defend this, you are defending Senator Colston.'UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Will you move the same motion tomorrow?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Labor Party intervenes and asks if I will move the same motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Senator Brown, your remarks should be addressed through the chair. QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The fact is that the Labor Party, no less than the Greens or anybody else in this place, has had the ability to move this motion. The fact is that Senator Colston has moved it. The fact is that, if it were to go to a vote, then I would support it on behalf of Australian Greens, but that is not the principle at stake here. The principle at stake is the right of any member—no matter whose banner they stand behind—to move a motion in this place, have it debated and put to a vote the same as any other member.The Labor Party is saying, `We are not going to allow that to happen because we hold a grudge against a member.' I say again that, if we support that Labor Party tactic, where do we end up? Once you start to erode the right of elected members of parliament to function in the parliament, you are on the slippery slope and pulling the rug from under democracy and proper representation itself.I stand by Senator Colston's right—the same as Senator Faulkner's right; the same as Senator Hill's right—to move a motion, have it debated and voted on in this place. I will not stand for the erosion of that right under this guise of political hate and political censorship which the Labor Party and the government in its own way have engaged in here today.16:41:003094Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—Senator Hill is correct when he says that this is a motion that should be debated, but it should be debated at the proper time, on general business day, and it behoves the opposition to allow Senator Colston time to debate it on the proper general business day. The case for urgency has not been made today.I am amazed that Senator Faulkner should speak about his party being a proper and principled one. You might tell me which party it was that put the Australians Against Further Immigration—that scandalous, shabby, smutty party of the Right—before the Liberal Party at the Lindsay by-election? Which party was that? The Australian Labor Party did that. It promoted and preferenced the Australians Against Further Immigration in front of the Liberal Party at the Lindsay by-election. You have the gall to get up here and say that you are the party of properness and principle. What absolute hypocrisy and humbug!Some reference was made by Senator Faulkner to the Queensland state election and how principled and proper the Australian Labor Party is in its direction of preferences in that contest on 13 June. If I remember correctly, it was only this morning on the radio that the Australian Labor Party in Queensland said to One Nation supporters, `Look, because there is optional preferential voting in Queensland, don't you give your second preferences to anyone.' Because it is well shown from the polling that the One Nation voters are people who have previously voted for either the National Party or the Liberal Party, one would normally expect that their second preferences would have gone back where they were last time and that is what the polling has shown.But the Labor Party with a huge bout of hypocrisy yet again says, `Direct your preferences to us by making sure your vote does not count', that is, `Don't direct a second preference. That will mean it is a vote against the coalition and a vote for the Australian Labor Party.'Just today the Australian Labor Party in Queensland has asked, directed or told the One Nation voters and the One Nation candidate that they should give their preferences to the Australian Labor Party. It is hypocrisy and humbug for the Australian Labor Party to condemn Senator Colston in this way and his right to bring this matter forward.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—Why should we give you a leg up?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Gibbs agrees with that. In the Queensland election you want to ask the One Nation people to give their second preferences to the Labor Party against the coalition. You are asking for their preferences in Queensland.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—Yes; rather than let you get in.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—You say, `Yes.' Can I take that interjection?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, address your remarks through the chair.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Hansard would have got that. Senator Gibbs agrees that the Labor Party in Queensland have asked One Nation for their preferences.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—She did not.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Hansard will show it. It was shown to the world on the radio this morning that the Australian Labor Party wants the One Nation preferences and is going about campaigning for them in Queensland. Senator Faulkner spoke about how tremendous the Labor Party is against racism and how poor my party is. Can I ask Senator Faulkner: which party was it that got rid of the white Australia policy promoted by the Labor Party for decades?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Gough WhitlamYW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Tell me which party it was, Senator Carr.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Which party is putting One Nation last on the how-to-vote cards?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—It is not the Australian Labor Party, Senator Faulkner. If you heard the news this morning, if you heard Senator Gibbs just now—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. You have pulled other people up for not addressing through the chair. I wonder whether you might do the same for Senator Ian Macdonald.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—I have given Senator Ian Macdonald two warnings on that point.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Gibbs, a Labor senator from Queensland, has indicated that her party does want the One Nation preferences in Queensland—and the Hansard will show that quite clearly because the interjection was taken. But, whether Senator Gibbs says it or not, it is clear on the record for everybody to see that, just this morning in Queensland, the Australian Labor Party effectively was asking for One Nation preferences.As I was saying when I was interrupted by Senator Margetts, it was the Liberal-National Party coalition that got rid of the white Australia policy—a policy that had been made part of the political life of Australia by the Australian Labor Party. (Time expired)16:46:003095Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In speaking to this question of whether or not this motion should be brought on for a vote, I note that the previous speaker, Senator Ian Macdonald, has indicated that a case for urgency has not been made out. I would address that topic, considering that it is part of what this debate is meant to be about.Despite what government speakers are saying, it is clear that this motion will not come on for debate in general business; it certainly will not come on for debate in general business this week, if at all.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Why not?DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—This is the last week in which the Senate will be sitting before the holding of the Queensland election. Given the focus of this motion, and particularly its focus on the One Nation Party, this is something that is particularly relevant to my own state of Queensland. The outcome of the Queensland state election is very important for Queensland's future, just as will be its potential flow-on effects for the federal election, particularly again in terms of representation for some of the federal seats in Queensland.So this is an urgent matter. It is important that the Senate does have an opportunity during this week to express a view on this motion put forward by Senator Colston, because this will be the last time that all senators are able to be put on the record in relation to their views on the issues put forward.In that regard—and one would have thought this would go without saying but, given the remarks made by the ALP, obviously it does need to be said—in voting and expressing a view on a motion, one should do so in relation to the actual wording of the motion. To try to avoid taking a position on a motion simply because there is dislike for its mover, I find, is disingenuous, to say the least, and inappropriate. The ALP have indicated that they support the motion's wording and, therefore, I believe they should allow themselves to be placed on the record in relation to the motion as it stands, rather than to try to dodge it because they do not like the person who has moved it.I think the issue of preferences and the preference recommendations of all parties on the how-to-vote cards in the Queensland election will be crucial. I should place on the record that the Democrats long ago indicated that they will be placing One Nation last on all their how-to-vote cards. That decision was made by our state council many, many months ago at a state council meeting in Ipswich, by coincidence. That is something we have stayed solidly firm on since that time.Because of the optional preferential system that operates in Queensland, it is important that all parties give a commitment not simply to try to ignore One Nation or take a non-committal stand on it, but that they actually commit themselves specifically to putting One Nation candidates last. The option is open there for all parties simply to have a how-to-vote card that shows a single first preference and leaves all the other options. In that circumstance, it provides an opportunity for a de facto first-past-the-post contest to eventuate.In that circumstance, those areas, those few seats that have been given some focus as being ones where there is a high One Nation Party vote—and they are seats similar to those that in the past have pulled high votes for other extreme right wing parties, such as the Confederate Action Party and the Citizens Electoral Council which unfortunately do have some ongoing support base in Queensland—once again quite probably these will pull a reasonable vote for One Nation. If the circumstance is allowed to develop where a de facto first-past-the-post contest does occur, that will give those people a much greater chance than they have had in the past of gaining a seat in the Queensland parliament.For those reasons, it is crucial that parties do not simply commit to not allocating preference towards One Nation but that they specifically commit to preference against One Nation and put One Nation last, as the Democrats have indicated they are going to do.For that reason, it is important that all parties go on the record about this. We will see soon enough with the how-to-vote cards that are issued over the next few days in Queensland what will happen in that regard. But, if all parties were to do that, it would enable us all to finally focus on some policies in the Queensland election. Unfortunately, there has not been much of that to date because of the focus on the novelty of One Nation's performance.The fact is that, if all other parties commit themselves to putting One Nation last, One Nation has no chance of winning a seat. That is why this is a crucial matter for the future of my state of Queensland. Also, it is potentially a future matter for Queensland because I am sure that all senators agree on how divisive and dangerous One Nation's policies are. (Time expired)16:51:003096Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, this matter is so urgent that it was put off yesterday—which will give you an idea of the urgency of it. The fact is that preference decisions eventually will be decided by the various political machines around the country, both at a state and federal level.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—They won't; they're determined by the voter with a pencil in their hand.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Of course. But at least concede that the recommendation as to allocation of preferences by a political party will be determined there and not in the Senate. Senator Faulkner is quite right to say that we have made our decision: we are going to put One Nation last in every federal electorate—the whole 148 next time, if they contest those—and we are going to put them last in the Senate.That is our position. We do not need to carry resolutions here today or anywhere else. We announced that a year ago, and we are going to stick with it. It is up to other political parties to explain their position and to justify their position in that regard. I was very pleased with the remarks by Senator Bartlett and some of the remarks by Senator Brown where they indicated that that is their position. I think that is a very appropriate position. I hope they acknowledge that our position is equally appropriate.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Are you going to do it in the state election as well?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Of course we are going to do it in the state election, Sena tor. The great virtue of carrying these things by way of our national executive is that it is binding on all the constituent units of the Labor Party. So the answer is yes and yes. Senator Bartlett, when it comes to the Queensland—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Senator Ray, please direct your remarks through the chair.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Absolutely. I was about to inform Senator Bartlett that, in the question of Queensland Senate elections, should the now Independent Senator Colston run—and despite our rather diminished view of him—we will send him preferences ahead of One Nation. Nothing could demonstrate to anyone more clearly our commitment to putting One Nation last than sending preferences to Senator Colston or the Queensland First Party if it happens to run with him at the head of the ticket. We can give no clearer indication that we are willing to put the past behind us and prejudice behind us and do that particular thing. I am glad that I am not a Queensland elector because you would have had to steady the pen, but nevertheless that is the way our tickets will go.Points that have been made in this particular debate go to what formal motions are and what they are not and the direction that the Senate is taking. You only have to look back over the last hour to know that the Senate is starting to lose its way. These points were made in a different form and in a different way by Senator Harradine some weeks ago. I think we gave him sympathetic if not actual voting support on that occasion. Every device in the Senate, once it starts to be exploited, just steamrolls. We have seen it in the past with petitions and disallowance motions and everything. We are now getting to the stage where today something like eight or nine or 10 motions have been asked to be carried formally. I think there comes a point in time where the Senate is going to say, `We are not going to carry resolutions without debate.' We can also have the choice of what resolutions we want to debate. That is our democratic right. That is what we were elected to do: to determine which resolutions by way of ma jority that we want to debate, Senator Brown. We have rights too.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Just what I am warning you against.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Just because we are in a major party does not mean that we do not have rights.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Just what I am warning you against.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We have a right occasionally to say, `Will the Senate be distracted on an exercise of moral rehabilitation of a discredited Senator?' We say no. We are not going to be distracted by that. We are not going to have Senator Colston sneak around and try to find every sympathetic resolution he can find to try to resurrect his discredited career, especially when on the principle and the subject matter our views are clearly known and clearly expressed. We are bound by party discipline on this. We are going to put One Nation last; end of story. (Time expired)16:56:003097Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—One wonders why there is heat in this debate. What we are debating right here and now is whether the motion moved by Senator Colston for the suspension of standing orders ought to apply to his notice of motion. Does anyone in this chamber believe that his notice of motion is not to do with a major question of public policy?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Yes, absolutely. It is just a sleazy tactic by a sleazy senator.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I believe that is out of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, it is in order.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I believe that is out of order, and I ask you to rule it out of order, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is out of order, Senator Ray. I ask you to withdraw that please.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I comply.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I will not get distracted by that sort of remark that is not fitting for this place.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You asked the question.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, I did ask the question. You apparently do not believe—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for debate for urgency has expired. Question put: That the motion (Senator Colston's ) be agreed to.17:01:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)11Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Colston, M. A. Harradine, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.32Bishop, M. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous309810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—In accordance with the resolution of the Senate passed earlier this afternoon, I ask senators to stand and observe a minute's silence as a mark of respect for the Stolen Children National Sorry Day.Honourable senators standing in their places.Committees3098309830983098Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I present the government's response to the report of the Employment, Education and Training References Committee entitled Not a level playground—Private and commercial funding of government schools , and I seek leave to incorporate the response in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—`NOT A LEVEL PLAYGROUND—THE PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL FUNDING OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLSGOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCES COMMITTEEThe Commonwealth's policy is that the question of voluntary contributions is the responsibility of individual State and Territory governments. State and Territory governments have previously firmly rejected efforts to obtain national consensus on the issue and have indicated they see the Commonwealth as having no role in this area.The appropriate mechanism for referring issues such as voluntary contributions to the States and Territories is the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). The areas of responsibility covered by the Council include primary and secondary education and it is supported by a number of taskforces which are convened as needed for particular tasks, have prescribed timeframes and reporting arrangements and are reviewed annually. Functions of the Council include coordination of strategic policy at the national level and negotiation and development of national agreements on shared objectives and interests in the Council's areas of responsibility. MCEETYA is therefore the appropriate forum for consideration of the majority of the report's recommendations. The Government considers that the relevant course of action for Parents and Citizens Associations to follow is to pursue these matters further with the relevant State and Territory governments.The Government agrees with statements made in the minority Report that it appears much of the evidence raised by the Committee is anecdotal and unsubstantiated. The Committee's claim that there has been a decline in government commitment to education is not borne out by funding figures. Commonwealth funding to schools, for example, has risen by 88 per cent from 1987/88 to 1997/98. (Source: Table V—Commonwealth Budget Outlays by Function and Subfunction, Budget Paper No. 1 1997-98).SENATE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONSRecommendation 1 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the State and Territory Governments, develop and adopt consistent terminology to describe the various contributions invited, and charges imposed by schools.Response:This would be a matter for State and Territory governments to agree. The Government will refer this recommendation to State and Territory governments for consideration at a future meeting of MCEETYA.Recommendation 2(a) —The Committee recommends that governments fund public schools at a level sufficient to deliver the appropriate standard of education within the Eight Key Learning Areas and commensurate with the National Goals of Schooling.Response-The Government agrees with this recommendation. In March 1997, MCEETYA reaffirmed its commitment to national collaboration and consultations in the pursuit of national goals for schooling. It also agreed to examine the Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia to ensure they reflect current and future educational developments. At the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA, it was agreed that a small group representing the Commonwealth, all States and Territories and the non-government sector should be established to prepare a draft revision of the National Goals for consideration at a future meeting of MCEETYA. Work is continuing.Recommendation 2 (b) (c)The Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments jointly establish a School Education Costs Committee to undertake consultation and research with the aim of ascertaining the cost of delivering, at the various stages of schooling and in each of the eight key learning areas, an education which will meet the basic requirements of those Key Learning Areas and the National Goals for Schools; and on the basis of such data and information determine overall resource levels, allocative mecha nisms and the relative funding shares of the various governments.Response—As indicated in the minority report, the establishment of such a committee would be a matter for MCEETYA. Commonwealth funding for schools has increased by 88 per cent over the period 1987/88 to 1997/98 (Source: Table V—Commonwealth Budget Outlays by Function and Subfunction, Budget Paper No. 1 1997-98) and is guaranteed by legislation to the year 2000. The Government is committed to education reform, better targeting and improved educational outcomes for students, and is determined to achieve real improvements in the areas of literacy and numeracy. While the Commonwealth provides funding for specific national objectives, it is a matter for State governments to decide the allocation of resources to individual schools. 2.Recommendation 3 -The Committee recommends that each State and Territory establish a committee comprising senior education department officials and nominees of peak parent associations to:(a) monitor the amounts set and paid as voluntary contributions, subject levies and other charges(b) monitor schools' compliance with departmental policy that contributions and levies be voluntary(c) record, receive and act on complaints concerning contributions, levies and other charges.Response -This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.Recommendation 4 -The Committee recommends that government schools distribute to each family at the start of each school year a Charter of School Education. This Charter shall set out:(a) the nature and extent of the education that will be provided in government schools at public expense(b) government policy on voluntary contributions, and any subject levies and charges for areas outside the eight Key Learning Areas(c) contact details for the committee appointed to monitor the voluntary contributions and arrangements for subject levies and other charges(d) information on any financial assistance provided at the system level for families in cases of genuine financial hardship to assist with the costs of schooling.Response-This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.Recommendation 5 -The Committee recommends that schools provide a statement to be attached to the Charter of School Education referred to in Recommendation 4. The statement should:(a) make explicit to parents any charges the school sets for the areas outside the Eight Key Learning Areas(b) identify the amounts requested as voluntary contributions and any other charges and the uses to which they will be put(c) identify the amounts requested as voluntary contributions and any other charges and the uses to which they will be put(d) provide information about any assistance provided at the school level for families in cases of genuine hardship.Response-This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.3.Recommendation 6 -The Committee recommends that all States and Territories develop or modify their student assistance schemes to ensure that;(a) eligibility be linked to the Commonwealth Health Card with provision for other hardship circumstances to be taken into account(b) the purposes of the payment be specified and that payments not be used for anything other than those purposes.Response-This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.Recommendation 7 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government commission a major national research project on costs to families associated with government schooling and their relative impact on low income families.Response—The Government does not support this recommendation. This would be a duplication of some of the work of the Committee. However, the Government is interested in ways of supporting choice in the schools sector and in how parents might be better informed of the choices available. The Government will be supporting research into school choice in the schools sector as the best way to ensure that government schooling meets the needs of all students.Recommendation 8 -The Committee recommends that State and Territory Governments amend their Education Acts by inserting the word `education' in place of `instruction' or `tuition'.Response-This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.Recommendation 9 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government restore the level of funding for targeted equity programmes to 1995/96 level.Response-The Government does not support this recommendation which is based on a false premise. Funding for equity programmes has not decreased and this Government has provided additional funding for literacy and school-to-work as programmes designed to give direct benefits to disadvantaged students. The 1997/98 funding package features $596 million for special programs including $163 million for literacy, $148 million for students with special learning needs and $191 million for indigenous education. There is no evidence in the report which demonstrates areas of unaddressed need.4.Recommendation 10 - The Committee recommends that all Commonwealth, State and Territory governments(a) develop comprehensive guidelines for sponsorship arrangements at both school and state levels(b) ensure that effective mechanisms are in place to monitor schools' compliance with the sponsorship guidelines(c) ensure that sponsorship assistance is used to provide additional opportunities for students beyond those provided through the 8 Key Learning Areas.Response -The eight Key Learning Areas were formed as part of the national collaborative curriculum development project under the direction of the former Australian Education Council (AEC). The national collaborative curriculum development project was completed in June 1993. At its meeting in July 1993, the AEC agreed that the publication of the statements and profiles is the prerogative of each State and Territory.The Commonwealth funded the Curriculum Corporation to develop a range of materials to assist in the implementation of the statements and profiles in the eight key learning areas including Annotated Work Samples and a package entitled, Introducing statements and profiles . In addition, the Commonwealth provided considerable assistance to the States and Territories for professional development across the eight key learning areas.The development of sponsorship guidelines is an issue for the States and Territories to consider as they have responsibility for the daily operation of government schools.Recommendation 11 -The Committee recommends that State and Territory Governments which seek to supplement government funding to schools via sponsorship establish a centrally-managed Education Foundation for the negotiation of sponsorship deals, and for the equitable distribution across all government schools of any benefits which result.Response-The Government does not support this recommendation. An additional level of bureaucracy is not required.Recommendation 12 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government require the State and Territory Governments to review practices involving the sale or rental of school land with a view to enabling any decisions and any benefits to be state wide.Response-The Commonwealth does not support this recommendation. The disposal of assets is a matter for State and Territory governments. 5.Recommendation 13 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the State and Territory Governments(a) develop as a matter of urgency a statement of national principles regarding computer based information technologies in schools, and(b) determine the funding implications of providing schools with the technological infrastructure, training and support to ensure that those principles are realised.Response-Cooperation in technology between Commonwealth and States is already underway through OLTC and Education Network Australia (EdNa) School Advisory Group. EdNA is a Commonwealth initiative where States and Territories and non-government authorities collaborate on all aspects of information technology across all sectors of education. Its aim is to maximise the benefits of information technology for Australian education and training. The EdNA Schools Advisory Group focuses particularly on collaboration about informa tion technology in schools. It has developed a set of standards for content and management of websites on the EdNA Directory Service. The Government does not intend to dictate the schools funding priorities of State and Territory Governments. The Commonwealth will, however, seek the agreement of State and Territory governments to specific national objectives in schooling as set out in the Federal Government's policies for schools.Recommendation 14 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government reappraise it Capital Grants program with a view to increasing the level of funding to enable government schools to implement technology to a standard jointly determined by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments.Response-Funding under the Capital Grants Programme will be considered in the Budgetary context. Capital Grants funding for government schools for each year from 1997 to 2000 will be $211 million per year.17:07:003101Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The government's response to the Senate committee report Not a level playground—The private and commercial funding of government schools is some nine months overdue. Effectively, they have had just under 12 months to prepare a reply, and they exceeded the normal three-month deadline by some nine months. In that time, they have come up with a startling revelation: that the concerns and the issues raised by the Senate committee on fees and charges being made by schools across this nation are in fact the responsibility of the states. They have attempted to dismiss the concerns of many hundreds of thousands of Australians by buckpassing this issue to the states.This government tries to present to the Senate, in this most inadequate and totally unresponsive manner, its views which should best be summed up as `referring it to someone else to deal with', to basically pass it off to other people; to suggest that the volume of evidence presented by the Senate committee is anecdotal and unsubstantiated; and to maintain the great myth, the great lie that this government seeks to assert, that it is maintain ing its commitment to public education in this country.The committee report demonstrated, over and over again, the substantial concern of many hundreds of thousands of Australians that the level of support by public education authorities is declining; that in recent years we have seen a devolution of responsibility to schools and, as a consequence, more and more, there is an expectation by governments that it is not governments' responsibility to take care of the legitimate concerns for the educational needs of this country, but that it is for individual parents to meet the funding shortfalls that arise from government policy decisions to reduce government expenditure.The Liberal's own National Commission of Audit demonstrated that there was a decline in the level of government spending on school education. Expenditure by all levels of government on schools rose by 2.8 per cent of GDP throughout the 1970s; in the 1980s it rose by a slightly greater amount, but it declined under this government. During the period that this government has been in office, public education support has seen a massive reduction.The government tries to maintain that it is increasing its spending, but the lie was revealed in an answer to a question in the estimates committee. In real terms, in the amounts of money actually being spent, in real dollars that are available for the education of the children of this nation, there has been a substantial decline in public support by the governments of this country. Answer to question No. 52 before the Senate education committee demonstrates in real terms that, in 1995-96, $1.338 billion was spent on government education, by this year the figure had fallen to $1.335 billion and in 1998-99 it will fall to $1.318 billion.Those figures are quite clear, they are official statistics, yet this government seeks to maintain the lie that it is maintaining its level of commitment to public education. It seeks to include the additional funds that would normally be applied for inflation or additional students enrolled in the system in the money spent; it does not acknowledge that it is reducing the money spent on public education in real dollar terms.The Victorian Commission of Audit demonstrated that, in Victoria today, between six and seven per cent of total education revenue is now being raised by parents at a local level; that is, $155 million is coming out of the pockets of parents as a result of so-called voluntary fees and charges. It is not just that people are being expected to put in a bit extra to fund their child's education, the fact remains that not all parents have equal access to money, not all parents have equal access to opportunity. But what you are seeing under this government is a reduction in the level of opportunity, a reduction in the level of real choice being made available to those who seek to use the public education system.The Victorian Auditor-General demonstrated that 16.9 per cent of non-staff school operating costs was raised as a result of fees and charges being levelled by government schools in Victoria. This is a long way from the claims made in this shonky response that this government has presented to this Senate today, which says that there were `unsubstantiated allegations'—not unsubstantiated to the National Commission of Audit, not unsubstantiated to the Victorian Auditor-General. A number of submissions to the committee demonstrated that the real cost to parents of sending their children to government schools is now in the range of 33 to 70 per cent of the non-staff school operating costs as a result of the government cutbacks in that state. Again and again, you see the parents and teachers highlighting to the public that it is not just a question of people not having the capacity to pay.Substantial educational issues follow from that. It has been demonstrated again and again that individual children of families who cannot pay these voluntary contributions—these so-called voluntary levies and charges—through various acts of what I would call humiliation, are being embarrassed and their educational opportunities in our schools diminished. Such examples include the withholding of academic reports; the barring of students from graduation ceremonies and other functions; the withholding of education al material such as photocopied handouts; the marking of students as absent so that Austudy and Abstudy payments cease; the linking of student enrolment or re-enrolment to the payment of levies; the sending out of accounts for payments of levies; the use of debt collectors on children in this country; the failure to provide school diaries to students; and the removal of various state government support payments—the school card provisions, for instance, in South Australia.We see the denying of the use of books, the refusing of students access to computers and library; the refusal to allow students whose voluntary contributions have not been paid to attend excursions or camps; the withdrawal of curriculum materials from woodwork, cooking or photography classes and so on.What the committee demonstrated, again and again, is the use of illicit and, I think, deeply ingrained attempts to humiliate students and force these so-called voluntary payments. The concerns that are raised by the committee go much further than just the question of educational opportunity; they go to some really basic questions about the level of civil rights within the schools in our system.This is a situation that is becoming more and more intense as a result of the declining levels of financial support by governments for public education in this country and a retreat by governments from what was once accepted as the universal notion of the right of all children to enjoy access to high quality public education.What you have seen is a rapid growth in the use of levies and charges to make up for the shortfalls in funding that are the result of these government policies. What you are seeing is an increasing use of practices by schools to conceal the so-called voluntary nature of these charges and to engage in what can only be described as bullying and heavy-handed tactics to enforce payment.What you have here is a Commonwealth government that does not care. It is essentially a Commonwealth government dedicated to the promotion of an elitist view of education—a notion of education that is essentially a 1950s idea—that those who have plenty of money can go to elite schools to enjoy the exclusive conditions of those elite schools and those are the ones who do well in our society. Those who do not have access to large sums of money and do not have access to large sums of disposable cash miss out on educational opportunity. This report is a disgrace.17:17:003103Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I think the comments of Senator Carr are a disgrace. What he is doing is totally misrepresenting evidence. What he is making out to be hard evidence on this matter in reality is just anecdotal evidence. The committee was enormously frustrated in terms of getting any sort of clear picture of what was happening, purely on the basis of a lack of evidence.Let us look at what is happening broadly in the school system in this country in relation to funding levels. What we have had over a very long period of time is increasing expectations of parents as to what schools should provide. That is fine; we have no problem with that. The difficulty is with finding enough public money to fund such a proposition. Senator Carr makes out that this is a new problem but it is not a new problem, Senator Carr, as you realise. If you look at the minority report you will see a quote going back to the Schools Commission in the early 1980s. It raised a lot of the problems that you are raising in relation to there not being enough money in public schools. It is quite a reasonable proposition, we feel, that parents of children in these schools contribute something towards their education.It is quite surprising, however, to find that, far from there being a shortage of public money in education in our public schools, in the case of New South Wales there is an absolutely massive surplus. Let us find out where that is. The Sydney Morning Herald article of 16 April—and as Senator Carr realises, our report was brought down in July last year so we have only the benefit of hindsight with this information; but it makes very interesting reading—lists the funds in reserve that public schools have in the high schools of New South Wales. Senator Carr, it lists all 250 high schools. It has beside it the balances of those high schools.We find, for example, that Bossley Park High—not exactly in your North Shore area of Sydney—has reserves of over $1 million. We find that Goulburn High School has $620,000. We can go through a number of areas in the western suburbs of Sydney: Blacktown High School has $250,000; Liverpool High has $340,000; Tempe High School, which is near the centre of Sydney and has some of the poorer suburbs nearby, has $283,000; Wollongong High, in the steel belt, has $219,000; and Young High School has $432,000.I found your figure for Victoria interesting, Senator Carr, when you said that parents were asked to chip in $155 million. I do not see any great problem with that: if you divide it by the number of school pupils it is not a huge amount of money. In comparison, in New South Wales, if you look at the total of what I have been talking about—and remember your Victorian figure was $155 million—reserves in New South Wales high schools are $285 million. That is just in the high schools, not primary schools—and that money is sitting there at the moment. It is a matter of great concern to the department's general manager of finance, Ken Dixon. He says that funds allocated to schools are to be expended in general in the year of allocation.Senator Carr, you really have to answer this question: if there is such a shortage of funding in public schools, how come they can build up a quarter of a billion dollars in reserves in the state of New South Wales? It is good housekeeping, I am sure, but it does not really paint the poor picture that you are trying to put up.The report that was brought down had dissent from the government senators. What we discovered, in listening to the evidence around the country, was that the extra funding of private money in public schools was not significant and that it came in two parts: sponsorships and fees and charges. We found that in fees and charges these levels were not high and in many states, and in a vast number of schools, there was the opportunity for people who could not pay to make other arrangements. Many of the schemes were voluntary in any case. In the case of sponsorships of schools we found that this was an opportunity for many schools—schools always have limited resources; they always have had and always will—to get extra funding from particular organisations.We find totally unacceptable the recommendation of the opposition members of the committee that that sort of funding should be used outside the eight key learning areas only. Obviously schools should have the flexibility to use such funding across a much broader area. The idea of central sponsorships with big companies sponsoring events and the resulting funds spread across schools is attractive to us. But we were not drawn to the suggestion of opposition senators that this should be a centrally managed pool of funds.The broad implications of what was presented in the report of the opposition members are basically unrealistic on a number of accounts. They are not based on any hard evidence. We really did not see any evidence, apart from a bit of anecdotal evidence—and systems will go wrong in particular places, obviously—that this is widespread across the system. We did not see any evidence that fees are an onerous burden on people. We did see evidence that there are mechanisms in place in most states to do something about that. We did not see evidence that sponsorships are causing that great a problem.In summary, the situation in our schools is that there is quite a reasonable level of funding from the public sector. This is demonstrated by the fact that in New South Wales a quarter of a billion dollars of public money has been salted away. The level of fees is not too high. I think most people would agree that it is reasonable for parents who have children at school to contribute something towards their education. This is not a new idea, Senator Carr. Parents have put in contributions over the whole century.The idea that absolutely everything should be free—that hospitals should be free, schools should be free and universities should be free—is very much a Whitlamesque type view. I thought we had left that behind in the seventies. We saw the economic disasters when a government overspending approach applied. There is a feeling in the community that in all these areas the public should contribute, and that in particular the people who use these particular services should make some small contribution.We found on the evidence that we have—as I have indicated, it is mostly anecdotal—that there is not a high level of this sort of funding in schools. It is not creating a significant problem. In his description today Senator Carr totally misrepresented what was found in the set of hearings. The evidence really is just anecdotal, but he is trying to make out that it is some sort of scientific evidence. We certainly do not have that. This is not a major problem.The responsibility for dealing with the matters raised by the committee rests almost entirely with the states. In the response by the minister to this report he has put most of these matters back in their rightful place. They are things that should be considered by the states through the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, MCEETYA.17:26:003105Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I rise to make some comments about the government's response to the report of the Employment, Education and Training References Committee entitled Not a level playground: private and commercial funding of government schools . There is a huge amount to be said about this, but first of all I have to say that at last we have one government response to one of the reports of this committee.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Your record wasn't so good!ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Senator, what matters is that we wrote a report on early childhood education which was tabled in July 1996. There is still no word from the government. Senator Tierney has a commitment to adult education. This committee did a report on this matter, but we still have not had a response. I would have thought that Senator Tierney would have been pleased to hear from the government.There is a parliamentary convention in this place that governments provide a response within about three months of a report being tabled or at least provide an explanation as to why they cannot conform with that convention. Thousands of people have bothered to prepare submissions, attend as witnesses and put their efforts into making these reports decent and fair representations of the issues that are out there. I think they are very disappointed and jaded when governments are so disregarding of their contributions. I am therefore pleased that we have a response—albeit way too late.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It took Ros Kelly 18 months to respond!ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—You are actually doing very well, Senator. You are over two years late in providing a response to one of the reports of this committee. I have never found it a persuasive argument to say that, just because you are wrong, it is all right to say, `You're wrong because we were wrong too.' Two wrongs do not correct the fault in your case. If I were you, I would urge your government to respond. This is one of those things that convinces people that we are serious about what we do in this place.The government in its response starts off by saying:The Commonwealth's policy is that the question of voluntary contributions is the responsibility of individual State and Territory governments. State and Territory governments have previously firmly rejected efforts to obtain national consensus on the issue and have indicated they see the Commonwealth as having no role in this area.The response is therefore very disappointing. As I heard my colleague Senator Carr say, the response by the federal government to most of the recommendations is, `That is a state and territory matter. We'll have nothing to do with it.' That is not what the community cares for. The community knows that the Commonwealth has a federal education minister who has an overarching responsibility for education services from schools to tertiary institutions in this country. The government has suggested that the minister's interest is of no relevance and that really it should be left to MCEETYA, which is no more than a council of Commonwealth and state officials. It is not a council that actually responds to ministerial guidelines or directly implements policy. It does the work that allows the implementation of policy, but it is not the committee that should be given responsibility for the running of these things.It is cavalier of the Commonwealth government to dismiss its own responsibility—and, I might say, to dismiss it in a contradictory fashion, because with some of the recommendations the government is saying, `It is a state and territory matter, and we have no responsibility,' but in other areas it is saying, `The Commonwealth and the states do work together on this.' What we know, and what everybody said in the committee, is that private funding is necessary for our public schools because government funding for public schools is no longer sufficient for the very many demands on those schools.It may well be that the money has increased, but the demands on the schools have increased far more, and therefore there is an ever increasing gap between the funding provided to our public schools—charged, I might say, under state education acts to provide a free secular education. That retreat from `free' is causing major concern, and the committee picked up on this concern, because what it says is that in some areas of our community, particularly in what are short-handedly known as the Eastern Suburbs, schools are able to set fees and charges for parents using that school and that, in large part, those parents are able to meet those fees, but that, in many other areas of our country, people simply cannot find the wherewithal to pay those fees and charges.Families creep around, embarrassed and afraid for it to be found out that they are not able to afford those fees and charges. There even are specific arrangements to assist families in hardship to get some extra funding from the schools but, once again, a lot of parents are mortified that they should have to register for this kind of assistance. We have actually made a lot of recommendations in the report about doing it so that the privacy and decency of families are respected. We have state and territory governments and a Commonwealth government which are all committed to providing education for all Australians but which are not, according to this response, committed to funding it. That is grossly insufficient.Secondly, we also have that major point that I have just been alluding to, that the need for private funding has led to a gross inequity in the amount of funding going to schools. As I said, schools in the better-off areas are able to set fees and charges and get that extra assistance; schools in those same areas can also much more readily afford the new technology—computers and so on. They are more likely to have parents who can assist the teachers and the schools with getting sponsorship arrangements that also bring more wealth to those schools, while the schools in the so-called Western Suburbs, the tougher areas in our major states and regions, get further and further behind.The number of schools that have access to computers in this country makes a very interesting little map, but certainly many of the schools in the western suburbs and in regional and rural Australia, isolated areas, do not have the same access. If time and time again we hear of the need for access to technology so that our children will at least be able to get the new jobs that require that technology and that kind of training and capacity, then what we are doing is simply writing a formula now for all those children to be further behind the eight ball when they leave their schools.This is a report that I thought the government might take much more seriously, because it is a thoughtful and considered report and because, as I say, the committee had very many submissions from many people who were very concerned that the cost of education was pricing education out of affordability for many families. Many families told us, for example, that they had to choose between funding their children for special classes or funding their children for trips and tours. Many families could not afford both, and so their children were being dudded out of some of those visits and trips that the school curriculum decides are important. They also have to deal with the fact that their children are very isolated, alienated, if they are not able to participate with all their school chums.I find it an interesting thing too that the government seems to be rejecting any recommendation for decent research, for example, about hard data on the actual cost of education. What does it cost to educate a grade 4 pupil in Australia? We do not know. The government accuses us in this response to the report of saying that the evidence was anecdotal and unsubstantiated in many cases. We say that is exactly the case because we have not got the hard data and research, and we recommended that there be such hard data and research—in other words, that the Commonwealth fund that kind of investigation so that we could say in future what it does cost to educate a grade 4, grade 6 or grade 10 pupil, and then we would have a much better idea of what the level of state and Commonwealth assistance ought to be.It is interesting that Senator Tierney was so dismissive of this report: `It is anecdotal; we are not going to worry; it is all made up, and parents out there in the community are not complaining about education.' I do not know where Senator Tierney has been, but the parents that I know are complaining. They are very concerned about the cost of education and they are very concerned that they will not be able to get the best for their children. That is what so many parents actually put their effort into. They will work at second and third jobs; both parents will work, and the highest priority for so many of those parents is to make sure their children get a good education. When people can no longer afford a so-called free secular education, it is time for governments very seriously to have a long hard look at this.I find it very disappointing that a Commonwealth government education minister should put out a report that says, `It is not my responsibility.' In the past we have seen education ministers from the states brawling with the Commonwealth minister for education. It has had a very bad effect on the status of teachers, it has had a very bad effect on morale and it has had a very bad effect in terms of sufficient funding for our schools. The state education ministers know that the Commonwealth's involvement in education is particularly to make sure that they do have adequate funding distributed with equity, and that they get support, so that particularly our children from disadvantaged areas who are doing it tough do get that kind of consideration from the Commonwealth. The government response is a very big disappointment, and parents and families of Australia will judge the government very sternly because of it. Question resolved in the affirmative.3107310717:36:003107Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I present the government's response to the third report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on two international agreements on tuna, and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO 3RD REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIESTWO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON TUNAPreambleThe government has considered the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into the Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese Tuna Long-line Fishing 1996 and is pleased to provide the following response. The government would like to acknowledge the Committee for preparing a concise and clear report which seeks to address the range of complex issues that arise when considering the Bilateral Agreement. The Committee's recommendations are addressed in turn below.Bilateral Arrangements1) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the relevant States, ensures that restrictions placed on either Bilateral vessels or Joint Venture vessels cannot be circumvented by interchange between such arrangements.Under the Bilateral Agreement restrictions are placed on the number of vessels that can operate off the west and east coasts of Australia. For example, in the 1996 Bilateral Agreement up to 20 Japanese longline vessels were permitted to operate north of 34o South off the west coast. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) ensures that this number is not exceeded.When the joint venture commenced in 1991, joint venture vessels were permitted to operate north of 34o South (S) off the west coast. This was additional to the 40 bilateral vessels which, at that time, were permitted to operate under the Bilateral Agreement. This was raised as a concern, particularly by the Western Australian fishing sector, as potentially all licensed joint venture vessels and the 40 bilateral longline vessels could have operated off the west coast.To address this, from November 1994 joint venture vessels were excluded from operations north of 34o S off the west coast. This restriction will remain if a southern bluefin tuna joint venture proceeds in future.AFMA has indicated that it has no difficulty in providing scope for any future joint venture vessels to change to a bilateral licence provided the vessel cap negotiated as part of the Bilateral Agreement is not exceeded. This has been the situation since the joint venture was amended in November 1994.2) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government reviews the existing arrangements for potential foreign ownership of fishing licences within the Exclusive Economic Zone or Joint Venture arrangements which may jeopardise the potential to manage fish stocks in the Exclusive Economic Zone.The issue of foreign ownership is a matter of broad government policy and may, in specific circumstances be referred to the Foreign Investment Review Board. All proposals above certain thresholds need prior approval and therefore need to be notified to the government. Notification thresholds are: over $5 million for acquisitions of substantial interests in existing businesses; $10 million or more for the establishment of new businesses; and $20 million or more for offshore take-overs. The government normally raises no objections to proposals above the notification thresholds where the relevant total assets/total investments is below $50 million.However, in this instance the Commonwealth Government has reviewed the existing arrangements for foreign ownership or joint venture arrangements within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and considers that they do not provide for any arrangements which may jeopardise the potential to manage fish stocks in the EEZ. There is no provision in fisheries legislation providing specific control on foreign ownership of fishing rights. All tuna longline operations within the EEZ are subject to management arrangements administered by AFMA in accordance with the Fisheries Management Act 1991. Domestic longline arrangements apply to Australian boats, and these are developed by AFMA in conjunction with the appropriate fisheries Management Advisory Committee (MAC). This means that operators, including foreigners, who may own Australian boats and licences are subject to the same management arrangements.Japanese vessels are the only foreign flag operators which have been permitted in recent years to longline for tuna in the EEZ either under a government to government agreement (Bilateral Agreement) or through the joint venture (which requires an agreement with the Commonwealth, through AFMA).Both the Bilateral and joint venture agreements specify stringent terms and conditions under which Japanese longline vessels can operate. The terms and conditions are more restrictive than those applying to domestic operators. All foreign operators are licensed and are subject to conditions such as inspections, observer coverage, vessel monitoring systems and are generally restricted to waters where there is limited domestic activity.The government believes the arrangements outlined above support and strengthen AFMA's ability to sustainably manage Australia's fish stocks.3) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the subsidiary agreement on long-line tuna fishing with Japan be for a timeframe of at least two years.The Commonwealth Government agrees that there would be benefits in moving towards a longer term agreement, including administrative savings, a better planning environment and a more appropriate timeframe within which to address complex issues. However, the government believes that important external issues such as the setting of annual national catch allocations by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), domestic management arrangements, environmental perturbations and economic changes may erode the extent of such benefits. These issues are dynamic and a flexible approach is required in order that the government is able to respond in a timely manner to the needs of the fishery and to secure the best benefits for Australia (external issues such as those mentioned above may lead to considerable pressure for an annual review of the terms of any multi year agreement, from either Australian or Japanese interests, depending on the circumstances).In giving in principle support to multi-year agreements, it will be important to develop a clear framework and schedule to deal with these pressures, including an elaboration of the mechanisms provided for in the current negotiation process, or there may be frequent ad hoc demands to implement mid-term changes to the Agreement. Should any changes to the Agreement be negotiated during a mid-term review process, these changes would be subject to the treaties procedure and be tabled in Parliament. It will be in Australia's interest to minimise the potential for mid-term changes to the Agreement, otherwise it will be unlikely that there would result any decrease in the workload incurred or in the frequency with which matters relating to the Agreement would need to be subject to scrutiny.The Commonwealth agrees that a properly constructed multi-year agreement, which takes into account fisheries management needs and recognises that it is essentially a negotiated commercial arrangement, would be beneficial.This is particularly the case if multiple year quotas can be agreed in the CCSBT, which would strengthen the case for a multiple year Bilateral Agreement. However, the Commonwealth Government notes that the adoption of such an approach would need whole of government support, including a revision of the way fishing and port access are dealt with, and may also necessitate consideration of alterations to the fee structure and access arrangements.SBT Certification4) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government raises the issue of the introduction of a certificate system for southern bluefin tuna within the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin TunaAustralia has already sought consideration of a certificate of origin scheme for SBT within the CCSBT regime and within the annual meetings of the tripartite management discussions held prior to the formation of the CCSBT. In 1993, Australia formally proposed a certification system similar to that implemented within the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) to be introduced into the SBT fishery. Japan did not support adoption of such a scheme. After being pressed on the issue again in 1994, Japan opposed any attempt to require documentation of SBT trade. Japanese concern reputedly centres on the administrative burden that such a scheme would impose, a concern that Australia shares.It should also be noted that a certification scheme, although useful for tracking fish in transit, only achieves its full value if monitored and enforced at the market for the fish. In the case of SBT, the main markets are in Japan. In such a system Japan would carry responsibility for the administration and integrity of the system for imports from all countries. Further, as Japan is not technically importing product from its own vessels' high seas activities, such Japanese catch may fall outside any certification scheme. Also, catches by Korea and Taiwan are increasingly being directed towards their home markets. Within these contexts, Australia will continue to consider ways of introducing a practicable certification scheme.Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionThe first meeting of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) was held in December 1996. This new organisation has many complex administrative and scientific issues to resolve in developing a strong tuna management regime in the Indian Ocean. Certification schemes are important tools that will need to be examined as part of that management regime. For tunas other than SBT, Australia sees the first step as being the establishment of basic fishery management measures. For SBT, Australia has pressed within the IOTC that the CCSBT has precedence over SBT management wherever the fish occurs. Australia will continue to argue strongly in the IOTC and other relevant forums that a SBT management scheme should be developed and managed within the CCSBT.Indian Ocean Tuna Commission5) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government:a) notes Western Australia's particular interest in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission;b) facilitates their participation in the delegation to and any consultations relating to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission where possible.The Commonwealth Government has fully consulted with the Government of Western Australia on IOTC issues and has extended an invitation for the Western Australian Government to participate in Australian delegations to IOTC meetings. The Western Australian Government has declined to participate in meetings to date, but has expressed its interest to take part in future IOTC meetings.6) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that Australia deposits an Instrument of Acceptance for the Agreement to Establish the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission on or before 2 December 1996.Australia deposited an Instrument of Acceptance of and then became party to the Agreement to Establish the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in November 1996. Australia attended the first meeting in December 1996 and the leader of the Delegation was elected interim Chair.Tasmanian Waters7) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertakes discussions with the Government of Japan to resolve the communication difficulties between the two fleets.The communication difficulties that the Committee has identified arise principally where the domestic and foreign operators are seeking to fish in the same waters and the differing fishing techniques of both cause fishing gear interaction, a situation that arises periodically as the domestic fishery expands its areas of fishing.Conflict of fishing gear belonging to different vessels fishing in the same area can result in losses in effective fishing time and damage to and losses of gear. Where possible AFMA attempts to facilitate communication between fishermen to minimise these incidents. Instances of gear conflict in waters adjacent to Tasmania occurred several years ago, when there were 40 joint venture licensed Japanese vessels operating in addition to the 10 vessels licensed through the Bilateral Agreement. The large numbers of Japanese vessels fished co-operatively by allocation of lanes in which to set their longlines. The Australian Tuna Boat Owners Association (ATBOA) prepared guidelines advocating sharing of details of line setting location and time between the Japanese and local domestic. The number of Japanese longliners operating off Tasmania is now markedly reduced and the incidence of gear conflict has been negligible.In the period of the last Agreement (1996) there was only one reported instance of gear conflict which was off the NSW coast. In response to this report AFMA immediately notified the Japanese industry indicating that it should maintain a radio watch and communicate with domestic operators to resolve issues. The observers present on the boats operating in the area were advised to facilitate any dialogue. Even though it was only one isolated instance the issue was subsequently raised at the negotiations with the government of Japan when reporting on compliance in the past season. If there was a failure to co-operate, the area of access may be changed, excluding foreign vessels from the areas where gear conflict occurs.Japan has complained of alleged gear theft in the east coast fishery, presumably by domestic fishers. AFMA has again attempted to facilitate communications with the Japanese fleet to ensure subsequent investigations are timely and effective, though to date there has been insufficient evidence on which to base conclusive investigations of the allegations.8) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government creates, as a matter of national consistency, an exclusion zone for the Bilateral and Joint Venture Japanese long-line fishing vessels around Tasmania of 50 nautical miles.The government supports the progressive Australianisation of tuna fisheries, however, it believes that an exclusion to 50 nautical miles (nm) around Tasmania at this time would be premature, especially given current reduced levels of Japanese activity.Japanese fishing adjacent to Tasmania brings considerable economic benefit to the State and Commonwealth. The port of Hobart benefits from Japanese access to the AFZ through the use of port facilities, victualling and recreation. Japan has stated previously it cannot accept a 50 nm exclusion adjacent to Tasmania since some high catch rate areas for SBT which attract its vessels to the AFZ are between 20 to 50 nm off Tasmania. A substantial further restriction off Tasmania would jeopardise general bilateral activity and the potential for a future joint venture adjacent to Tasmania, because it is likely that Japanese vessels would choose not to fish the Tasmanian area at all if the 50 nm limit were applied.The Commonwealth received $425,000 from Japan in 1997 as a component of the bilateral access fee for enabling a specified number of its vessels to fish for Japanese SBT quota in the AFZ adjacent to Tasmania. In negotiating the 1997 bilateral access arrangements the Commonwealth's approach was, cognisant of the Inquiry's recommendation, to increase the exclusion zone from 12 to 17 nm from the coast. There are important other benefits associated with Japanese access off Tasmania, including data collection on both SBT and seabirds through the AFZ observer programme. The Commonwealth regards this information as vital to its management of SBT and obtaining information on the incidental capture of seabirds including albatross. It also maintains an important link with the high seas activities of the Japanese fleet.Japanese activity peaks adjacent to Tasmania during May to July. In 1996 only 10 Japanese boats operated in the area. This is substantially less than previous years due to the cessation of the joint venture and is likely to decrease further in 1997. During the May to July period a maximum of six domestic boats operated in any one month. With such small numbers of vessels the potential for gear conflict appears slight.On balance, the government believes its approach in reducing Japanese access from 12 nm to outside 17 nm is appropriate, given the benefits Australia derives from this arrangement, but that this be regularly reviewed in light of the level of Australian activity in waters adjacent to Tasmania. Recreational and Game fisheries9) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertake a review of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to determine if amendments are necessary to facilitate the management of all Australian fisheries to enable the recreational and game fishing industry to be treated as a commercial activity with particular reference to achieving optimum utilisation of the resource.The Fisheries Management Act 1991 provides for the management of commercial, charter boat and recreational fishers, noting that the recreational sector can only be managed by the Commonwealth when under a formal management plan.AFMA is currently considering the jurisdictional issue of charter boat and recreational fishing and the Commonwealth's role in managing these sectors. A paper on the issue was discussed at the July 1997 meeting of the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA). The Ministerial Council agreed to give its `in principle' support for day-to-day management of the recreational and charter sectors of Commonwealth-managed fisheries by the States and Northern Territory, noting Queensland's position that jurisdiction for recreational and charter fishing for tunas and billfish should remain under Commonwealth jurisdiction. A revised policy paper concerning recreational and charter fishing will be released by Commonwealth and State agencies for public comment in the first half of 1998.The views of the Treaties Committee on recreational and charter boat fishing, along with the concept of optimal utilisation, will be considered in developing the Commonwealth's position on recreational and charter fishing management.10) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertakes a full assessment of the relative values of the recreational, game and long-line fisheries and their compatibility as a basis for determining the most appropriate management arrangements for the fishery and the degree of access to be allocated to each sector.The Commonwealth agrees that an assessment of the relative values to the different user groups of the fish resource provides important information to underpin consideration of how to allocate access to the resource in the most efficient and equitable manner. Both the Department of Primary Industries and Energy (through the Fisheries Resources Research Fund (FRRF)) and AFMA have commissioned studies on options for valuing recreational and commercial fishing. These initial studies indicate there are many complex issues which would need to be addressed in a full assessment of practical methods for valuing and allocating access among users. Furthermore, any outcome will likely be contested by one or more of the affected groups.One issue relates to the many claims that have been made by the gamefish/recreational sector that the value (in dollar terms) of a billfish to it is far greater than to the commercial fishing sector. There are a range of techniques which could be used to establish values for the different sectors using the bill fish resource, though estimating values is difficult for the charter boat and recreational sectors, and comparing "like with like" presents major challenges. For the longline sector it is relatively simple to establish value through the use of standard production approaches, although an important requirement of establishing values for this sector is that there is provision of accurate information by operators.For the charter boat industry, values would be more difficult to establish. Prices for boat charter and capture rates of game fish could be used to calculate a value for this sector. However, the problem with such a calculation is that it would be difficult to separate the proportion of the charter price which is associated with the fish resource, as opposed to a number of other factors. These include the quality of the charter service, whether the operator is charging a fair price and the actual importance of capturing fish to the charterer.Establishing values for recreational fishing is probably the most difficult task. If there is market information associated with recreational fishing then this should be identified and considered in the context of the characteristics of the particular type of recreational fishing for which a management decision is to be made. A range of non-market valuation techniques could be used to estimate dollar values for recreational fishing.The application of these techniques is usually complicated and there is no assurance that the estimates will be reliable. Further, the Commonwealth notes that, even if dollar values at a given time can be estimated, allocation on the basis of relative value is complicated by the fact that values change over time.Finally, the Commonwealth recognises that while relative values in dollar terms are of importance in considering allocation of access, the range of impacts, costs and benefits which cannot be expressed in dollar terms should be taken into account when developing fishery management strategies. For example, relative and cumulative impacts on the status of the marine resource must be considered, in conjunction with estimates of the relative values of fishing by various groups.11) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government require all Japanese longline vessels fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone to cut free all marlin (alive or dead), without removal from the ocean.The Commonwealth has agreed to ban the take of blue and black marlin by commercial fishing operators. The ban will apply to both domestic operators and Japanese tuna longlining vessels operating in the Australian fishing zone under the Subsidiary Agreement. The ban will be effected by the introduction of legislation in early 1998 which requires commercial fishermen to return blue and black marlin to the sea whether dead or alive.The Commonwealth recognises the high value placed on blue and black marlin by game fishers in comparison with the commercial catching sector, which regards blue and black marlin as an unintended bycatch. The introduction of the legislation aims to acknowledge these values by establishing an appropriate allocation of resources between the two sectors.Under the new legislation, domestic operators may retain as part of the commercial fishery, striped marlin. Japanese vessels will be required to cut free all marlin species caught in the AFZ (alive or dead) without removal from the ocean. In addition, under the bilateral agreement, Japan has agreed that its vessels will not target any billfish (except broadbill swordfish).A difficulty with the legislation, particularly in relation to Japanese vessels, is the issue of compliance. Japanese longline boats will have on board in freezer holds high seas' caught marlin from the same stocks which can not be distinguished from `in-zone' catch. These marlin will have been caught outside the AFZ, both from the high seas and neighbouring countries' EEZ's, in areas where there are no restrictions on their retention.This problem may be overcome by arranging for the Japanese longline vessels to inform Australian authorities of the amount of marlin on a vessel at the time at which it enters the AFZ. Through random inspections either at sea or during victualling at an Australian port, such information could then be verified.Partly in recognition of concerns over Japanese catch of important recreational/charter marlin species, a range of area closures and restrictions on fishing methods have been applied to the Japanese, including exclusion from the East Coast Tuna and Billfish Fishery management area off Cairns, known as Area E, and 50 nm closures off the east and west coasts.12) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertakes a review of the existing tuna fishing technology to determine if modifications could be made to reduce the bycatch of non-target species.The minimisation of the impact of fishing operations on the environment, including non-target species, is a requirement under Objective 3(1)(b) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991.From industry's viewpoint, there is a financial interest in maximising the catch of high value target species and avoiding bycatch of non commercial species. A range of collaborative work with industry has been carried out and is planned for the future, including research into fishing practices, development of more selective fishing gear and improved mitigation devices. Environment Australia is also preparing a consultative Threat Abatement Plan which aims to minimise seabird bycatch.Research into the reduction of seabird bycatch in tuna longline operations is on-going. The development of tori poles, or bird scaring devices, is a major step forward and an example of what can be developed through co-operative research involving industry operators. Regulations have been put in place to require the use of tori poles by domestic and foreign longline operators south of 30o South latitude. Furthermore the Commonwealth continues to work with industry and researchers on ways to improve bycatch mitigation measures, whether for seabirds or other incidental bycatch.In the case of billfish, specifically blue and black marlin, research is under way to determine where in the longline hauling process these species are taken. Preliminary research indicates that blue and black marlin are taken at a shallower depth than the target tuna species (generally bigeye and yellowfin tuna), i.e. during the deployment or hauling of the longline.However, to accurately determine longline performance sophisticated electronic equipment (such as hook monitors which measure depth and water temperature) and longline deployment gear (line shooters) are required. The former is not yet commercially available and the latter is quite costly and generally only carried by large vessels dedicated exclusively to tuna fishing. It is anticipated that as the domestic fishery continues to expand, the technology employed by industry to accurately position their longline in the thermocline will be refined and result in cleaner catches of target species.Port Access13) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends the separation of port access from the subsidiary agreement but making port access subject to the continuation of Japan's membership of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna and participation in Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.The Commonwealth is supportive of a reconsideration of the structure for the Bilateral Agreement, including the option of separating port and fishing access, but in doing so recognises the need to fully assess the implications of any changes proposed. In developing any alternative arrangement careful consideration needs to be given to ways of securing the management and research funding derived from the current arrangements, as well as the important issues of the longer term financial and other benefits gained by providing Japan with privileged access to our fishing zone. The provision of port access, without effective means to secure Japan's collaboration in effective international monitoring regimes, could work quickly to erode the integrity of the CCSBT and put the full range of benefits we seek to secure for our domestic industry (both fishing and port servicing sectors) at considerable risk.The Committee's recommendation recognises the risks that giving unfettered port access to Japanese fishing vessels may lead to adverse impacts on the sustainability of the fish stocks if these vessels fish on the high seas without effective management and regulation. The recent identification of forty Japanese vessels fishing in breach of Japan's domestic fisheries management regulations on the high seas off the south western AFZ has highlighted the realities of this risk.To address the risk, the Committee has suggested that any separate port access arrangement must be linked to responsible participation in regional management regimes, such as the CCSBT. The Commonwealth strongly supports this approach, but believes it should go further and deal with a range of related issues not directly addressed in the Committee's report. These include implications for access fees, the incentive to fish in the AFZ, links with the CCSBT and the potential impacts on local fishing and port economies around Australia.Notwithstanding these issues, as Australia's domestic tuna fisheries expand, a reduction in Japanese fishing activity in the AFZ is considered likely in the mid to longer term. Under such a scenario, a progressive restructuring of the access arrangement to provide a greater separation of fishing and port access, with strong obligations imposed for co-operation on data and monitoring needs, may suit both countries in the medium term.Based on the Committee's recommendation and the additional issues identified above, the government is at present evaluating alternate approaches to providing for both fishing and port access in an administratively simple and effective way while securing the wider range of benefits and realistic returns to Australia.Any approach must seek to meet Australia's interests in securing effective co-operation and compliance with responsible regional fisheries management regimes. Matters of importance include the implications for access fees, need to provide for effective monitoring of fishing effort adjacent to the AFZ through surveillance and electronic vessel monitoring systems, high seas observer coverage and in port inspection of fishing vessels entering our ports.Environmental14) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government formalises a process in which management plans relating to international fishing agreements require a specific written clearance from the Environment Protection Group if they have significant potential environmental impacts.The Commonwealth Government accepts this recommendation and DPIE, AFMA and the Environment Protection Group have held discussions to clarify the way in which the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 may apply to the Subsidiary Agreement and to reach clear understandings on how to deal with potential environmental impacts that may arise from the Subsidiary Agreement.15) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Minister responsible for fisheries requests the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to provide all relevant information to the appropriate Commonwealth environment agencies for consideration of issues pertaining to the marine ecosystem.The government is committed to ensuring that relevant data collected by, and accessible to, Commonwealth agencies is used in the most productive way, including as a basis for research on the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems in general and on seabirds in particular. In this respect, DPIE and AFMA have an open approach to providing data to other Commonwealth Departments or agencies which have a need for that data in the performance of their functions, subject to legislated confidentiality requirements.In order to address the specific concerns of the Committee, an informal working group of officers from AFMA and Environment Australia has been established to examine protocols on data exchange and related issues. This group will develop protocols for information exchange and use, as well as investigate processes for evaluating the information needed, the methods of collection and the development of co-operative approaches on issues of common interest.16) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government reviews, as a matter of urgency, Commonwealth legislation to ensure that the nomination for the listing of fish as endangered or threatened is based on merit and not impeded by anomalies in the wording of legislative or administrative procedures.As a result of observations made by the Committee, relevant Commonwealth legislation has been reviewed. The government believes that there are no legal impediments to appropriately protecting fish in either the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (S14) (FMA Act) or the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (ESP Act). The current procedure is that nominations are interpreted in light of the ESP Act and based on merit. The government is not of the opinion there are anomalies in the wording of the FMA Act, but notes that the Act is due for revision in five years.17) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government requests that State and Territory governments review, as a matter of urgency, their legislation to ensure that the nominations for the listing of fish as endangered or threatened is based on merit and not impeded by anomalies in the wording of legislative or administrative procedures.The Commonwealth notes the Committee's recommendation and will invite the State and Territory Governments to review their legislation with regard to the Committee's concerns.18) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that a specialist observer training scheme be introduced with additional emphasis on seabird research, the collection of data on seabird bycatch and the effectiveness of seabird bycatch mitigation methods.The Commonwealth supports committing a proportion of observer time to seabirds, however, the primary focus of their work will remain collection of data on tunas and associated fishes. Observers document and sample seabirds taken during the fishing operation and tori pole use as part of their core tasks. They also undertake discard monitoring and completion of a seabird diary, as time permits.Given the already substantial training given to observers on these matters, AFMA does not see a need to provide additional training. Further specialist seabird observers would not be cost-effective since many foreign vessels encounter few, if any, seabirds on a per trip basis. AFMA prefers, and has frequently done so in the past, to use specialist ornithologists where there is a particular need for expert advice on such things as seabird age, reproductive status, heavy metal content and DNA/race research.Where seabird research programmes are developed and approved, AFMA will maintain the flexibility within the observer programme to assist in the collection of necessary data to support this research.AFMA recognises that the issue will be considered in the process of developing the Commonwealth Threat Abatement Plan for oceanic longline fishing and depending on the outcome of this process that there may be need to review observer training arrangements.19) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government produces an "easy to use" guide to assist the identification of seabirds which is to be issued to Japanese vessels, including Joint Venture vessels, at the time of pre fishing inspections.The government agrees that an "easy to use" guide to the identification of seabirds would be a useful tool for long-line fishers. A number of seabird-related books are available specifically for longline operators. These commonly contain a brief seabird guide.One highly regarded publication prepared by Australians is the book entitled "Catching Fish Not Birds" which was published in Japanese in 1994 and widely distributed by observers to the Japanese longline fleet. AFMA is investigating whether reprints of this book can be made for distribution at the time of pre-fishing inspection. The CCSBT has also agreed to more widely promote the distribution of this book amongst vessel owners and masters.Another excellent guide was produced by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the government is seeking the agreement of the Commission for the reproduction of the seabird identification illustrations from that guide as a single laminated card suitable for use on board tuna longline vessels.This is an issue that will also be raised in the context of the development of a Threat Abatement Plan and at the Ecologically Related Species Working Group of the CCSBT.20) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government expedites research into eliminating seabird bycatch as a matter of priority.Since 1990, the government has funded research into seabird bycatch mitigation measures which have resulted in changes to existing tuna longline technology. These changes include the development of tori poles and bait casting machines. The government will continue to examine research opportunities to develop and enhance current technology.The government views the Threat Abatement Plan being developed under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 as a major opportunity to identify and direct key action on seabird bycatch reduction.The government is currently funding the following Environment Australia programs relevant to the reduction of seabird incidental capture in fishing operations.. status and conservation of albatross and their interactions with fisheries.. oceanic biology of wandering albatross using satellite telemetry . Antarctic Ocean Research Fund monitoring program on Macquarie Island.The government is aware of relevant research programs funded by other Australian organisations. These include albatross foraging studies, research on bait sink rates, preparation of global reviews of albatross populations, population studies of birds incidentally killed and albatross banding programs.The government will be seeking the co-operation of southern ocean fishing nations in research into seabird interactions through a number of international fora. In particular the government will be pressing for identification of research priorities by future meetings of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group of the CCSBT and the relevant working groups of CCAMLR.21) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government formally invites representatives from Japan and New Zealand to participate in the development of the Threat Abatement Plan.The government has invited observers from Japan and New Zealand to participate in the development of the Threat Abatement Plan. It is hoped that this will encourage international co-operation and collaboration in research programmes to develop effective solutions to seabird bycatch.17:37:003115Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.3115311517:37:003115Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I present the 71st report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Further possible false or misleading evidence before Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases , together with a volume of submissions and documents.Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—by leave—I move:That the Senate endorses the finding contained in paragraph 22 of the 71st report of the Committee of Privileges.On 5 December 1997, the following matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges on the motion of Senator Woodley:Having regard to the documents presented to the Senate by the President on 25 August 1997, and other relevant evidence, whether any false or misleading evidence was given to the Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases, and whether any contempt was committed in this regard.This report is the second report relating to possible false or misleading evidence before the Unresolved Whistleblower Cases Committee, and involves much the same information as was previously provided in the context of the Privileges Committee's earlier, extremely limited, inquiry.As the present report makes clear, the Committee of Privileges did not consider that it was the most appropriate body to examine these issues but nonetheless received and considered submissions in respect of the reference. It has decided to publish all submissions received. The committee's own evaluation of matters before it was assisted considerably by a substantive submission from the Criminal Justice Commission, which is quoted at length in the report.The committee has concluded that, on the evidence before it, allegations made that misleading evidence has been given to the Unresolved Whistleblowers Committee have been satisfactorily answered by the CJC. Accordingly, the committee has found that no contempt has been committed by the commission. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous31153115311517:40:003115Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Abetz, I present additional information received by the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in response to the 1997-98 additional estimates hearings.Committees31153115311517:40:003115Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 360 entitled Draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1998-99 . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I table the Report on the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1998-99, in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the Auditor General Act 1997.The tabling of this report is an historic occasion for the Committee which has a unique role in oversighting the process of budgetary appropriation for the Australian National Audit Office. This measure is in itself a significant guarantee of the independence of the Auditor-General from Executive Government.In its Report No. 346, Guarding the Independence of the Auditor-General , tabled in October 1996, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts recommended that it be given a statutory power to consider and report on draft budget estimates of the Audit Office as part of the then Auditor-General Bill. The Committee argued that the proper resourcing of the Auditor-General and the ANAO was:'integral to the functional independence of the Auditor-General'. It also argued that it was the `role of Parliament and not the Executive to take responsibility for ensuring that audit functions are adequately resourced'.Although under Section 56 of the Constitution it is indisputable that the Officeof the Auditor-General cannot be legally or financially independent from the Executive in any absolute sense, it has been possible to insulate the Auditor General's financing from Executive influence to ensure that the audit office cannot be starved of funds.A process has been put in place whereby the draft budget estimates are considered by the JCPAA before the budget is handed down, and the Committee's report provided to the Minister for Finance to be tabled as soon as practicable after the budget. This process allows the resourcing of audit functions to be made transparent to the Parliament so that the Executive is held to account for the level of resources appropriated to allow the Auditor-General to fulfil the statutory functions of his office.With respect to the budget estimates for the 1998-99 financial year, the Committee accepts that the budget appropriation figure of $53.703m (as finally adjusted), is sufficient for the ANAO to carry out its functions.The Committee acknowledges the response of the Minister for Finance who commented on the co-operative manner in which this unprecedented process of Parliamentary scrutiny was implemented by the JCPAA and the Australian National Audit Office.I commend the report to the Senate.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills3116r418311617:41:003116Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Watson, I present the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation on the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997, together with submissions received by the committee and transcripts of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.17:41:003116Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees3116311610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jacinta Collins)—I have received letters from the Leader of the Australian Democrats seeking variations to the membership of various committees.Motion (by Senator Tambling)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Allison for the consideration of the provisions of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee— Participating member: Senator Woodley for the committee's inquiry into the development of Hinchinbrook Channel.Bills3117r414Billsr404Billsr4153117Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Tambling) 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.311717:44:003117Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT) REPEAL AND AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill is one of a package of three bills, the other bills being the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998 and the Superannuation Legislation (Common wealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998.This main purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Commonwealth's civilian employees can participate in our choice of funds policy announced in the 1997 Budget. This will give them greater flexibility and control over their superannuation arrangements.At present, many Commonwealth employees are tied to membership of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) or the closed Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS). The bill will close the PSS to new members from 1 July 1998 and new employees will be able to choose from superannuation arrangements made available by their employers. My colleague the Minister for Finance and Administration announced on 13 May 1998 that the closure of the PSS and the repeal of the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 would be deferred until 1 July 1999. The Government will be moving a number of requests for amendments to the bill in relation to these matters.From 1 July 2000, CSS and PSS members will, if they wish, be able to cease active membership and choose the alternative superannuation arrangements made available by their employers. The bill will provide for the entitlements of CSS members who exercise choice to be based on the resignation deferred benefit, but adjusted to ensure no windfall gains for members or increase in unfunded liabilities.The bill will make a number of other amendments to various superannuation acts covering civilian employees. For example, it includes amendments to the Superannuation Act 1976 to allow CSS members to transfer amounts held in the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust or other funds to the CSS Fund. It will also amend that act so that reversionary benefits may be paid to a CSS pensioner's spouse or child from a post-retirement relationship with fewer restrictions than currently apply. Similar changes are made in respect of spouses' benefits under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948.In addition, the bill provides for modifications to the superannuation redundancy entitlement arrangements for employees who cease to be CSS or PSS members as a result of a sale or outsourcing, in the terms announced in June 1997. In line with the operational date of the new preservation arrangements to apply to the general workforce, the bill will provide for preservation from 1 July 1999 of the employer financed component of a CSS or PSS lump sum superannuation redundancy payment.The bill will also amend the Superannuation Act 1976, with effect from 5 December 1997, to restore its original intention in relation to the acceptance of late elections for preservation of rights. The operation of this provision has been changed progressively by interpretations placed upon it by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court. The changes included in the bill are designed to balance out the interests of the Commonwealth with the interests of current CSS members and former members, who seek to make a late election. Without these changes the Commonwealth could continue to incur costs in the order of $10 million per year.Finally, to simplify and streamline the administration of our civilian superannuation arrangements, the bill includes amendments to simplify the operation of relevant legislation and subsequently repeals a number of acts applying to those arrangements. Savings and transitional provisions relating to these repealed acts are included in the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 contained in this package. The other bill in the package, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998, will provide for new rationalised administration arrangements for the closed schemes and for the continued administration of the repealed acts by a new Board, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.Financial ImplicationsThis bill will result in a net increase in Budget outlays as a result of increased funding of future superannuation accruals. However, this will be offset by a reduction in future unfunded superannuation liabilities. The financial implications of the bill are explained in more detail in the explanatory memorandum.COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION BOARD Bill 1998The Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill is part of a package of three bills, the other bills being the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998 and the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998.This bill will establish a new Commonwealth Superannuation Board to administer the closed Commonwealth superannuation schemes and, where determined, other schemes covering Commonwealth civilian employees.The Board will comprise an equal number of member and employer representatives and will have an independent chairman appointed with the agreement of the other Board members. Member representatives will be elected by scheme members.The new Board will have greater responsibility for administering the rules relating to the Commonwealth's closed superannuation schemes subject to certain caveats, including in relation to the employer costs of the schemes.The Board will be able to recover its administrative costs from employing agencies. Budget funded agencies not currently meeting these costs will receive the funding that was previously allocated to ComSuper.Financial ImpactThis bill does not involve any additional Budget outlays.SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT—SAVING AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1998The Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill is part of a package of three bills, the other bills being the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998 and the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998.This bill will put in place saving and transitional provisions as a consequence of certain amendments to the Superannuation Act 1976 and the subsequent repeal of the Superannuation Act 1976, Superannuation Act 1990, Superannuation Act 1922, Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 and the amendment of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973 as provided for by the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998.The bill will also ensure that the Commonwealth Superannuation Board will continue to use ComSuper for the provision of scheme administrative services for a period of at least three years from 1 July 1998.Financial ImpactThis bill does not involve any additional Budget outlays.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Committees31183118Message received from the House of Representatives notifying changes in the membership of joint committees as follows—Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee, Mr Prosser in place of Mr Sinclair. National Crime Authority—Joint Statutory Committee, Dr Southcott in place of Mr Bradford, discharged.31193119Message received from House of Representatives, relating to an extension of time to 1 June 1998 for the Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund Committee to present its advisory report on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998.Business31193119Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Lees) agreed to:That business of the Senate notices of motion Nos. 1, 2 and 3 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, relating to the disallowance of Declarations made under the Telecommunications Act, be postponed till the next day of sitting.3119Motion (by Senator Tambling) agreed to:That government business notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer (Senator Ian Campbell) for today, relating to the consideration of legislation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Bills3119r4213119Consideration resumed from 25 May.17:46:003119Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In the light of the debates we had in this chamber last night and discussions we have had today, I rise to make a statement about schedule 5 of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 dealing with the choice of fund proposal.Under the current superannuation rules, many employees have no choice about which superannuation fund is entrusted to invest employer superannuation contributions made on their behalf. This applies to many award employees and to non-award employees. It intrigued me in the debate which we had last night—which was not much of a debate, I have to say; it struck me as more of a filibuster—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I have another hour.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You have an hour, have you? That is exactly what I thought, Senator. It was interesting that it came through in that debate that somehow we can allow employees choices about whole aspects of their lives—their jobs, whether they get married, whether they have children; all those important things—but we dare not, apparently, according to some of the speakers, allow employees to make choices about their superannuation. The decision as to which fund invests their money seems at present to almost be a random accident of who happens to be their employer. Employees who want to entrust contributions to another fund cannot do so. We believe that this is undemocratic, uncompetitive, unfair and unAustralian. The government's bill brings in our view greater democracy, fairness and competition to Australia's superannuation industry.The Australian Labor Party and the Democrats have put forward detailed alternatives to choice. These alternatives are unacceptable to the government. There are a number of reasons why they are unacceptable but one is paramount—neither the Democrats nor Labor guarantee employees any choice of a superannuation fund at all. The government believes employees should have the right to choose their superannuation fund, just like they have the right to choose their home loan, the sort of car they buy or what political party they vote for. We give employees all these rights, but I have always said that when it is a choice between trade union interests and worker rights it is always easy to see where the Labor Party will come down.The government cannot accept choice of fund legislation that does not provide employees with a right to choose. Of course, the gov ernment believes that it is important that employees are able to make informed choices and that is why we have worked hard to develop, in consultation with industry and consumer groups, a comprehensive disclosure regime and effective information campaign.Sadly, our repeated offers of briefings and consultations with other parties have not been taken up. I regret that. However, I do congratulate the Greens, the Australian Consumer Association and others who have taken up the offer we have made. We would hope that the ALP and the Democrats will be able to accept the principle of allowing employees to choose once they—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—They already do.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No they do not. We hope that on reflection they will show more confidence in employees—people whom, from time to time, they like to say they are representing.The government remains committed to introducing legislation that provides employees with real choice of fund and to providing a disclosure and information campaign in support. However, I regret to say that the numbers in this place at this time appear clear. Monday night saw, quite frankly, utter filibustering by the opposition and what could only be described as an extended set of second reading speeches. Senator Conroy has already loudly and boldly made further threats to do exactly the same thing today.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—If you want choice then have a discussion about it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator, this is the constructive way you deal with these matters. It might suit you at Labor Party conferences to attempt to shout people down but you are in the Senate chamber now so why don't you just listen for a change?After we went into the committee stage we did not even get around to debating any of the amendments put forward by the non-government parties on schedules in the bill. I regret to say that the end point of continuing in this vein is evident: we would use up a very large amount of Senate time—that was clearly the intention of the Labor Party senators—yet we would probably not have a bill that would guarantee choice of fund and open competition, which is important from the government's perspective.Such a course of events would jeopardise the prospect of a number of other measures in the bill, particularly the savings rebate, and I can see we are going to have an interesting debate on that as well. The government simply cannot accept this, and I wish to emphasise that the government will continue negotiations with all other parties in an attempt to reach an acceptable position on the choice measure. The government believes that if other parties put the interests of employees first, such an arrangement could be made so that a choice bill could be passed, hopefully in the these sittings of the Senate.To this effect, the government will be seeking to introduce the choice bill in the other place as soon as possible and will be seeking consideration of this new bill at an appropriate time during these sittings. I have circulated some amendments that I would propose to move and which would, as I said, have the effect of excising the schedules on choice from this bill.17:54:003120Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Firstly, I want to take up the allegation from Senator Kemp that my colleagues and I were engaged in a filibustering exercise last night. I totally reject that accusation. One of the frustrating things in dealing with this government and particularly with you, Minister, is that we do not get answers of substance to questions. I put on the record last night seven or eight questions relating to the issue of choice—and, indeed, the rebate issue—and the effect it has on private savings. This is a very important issue which I must say, Senator Kemp, you have done your very best to avoid since becoming a minister. You have done your very best to avoid direct, succinct, accurate and relevant answers to questions in respect of this issue. I reject the issue of filibustering.I am not going to take up a lot of time but I want to briefly respond to a couple of the other points you made. You made the point in your comments, and you have made it on a number of other occasions, about what is wrong with Australians having the right to choose. Superficially that is a statement of some appeal, but you neglect to acknowledge that, unlike purchasing a house, purchasing insurance or even getting married, superannuation in this country is compulsory. It is compulsory for employees to be members of a superannuation fund. They have to do it. You do not have to buy life insurance, you do not have to buy a house, and you do not even have to get married.So we have a system, very similar to Chile's, where it is compulsory to have private superannuation. What you consistently fail to address are the failings of a system such as Chile's. It is a very good working example, with some horrific outcomes, of where superannuation is compulsory. There are very significant flaws in a model that forces choice.I would like you at some stage—obviously not in this debate because you are withdrawing schedule 5—to attempt to explain how we are to overcome the problems of a choice model. As well as the problems of inducement and coercion in respect to people being forced into a particular superannuation product, there is the fundamental problem we have in this country of between two million and 2½ million people being functionally illiterate. How on earth are they to sit down with these key feature statements and analyse, in a compulsory superannuation savings environment, what is in their best interests when they cannot even read or write? You can have all the education campaigns in the world, all the television advertising, all the literature going out and people being bombarded with propaganda, but how are they to understand what they cannot read? That is one of the fundamental failures of a full choice regime.Even in the United Kingdom, and I gave examples, where people were convinced that choice was good for them, about one million people withdrew from very good superannuation funds to join a model—wrapped in the rhetoric of freedom and choice—imposed on them by the then Thatcher government. Of the one million people who exercised choice, 900,000 of them got ripped off. These were not illiterate people, either. They were teach ers, miners and public servants who could certainly read and write, as I understand it, but they got ripped off to the tune of £10 billion. This is a very good example of the Thatcher government's ideological obsession to impose compulsory choice—a contradiction in terms—and people who were well educated got ripped off.The government has not attempted to explain, not only to the Senate but to the Australian people, how people will be better off under a choice regime. What I find most ironic, if not obnoxious, Senator Kemp, in your government's approach to its argument on choice is that when employers kicked up about the choice model, you backtracked. Employers did not want full freedom of choice. Employers did not want the employee to have the ability to say, `I want my superannuation paid into my particular fund' because employers feared the administrative difficulties that would emerge. Theoretically, if employers employ 100 different people, they would have to pay superannuation into 100 different funds.When the employers pressured you and the Treasurer, Mr Costello, you quickly backtracked. You put a veto on choice, and the veto is: if the employer does not agree, there is no choice. You know that the employers were very concerned about the administrative difficulties of paying into a multitude of different funds on employee demand. So the very model that you were offering—in the guise of freedom and choice and the other rhetoric you surround it with—is in fact employer choice.I am gravely disappointed, Senator Kemp. The ongoing debate about superannuation has convinced Labor that, where an employee wants to opt out of a particular fund and it is administratively convenient for an employer, and the employee and the employer mutually agree—this is your approach—at a workplace, that is not a bad thing. This is reflected in the Labor amendments. So it is a grave disappointment to me that you have got uptight and upset. The numbers do not look good for you, although we will see how the cards fall in the Senate. But you have started pouting and blowing out your bottom lip.We want this debate on choice. We want debate on the amendments that Labor is proposing that provide fundamental employee choice—worker rights. We welcome that debate, and we want to see our amendments, which improve your choice model, passed by this Senate. We are very gravely disappointed that, in your fit of pique, you have withdrawn it. That is a grave disappointment. But we would still like answers to the questions that were posed last night by me and my colleagues Senator Conroy and Senator Hogg. I think they were very relevant questions for this debate.I will conclude by saying that this issue of employee choice of superannuation, which is effectively the deregulation of the retail market, is one of the most radical prescriptions—economic changes, fundamental changes—that your government has proposed. We will agree on that, I suspect. It is one of the most radical changes, that will affect millions of Australians. The overriding principle must be: will it generate a higher retirement income for Australians who have superannuation? That is the overwhelming principle. It is not whether it is in the best interests of banks, life agents, the money markets, financial managers or life companies. It is what is in the best interests of Australian consumers, millions of Australians who have superannuation, and fundamentally your model fails the test.18:03:003122Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Firstly, can I thank Senator Kemp for withdrawing schedule 5. I think that is a victory for commonsense.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—That's not what Sherry said.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Unfortunately, I suspect it has more to do with the legislative program that you are trying to push through in these last few weeks than actually responding to community concerns, because here again in today's papers we see headlines such as `Super fund choice has firms in a flutter' and `Employees' super choice is to opt out'. Today's papers are again pleading with the government to reconsider its choice regime—because it has not been initiated by employers; it certainly has not been initiated by employees. I would like to think it is not a factor that you are struggling to get through your legislative program. I understand that MIB is also possibly not going to get before the chamber because of that legislative program. I really do hope that you are genuine when you say you would like consultations and you would like to try and find a choice regime that everybody in this chamber can support. I hope that is the case because a number of issues which Senator Sherry has already referred to really do illustrate what I believe is not actually a genuine position on the part of the government.I asked yesterday about the details of the money tree program. I am still waiting. It would be three months since I first asked this question. I think I asked it in Melbourne—some of the officers here would be aware of the request that I put via the superannuation committee. But still to this day a simple thing like `what did the Labor government spend on the money tree program?' is unavailable from your office. Table it. Is it a secret?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Don't you know what you spent on your own program?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I actually do.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Why are you asking me?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The government wants to stand up here and say we are the ones filibustering and we are the ones delaying this legislation when in actual fact the information has been available to you for months and you have not supplied it to the chamber. So don't come in here and get pious and say, `The Labor Party is filibustering on choice.' You have had the waffle machine on full bore. You have not been prepared to answer the questions that many senators, including many on your own side, have asked about this. You have not been prepared to sit down and discuss the issues.You have had an ideological barrow to push that is about attacking industry funds, that is divisive, that is reducing national savings, that does not have a serious education program to address ABS statistics—statistics that have not been made up by the industry, ASFA, the Labor Party, the Democrats or the Greens. You have not been prepared to discuss those issues. You have not been prepared to come before the chamber and actually put those issues on the table—and that is disappointing.I would like to thank Senator Murray and the Democrats, Senator Harradine, and Senator Margetts from the Greens for also being willing to say, `We don't think this is quite the right package. We think there should be further discussions and we think that a compromise could be reached on this issue.' The sides are not really that far apart if Senator Kemp and the government is interested in achieving choice for employees—not achieving choice for employers, which is what this bill does. There is not that much between us. So I would hope that everybody will be willing to sit down in the next few weeks and have some discussions about that, Senator Kemp. I hope that that is the case.As Senator Sherry said, the key here is whether we will see retirement incomes for ordinary working Australians improved through choice. That is the bottom line; those are the key tests that the government has to be prepared to demonstrate to the Senate and to the broader Australian community. How do we address that? How do we give choice to people who cannot read bus timetables? How do we help them to understand the issues so that they can pick up the key feature statements and look at the earning rates and the crediting rates. Most Australians would not know that there is a difference between an earning rate and a crediting rate—a very important issue.Super funds of all complexions—I include industry funds in this—should not be able to highlight a crediting rate to disguise their earning rate. It is very important that Australians know how their superannuation fund is performing, not what they are being credited, not what reserve is being brought into play. It is important that they know whether money is being syphoned off in the good years to pad out the bad years. Those are very important issues.I know we have a busy schedule and that there is plenty of legislation before the chamber but, hopefully, we will have time to discuss issues such as these. We need to ensure that there is full and proper disclosure, that there is no third line forcing, that there is no capacity for spivs to approach employers and say, `Here's the package. Here's how we'll do this: you put all your employees into my little package. Maybe we can talk about the Chile situation where they have kickbacks.' Everything from brown paper envelopes to lotteries, to free mobile phones, to cheap loans have come into play in Chile.We have seen the shocking outcomes in England where many people have been convinced to leave their super fund and join a new super fund, which is far inferior, and then have not been able to switch back to defined benefit funds. These are the sorts of issues in the government's legislation and they desperately need to be addressed and desperately need further discussion. I hope they will also be part of the debate and discussions that we are going to have in the next few weeks.I leave that with Senator Kemp because I know he will want to move onto the savings rebate. I know he is looking forward to telling us about how the savings rebate is going to improve national savings, despite what Ted Evans the secretary of Treasury said. I know he is looking forward to doing that. I know Senator Cook is ready to ask a series of questions. I hope the government and Senator Kemp are genuine about discussing the choice regime, because I will certainly be involved. I absolutely object to the suggestion that we have been filibustering.I am passionately committed on these issues; anybody in this chamber will tell you that. I am passionately committed to making sure that ordinary working Australians have decent retirement incomes and that they are not being dealt with in a mean minded manner. I am passionately committed to choice for ordinary Australians, and genuine employee choice, not some bogus choice where employers get to pick. I will finish here and thank the government for seeing commonsense in withdrawing schedule 5.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that schedule 5 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now move to schedule 4, item 1, government amendment No. 1.18:13:003124Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As has been noted by a number of speakers, a large number of questions were raised last night. In fact, I have never been in the chamber and seen people more keen to ask questions and less willing to receive answers. Senator Conroy chalked up about 30 questions, and he was backed up by Senator Bishop and Senator Hogg. They all came up with a fascinating series of questions. As we analysed them this morning, we noted the overlaps. Nonetheless, a lot of questions were put on notice, and I assume that at least some of them were put in with a degree of sincerity and want answers. Therefore, I shall respond to those that relate to the bill currently before the chamber.One of the issues raised—I think this was touched on by Senator Conroy and Senator Jacinta Collins—was how the mere distribution of moneys from a trust contribute to the national savings when the moneys received by the beneficiaries do not have to be saved. If we cut through a lot of the comments, we can see that the question asked by Senator Jacinta Collins was similar to the question asked by Senator Conroy.In response to the general comments, the government has examined the available evidence on the provision of tax concessions for savings. A great deal of work has been done in looking at the various savings vehicles, and particularly international experiences where the concessions have been offered on savings and specific savings vehicles.The evidence points to increased savings in the particular vehicles without necessarily resulting in a net increase in national savings in the countries concerned. The upshot of this is that the least distortionary approach was to provide a broad based concession, as the government proposes to do. Trust distributions may not have been saved by the beneficiary but this is not the point. The distributions result from earnings on particular investments that the trustee has made, which is a form of savings. A broad based incentive is in our view— 3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It is not generating economic gain.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, you are not at a Labor Party conference or a faction meeting, you are in the Senate chamber. You jumped up and down all last night and all today, and a series of questions tumbled out and I am trying to give you the curtesy of responding to them. If you can keep quiet for about three minutes, I will deal with the first part of the question that you asked.A broad based incentive is the best way to encourage an increase in national savings; the government does not want to merely change the composition of Australian savings. If you put extra conditions on the incentive, for example, only new savings—and I think that was one of the issues—or savings held for a certain period, you would, by definition, attract less savings.There will always be people who do not want to accept the condition, whatever it is. The group of people who are encouraged to change their behaviour would be smaller. A condition of `new savings' only encourages people to shift to so-called new savings. The point is that a savings rebate with any design limitations will thereby suffer limitations in its chances for success. Accordingly, the savings rebate has been deliberately designed to reward current savers and encourage new savers.As I have said, that was a question asked by Senator Conroy. I am pleased that he has been able to keep quiet for a few seconds so that he could listen to the response.Senator Sherry asked me to outline in detail what the precise addition to private and national savings of the savings rebate is. I think that is probably a fair summary, Senator Sherry, of the question that you put to me. I will try not to pout, Senator Sherry, in giving my response to you. Of all the things you said, Senator Sherry, a lot washes over one's shoulder, but that rather surprised me.Projections by the retirement income modelling unit, RIM, indicate that the government's superannuation policies, including measures announced in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 budgets, will lead to an increase in net private financial savings of 1.7 per cent of GDP by the year 2000-01, and 3.9 per cent of GDP by 2019-20; and an increase in national financial savings of 1.5 per cent of GDP by the year 2000-01, and 3.6 per cent of GDP by 2020. This projection assumes no behavioural response to the savings rebate.If it is assumed that there is a 12 per cent increase in member superannuation contributions as a result of the savings rebate—for example, that is one-third of the response assumed for the former government's co-contribution policy—it would produce member contributions exceeding the cost of the savings rebate on undeducted member contributions alone. The potential increase in private savings is projected to be 0.1 per cent of GDP by 2000-01 and 0.2 per cent of GDP from 2019-20—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It is the net effect.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We have assumed no behavioural change, and now we are looking at making very modest assumptions. Because the public savings loss is negligible, this is also an increment to national savings.If it is assumed, for example, that there is an effective increase in member contributions of 24 per cent in response to the savings rebate, there will be a projected additional increase in private savings of 0.2 per cent of GDP by 2001-02, and 0.45 per cent of GDP by 2019-20. National savings are projected to increase by a further 0.2 per cent of GDP by 2001, and 0.4 per cent of GDP by 2019-20. So these are some examples.The projection of behavioural responses is very hard, as I think was discussed in Senate estimates hearings. I believe, Senator Conroy, you probably did not quite accurately quote Ted Evans's comments there because I think, resulting from an earlier intervention by you, he made some further comments—and I am sure that, if you want me to, we can read those to the chamber.As I have said, the modelling by the retirement income modelling unit, referred to in my earlier response, takes account of the government's policy measures announced in both the 1996-97 and 1997-98 budgets, including choice of funds and opting out of the superannuation guarantee. With this modelling, you can feed various assumptions in.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Will you table it so that we can look at the assumptions?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We will provide you with some material that we can table. I am not quite sure whether it is in the appropriate form tonight, but we are happy to table that. We are always happy to assist the Senate, as you know.Then the question was raised—and it was done I think by a number of speakers: what is the government's and the Treasury's view about how they imagine the bills will assist private savings? I think that summarised a number of thoughts which came through.The savings rebate will reward existing savers as well as providing a significant incentive for potential savers. To the extent that individuals respond to the incentive to save provided by the savings rebate, private saving will increase. The design of the savings rebate is such that, if private savings increase as a result of the incentive, there will be a smaller offsetting decline in public saving and, of course, national saving will increase.The government is confident that there is no question in relation to savings. I think there would be general agreement that there was a significant decline in national savings during the 1980s. There was no doubt that public savings—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It has been going on for 25 years.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It is a serious topic. Senator, you were in government for 13 years; we have been in government for two and a bit years—and I assume that will continue on. But there is no doubt that there is a savings issue in this country, and I would hope both parties would look constructively at how they can encourage private savings.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—National savings.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Private savings and public savings, with an overall rise in national savings. There is no doubt that Australians in the last number of decades have been very dependent on the savings of foreigners. I would have thought there was general agreement around that it was important to increase national savings. We believe that the savings rebate is one—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Why does your budget show a reduction in national savings?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—What we have done in relation to public saving, as you would be aware—RF4COOKSenator Cook—How can aggregate national savings go down in your budget?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I think that is carefully explained in the budget papers. If you want me to read it out to you, I will. I would have thought it was unarguable that this government has moved very effectively and quickly to repair the problems in public saving. There can be no debate about that. Even the shadow Treasurer recognised there was a problem there.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Four billion dollars in bracket creep.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I think in the last four years of your government you racked up deficits of some $70 billion, which was quite significant, and left us with an overhang of some $10 billion, which the shadow Treasurer accepted.I think Senator Sherry asked a question as to whether the medium term was three, five or 10 years. This referred to the discussion on page 3-11 of budget paper No. 1. It makes clear that the medium-term projection for private savings encompasses a number of factors. Some of these, such as the low and predictable rates of inflation and the superannuation guarantee, are already having an effect. Some of these, such as the savings rebate, will begin to take effect over the next one to two years. Some of these, such as demographic change, will take effect over the next decade or so. Perhaps that is not quite as simple as Senator Sherry might have assumed, but the medium term encompasses three, five and 10 years in looking forward.I think another issue that Senator Sherry raised is how giving the savings rebate to self-funded retirees, who are people in the community most likely to dissave, is going to encourage national savings. One of the great advantages of the savings rebate is that it does reward people for saving. Under the co-contribution, which I do not think Labor could have ever delivered—it certainly found it difficult to deliver while it had the levers of power—the savings rebate will reward those who have saved in the past, such as self-funded retirees, as well as providing an incentive to new savers. We think that is a good thing. We think it is important in a fair and equitable model.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I would hate this to be nursing homes. It will not help.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, you were able to control yourself for at least five minutes. Perhaps I will sit down and see whether we can move on. Before I do, I move:(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 17 (lines 18 to 26), omit section 220AAF, substitute220AAF How amounts must be paid A large remitter must pay an amount by a means of electronic transfer approved in writing by the Commissioner. If a large remitter pays an amount other than by electronic transfer, the large remitter will be liable for a penalty under section 220AAW.I table an additional supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 26 May 1998. The amendment I have moved is of a technical nature. It ensures that there is a clear statutory obligation for large remitters to pay by electronic means, and this overcomes some of the constitutional doubts about the present drafting. Let me make it clear that it does not in any way change the substance of the measure.18:26:003126Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I thank Senator Kemp for being a little more informative about the estimates of the contribution to private saving as a result of the savings rebate. I will read the material that you have provided to us with interest. There was one area that I did want to correct you on. You referred to my questioning the benefits of the saving rebate being given to retirees. I did not. What I did question—and it is in the Hansard —was an issue on page 3- 11 of the budget paper No. 1. In the commentary it refers to a suggestion of an improved outlook for private savings. I did express my surprise that demographic changes over the next decade or so were 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.The reason I asked that question which expressed surprise is that we have an ageing population, and people who are retiring are net dissavers. I would be very surprised if the rebate in the context of people who have already retired actually added to their saving levels. I would be very surprised. I would be very surprised if you claimed that the total level of saving amongst people who are retired will go up as a result of the rebate. The point is that it would seem to me that because of demographic changes there will be pressure towards a reduction in private saving because of demographic changes, not the reverse, which is claimed in budget paper No. 1. You might care to address that point at some stage in the debate.The other question I was going to raise is that, when this measure was announced in the budget, I recall the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, being asked a day or two later in question time whether he was going to collect the rebate. As you would be aware, Senator Kemp, the rebate applies in respect of superannuation contributions, and I assume that is why the Prime Minister would be eligible for the rebate. I do not wish to know the Prime Minister's personal savings habits, but can you please explain to the chamber what is the latest position regarding the Prime Minister's acceptance of the rebate? It is an important question, because he did considerably undermine this measure and contribute to the lack of confidence in the rebate measure by declaring that he was not going to accept it. Can you inform the chamber whether the Prime Minister will be accepting the rebate or not?18:30:003127Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You raise a number of issues. One is an interesting debate, and seeing as you wish to pursue the nature of the demographics on savings—and it is of some value—I will provide you with a more de tailed response to that. I believe it was canvassed in a serious manner so we will naturally respond in a serious manner. Always, Senator Sherry, when I think you are attempting to elevate the debate and my hopes start to rise, I find my expectations being dashed; of course you got back as quickly as you could into the politics. Senator Sherry, my memory is that the Prime Minister did make a statement on that; we will find that statement for you. I have a feeling that it may have been in question time.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It was splashed all over the front page.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No, you asked me what the latest position is and I will provide you with the statement the Prime Minister made.18:31:003127Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I want to clarify something Senator Kemp said before. We recently dealt with the bill to do with trafficking in trust losses. I am sure you remember it—it was quite controversial for those battlers in Brighton. The principle that the government advanced, which we supported, was that the individual that incurred the economic loss should not be allowed to transfer it to another individual who did not incur. It seems to me that the same principle, therefore, says that the economic gain of the income/savings should be incurred and the recipient should be the person who incurs it, not using that structure of a family trust to open a couple of bank accounts for your kids and have a distribution to them, because the kids clearly have not incurred the economic gain. They are not the recipients of the economic activity.When you talk about how proud you are of where you are at on the savings rebate, I am interested in trying to analyse whether or not the individual who actually earns the income that creates the ability to claim the rebate is then able to transfer the income to another party through that vehicle of the family trust, and therefore generate the capacity to make the claim. I am interested in trying to find the consistency between trafficking in trust losses and what is, in effect, trafficking in trust gains.18:33:003127Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You are really stretching it now, Senator Conroy. I am not sure this has got all that much to do with the amendment before the chair.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—We're talking about the savings rebate in the bill.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No, we actually have an amendment that is before the chair which has been moved, which I do not think you are even aware of. Do you know what it is about?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Do you?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, as I thought, you do not even know what the amendment is about. There was a very extensive debate on trust losses in this chamber and we were always intrigued to see where Labor was going to come down on it, because there was a huge amount of huffing and puffing on this, Senator Conroy. There may have been some people out there, including those battlers you referred to, who thought the Labor Party was actually going to move one way and then it moved the other way. From memory, you found it very hard to fix a position on that issue, Senator Conroy. This is something entirely separate from this bill. I suppose Senator Conroy will raise every little issue in his kitbag and drag it out, as inevitably occurs in these things, but it has nothing to do with trading in trust losses.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You didn't understand a word of it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I do not think you understand it, Senator Conroy.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You can ask to take it on notice; we will be here tomorrow.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No, it was explained to you, Senator Conroy. Senator Jacinta Collins raised an issue in relation to the distribution of moneys from a trust contributing to national savings. You have asked the same question again. You are entitled to, but I wish you had listened to the first answer, Senator Conroy. As I was reading through that I noticed some people were listening; some did not.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I understood it, but you didn't.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I could go through it again. If you can read, we will go through it all again.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Just read it out again.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I do not think I will. I will refer you to—1X4WESTSenator West—They know more than you will ever know, Kempie.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Madam Deputy President, what are you interjecting there? It does not seem to me to be behaviour that is appropriate to one in your high office. Seeing that you are Madam Deputy President, what did you interject then?1X4WESTSenator West—You stop obfuscating and answer the question for a change!ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. The contribution from Senator Kemp at the moment is not relevant to the issue. We are discussing the rebate and the other related matters in this legislation. Senator Kemp should not be inviting interjections from the Deputy President. He should stop wasting the chamber's time.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—There is no point of order, Senator Sherry. That is a debating point.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Indeed, Mr Temporary Chairman, what a fruitless and pointless point of order that was. The question was raised by Senator Jacinta Collins. It was a similar question to Senator Sherry's. Now Senator Conroy has come back to it and he has managed to get trust losses into all this—trust losses which the Labor Party did not do anything about when it was in government but which are now of huge concern apparently. The question was: how does the distribution of moneys from trusts contribute to national savings? Senator Jacinta Collins raised that question, then Senator Sherry raised that question, and now Senator Conroy has come back to that question.The answer I gave was: we looked at the international experience. You will remember I said that we looked at what happened overseas, we looked at the problems of being discriminating in favour of particular savings vehicles, and we looked at the issue of new savings versus existing savings. Then I argued that, in the government's view, a broad-based incentive is the best way to increase national savings. Then I went into some of the problems—the distortions if, say, you have a particular incentive for a particular savings vehicle. Senator, that was the point I was making. I suggest you read what I said. I am not happy to go over it again because it seems a bit tiresome and it seems to be holding up debate unduly, but, if you wish me to do it, I am in the hands of the Senate.18:38:003129Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Minister, perhaps it may assist you if I rephrase my question. The crux is whether or not the individual who is holding the asset—bearing the economic risk—is to be the beneficiary of the savings rebate or not. The key is: who is bearing the risk of the economic activity, holding the asset, and is that the person you are rewarding? If that is the case, then at least you are achieving what you are setting out to achieve—whether we agree with that or not. But it seems that there is an ability to distribute through the trust to individuals who have not borne the economic risk, and they are then the beneficiaries without having generated the economic activity, held the asset or borne the risk. That is the crux of the matter.18:39:003129Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Bearing the economic risk came into the debates we had in relation to franking credit trading and dividend streaming, and I recall it came into some of the debates on trust losses. The savings rebate that you are finding difficult is quite a distinctive measure; the other measures were the subject of other debates at other times. For example, in relation to the savings rebate, the distribution of trust income qualifies because the distributed income would have resulted from the investment of funds by the trust in various forms of savings, such as shares, bank deposits, other property or a business venture. In this sense, of course, trust distributions are no different from interest earned on bank accounts or income earned by a sole trader from his or her own investment in business.Senator Conroy, you are shaking your head. Your government put in place taxation measures which relate to trusts. We have taken some initiatives in relation to trusts, particularly relating to trust losses. But, as I have said, the response to your question is that it is not whether the money is at risk. We have indicated that the savings rebate is widely available to most forms of savings. I think that is one of the merits of it; it is not a problem with it, as you seem to be implying. It is one of the pluses of the design of the savings rebate.18:41:003129Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Honourable senators will have noticed that underneath the government's amendment No. 1 on sheet B98AF338.WB is a Greens (WA) amendment that amends the government's amendment. I move:(R1) Section 220AAF, omit "If a large remitter pays an amount other than by electronic transfer, the large remitter will be liable for a penalty under section 220AAW.".In my speech during the second reading debate, I briefly alluded to the reason this amendment is being moved. It relates to the aspect of the bill that requires remittances by electronic means. The government have created this odd situation in an attempt to rationalise and streamline the system of remittance. It seems that they may have ignored a number of negative or unfair implications. They may have turned a blind eye to the implications for businesses of the changes.Forwarding payments by cheque has previously been a perfectly legitimate form of commercial transaction in this country; now it is not even an option for large remitters. I know that just about every time I go to my own bank they attempt to get me to transfer money by some forms of electronic means or to make payments by electronic means, and I consistently say that I am not interested in that option. Maybe the banks have got to the government and suggested that what is cheapest for them is what they want consumers to do—and not just consumers. We have seen that they have certainly got to the government over the retirement savings allowance. I am just wondering whether the banks have got to the government and said, `Look, this is going to be cheaper for us if these transactions all take place by electronic transfer, and then we won't have to worry about processing cheques.' I do not really think the use of cheques should suddenly be outlawed by governments, even if it is for a limited group of people.Beyond the expensive and time consuming compliance measures that business is faced with, the government is making failure to pay electronically into an offence with a penalty. These fines can be downright unfair and misguided. They are not aimed at what they are trying to prevent, that is, preventing large payers from deferring payment because the cheque is not cleared for some days. These fines are an unfair penalty on large remitters.The legislation proposed in section 220AAW does not seek to penalise late remitters; it seeks to penalise large remitters who choose to use some other form of payment. So they are not penalising a late payment; they are penalising people who would choose to use cheques. So even if a large firm pays by cheque and it is cleared before the due date, the firm is still subject to a penalty of either $500 or 16 per cent per annum on the principal amount for a period of seven days. Many people might think that is a drop in the ocean for a large firm but, considering that large remitters may potentially remit twice per week, the liability for cheque payment, even if they were all on time, could be $52,000 per year.Will it stop there? I just wonder whether, in the end, like analogue telephones and analogue televisions, we will have corporations more and more requiring the parliament to legislate to reduce their costs, the parliament legislating to take away consumer choices. In this case, it might start with business choices and may well end up with the ability of ordinary regular consumers, who may choose still to use cheques, being told that their choices no longer exist. Whilst I would probably like to get rid of the whole section, our amendment removes the penalty from it—and quite rightly so.If, in the end, the government has a sensible way of dealing with late remittances, please come and talk to the Senate about it. I urge the Senate to accept the amendment to that. I am not saying that I necessarily support the government's first amendment on B98AF338.WB but if the government's amendment does not get up, I will be happy to move our original amendment, which is still on sheet 1001 and which does the same thing outside the context of the government's amendment.18:46:003130Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—What is before the chair at the moment is an amendment to the government's own amending bill to which the government has just provided an explanatory memorandum. I have listened to the contributions by the minister and by the Greens. I must say that I am disposed to support the government. I do not understand really what the penalty is on major businesses or big remitters here. There is a penalty for not doing it in the approved manner after you have sought written permission from the commissioner. Why there should not be a penalty is, to me, not a very clear argument and I am therefore disposed to support the government's amendment.18:46:003130Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to make the argument a little clearer. My objection to this is that it should not be a crime to pay by cheque. They are saying the problem is late remittances, but they are not penalising late remittances, they are penalising payment by cheque rather than payment by electronic transfer. I just wonder what the real rationale for it is. I am wondering whether it is the banks saying, `It is cheaper for us to be involved with electronic transfers, can't you put that in legislation?' I wonder about the unfairness; about not targeting late payment but targeting the form of payment—because there is no penalty for late payment, the penalty is for use of a cheque to pay it on time.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That's a fair enough point for the government to answer.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes. The basic question is whether or not in time to come we are going to get the government coming in penalising other consumers because the banks do not want to process cheques. They will say they want people to pay by telephone in the end and, maybe some time down the track, we will get people penalised for not wanting to make bank transfers by telephone.18:47:003131Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will respond to that, Senator. Regrettably, I have been told by the clerks that we have a couple of machinery matters to do before the adjournment. When the debate resumes tomorrow I will provide you with a detailed response.Progress reported.Miscellaneous313118:49:003131Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In response to an order of the Senate made at about 4 p.m. today in relation to the environmental assessment of the alternative of milling ore at Jabiluka, I now table on behalf of Senator Hill: first, a copy of Senator Hill's determination under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1975 directing the preparation of a public environment report; and, second, a copy of Senator Hill's letter to the Minister for Resources and Energy dated 27 April 1998 informing him that Senator Hill had directed the preparation of a public environment report.The order also refers to `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 mine'. Senator Hill is currently preparing a statement of reasons for his decision to direct the preparation of a public environment report. I understand that Senator Hill will table that statement as soon as it is completed.The Senate has, on numerous occasions, recognised that there are categories of advice which relate to the internal workings of government and which should not be disclosed on the basis of public interest immunity. Senator Hill believes that the advice to him from his department referred to in the order is covered by public interest immunity and, accordingly, this advice will not be tabled.The advice from Senator Hill's department also addresses issues which are currently the subject of litigation in the Federal Court between the Northern Territory government, Energy Resources of Australia and, I understand, the relevant Aboriginal organisation. It is established Senate practice that where documents relate to the particular issues for determination by a court and their disclosure may prejudice adjudication of the matter and the rights of the parties there are legitimate grounds for non-production of documents.Documents3131313118:50:003131Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report has been prepared by the Australian National Line, pursuant to the requirement of the equal employment opportunity provisions, and its introduction says:ANL Limited is pleased to present the annual Equal Employment Opportunity report for the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997. This report documents ANL's commitment to equal opportunities for all employees in the workplace.This process was started by then Senator Susan Ryan. I would like to pay tribute to her foresight in getting the equal opportunity concept into employment. It has flourished and is generally accepted now throughout the workplace. There is a reference on page 16 of the report to section 6(c) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. It relates to a responsibility of employers and states:To consult with each Trade Union having members affected by the proposal for the development and implementation of the program in accordance with this Act.The report is simply saying that employers are to consult with each trade union having members affected by the proposal for the development and implementation of the program in accordance with this act. It goes on to say:. The ANL Limited Award 1996 was reviewed with the Australian Services Union. A consideration throughout discussions was to ensure that flexible work practices would be maintained and that no employee would be discriminated against by any new Agreement.The Australian Services Union from its office in Melbourne gives great services to its members. It is just around the corner from my office. It is a union that carries out its duties in the best tradition of its kind. Page 3 of this report says:As one of Australia's major maritime related transport companies, ANL is involved in numerous commercial activities, both internationally and domestically.It is good to see a company of this nature deal with unions on the basis that unions are organisations that make a proper contribution not only to their members but also to the economic development of the company itself and the community generally.I note that this report is a report to the department of which Mr Reith is the head. It would be good if that department and the minister understood that this is what unions—including the Maritime Union of Australia—are about. I commend this report and the approach that has been taken by ANL to its obligations and to the unions with which it deals. It approaches them in a proper way, and in that way we get a good outcome for all Australians.Question resolved in the affirmative.313218:56:003132Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The report of the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council, Environmental Research Ethics: national principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas , sets out ethical guidelines whereby the scientific community can go about assessing the environment. It is interesting to see the principles the council has set out in the report. On page 11 of the report, section 1 outlines `Principles for the assessment and practice of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas'. Under the heading `Basis', the report talks about transparency principles. In section 1.2, the report talks about principles particularly relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' concerns. This is a most appropriate day to highlight this aspect of the report. The goal is, as the report says, to make:Indigenous Australians confident that research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas:. respects their values and customary obligations;. benefits and empowers traditional owners—and so on. The importance of having ethics in scientific research is that the disputes that occur about the environment are normally based on disputed facts rather than on principles. Everybody, whether they are timber gatherers or whether they are environmentalists, says they want to protect the environment or they want to provide work for people.There is little dispute about the principles that underpin our concern for the environment. Little separates people in terms of the principles of getting jobs and developing industries. People want industries to develop. They want people to have jobs. They want to preserve the environment. People want all those things and, as a matter of principle, most people agree. But they disagree about the facts of the situation. Somebody will say about a particular piece of forest, `That's good forest. That's pristine forest. That's forest that must be preserved.' Other people looking at that particular piece of forest will say, `No, this is wasteland. This is timber that would best serve the country by being chipped.'We want a system whereby a true assessment can be made of the actual facts of the matter. It is here that scientists are so important. What we tend to get in areas such as saving the dugong is one lot of scientists saying, `Yes, these provisions should be put into the requirements to preserve them.' Others say, `No, you don't need those provisions in the assignment to preserve them.' We need people who have the scientific ability to say whether that particular area of forest or that particular area in which dugongs live is good or bad.Often people say that you can get whatever opinion you want from lawyers or accountants or from most professions. I think that is too cynical an appraisal; but, in so far as there is any truth in that, it is a bad thing. The only way we can get over that is for people to stand by the ethics of their profession. What this particular report deals with is the ethical standards of scientists that are looking at environmentally sensitive areas. Our arguments about the environment can only be solved ultimately if the people who know about it, the scientists who go about researching a particular area, stick by ethics. That is why this is such an important report.19:00:003133Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The issue of ethics in the conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas is obviously absolutely important. It is probably more important right at the moment than it has been for some time, and I will give you the reason. There are extreme pressures in relation to the outcomes of environmental assessments. At the moment, in Western Australia we have a situation, I gather, where it has recently been announced that for environmental assessments for mining you will have someone called an approved assessor—and I will have to check the wording of that—who not only writes the report but also actually does their own assessment. The ability for such kinds of assessments not only to be wrong or misplaced but also to be ill-informed is enormous, where people may in fact be checking their own work.We have a situation with the environment in Western Australia whereby, for ordinary Department of the Environment assessments, you have private contractors assessing other private contractors, and there is nothing to say that the private contractors will not be assessing their own work. What does it mean if you are in fact employed by the government as a private contractor and you want to continue working for the government? If that government is not wanting environmentalists to be `standing on the hose of development', what does that mean in terms of the way that person will feel, if it is necessary for them to assess those projects?There are other pressures as well. Those pressures relate to the impact of competition policy. When you have a situation where there is more and more pressure to take the lowest cost tender, what does it mean in terms of the ethics involved in environmental assessment, even in sensitive areas? It means this, as far as I am concerned: when people are honest enough to say that a particular area needs a lot of research or has not been well researched, that a particular area can only be researched in certain seasons or may take two consecutive seasons to be researched, or that to do the research properly and present a report properly would take two years, but someone else says, `That's out of the question; it costs too much,' or when a consultant says the hours that they would have to put in to do the job properly, but someone else says, `I am prepared to do it in half the time,' that someone else is saying that because they know how competitive the tendering process is.Where do ethics come into that? The ethics are that the person in this case who is honest may well be the person who misses out on the job. In the midst of all of this, we find people who charge very large amounts of money to be consultants for the government—we are not quite sure under what process—but who do not actually do the work. One example that I can quote is in relation to the Oakagee proposal. The consultant produced a report for the Department of Resources Development. The consultant said in the report, `There is going to be no impact on seagrass meadows, because there are no seagrass meadows.' Funnily enough, that may well have been the answer the proponent wanted, but was it true?A group of other scientists were so angry at that slap-dash way of dealing with environmental assessment that they went to the proposed site at Oakagee, did the measurements, took the dives, took the transect measurements, used a global positioning system and basically quite clearly proved that what the consultant had said was untrue. They proved that what the consultant said was untrue because the consultant had not looked: it was apparently too rough that day, and so he had not done the dives but had apparently only looked at overhead maps and at fisheries reports.So here we have a consultant being paid lots of money to present an environmental report but not doing the work. A group comes in and proves the report is untrue, and guess what? The government does not actually have to do anything about it. Not only are the ethics hugely important, but also governments will have to lift their game, because no longer will people be fooled by that kind of shoddy process. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.313419:05:003134Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I wish to discuss the budget papers relating to science. Before I do so, I would like to acknowledge the comments made by Senators Cooney and Margetts in relation to ethics and science. I should put on the record that there is another important and valuable area of science where we should be evaluating and looking at the ethics of research. That, of course, is in relation to genetic technology. Gene technology and its benefits are dazzling, but there are also some difficult ethical and moral issues surrounding that particular technology, such as with human cloning, owning life forms and stealing cultural practices—and the list goes on.I again put on record my concern and that of my party that our attempts to have a Senate committee to evaluate and investigate some of these ethical dilemmas were rejected by the two old parties. In relation to this year's science and technology budget statements, again this is a disappointment for Australia, a country that has really staked its future on innovation and creativity. Certainly, this government likes to rave on and on about innovation. Last year's Investing for Growth industry policy statement by the government had as its very foundation the notion of innovation. That is what we should be doing, and that is what we need to use the budget to create the chances for.Recently I made an assessment of the government and how it had kept to, or not kept to, its election promises in relation to science. I published that in Australasian Science. In the conclusion, I gave the government about four out of 10 for positive rhetoric while failing to deliver in a few key areas, including its failure to restore infrastructure in the research sector, and its declining support financially for higher education. These are major policy flaws which should have been addressed by this budget.However, I will focus on this year's budget and the moves towards encouraging the private sector to undertake more research and development. This document reports a gross expenditure on RD for 1994-95 of $7.4 billion, up 5.5 per cent over the previous year. This was a contribution of approximately 47 per cent by business enterprises and made up about 1.61 per cent of GDP. More recent figures are not yet available. This document also shows that Commonwealth support for major science and innovation programs has increased from $3.6 billion in 1997-98 to $3.7 billion in 1998-99, which is actually a decrease in real terms of about 0.5 per cent. It is claimed that, excluding some capital works programs, it would show a 0.4 per cent increase in real terms.Sadly, these claims are best interpreted as showing the budget expenditure on science and technology has stayed the same since 1996-97 and the policy reliance on innovation is not matched by budgetary commitment by the government. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this whole story was the dramatic cut in the 1996-97 budget, where there was a staggering 10.7 per cent decrease in Commonwealth funding in real terms. This cut has not been restored since. The report concludes:Looking at the broad changes . . . Budget funding for the research agencies has remained static in real terms over the period from 1987-88 to 1998-99.I believe this just undermines the government's so-called commitment to innovation.It is also concerning that the figures are not yet in to show the effects of the government's decision to cut the 150 per cent RD tax concession down to 125 per cent, saving $2.4 billion over four years. The Academy of Science suggests that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest this single measure will have caused the excellent growth in business RD to falter. This is supported by the budget papers, which show that the uptake for the START program funds has been poor. Does this mean the government has, through its tax policy, stopped business investment in RD in its tracks? I hope not, but I suspect so.The conclusion from this document is the need to seriously re-examine the place of government funding for science and technology and to at least repair the damage of the 1996-97 budget cuts, and to re-examine incentives to encourage business to invest. I look forward to the commitment from the government in the near future to some of these areas. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.313519:10:003135Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report is a national interest analysis, and it obviously includes in it some elements of the more positive approach that has been taken by government in recent times to anti-personnel landmines. But there are still some major issues that remain. I would like to take the opportunity at this point of acknowledging the work that has been done in Australia over time by Sister Patricia Pak Poy internationally but especially within Australia in increasing the knowledge on landmines. That work was in fact acknowledged and celebrated in the awarding of the ANZAC peace prize this year, and very well deserved it was.The national interest analysis includes reasons for Australia to take the proposed treaty actions. I will read from it:The past decade has witnessed a growing number of instances where anti-personnel mines have been used indiscriminately.Of course, one of the arguments that have been used in relation to anti-personnel mines is that it is women, children and non-combatants who are most impacted on. But it is not entirely their use; it is the weapons themselves which are inherently dangerous. It is not a matter of whether you use them indiscriminately. In many cases people deliberately put landmines in places where women, children and non-combatants will encounter them. Whether that is meant indiscriminately I do not know, but in many countries those are the ways landmines are used.So we should be dealing with the fact that not only do we see the majority of victims being non-combatants but that it is not just the indiscriminate use of landmines, it is the fact that the weapons themselves, wherever you use them, are inherently dangerous because most of them are meant to be not easily detected. The reality is that the danger of the landmines themselves becomes the problem and becomes the inhumane element of what we are dealing with. The report says:In addition, the Convention also requires the states parties to destroy or ensure the destruction of stockpiles of anti-personnel mines within a period of four years after the entry into force of the Convention, with provision for the retention of a minimum number of anti-personnel mines for training.We still do not know what this means in terms of numbers. We know in terms of the treaty but we do not know in terms of numbers for Australia. I guess it is unlikely that it is in the terms that each country will make its own decision. I might indicate that under `Costs' the report says:Noting that final destruction methods and exact quantities for retention are still to be determined, initial indicative costs for destruction of the stockpile are $4.1 million, of which stock write-offs total $3.9 million.Landmines themselves per item usually are not a terribly expensive commodity, so $3.9 million worth of landmines is a great many landmines. One wonders what Australia was ever proposing to do with that quantity of landmines, considering all the negotiations that have been going on in recent years.Further on under implementation there is a section in the second last paragraph which reads:The Government will consider on a case-by-case basis requests for assistance from other states parties within the framework of its overall policy response to the landmines issue. . . . receive assistance to the extent possible for mine clearance and related activities.I guess the question is whether or not we assist those countries that have not signed the convention. That becomes, obviously, a very difficult question in terms of the humanity of the situation.I am cruel enough to remind the Senate that in June 1995 I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time, Senator Gareth Evans:How can the government justify not supporting a complete ban on anti-personnel landmines, including their manufacture, given their appalling record as an indiscriminate destructive weapon which is mainly targeted at civilians in regions of conflict and whose effects are felt a long time after the conflict is over?The response from Senator Evans at the time was that our position was `hopelessly utopian'. We were proved correct—the so-called `hopelessly utopian' position was much more achievable than the position the government was taking. Finally, the trip-wire grenades used as mines by the Australian military are still not banned under this provision. 19:16:003136Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I was recently in Angola and Mozambique—two countries that are blighted by war and the legacies of war. One of the legacies of war in both places is landmines, which were laid down in the millions—it seems a hard concept to take on board but that is literally so.In both Angola and Mozambique, Australia has much to be proud of. In Angola I went to a workshop where people made artificial legs to replace the natural ones that were blown off by mines. Australia has put funding into that and made it a successful undertaking. There is, for reasons I cannot go into now, some issue as to whether or not funding will continue to that particular undertaking in Angola. I take this opportunity to urge Australia and Australia's government to see to it that that undertaking is kept going because it does provide much needed aid to women and children, and men as well. Anyone who is injured is entitled to sympathy and to an artificial leg, I would say. Those people are entitled to the legs that they would otherwise be denied were funding withdrawn. Australia is not the only country that people can look to for funding, but certainly we are a compassionate nation and we need to look to that.In Mozambique I witnessed the blowing up of a couple of mines around a particular village. I was with other Australians at the time. The crew that undertook the clearing of mines in Mozambique were trained by the Australian Army. This is a proper time to acknowledge the work that the Australian Army does overseas in actions such as this where its personnel clear mines. It is a task that needs a lot of patience, training and concentration. Those elements have been put into the area by the Australian Army. They were directly in charge at one stage; now they are at the point where they have become advisers. I think that is something to be proud of. Major Peter McIntosh was on duty at the time I was there and I would like to acknowledge the great service he has given to Mozambique and to Australia. I acknowledge not only him but those who went before him and those who will come after him. It is a noble task.Let me end this way, Madam Acting Deputy President: if you do get the chance, do urge the government to keep the undertaking going in Angola. Secondly, if you ever go to Mozambique go and see the mine clearing and make sure you give the Army personnel there great credit. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment313610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.313619:21:003136Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—In the adjournment debate this evening I wish to comment on the current debacle in Sydney over the East Circular Quay development. The erection of a 15-storey building that obscures a view of the Opera House from almost every part of the city is an absolute outrage. Not surprisingly, it has prompted a public outcry. A public meeting last week attracted 1,500 protesters, including the playwright David Williamson, scientist Dr Tim Flannery and broadcaster Margaret Throsby. The meeting heard estimates of the cost to get the site back ranging from $250 million to Premier Bob Carr's touted figure of $700 million.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—He is trying to balance his budget.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Yes, he is trying to balance his budget. Regardless of the cost, the meeting was unanimous in its decision that the building, dubbed the `toaster', has to go and it has the support of international figures such as Robert Hughes and the architect of the Sydney Opera House, Joern Utzon.The depth of feeling locally, nationally and internationally means action must be taken. East Circular Quay is a site of great significance to Australians, as it is home for the building which many regard as our national icon and symbol, the Opera House. It also incorporates other Sydney landmarks: the harbour, the quay and the botanic gardens. Sydneysiders have great pride in the city, and they will not allow this building to ruin its appearance and its reputation. At the moment, arriving at a solution to removing the `toaster' poses great difficulty, as the whole issue—perhaps appropriately, given the site—has become something of an operatic event. The debate must be allowed to return to sensible levels of dialogue; emotion must be contained.The role of the New South Wales Labor government in the fiasco is to be condemned, as is Premier Bob Carr's attempted sidestep to avoid tackling the issue and taking any blame. The fact of the matter is that it was Bob Carr who signed the approval for this building. This was 10 years ago, when he was the New South Wales minister for planning. Not only did he approve the development, he approved it to be 20 storeys high. The present building is 15 storeys high so, if Mr Carr had his way, it would be a third higher than it is now.His approval has allowed a building that blocks out a view of the Opera House from most parts of the city. What great vision this man had, and has, for his state. He signed on the dotted line to allow a building which overshadows the Opera House. His actions have turned what was envisaged as an area for the people into a high-rise accommodation tower which only the very wealthy can afford. Mr Carr's signature has allowed an elitist tower, owned and developed by overseas interests, to spoil an unparalleled icon of our built heritage.Even as minister for planning, Bob Carr exhibited the traits which are all too apparent now: lack of vision, lack of leadership and lack of commitment to the people of New South Wales. Now that the project to which he gave the nod has spun out of control, guess what? He is appealing to the federal government to bail him out. Based on press reports, there are indications that a solution could be brokered with the building's owners, Hong Kong Shanghai Hotels. Pressed about this, Mr Carr showed how diminished is his own party's confidence in him. Mr Carr mentioned a figure of $700 million being needed to buy the site back from its owners. Perhaps his own government does not keep him informed because it now emerges that Hong Kong Shanghai Hotels held private talks with the New South Wales government as recently as last year, at which they reportedly said that they would vacate the site for something in the order of $250 million.The public meeting in Sydney heard that the Save East Circular Quay Committee had received word from an intermediary for the developer that it was prepared to sell the site for $300 million. The total value of the development has been put at $600 million. One thing that must be avoided is a Dutch auction with the owners to buy the site back. Very detailed examination must be made of the true value of the undertaking to the owners. In October last year the site was valued at $85.8 million by the Valuer-General. The fact that only 22 of the 237 apartments in this gross complex have been sold—and all of those before 1996—indicates that the project is something of a commercial dud. Obviously, at prices starting from $700,000 for a one-bedroom apartment to $5.5 million for a sub-penthouse, the owners have priced themselves out of the market and this may be behind their willingness to vacate.Mr Carr and his government have consistently failed to listen to the people of Sydney on this matter and have only taken the cotton wool out of their ears in recent weeks. In the face of continuing protest—local, national and international—Mr Carr, using his $700 million figure, tried to insist that the building was too expensive to buy back and that the whole thing was just beyond his government to fix. Once again, he failed to recognise the values and pride Sydney people have for their city. They will not just turn away from what they regard as a travesty which was foisted upon them against their will.They fought on and, only hours before the protest rally, it was learnt that the Hong Kong Shanghai Hotels had expressed a willingness to quit the site for something in the order now of $300 million. Having been caught out on the figures, Mr Carr has the unmitigated hide to turn to the federal government to come up with the readies to get the site back. Mr Carr's ineptitude in this matter has meant that the obstacles to resolving the problem have not been addressed.A land swap might simply move the problem, not solve it. In the past, there has been justifiably strong resistance to the notion of swapping land next to the Opera House in return for land elsewhere, on the proviso that permission would be granted to exceed height restrictions in other locations. Given Bob Carr's previous penchant for a 20-storey building, such a scenario is a frightening possibility.The government has control of much harbour and foreshore land and it must be stopped from doing any deal which compromises these sites. But there is no doubt that the East Circular Quay apartment building is out of character with the site, with the city and with the wishes of the people, so the problem cannot be left unresolved. The critical question is: where would the funds come from to get rid of it? One suggestion which seemed to have some merit was to start a new lottery to help raise some of the money needed. After all, this was how the Opera House was funded, so it would be appropriate to at least help return East Circular Quay to the way it was envisaged through similar means. But the New South Wales government has poured cold water on that idea.Another suggestion was a one-off fee in New South Wales. Raising $300 million would represent a cost of $67 to each New South Wales resident over the age of 20. This would be in keeping with the desires of the people after a recent Bulletin poll showed people were overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of using taxpayers' money to solve the issue. However, Bob Carr has turned to the federal government and wants money from the Federation Fund to be used to solve the problem. Not one solution has come forward from Bob Carr on his own account. Bob Carr obviously did not confer with his federal Labor Party colleagues on that one.The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, has gone on record saying:There are many priorities confronting that Federation Fund and I'm not sure that would necessarily be the highest.Effectively he has told Bob Carr to abandon the idea. For once I agree with Mr Beazley. The Federation Fund was, however, not established to help remedy Mr Carr's colossal errors of bad judgment. The billion dollar fund was set up in the 1997-98 budget to fund projects of national significance as part of the activities to celebrate this nation's centenary of Federation. Mr Howard made it very clear the funds belonged to everyone. Announcing the plan, he said:Everybody will be treated equally because the centenary of Federation does not belong to one or other side of politics. It belongs to all Australians and this is a practical demonstration of that commitment.Giving money to Bob Carr hardly fits that scenario.The Federation Fund projects are ones of major cultural, economic and social significance. As part of Mr Carr's logic, he claims the coalition government is not giving enough money to New South Wales and he has conveniently ignored the fact that the Corowa bridge on the New South Wales-Victorian border is getting $12 million and that there is funding for the Opera House of $32 million and other money for the cathedral refurbishments and other projects.Mr Carr ignores, in relation to the Federation Fund, that it is up to state governments to develop and to submit proposals for funding of major projects that would have the support of all Australians. Bob Carr has to find his own way to clean up the mess that he allowed to be created at East Circular Quay.313919:31:003139Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—This evening I want to document the frustrations of one of my constituents who has been trying to make the adjustment from CES to working with Centrelink and Employment National. I am not going to make any comments myself. I am just going to use the documents that have been sent to me, because I think they clearly illustrate the enormous problems we have with these changes. This gentleman writes that on 9 September 1997 he was registered with DSS and CES and got casual work for eleven weeks around Christmas. He states:April 1998Getting worried and financially desperate.I am sorry that some members of the government on the other side seem to think it is amusing. I do not think you will as I go further. He continues:But the big glossy ads for the new Employment National give me hope, assistance, training, case management.Read in the Innisfail Advocate that the CES staff of 13 will be replaced by an Employment National staff of ONE serving the area from Cardwell to Babinda. A bit disconcerting but those glossy ads restore my faith.April 17 1998Put in my fortnightly form at Centrelink and ask if I have to do anything for the new system. No, I'm told, your registered on the computer. Too easy, such efficiency, I can hardly believe it.May 1 1998D Day! I try to find the Employment National Office no one knows where it is. The CES is closed. I spend the afternoon ringing to find out something. Centrelink . . . is engaged as usual cant get through Emp. National . . . and . . . at last a . . . human voice but they cant help me they've never heard of Innisfail.I presume it is a central telephone number.They will get someone to ring me back.Someone from Employment National—rings me from Townsville he gives me the old CES number and address then he gives me a Cairns number—I have to pay STD—turns out to be the old CES. He senses my desperation I sense his. He will get back to me as soon as he can. May 5 1998I've somehow been given the number of Jobs Australia Innisfail . . . they apparently are the old Skilshare and are also contracted. They tell me I need a Centrelink Job Search No. and they'll help me. Living 10 miles out of town these visits are not easy. I go to Centrelink and ask for a Job Search No. The staffer looks surprised that I've found out about the secret numbers and reluctantly and with difficulty because the computers are not working properly gives me my number. At last, off I go to Jobs Australia, alias Innisfail Job Centre and their computer isnt working properly but they take my details and will get back to me once I'm linked.I read in today's Innisfail Advocate that Emp. Nat. will be opening tomorrow in a small shopping centre in town.May 8 1998I still havent heard from Jobs Aust. I ring and I'm told I am linked but there are only 4 jobs, none for me, sorry they forgot to ring me.I come to town and to the new Emp. Nat. office. The phones and comps havent been connected yet but the operator . . . seems to know something. As a six to twelve month unemployed I'd be categorised as flex 2 and therefore jobs Australia would look after me. Emp Nat is contracted for flex 1 and 3. Centrelink should have categorised me and referred me!I go home and ring Centrelink . . . its engaged then eventually I get an extensive spiel about things that have nothing to do with me until I'm told to wait for up to three minutes for an operator after 5 more three minutes I give up and ring complaints. I speak to—someone—who takes my concerns tells me shell fax them to Innisfail and Ill get a call within 3 hours. After 4 hours I ring her back shes surprised and says she will ring Innisfail and some one will contact me within the hour.The Innisfail Centrelink manager . . . rings me and seems helpful and concerned about my situation she cant help me now cos the computer isnt working properly but she will find out and have everything by Monday.It goes on:May 11 1998The Centrelink manager—doesnt seem quite so accommodating this morning she hasn't had time to find anything. She checks the computer which isnt working properly and gives me a form to fill in which will allow them to assess and categorise me she doesnt know why I hadn't been given this form earlier. There are teething problems. Funny cos I new about these changes months ago why didn't they?. . . . . . . . .May 13 1998D Day+1? I take my form in and I'm sure its the same info I gave in Sept 97. I wait 30 min to see an operator—she—takes my form and tells me I havent filled it out properly I show her that I have in fact. She doesnt want to process it and I suggest that it is the same info I gave in Sept. No she says, I'm sure says I, well its in a different format says she. Well I want to know what category I am and what assistance I can get. The computers not working properly anyway it will take 2 to 3 weeks for your case to be referred to Jobs Aust or Emp Nat.I DONT BELIEVE IT I'VE BEEN CONNED. Why wasn't all this done before I've been wasting time for two weeks and now you say I have to wait 2-3 weeks more. It doesn't matter she says the training doesnt start till June 15 anyway. BUT there are only 10 funded places.At this point, the constituent rang my office. Senators might say that this is just one example and that perhaps it is a case of the individual being unfortunate or not being able to access the right course for gaining assistance. But I am receiving—as are many of my colleagues in this place and in the other place—these kinds of complaints daily on the telephone. We also receive other letters.I have a letter from a constituent in Bowen. Again, time will not allow me to detail it all but I will give you the flavour of it. It states:At HomeTelephone call No. 1—To enquire when these employment services would be available. The department's officer's reply was `You know as much as I do.'Call No 2. C.E.S Ayr—`No idea.'Call No 3. C.E.S NSW—`No idea.'Call No 4. The officer suggested we call 013 for the number of Employment National.Call No 5. Employment National—Consultant to return our call.Call No 6. Office of De Anne Kelly, M.P., federal member for Dawson, they would look into this matter and get back to us.Reply from call No. 5—Employment National.The consultant from E.N. advised that the available facilities were located at the office of Northern Employment and Training Organisation (NEATO) which has been established in Bowen for some time.Reply from call No. 6—De Anne Kelly's office advised us to call NEATO.Telephone call No. 7—Contacted NEATO and they advised that they would be available to see us on Tuesday—anytime.Light at the end of the tunnel???And so the letter goes on. An interview was then held but they advised my constituent that they were a private employment service and that they covered only the area from Ayr to Cannonvale, and my constituent does not live in that particular area.If this were not so serious, this attempt at replacing the very good service that we had through the CES would be a joke. People are phoning and they are being given the runaround. There is nothing there for them. I hope that the minister on duty will take these concerns to the minister responsible because, as a Queenslander, he must surely be receiving as many complaints as I am. I understand that just as many complaints about the failure of the new system are being received throughout Australia.314019:41:003140Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to report to the Senate on the events of the last couple of days at Jabiluka and on my visit there last month. Before I get to that subject, I must say that Senator Coonan's message regarding the Opera House could just as easily have been said about Jabiluka. The international condemnation and community concern that she talked about happen when you put a uranium mine slap-bang in the middle of a world heritage area. I also entreat her to add her voice to the call for the Sydney Opera House to be nominated for world heritage—this is something that Senator Hill has been most reluctant to pursue since coming to office.But on the subject of Jabiluka, last week the Northern Territory police, along with the Darwin based tactical response team, moved onto the scene of the new uranium mine at Jabiluka. They gave the peaceful protesters there 24 hours to clear the blockade site and told them that they would be arrested, that their materials would be confiscated, and that road access to the site would be cleared for heavy duty construction works. The police and the tactical response group made it very clear that there would be a mass assault on those peaceful protesters.Eighteen people were arrested on Tuesday of last week, including the Mirra senior traditional owner, Yvonne Margarula. She was arrested for being on the lease site, which is, of course, her own land. That very same day we saw protests in eight different countries around the world. Yesterday there was a pre-dawn raid at the site. The police arrived before the protesters had a chance to chain themselves to the blockade and there were a further nine arrests before 7.15 in the morning.The police moved in with six police cars to block the road between Magela Creek and Jabiluka, and they stopped the protesters' vehicles attempting to go through by using the pretence of checking for defects. The protest will go on. There are many people still prepared to go to Jabiluka. These are the people who are carrying the flag for the majority of Australians and who do not want this country taking part in this deadly nuclear cycle.When I was in Jabiluka a few weeks ago, the situation then was that the Northern Land Council had agreed to allow Energy Resources of Australia, the mining company, to proceed with the project in return for the sorts of promises that were made when the nearby Ranger mine began—promises which, by and large, have not been to the benefit of the local indigenous people and particularly not to the Mirra people.ERA's announcement came with the advice that its consultation with Aboriginal people was complete but, of course, the question is: what Aboriginal people? The traditional owners were identified by Mr Justice Toohey in 1982 as the Mirra people. He said that the `Mirra are a local descent group who have common spiritual affiliations to sites on the land that place the group under a primary spiritual responsibility for the sites and the land.'The Mirra people have held fast to their refusal to have a mine on their land. But the decision has been made on their behalf and not by them. It is also fair to say that ERA has attempted to render the Mirra invisible with the language in its publicity that engages in post-Mabo analogies of terra nullius.Clearly, the Mirra people are hampered in their fight by the fact that they live in a place far removed from the central business districts of the eastern seaboard which, of course, are where most of the mining industry cheer squad reside—that is, the finance managers, the major banks such as the National, the ANZ and Westpac, and of course the mining company publicity machines. The latter are helped along by some $333 million of government subsidies to the industry over a five-year period.One of the Mirra people asked me to convey this message to the Senate:Please ask them to think of our children, our children's children, our children's grandchildren; to imagine a world with healthy humans on it for another 60,000 years . . . And ask them to consider that no one is perfect, mistakes will always happen, and that we can't afford to play with such incredibly destructive technology . . . to remember Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Chernobyl . . . and the many other disasters whose repercussions we are already living with and can never take back.Very few politicians have been up to see what it is that is being earmarked for destruction. Unfortunately, this trickle is not threatening to become any sort of steady flow either.It was my first visit to Kakadu, and I must say that I was overwhelmed with the extraordinary beauty of the place—the vast green wetlands, framed by ancient rocky escarpments; diverse forests of paperbark, palm and sheoak. It is a place which is teeming with wildlife, particularly birds. Termite mounds, for instance, two metres high are an attraction to the many tourists who flow through the area. I saw places where barramundi leap out of very clear streams and others where crocodiles lie in wait. You can look at this place and say it is untouched by European-Australian endeavours.But at the same time the signs of Aboriginal culture are everywhere to see. I was taken to Ubirr, which is very close to the Jabiluka mining lease. This is a place to which overseas visitors flock in order to look at rock paintings which are thousands of years old. European and Asian tourists whom I saw while I was there were both alarmed and puzzled that anyone would want to set up a mine in this world heritage area. After they found out it was a uranium mine, they were even more incredulous—and I spoke with visitors who had decided to stay on to join the blockade.I saw a group of houses alongside a river into which sometime earlier the effluent from the Ranger tailings dam had been released. A 35-year-old woman from this area had died a week previously. I was told that people who live in and around Jabiluka do not live much beyond the age of 40. People in this area use bore water instead of collecting rainwater from their rooftops; the reason is that the radon in the air is very dangerous. Jabiluka and the township of Jabiru may be very beautiful, but they are also very deadly places in which to live.Most visitors do not get to see where Aboriginal people in this area actually live. The vast wealth which is dug from the ground has not brought many benefits to the Mirra people or other Aboriginal groups in the area. I saw a typical house; it was a small enclosure that looked much more like a chicken coop than a house in which you would put people. Nevertheless, these houses are crowded, and this is one of the reasons why scabies affects 90 per cent of the children in this community. Scabies is a Third World disease which has been eliminated from most places on the planet—but not here in Australia. And, of course, it is a disease which has long-term effects on these young bodies.Jobs in the mine have largely gone to outsiders. The small amount of revenue from the mine flows on to ATSIC, to the land council, to tourism projects, and to fund services which we here in Canberra or Melbourne take for granted as being government services.A few weeks ago wearing, I must say, a very small moral fig leaf, Minister Downer recalled our ambassador to India in protest at that country's nuclear tests. Australia however, I must say, is complicit in this lethal economy. The boundaries between the peace ful use of uranium and the market that eventually produces nuclear weapons are, indeed, porous. Let us remember that the Australian government cannot guarantee that no uranium finds its way into weapons manufacture.The mismanaged nuclear industry has been propped up with the collusion of governments and banks. An accident occurring at Dounreay a couple of weeks ago is the latest in a long line of disasters in the uranium business. In the meantime, safe and renewable alternatives, such as wind and solar energy, gain a toehold ever so slowly.I do not think we can rely on our present leaders to engage in ideas of responsibility to the planet and to the people in other countries on this issue. For instance, a couple of weeks ago, the submission by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Senate Economics Committee argued that Australia would fall behind in its role in international nuclear policy if the proposed new reactor at Lucas Heights did not go ahead.This logic says that, by consolidating our status as players in this deadly industry, Australia will somehow do a better job of ensuring safety standards at plants in Asia and in negotiating on nuclear non-proliferation issues. It seems that we need more nuclear prowess in order to stop other countries using theirs—a little like the justification India has come up with to defend its own nuclear tests.It is remarkable then that, in this political climate, hundreds of dedicated Australians have travelled to Jabiluka to lend their support to the blockade, and we are not talking about a quick trip here. (Time expired)314219:51:003142Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I rise tonight to address an area of great interest in that part of Sydney in which I work, the area of Greater Western Sydney—and that is the ongoing success of the University of Western Sydney. Since entering the Senate last year, I have been pleased to firstly establish, and then pursue, an ongoing relationship with the university, and I am constantly impressed with both the staff and students alike.UWS, as it is locally known, has a long history and very complex structure. It began operating in 1989 as a federated university based on three existing colleges of advanced education in Greater Western Sydney: the Nepean College of Advanced Education, the Hawkesbury Agriculture College and the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education.It continues to operate in that way—as a federated university with three separate and distinct parts: Macarthur, Hawkesbury and Nepean. Each of those parts has its own culture, offers to the students its own courses, and services a different area of Greater Western Sydney. In fact, it is highly diverse even in terms of its geography. Between Macarthur, Hawkesbury and Nepean, there are seven individual sites across western Sydney. But it is UWS Nepean on which I wish to focus tonight.Nepean is the largest of the three elements of UWS and is primarily based in Penrith on three sites: Kingswood, Werrington North and Werrington South. I was taken on a tour of the Nepean campuses very early on in my time in this place by my very proud colleague the member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly. In addition to the Penrith sites is the latest inclusion of the Parramatta campus, to which I will return. UWS Nepean offers courses in eight faculties, ranging from business to science and technology, to performance, fine arts and design. With total enrolment at UWS Nepean alone in excess of 10,000 students, the university has proved its popularity with students from both the Greater Western Sydney region and beyond.The Nepean site occupies land on which relics 20,000 years old have been found, with further evidence of occupation in the area indicating the presence of indigenous Australians as long ago as 47,000 years. This heritage is acknowledged and continued through the existence and operation of the university's respected Durali Aboriginal Centre. Nepean itself is situated in one of Australia's most historic urban regions. Penrith is one of the earliest townships established in the colony and was responsible for much of the supply of grains and foods to the colony. Similarly, honourable senators would know that Parra matta also has a rich heritage and is now one of the major centres of Sydney.The newest campus of UWS Nepean is the Parramatta campus. At the beginning of this year, the faculties of business, law, nursing and health studies and some departments of the faculty of science and technology moved to the new Parramatta campus, which is one of particular historical significance. It is situated on the site of the former female orphanage, Australia's first purpose built orphanage, on the banks of the Parramatta River. The campus is home to Australia's oldest three-story building, thus ensuring that UWS Nepean has the honour of the nation's oldest university site; an honour I am sure the University of Sydney previously imagined was well within its keeping.The foundation stone of the orphanage was laid in 1813 by Governor Lachlan Macquarie and the building was completed in 1818 and then began operation. The building had a very varied history, later being incorporated as part of Rydalmere Hospital before it was purchased by UWS Nepean from the state government in March 1995. All the redevelopment carried out by the university has been subject to a stringent heritage plan. The use of the orphanage is therefore extremely limited, but there is an aim of full restoration and use as a major heritage site and a public focus for research and education.The area known as the Vernon precinct is also part of the campus. It consists of buildings constructed in the early 1900s which were also a part of Rydalmere Hospital. They now house the university's commerce faculty and will be used for teaching and for staff accommodation. Late last year I was pleased to be able to tour that site, which is close to my office, with Deputy Vice-Chancellor and UWS Nepean President, Professor Chris Duke; Pro Vice-Chancellor, Professor Harry Irwin; and Michael Charlton, the head of UWS public relations. Wandering around the construction areas even then showed me that the site is truly impressive and will be a very attractive educational facility when fully completed. Whilst there is ongoing work to be completed, the campus is already operational, with courses commencing this year. I know several students whose enthusiasm about their university and the new Parramatta campus is almost bordering on infectious.UWS Nepean has been very successful at integrating with the community in which it is based. Already they have established a range of what they describe as cooperative programs which aim at involving local industry with the university. They have over 70 industry partners involved, and the programs are an enormous success. The first and perhaps one of the most successful is a student industry cooperative program called the cooperative education for enterprise development. It involves industry partners as diverse as the Australian Army, Hawker de Havilland, Barcode Solutions and the Sydney Church of England Grammar School.The students are involved in a vast range of projects, with the 1996-97 graduates having participated in everything from creating an electronic bookshop to the development of a DNA based protocol for identification of native and introduced animals from hair samples. Incoming student projects are similarly as diverse, with projects such as a strategy development for youth and children's theatre in Parramatta and an evaluation of staff perceptions at Nepean Health.The second cooperative program is a research program known as the Nepean summer research awards. It includes organisations such as the Olympic Coordination Authority, and those involved have described it as an invaluable two-way experience that provides us with fresh perspectives and solutions and also as a great opportunity for business to access enthusiastic and talented students. The final of the cooperative programs was introduced last year. The engineering summer placement program has benefited from the involvement of organisations such as Blacktown City Council and the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, and it can only go upwards from there.UWS also recently established the Western Sydney Research Institute, which is designed to coordinate research programs with regional industry and business groups. Aimed at ensuring integration between all three campuses—the Hawkesbury, the Nepean and the Macarthur—the institute will be involved in three main areas: environmental management, regional development and planning, and urban, social and cultural development. All these areas are particularly important to the healthy growth and wellbeing of western Sydney, with the potential for a direct and positive impact on regional, economic and industrial planning. Already the Western Sydney Research Institute is planning its first project: the construction of an enormous geographic information system for Greater Western Sydney. The university has committed $1 million to this project and is now looking to funding from regional partners involved.I think anyone who has followed the progress of UWS since the late 1980s agrees that it has been an enormous success in giving more Australians access to higher education. Statistics from the UWS Nepean's student intake survey of last year indicated that nearly 70 per cent of students who completed the survey were first generation students. That is, neither of their parents had obtained a degree. The survey also indicated that nearly 40 per cent of respondents lived within 24 kilometres of the university. What is significant about these statistics for the community of Greater Western Sydney is that it is a clear indication that UWS is offering opportunities to students who may never have taken up those opportunities at existing facilities elsewhere in the Sydney metropolitan area. UWS is obviously servicing an appreciative education market.One of the most gratifying aspects from these statistics relates to the number of UWS graduates who are not only finding work but also finding it in the Greater Western Sydney region. In 1993 the graduate success rate of finding work was well in excess of 80 per cent of students in full-time or part-time work, and over half of those in the local region. That is a tremendous boost not only to the individual students but also to their families and to our region.Finally, I am also pleased to say that the University of Western Sydney has become the latest Australian university to appoint a female vice-chancellor. Professor Janice Reid, formerly the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the Queensland University of Technology, was appointed last year and took up her new posting earlier this year. UWS is an institution of crucial importance, not only as an important element of Australia's higher education system but also as one of the key providers of education and employment in western Sydney. All western Sydney residents, UWS staff, students and graduates are and should be justly proud of the progress the university has made in such a relatively short amount of time.20:00:003145Senate adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Documents31453145The following government documents were tabled:Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Act—Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Report—Environmental research ethics: National principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas, May 1998.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal employment opportunity program—ANL Limited—Report for 1996-97.Science and Technology budget statement 1998-99.Treaties—Text, together with national interest analysis—Bilateral— Agreement on Mutual Recognition in relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings, between Australia and the European Community.Multilateral — Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, done at Oslo on 18 September 1997.3145The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposals Nos 9-11 of 1998.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Directive—Part— 105, dated 22 [2], 24 [3], 27 [2], 29 and 30 April; and 1 [2], 4, 7 and 11 May 1998. 106, dated 20 and 30 [2] April; and 12 May 1998. 107, dated 23 April; and 8 May 1998.Customs Act—Instrument of Approval No. 5 of 1998.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instrument under section 90—Variation to Treatment Principles—Instrument No. 4 of 1998.Miscellaneous30893089Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I ask that government business notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name, be taken as formal.Leave not granted.Miscellaneous3090Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed:That the Senate calls on President Habibie 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. Question put.16:14:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator D.J. MacGibbon)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N.48Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.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. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous3090Motion (by Senator Bourne) proposed: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. Question put.16:22:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferris, J.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Bolkus, N. Ferguson, A. B.Conroy, S. Gibson, B. F.Cook, P. F. S. Crane, W.McKiernan, J. P. Knowles, S. C.* denotes teller(Senator Parer did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous3091Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous3091Motion (by Senator Calvert) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous309116:27:003091Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1123, standing in my name for today, relating to the One Nation Party, be taken as a formal motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? Formality is denied, Senator.Miscellaneous30913091Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Colston moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 1123.It is necessary to look at notice of motion No. 1123 in detail to indicate the urgency of this matter. No. 1123 says:That the Senate urges political parties and non-aligned candidates in Australia to:(a) acknowledge that the alarmist and divisive rhetoric employed by members of the One Nation Party has damaged Australia's social fabric and its international reputation;(b) not simply condemn but constructively campaign against the knee-jerk populism which passes for the policy platform of One Nation in order to reveal it for its inherent flaws and its inability to contribute intelligently to addressing the many issues of great concern which confront Australia today;(c) demonstrate to those constituents to whom One Nation has some appeal that the simplistic and alienating rhetoric of One Nation is no substitute for substantive policy responses to the issues presently before the nation;(d) stress to those same constituents that while diversification of party choice can foster a liberal democracy, the establishment of parties such as One Nation can only work against the national resolve required to address our society's ills;(e) admonish any action to favour political expediency over political commonsense by considering preference deals with the One Nation Party; and(f) place ONP candidates last on their recommended preferences in State and Federal elections.In relation to that notice of motion, we currently have a state campaign being waged; it looks fairly certain that we will soon have a federal election campaign, and there will be other states which will follow with elections themselves. In those circumstances, it is necessary that we address these matters outlined in this notice of motion, and address them now rather than at some future date.16:29:003092Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—We in the government do not think urgency has been made out for this motion. There is an opportunity to debate matters of general business on a Thursday. The practice used to be that attempts to suspend standing orders in order to bring on general business notices of motion were a rarity. They have become commonplace. The consequence of that of course is that government business time is lost. I am not arguing the right of Senator Colston to raise a matter that is of concern to him, but I am suggesting that it should not take the place of other business of the Senate. Therefore he should have his opportunity to call it on, as a matter of general business, on a Thursday in the way in which business used to be done. I presume, consistent with that philosophy, that this opposition has an arrangement whereby Independents and minority parties are given a fair share of the occasions on Thursdays for such debate. We believe that is the appropriate time for it.16:31:003092Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The Labor Party, the opposition in the Senate, will oppose the suspension of standing orders. I would like to point out to you, Madam President, and to the Senate, that we consider this motion to be a case of one utterly discredited Queensland politician—that is, Senator Colston—trying to discredit another utterly discredited Queensland politician—that is, Pauline Hanson. As far as the members of the opposition in the Senate are concerned, we will have no part of this grubby and absurd political exercise.The truth of the matter is that Labor's record in relation to Pauline Hanson has been clear, principled and unwavering. It stands in stark contrast to what we have seen from the Liberal Party since Ms Hanson first became prominent in Australian politics. In relation to the issue of preferences, the Labor Party has categorically made its position absolutely clear. That is a position from which we have not wavered for a very long period of time.In fact, as early as October 1996, when the inherent threats of One Nation to Australia's stable and multicultural society and economy were apparent, the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Gary Gray, stated on the Channel 9 Sunday program that we, the Australian Labor Party, would put One Nation last on our how-to-vote ticket. I might say, by the way, that so did Mr Andrew Robb, the then federal director of the Liberal Party. Remember that it was the Labor Party that sponsored, negotiated and supported a bipartisan motion in this parliament against racial intolerance, a motion which was in response to the national and international outrage over the member for Oxley, and we will have no part in this action taken in this chamber by someone as discredited as Senator Colston.We consider Senator Colston's actions also to be unprincipled, reprehensible and venal and we are not going to see the Labor Party associated in any way with any move or any exercise in which he tries to attempt to grandstand and claw back some of his lost status, standing and image in the community. We will have no part of it, and of course we also know that events have superseded the rhetoric that is contained in Senator Colston's motion.In the Queensland election, where the Liberal Party and the National Party are tying themselves in knots over the issue of preferences from the One Nation Party, Labor's position has been clear for a very long period of time. It is a principled position. We will not resile from it, we have not resiled from it, and we will be absolutely consistent in that position. We do not need an individual of the standing of Senator Colston coming in here and telling the Labor Party or the parliament how we should approach these sorts of matters.Our stand has been proper, it has been principled and it has been consistent. We will continue to stand up and provide the political leadership that is required in this nation on the issue of racism and on the issue of the rise of the One Nation Party. We remain the only major political party in this country that is willing to make that level of commitment in defence of our national cohesiveness and our international standing. Mr Acting Deputy President, I can assure you we will never support such a contemptible, low-life, despicable, political tactic from Senator Colston.16:36:003093Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Firstly, let me state that the Greens were the first party to say that we will not give One Nation preferences—it will go last—and the Queensland Greens made that clear from the outset. But this is not about that debate: this is about the right of every senator to be able to function in this place. It is a matter of democracy. It is a matter of Senator Colston, for whom I hold no particular brief, being able to function here, while ever he is a legitimate member of this Senate, no more or no less than any other member. If we proscribe Senator Colston, send him to Coventry and cut off his right to speak in this place the same as everybody else can, where does that stop? It is a matter of democratic principle at stake here.The government says, `Senator Colston can go and ask the Labor Party to bring up this motion on Thursday.' Senator Hill knows that the Labor Party will not allow that to happen. The Labor leader, Senator Faulkner, says in effect, `We are not going to support this motion because of the person who is putting it forward'—forget the principle; forget the urgency with which people on this side of the House feel that One Nation should be tackled in Queensland.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am not going to be lectured to by Colston.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate—who by the way has just voted down a motion on East Timor's independence and the freedom of its leader Gusmao—says he is not going to be dictated to by Senator Colston. This is not a matter of being dictated to; this is a matter of the right of every elected member of this Senate, while they remain in this Senate, to be able to bring forward motions, take part in debate and take part in votes as they will.Once we start to trammel the right of any member because we hold a grudge—as the Labor Party holds a deep and just now expressed grudge against its former member in Senator Colston—where does that stop? If this motion succeeds, it will be a low day in democratic principle for this chamber of the Australian Parliament. I know they will try to muddy the waters here; I know people will say, `If you get up and defend this, you are defending Senator Colston.'UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Will you move the same motion tomorrow?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Labor Party intervenes and asks if I will move the same motion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Senator Brown, your remarks should be addressed through the chair. QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The fact is that the Labor Party, no less than the Greens or anybody else in this place, has had the ability to move this motion. The fact is that Senator Colston has moved it. The fact is that, if it were to go to a vote, then I would support it on behalf of Australian Greens, but that is not the principle at stake here. The principle at stake is the right of any member—no matter whose banner they stand behind—to move a motion in this place, have it debated and put to a vote the same as any other member.The Labor Party is saying, `We are not going to allow that to happen because we hold a grudge against a member.' I say again that, if we support that Labor Party tactic, where do we end up? Once you start to erode the right of elected members of parliament to function in the parliament, you are on the slippery slope and pulling the rug from under democracy and proper representation itself.I stand by Senator Colston's right—the same as Senator Faulkner's right; the same as Senator Hill's right—to move a motion, have it debated and voted on in this place. I will not stand for the erosion of that right under this guise of political hate and political censorship which the Labor Party and the government in its own way have engaged in here today.16:41:003094Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—Senator Hill is correct when he says that this is a motion that should be debated, but it should be debated at the proper time, on general business day, and it behoves the opposition to allow Senator Colston time to debate it on the proper general business day. The case for urgency has not been made today.I am amazed that Senator Faulkner should speak about his party being a proper and principled one. You might tell me which party it was that put the Australians Against Further Immigration—that scandalous, shabby, smutty party of the Right—before the Liberal Party at the Lindsay by-election? Which party was that? The Australian Labor Party did that. It promoted and preferenced the Australians Against Further Immigration in front of the Liberal Party at the Lindsay by-election. You have the gall to get up here and say that you are the party of properness and principle. What absolute hypocrisy and humbug!Some reference was made by Senator Faulkner to the Queensland state election and how principled and proper the Australian Labor Party is in its direction of preferences in that contest on 13 June. If I remember correctly, it was only this morning on the radio that the Australian Labor Party in Queensland said to One Nation supporters, `Look, because there is optional preferential voting in Queensland, don't you give your second preferences to anyone.' Because it is well shown from the polling that the One Nation voters are people who have previously voted for either the National Party or the Liberal Party, one would normally expect that their second preferences would have gone back where they were last time and that is what the polling has shown.But the Labor Party with a huge bout of hypocrisy yet again says, `Direct your preferences to us by making sure your vote does not count', that is, `Don't direct a second preference. That will mean it is a vote against the coalition and a vote for the Australian Labor Party.'Just today the Australian Labor Party in Queensland has asked, directed or told the One Nation voters and the One Nation candidate that they should give their preferences to the Australian Labor Party. It is hypocrisy and humbug for the Australian Labor Party to condemn Senator Colston in this way and his right to bring this matter forward.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—Why should we give you a leg up?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Gibbs agrees with that. In the Queensland election you want to ask the One Nation people to give their second preferences to the Labor Party against the coalition. You are asking for their preferences in Queensland.6L6GIBBSSenator Gibbs—Yes; rather than let you get in.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—You say, `Yes.' Can I take that interjection?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, address your remarks through the chair.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Hansard would have got that. Senator Gibbs agrees that the Labor Party in Queensland have asked One Nation for their preferences.UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—She did not.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Hansard will show it. It was shown to the world on the radio this morning that the Australian Labor Party wants the One Nation preferences and is going about campaigning for them in Queensland. Senator Faulkner spoke about how tremendous the Labor Party is against racism and how poor my party is. Can I ask Senator Faulkner: which party was it that got rid of the white Australia policy promoted by the Labor Party for decades?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Gough WhitlamYW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Tell me which party it was, Senator Carr.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Which party is putting One Nation last on the how-to-vote cards?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—It is not the Australian Labor Party, Senator Faulkner. If you heard the news this morning, if you heard Senator Gibbs just now—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. You have pulled other people up for not addressing through the chair. I wonder whether you might do the same for Senator Ian Macdonald.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—I have given Senator Ian Macdonald two warnings on that point.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Gibbs, a Labor senator from Queensland, has indicated that her party does want the One Nation preferences in Queensland—and the Hansard will show that quite clearly because the interjection was taken. But, whether Senator Gibbs says it or not, it is clear on the record for everybody to see that, just this morning in Queensland, the Australian Labor Party effectively was asking for One Nation preferences.As I was saying when I was interrupted by Senator Margetts, it was the Liberal-National Party coalition that got rid of the white Australia policy—a policy that had been made part of the political life of Australia by the Australian Labor Party. (Time expired)16:46:003095Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In speaking to this question of whether or not this motion should be brought on for a vote, I note that the previous speaker, Senator Ian Macdonald, has indicated that a case for urgency has not been made out. I would address that topic, considering that it is part of what this debate is meant to be about.Despite what government speakers are saying, it is clear that this motion will not come on for debate in general business; it certainly will not come on for debate in general business this week, if at all.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Why not?DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—This is the last week in which the Senate will be sitting before the holding of the Queensland election. Given the focus of this motion, and particularly its focus on the One Nation Party, this is something that is particularly relevant to my own state of Queensland. The outcome of the Queensland state election is very important for Queensland's future, just as will be its potential flow-on effects for the federal election, particularly again in terms of representation for some of the federal seats in Queensland.So this is an urgent matter. It is important that the Senate does have an opportunity during this week to express a view on this motion put forward by Senator Colston, because this will be the last time that all senators are able to be put on the record in relation to their views on the issues put forward.In that regard—and one would have thought this would go without saying but, given the remarks made by the ALP, obviously it does need to be said—in voting and expressing a view on a motion, one should do so in relation to the actual wording of the motion. To try to avoid taking a position on a motion simply because there is dislike for its mover, I find, is disingenuous, to say the least, and inappropriate. The ALP have indicated that they support the motion's wording and, therefore, I believe they should allow themselves to be placed on the record in relation to the motion as it stands, rather than to try to dodge it because they do not like the person who has moved it.I think the issue of preferences and the preference recommendations of all parties on the how-to-vote cards in the Queensland election will be crucial. I should place on the record that the Democrats long ago indicated that they will be placing One Nation last on all their how-to-vote cards. That decision was made by our state council many, many months ago at a state council meeting in Ipswich, by coincidence. That is something we have stayed solidly firm on since that time.Because of the optional preferential system that operates in Queensland, it is important that all parties give a commitment not simply to try to ignore One Nation or take a non-committal stand on it, but that they actually commit themselves specifically to putting One Nation candidates last. The option is open there for all parties simply to have a how-to-vote card that shows a single first preference and leaves all the other options. In that circumstance, it provides an opportunity for a de facto first-past-the-post contest to eventuate.In that circumstance, those areas, those few seats that have been given some focus as being ones where there is a high One Nation Party vote—and they are seats similar to those that in the past have pulled high votes for other extreme right wing parties, such as the Confederate Action Party and the Citizens Electoral Council which unfortunately do have some ongoing support base in Queensland—once again quite probably these will pull a reasonable vote for One Nation. If the circumstance is allowed to develop where a de facto first-past-the-post contest does occur, that will give those people a much greater chance than they have had in the past of gaining a seat in the Queensland parliament.For those reasons, it is crucial that parties do not simply commit to not allocating preference towards One Nation but that they specifically commit to preference against One Nation and put One Nation last, as the Democrats have indicated they are going to do.For that reason, it is important that all parties go on the record about this. We will see soon enough with the how-to-vote cards that are issued over the next few days in Queensland what will happen in that regard. But, if all parties were to do that, it would enable us all to finally focus on some policies in the Queensland election. Unfortunately, there has not been much of that to date because of the focus on the novelty of One Nation's performance.The fact is that, if all other parties commit themselves to putting One Nation last, One Nation has no chance of winning a seat. That is why this is a crucial matter for the future of my state of Queensland. Also, it is potentially a future matter for Queensland because I am sure that all senators agree on how divisive and dangerous One Nation's policies are. (Time expired)16:51:003096Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, this matter is so urgent that it was put off yesterday—which will give you an idea of the urgency of it. The fact is that preference decisions eventually will be decided by the various political machines around the country, both at a state and federal level.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—They won't; they're determined by the voter with a pencil in their hand.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Of course. But at least concede that the recommendation as to allocation of preferences by a political party will be determined there and not in the Senate. Senator Faulkner is quite right to say that we have made our decision: we are going to put One Nation last in every federal electorate—the whole 148 next time, if they contest those—and we are going to put them last in the Senate.That is our position. We do not need to carry resolutions here today or anywhere else. We announced that a year ago, and we are going to stick with it. It is up to other political parties to explain their position and to justify their position in that regard. I was very pleased with the remarks by Senator Bartlett and some of the remarks by Senator Brown where they indicated that that is their position. I think that is a very appropriate position. I hope they acknowledge that our position is equally appropriate.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Are you going to do it in the state election as well?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Of course we are going to do it in the state election, Sena tor. The great virtue of carrying these things by way of our national executive is that it is binding on all the constituent units of the Labor Party. So the answer is yes and yes. Senator Bartlett, when it comes to the Queensland—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Senator Ray, please direct your remarks through the chair.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Absolutely. I was about to inform Senator Bartlett that, in the question of Queensland Senate elections, should the now Independent Senator Colston run—and despite our rather diminished view of him—we will send him preferences ahead of One Nation. Nothing could demonstrate to anyone more clearly our commitment to putting One Nation last than sending preferences to Senator Colston or the Queensland First Party if it happens to run with him at the head of the ticket. We can give no clearer indication that we are willing to put the past behind us and prejudice behind us and do that particular thing. I am glad that I am not a Queensland elector because you would have had to steady the pen, but nevertheless that is the way our tickets will go.Points that have been made in this particular debate go to what formal motions are and what they are not and the direction that the Senate is taking. You only have to look back over the last hour to know that the Senate is starting to lose its way. These points were made in a different form and in a different way by Senator Harradine some weeks ago. I think we gave him sympathetic if not actual voting support on that occasion. Every device in the Senate, once it starts to be exploited, just steamrolls. We have seen it in the past with petitions and disallowance motions and everything. We are now getting to the stage where today something like eight or nine or 10 motions have been asked to be carried formally. I think there comes a point in time where the Senate is going to say, `We are not going to carry resolutions without debate.' We can also have the choice of what resolutions we want to debate. That is our democratic right. That is what we were elected to do: to determine which resolutions by way of ma jority that we want to debate, Senator Brown. We have rights too.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Just what I am warning you against.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Just because we are in a major party does not mean that we do not have rights.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Just what I am warning you against.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We have a right occasionally to say, `Will the Senate be distracted on an exercise of moral rehabilitation of a discredited Senator?' We say no. We are not going to be distracted by that. We are not going to have Senator Colston sneak around and try to find every sympathetic resolution he can find to try to resurrect his discredited career, especially when on the principle and the subject matter our views are clearly known and clearly expressed. We are bound by party discipline on this. We are going to put One Nation last; end of story. (Time expired)16:56:003097Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—One wonders why there is heat in this debate. What we are debating right here and now is whether the motion moved by Senator Colston for the suspension of standing orders ought to apply to his notice of motion. Does anyone in this chamber believe that his notice of motion is not to do with a major question of public policy?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Yes, absolutely. It is just a sleazy tactic by a sleazy senator.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I believe that is out of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, it is in order.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I believe that is out of order, and I ask you to rule it out of order, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is out of order, Senator Ray. I ask you to withdraw that please.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I comply.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I will not get distracted by that sort of remark that is not fitting for this place.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You asked the question.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, I did ask the question. You apparently do not believe—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for debate for urgency has expired. Question put: That the motion (Senator Colston's ) be agreed to.17:01:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)11Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Colston, M. A. Harradine, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.32Bishop, M. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous309810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—In accordance with the resolution of the Senate passed earlier this afternoon, I ask senators to stand and observe a minute's silence as a mark of respect for the Stolen Children National Sorry Day.Honourable senators standing in their places.Committees3098309830983098Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I present the government's response to the report of the Employment, Education and Training References Committee entitled Not a level playground—Private and commercial funding of government schools , and I seek leave to incorporate the response in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—`NOT A LEVEL PLAYGROUND—THE PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL FUNDING OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLSGOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCES COMMITTEEThe Commonwealth's policy is that the question of voluntary contributions is the responsibility of individual State and Territory governments. State and Territory governments have previously firmly rejected efforts to obtain national consensus on the issue and have indicated they see the Commonwealth as having no role in this area.The appropriate mechanism for referring issues such as voluntary contributions to the States and Territories is the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). The areas of responsibility covered by the Council include primary and secondary education and it is supported by a number of taskforces which are convened as needed for particular tasks, have prescribed timeframes and reporting arrangements and are reviewed annually. Functions of the Council include coordination of strategic policy at the national level and negotiation and development of national agreements on shared objectives and interests in the Council's areas of responsibility. MCEETYA is therefore the appropriate forum for consideration of the majority of the report's recommendations. The Government considers that the relevant course of action for Parents and Citizens Associations to follow is to pursue these matters further with the relevant State and Territory governments.The Government agrees with statements made in the minority Report that it appears much of the evidence raised by the Committee is anecdotal and unsubstantiated. The Committee's claim that there has been a decline in government commitment to education is not borne out by funding figures. Commonwealth funding to schools, for example, has risen by 88 per cent from 1987/88 to 1997/98. (Source: Table V—Commonwealth Budget Outlays by Function and Subfunction, Budget Paper No. 1 1997-98).SENATE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONSRecommendation 1 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the State and Territory Governments, develop and adopt consistent terminology to describe the various contributions invited, and charges imposed by schools.Response:This would be a matter for State and Territory governments to agree. The Government will refer this recommendation to State and Territory governments for consideration at a future meeting of MCEETYA.Recommendation 2(a) —The Committee recommends that governments fund public schools at a level sufficient to deliver the appropriate standard of education within the Eight Key Learning Areas and commensurate with the National Goals of Schooling.Response-The Government agrees with this recommendation. In March 1997, MCEETYA reaffirmed its commitment to national collaboration and consultations in the pursuit of national goals for schooling. It also agreed to examine the Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia to ensure they reflect current and future educational developments. At the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA, it was agreed that a small group representing the Commonwealth, all States and Territories and the non-government sector should be established to prepare a draft revision of the National Goals for consideration at a future meeting of MCEETYA. Work is continuing.Recommendation 2 (b) (c)The Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments jointly establish a School Education Costs Committee to undertake consultation and research with the aim of ascertaining the cost of delivering, at the various stages of schooling and in each of the eight key learning areas, an education which will meet the basic requirements of those Key Learning Areas and the National Goals for Schools; and on the basis of such data and information determine overall resource levels, allocative mecha nisms and the relative funding shares of the various governments.Response—As indicated in the minority report, the establishment of such a committee would be a matter for MCEETYA. Commonwealth funding for schools has increased by 88 per cent over the period 1987/88 to 1997/98 (Source: Table V—Commonwealth Budget Outlays by Function and Subfunction, Budget Paper No. 1 1997-98) and is guaranteed by legislation to the year 2000. The Government is committed to education reform, better targeting and improved educational outcomes for students, and is determined to achieve real improvements in the areas of literacy and numeracy. While the Commonwealth provides funding for specific national objectives, it is a matter for State governments to decide the allocation of resources to individual schools. 2.Recommendation 3 -The Committee recommends that each State and Territory establish a committee comprising senior education department officials and nominees of peak parent associations to:(a) monitor the amounts set and paid as voluntary contributions, subject levies and other charges(b) monitor schools' compliance with departmental policy that contributions and levies be voluntary(c) record, receive and act on complaints concerning contributions, levies and other charges.Response -This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.Recommendation 4 -The Committee recommends that government schools distribute to each family at the start of each school year a Charter of School Education. This Charter shall set out:(a) the nature and extent of the education that will be provided in government schools at public expense(b) government policy on voluntary contributions, and any subject levies and charges for areas outside the eight Key Learning Areas(c) contact details for the committee appointed to monitor the voluntary contributions and arrangements for subject levies and other charges(d) information on any financial assistance provided at the system level for families in cases of genuine financial hardship to assist with the costs of schooling.Response-This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.Recommendation 5 -The Committee recommends that schools provide a statement to be attached to the Charter of School Education referred to in Recommendation 4. The statement should:(a) make explicit to parents any charges the school sets for the areas outside the Eight Key Learning Areas(b) identify the amounts requested as voluntary contributions and any other charges and the uses to which they will be put(c) identify the amounts requested as voluntary contributions and any other charges and the uses to which they will be put(d) provide information about any assistance provided at the school level for families in cases of genuine hardship.Response-This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.3.Recommendation 6 -The Committee recommends that all States and Territories develop or modify their student assistance schemes to ensure that;(a) eligibility be linked to the Commonwealth Health Card with provision for other hardship circumstances to be taken into account(b) the purposes of the payment be specified and that payments not be used for anything other than those purposes.Response-This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.Recommendation 7 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government commission a major national research project on costs to families associated with government schooling and their relative impact on low income families.Response—The Government does not support this recommendation. This would be a duplication of some of the work of the Committee. However, the Government is interested in ways of supporting choice in the schools sector and in how parents might be better informed of the choices available. The Government will be supporting research into school choice in the schools sector as the best way to ensure that government schooling meets the needs of all students.Recommendation 8 -The Committee recommends that State and Territory Governments amend their Education Acts by inserting the word `education' in place of `instruction' or `tuition'.Response-This is a matter for State and Territory Governments.Recommendation 9 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government restore the level of funding for targeted equity programmes to 1995/96 level.Response-The Government does not support this recommendation which is based on a false premise. Funding for equity programmes has not decreased and this Government has provided additional funding for literacy and school-to-work as programmes designed to give direct benefits to disadvantaged students. The 1997/98 funding package features $596 million for special programs including $163 million for literacy, $148 million for students with special learning needs and $191 million for indigenous education. There is no evidence in the report which demonstrates areas of unaddressed need.4.Recommendation 10 - The Committee recommends that all Commonwealth, State and Territory governments(a) develop comprehensive guidelines for sponsorship arrangements at both school and state levels(b) ensure that effective mechanisms are in place to monitor schools' compliance with the sponsorship guidelines(c) ensure that sponsorship assistance is used to provide additional opportunities for students beyond those provided through the 8 Key Learning Areas.Response -The eight Key Learning Areas were formed as part of the national collaborative curriculum development project under the direction of the former Australian Education Council (AEC). The national collaborative curriculum development project was completed in June 1993. At its meeting in July 1993, the AEC agreed that the publication of the statements and profiles is the prerogative of each State and Territory.The Commonwealth funded the Curriculum Corporation to develop a range of materials to assist in the implementation of the statements and profiles in the eight key learning areas including Annotated Work Samples and a package entitled, Introducing statements and profiles . In addition, the Commonwealth provided considerable assistance to the States and Territories for professional development across the eight key learning areas.The development of sponsorship guidelines is an issue for the States and Territories to consider as they have responsibility for the daily operation of government schools.Recommendation 11 -The Committee recommends that State and Territory Governments which seek to supplement government funding to schools via sponsorship establish a centrally-managed Education Foundation for the negotiation of sponsorship deals, and for the equitable distribution across all government schools of any benefits which result.Response-The Government does not support this recommendation. An additional level of bureaucracy is not required.Recommendation 12 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government require the State and Territory Governments to review practices involving the sale or rental of school land with a view to enabling any decisions and any benefits to be state wide.Response-The Commonwealth does not support this recommendation. The disposal of assets is a matter for State and Territory governments. 5.Recommendation 13 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the State and Territory Governments(a) develop as a matter of urgency a statement of national principles regarding computer based information technologies in schools, and(b) determine the funding implications of providing schools with the technological infrastructure, training and support to ensure that those principles are realised.Response-Cooperation in technology between Commonwealth and States is already underway through OLTC and Education Network Australia (EdNa) School Advisory Group. EdNA is a Commonwealth initiative where States and Territories and non-government authorities collaborate on all aspects of information technology across all sectors of education. Its aim is to maximise the benefits of information technology for Australian education and training. The EdNA Schools Advisory Group focuses particularly on collaboration about informa tion technology in schools. It has developed a set of standards for content and management of websites on the EdNA Directory Service. The Government does not intend to dictate the schools funding priorities of State and Territory Governments. The Commonwealth will, however, seek the agreement of State and Territory governments to specific national objectives in schooling as set out in the Federal Government's policies for schools.Recommendation 14 -The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government reappraise it Capital Grants program with a view to increasing the level of funding to enable government schools to implement technology to a standard jointly determined by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments.Response-Funding under the Capital Grants Programme will be considered in the Budgetary context. Capital Grants funding for government schools for each year from 1997 to 2000 will be $211 million per year.17:07:003101Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The government's response to the Senate committee report Not a level playground—The private and commercial funding of government schools is some nine months overdue. Effectively, they have had just under 12 months to prepare a reply, and they exceeded the normal three-month deadline by some nine months. In that time, they have come up with a startling revelation: that the concerns and the issues raised by the Senate committee on fees and charges being made by schools across this nation are in fact the responsibility of the states. They have attempted to dismiss the concerns of many hundreds of thousands of Australians by buckpassing this issue to the states.This government tries to present to the Senate, in this most inadequate and totally unresponsive manner, its views which should best be summed up as `referring it to someone else to deal with', to basically pass it off to other people; to suggest that the volume of evidence presented by the Senate committee is anecdotal and unsubstantiated; and to maintain the great myth, the great lie that this government seeks to assert, that it is maintain ing its commitment to public education in this country.The committee report demonstrated, over and over again, the substantial concern of many hundreds of thousands of Australians that the level of support by public education authorities is declining; that in recent years we have seen a devolution of responsibility to schools and, as a consequence, more and more, there is an expectation by governments that it is not governments' responsibility to take care of the legitimate concerns for the educational needs of this country, but that it is for individual parents to meet the funding shortfalls that arise from government policy decisions to reduce government expenditure.The Liberal's own National Commission of Audit demonstrated that there was a decline in the level of government spending on school education. Expenditure by all levels of government on schools rose by 2.8 per cent of GDP throughout the 1970s; in the 1980s it rose by a slightly greater amount, but it declined under this government. During the period that this government has been in office, public education support has seen a massive reduction.The government tries to maintain that it is increasing its spending, but the lie was revealed in an answer to a question in the estimates committee. In real terms, in the amounts of money actually being spent, in real dollars that are available for the education of the children of this nation, there has been a substantial decline in public support by the governments of this country. Answer to question No. 52 before the Senate education committee demonstrates in real terms that, in 1995-96, $1.338 billion was spent on government education, by this year the figure had fallen to $1.335 billion and in 1998-99 it will fall to $1.318 billion.Those figures are quite clear, they are official statistics, yet this government seeks to maintain the lie that it is maintaining its level of commitment to public education. It seeks to include the additional funds that would normally be applied for inflation or additional students enrolled in the system in the money spent; it does not acknowledge that it is reducing the money spent on public education in real dollar terms.The Victorian Commission of Audit demonstrated that, in Victoria today, between six and seven per cent of total education revenue is now being raised by parents at a local level; that is, $155 million is coming out of the pockets of parents as a result of so-called voluntary fees and charges. It is not just that people are being expected to put in a bit extra to fund their child's education, the fact remains that not all parents have equal access to money, not all parents have equal access to opportunity. But what you are seeing under this government is a reduction in the level of opportunity, a reduction in the level of real choice being made available to those who seek to use the public education system.The Victorian Auditor-General demonstrated that 16.9 per cent of non-staff school operating costs was raised as a result of fees and charges being levelled by government schools in Victoria. This is a long way from the claims made in this shonky response that this government has presented to this Senate today, which says that there were `unsubstantiated allegations'—not unsubstantiated to the National Commission of Audit, not unsubstantiated to the Victorian Auditor-General. A number of submissions to the committee demonstrated that the real cost to parents of sending their children to government schools is now in the range of 33 to 70 per cent of the non-staff school operating costs as a result of the government cutbacks in that state. Again and again, you see the parents and teachers highlighting to the public that it is not just a question of people not having the capacity to pay.Substantial educational issues follow from that. It has been demonstrated again and again that individual children of families who cannot pay these voluntary contributions—these so-called voluntary levies and charges—through various acts of what I would call humiliation, are being embarrassed and their educational opportunities in our schools diminished. Such examples include the withholding of academic reports; the barring of students from graduation ceremonies and other functions; the withholding of education al material such as photocopied handouts; the marking of students as absent so that Austudy and Abstudy payments cease; the linking of student enrolment or re-enrolment to the payment of levies; the sending out of accounts for payments of levies; the use of debt collectors on children in this country; the failure to provide school diaries to students; and the removal of various state government support payments—the school card provisions, for instance, in South Australia.We see the denying of the use of books, the refusing of students access to computers and library; the refusal to allow students whose voluntary contributions have not been paid to attend excursions or camps; the withdrawal of curriculum materials from woodwork, cooking or photography classes and so on.What the committee demonstrated, again and again, is the use of illicit and, I think, deeply ingrained attempts to humiliate students and force these so-called voluntary payments. The concerns that are raised by the committee go much further than just the question of educational opportunity; they go to some really basic questions about the level of civil rights within the schools in our system.This is a situation that is becoming more and more intense as a result of the declining levels of financial support by governments for public education in this country and a retreat by governments from what was once accepted as the universal notion of the right of all children to enjoy access to high quality public education.What you have seen is a rapid growth in the use of levies and charges to make up for the shortfalls in funding that are the result of these government policies. What you are seeing is an increasing use of practices by schools to conceal the so-called voluntary nature of these charges and to engage in what can only be described as bullying and heavy-handed tactics to enforce payment.What you have here is a Commonwealth government that does not care. It is essentially a Commonwealth government dedicated to the promotion of an elitist view of education—a notion of education that is essentially a 1950s idea—that those who have plenty of money can go to elite schools to enjoy the exclusive conditions of those elite schools and those are the ones who do well in our society. Those who do not have access to large sums of money and do not have access to large sums of disposable cash miss out on educational opportunity. This report is a disgrace.17:17:003103Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I think the comments of Senator Carr are a disgrace. What he is doing is totally misrepresenting evidence. What he is making out to be hard evidence on this matter in reality is just anecdotal evidence. The committee was enormously frustrated in terms of getting any sort of clear picture of what was happening, purely on the basis of a lack of evidence.Let us look at what is happening broadly in the school system in this country in relation to funding levels. What we have had over a very long period of time is increasing expectations of parents as to what schools should provide. That is fine; we have no problem with that. The difficulty is with finding enough public money to fund such a proposition. Senator Carr makes out that this is a new problem but it is not a new problem, Senator Carr, as you realise. If you look at the minority report you will see a quote going back to the Schools Commission in the early 1980s. It raised a lot of the problems that you are raising in relation to there not being enough money in public schools. It is quite a reasonable proposition, we feel, that parents of children in these schools contribute something towards their education.It is quite surprising, however, to find that, far from there being a shortage of public money in education in our public schools, in the case of New South Wales there is an absolutely massive surplus. Let us find out where that is. The Sydney Morning Herald article of 16 April—and as Senator Carr realises, our report was brought down in July last year so we have only the benefit of hindsight with this information; but it makes very interesting reading—lists the funds in reserve that public schools have in the high schools of New South Wales. Senator Carr, it lists all 250 high schools. It has beside it the balances of those high schools.We find, for example, that Bossley Park High—not exactly in your North Shore area of Sydney—has reserves of over $1 million. We find that Goulburn High School has $620,000. We can go through a number of areas in the western suburbs of Sydney: Blacktown High School has $250,000; Liverpool High has $340,000; Tempe High School, which is near the centre of Sydney and has some of the poorer suburbs nearby, has $283,000; Wollongong High, in the steel belt, has $219,000; and Young High School has $432,000.I found your figure for Victoria interesting, Senator Carr, when you said that parents were asked to chip in $155 million. I do not see any great problem with that: if you divide it by the number of school pupils it is not a huge amount of money. In comparison, in New South Wales, if you look at the total of what I have been talking about—and remember your Victorian figure was $155 million—reserves in New South Wales high schools are $285 million. That is just in the high schools, not primary schools—and that money is sitting there at the moment. It is a matter of great concern to the department's general manager of finance, Ken Dixon. He says that funds allocated to schools are to be expended in general in the year of allocation.Senator Carr, you really have to answer this question: if there is such a shortage of funding in public schools, how come they can build up a quarter of a billion dollars in reserves in the state of New South Wales? It is good housekeeping, I am sure, but it does not really paint the poor picture that you are trying to put up.The report that was brought down had dissent from the government senators. What we discovered, in listening to the evidence around the country, was that the extra funding of private money in public schools was not significant and that it came in two parts: sponsorships and fees and charges. We found that in fees and charges these levels were not high and in many states, and in a vast number of schools, there was the opportunity for people who could not pay to make other arrangements. Many of the schemes were voluntary in any case. In the case of sponsorships of schools we found that this was an opportunity for many schools—schools always have limited resources; they always have had and always will—to get extra funding from particular organisations.We find totally unacceptable the recommendation of the opposition members of the committee that that sort of funding should be used outside the eight key learning areas only. Obviously schools should have the flexibility to use such funding across a much broader area. The idea of central sponsorships with big companies sponsoring events and the resulting funds spread across schools is attractive to us. But we were not drawn to the suggestion of opposition senators that this should be a centrally managed pool of funds.The broad implications of what was presented in the report of the opposition members are basically unrealistic on a number of accounts. They are not based on any hard evidence. We really did not see any evidence, apart from a bit of anecdotal evidence—and systems will go wrong in particular places, obviously—that this is widespread across the system. We did not see any evidence that fees are an onerous burden on people. We did see evidence that there are mechanisms in place in most states to do something about that. We did not see evidence that sponsorships are causing that great a problem.In summary, the situation in our schools is that there is quite a reasonable level of funding from the public sector. This is demonstrated by the fact that in New South Wales a quarter of a billion dollars of public money has been salted away. The level of fees is not too high. I think most people would agree that it is reasonable for parents who have children at school to contribute something towards their education. This is not a new idea, Senator Carr. Parents have put in contributions over the whole century.The idea that absolutely everything should be free—that hospitals should be free, schools should be free and universities should be free—is very much a Whitlamesque type view. I thought we had left that behind in the seventies. We saw the economic disasters when a government overspending approach applied. There is a feeling in the community that in all these areas the public should contribute, and that in particular the people who use these particular services should make some small contribution.We found on the evidence that we have—as I have indicated, it is mostly anecdotal—that there is not a high level of this sort of funding in schools. It is not creating a significant problem. In his description today Senator Carr totally misrepresented what was found in the set of hearings. The evidence really is just anecdotal, but he is trying to make out that it is some sort of scientific evidence. We certainly do not have that. This is not a major problem.The responsibility for dealing with the matters raised by the committee rests almost entirely with the states. In the response by the minister to this report he has put most of these matters back in their rightful place. They are things that should be considered by the states through the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, MCEETYA.17:26:003105Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I rise to make some comments about the government's response to the report of the Employment, Education and Training References Committee entitled Not a level playground: private and commercial funding of government schools . There is a huge amount to be said about this, but first of all I have to say that at last we have one government response to one of the reports of this committee.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Your record wasn't so good!ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Senator, what matters is that we wrote a report on early childhood education which was tabled in July 1996. There is still no word from the government. Senator Tierney has a commitment to adult education. This committee did a report on this matter, but we still have not had a response. I would have thought that Senator Tierney would have been pleased to hear from the government.There is a parliamentary convention in this place that governments provide a response within about three months of a report being tabled or at least provide an explanation as to why they cannot conform with that convention. Thousands of people have bothered to prepare submissions, attend as witnesses and put their efforts into making these reports decent and fair representations of the issues that are out there. I think they are very disappointed and jaded when governments are so disregarding of their contributions. I am therefore pleased that we have a response—albeit way too late.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It took Ros Kelly 18 months to respond!ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—You are actually doing very well, Senator. You are over two years late in providing a response to one of the reports of this committee. I have never found it a persuasive argument to say that, just because you are wrong, it is all right to say, `You're wrong because we were wrong too.' Two wrongs do not correct the fault in your case. If I were you, I would urge your government to respond. This is one of those things that convinces people that we are serious about what we do in this place.The government in its response starts off by saying:The Commonwealth's policy is that the question of voluntary contributions is the responsibility of individual State and Territory governments. State and Territory governments have previously firmly rejected efforts to obtain national consensus on the issue and have indicated they see the Commonwealth as having no role in this area.The response is therefore very disappointing. As I heard my colleague Senator Carr say, the response by the federal government to most of the recommendations is, `That is a state and territory matter. We'll have nothing to do with it.' That is not what the community cares for. The community knows that the Commonwealth has a federal education minister who has an overarching responsibility for education services from schools to tertiary institutions in this country. The government has suggested that the minister's interest is of no relevance and that really it should be left to MCEETYA, which is no more than a council of Commonwealth and state officials. It is not a council that actually responds to ministerial guidelines or directly implements policy. It does the work that allows the implementation of policy, but it is not the committee that should be given responsibility for the running of these things.It is cavalier of the Commonwealth government to dismiss its own responsibility—and, I might say, to dismiss it in a contradictory fashion, because with some of the recommendations the government is saying, `It is a state and territory matter, and we have no responsibility,' but in other areas it is saying, `The Commonwealth and the states do work together on this.' What we know, and what everybody said in the committee, is that private funding is necessary for our public schools because government funding for public schools is no longer sufficient for the very many demands on those schools.It may well be that the money has increased, but the demands on the schools have increased far more, and therefore there is an ever increasing gap between the funding provided to our public schools—charged, I might say, under state education acts to provide a free secular education. That retreat from `free' is causing major concern, and the committee picked up on this concern, because what it says is that in some areas of our community, particularly in what are short-handedly known as the Eastern Suburbs, schools are able to set fees and charges for parents using that school and that, in large part, those parents are able to meet those fees, but that, in many other areas of our country, people simply cannot find the wherewithal to pay those fees and charges.Families creep around, embarrassed and afraid for it to be found out that they are not able to afford those fees and charges. There even are specific arrangements to assist families in hardship to get some extra funding from the schools but, once again, a lot of parents are mortified that they should have to register for this kind of assistance. We have actually made a lot of recommendations in the report about doing it so that the privacy and decency of families are respected. We have state and territory governments and a Commonwealth government which are all committed to providing education for all Australians but which are not, according to this response, committed to funding it. That is grossly insufficient.Secondly, we also have that major point that I have just been alluding to, that the need for private funding has led to a gross inequity in the amount of funding going to schools. As I said, schools in the better-off areas are able to set fees and charges and get that extra assistance; schools in those same areas can also much more readily afford the new technology—computers and so on. They are more likely to have parents who can assist the teachers and the schools with getting sponsorship arrangements that also bring more wealth to those schools, while the schools in the so-called Western Suburbs, the tougher areas in our major states and regions, get further and further behind.The number of schools that have access to computers in this country makes a very interesting little map, but certainly many of the schools in the western suburbs and in regional and rural Australia, isolated areas, do not have the same access. If time and time again we hear of the need for access to technology so that our children will at least be able to get the new jobs that require that technology and that kind of training and capacity, then what we are doing is simply writing a formula now for all those children to be further behind the eight ball when they leave their schools.This is a report that I thought the government might take much more seriously, because it is a thoughtful and considered report and because, as I say, the committee had very many submissions from many people who were very concerned that the cost of education was pricing education out of affordability for many families. Many families told us, for example, that they had to choose between funding their children for special classes or funding their children for trips and tours. Many families could not afford both, and so their children were being dudded out of some of those visits and trips that the school curriculum decides are important. They also have to deal with the fact that their children are very isolated, alienated, if they are not able to participate with all their school chums.I find it an interesting thing too that the government seems to be rejecting any recommendation for decent research, for example, about hard data on the actual cost of education. What does it cost to educate a grade 4 pupil in Australia? We do not know. The government accuses us in this response to the report of saying that the evidence was anecdotal and unsubstantiated in many cases. We say that is exactly the case because we have not got the hard data and research, and we recommended that there be such hard data and research—in other words, that the Commonwealth fund that kind of investigation so that we could say in future what it does cost to educate a grade 4, grade 6 or grade 10 pupil, and then we would have a much better idea of what the level of state and Commonwealth assistance ought to be.It is interesting that Senator Tierney was so dismissive of this report: `It is anecdotal; we are not going to worry; it is all made up, and parents out there in the community are not complaining about education.' I do not know where Senator Tierney has been, but the parents that I know are complaining. They are very concerned about the cost of education and they are very concerned that they will not be able to get the best for their children. That is what so many parents actually put their effort into. They will work at second and third jobs; both parents will work, and the highest priority for so many of those parents is to make sure their children get a good education. When people can no longer afford a so-called free secular education, it is time for governments very seriously to have a long hard look at this.I find it very disappointing that a Commonwealth government education minister should put out a report that says, `It is not my responsibility.' In the past we have seen education ministers from the states brawling with the Commonwealth minister for education. It has had a very bad effect on the status of teachers, it has had a very bad effect on morale and it has had a very bad effect in terms of sufficient funding for our schools. The state education ministers know that the Commonwealth's involvement in education is particularly to make sure that they do have adequate funding distributed with equity, and that they get support, so that particularly our children from disadvantaged areas who are doing it tough do get that kind of consideration from the Commonwealth. The government response is a very big disappointment, and parents and families of Australia will judge the government very sternly because of it. Question resolved in the affirmative.3107310717:36:003107Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I present the government's response to the third report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on two international agreements on tuna, and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO 3RD REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIESTWO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON TUNAPreambleThe government has considered the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into the Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese Tuna Long-line Fishing 1996 and is pleased to provide the following response. The government would like to acknowledge the Committee for preparing a concise and clear report which seeks to address the range of complex issues that arise when considering the Bilateral Agreement. The Committee's recommendations are addressed in turn below.Bilateral Arrangements1) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the relevant States, ensures that restrictions placed on either Bilateral vessels or Joint Venture vessels cannot be circumvented by interchange between such arrangements.Under the Bilateral Agreement restrictions are placed on the number of vessels that can operate off the west and east coasts of Australia. For example, in the 1996 Bilateral Agreement up to 20 Japanese longline vessels were permitted to operate north of 34o South off the west coast. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) ensures that this number is not exceeded.When the joint venture commenced in 1991, joint venture vessels were permitted to operate north of 34o South (S) off the west coast. This was additional to the 40 bilateral vessels which, at that time, were permitted to operate under the Bilateral Agreement. This was raised as a concern, particularly by the Western Australian fishing sector, as potentially all licensed joint venture vessels and the 40 bilateral longline vessels could have operated off the west coast.To address this, from November 1994 joint venture vessels were excluded from operations north of 34o S off the west coast. This restriction will remain if a southern bluefin tuna joint venture proceeds in future.AFMA has indicated that it has no difficulty in providing scope for any future joint venture vessels to change to a bilateral licence provided the vessel cap negotiated as part of the Bilateral Agreement is not exceeded. This has been the situation since the joint venture was amended in November 1994.2) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government reviews the existing arrangements for potential foreign ownership of fishing licences within the Exclusive Economic Zone or Joint Venture arrangements which may jeopardise the potential to manage fish stocks in the Exclusive Economic Zone.The issue of foreign ownership is a matter of broad government policy and may, in specific circumstances be referred to the Foreign Investment Review Board. All proposals above certain thresholds need prior approval and therefore need to be notified to the government. Notification thresholds are: over $5 million for acquisitions of substantial interests in existing businesses; $10 million or more for the establishment of new businesses; and $20 million or more for offshore take-overs. The government normally raises no objections to proposals above the notification thresholds where the relevant total assets/total investments is below $50 million.However, in this instance the Commonwealth Government has reviewed the existing arrangements for foreign ownership or joint venture arrangements within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and considers that they do not provide for any arrangements which may jeopardise the potential to manage fish stocks in the EEZ. There is no provision in fisheries legislation providing specific control on foreign ownership of fishing rights. All tuna longline operations within the EEZ are subject to management arrangements administered by AFMA in accordance with the Fisheries Management Act 1991. Domestic longline arrangements apply to Australian boats, and these are developed by AFMA in conjunction with the appropriate fisheries Management Advisory Committee (MAC). This means that operators, including foreigners, who may own Australian boats and licences are subject to the same management arrangements.Japanese vessels are the only foreign flag operators which have been permitted in recent years to longline for tuna in the EEZ either under a government to government agreement (Bilateral Agreement) or through the joint venture (which requires an agreement with the Commonwealth, through AFMA).Both the Bilateral and joint venture agreements specify stringent terms and conditions under which Japanese longline vessels can operate. The terms and conditions are more restrictive than those applying to domestic operators. All foreign operators are licensed and are subject to conditions such as inspections, observer coverage, vessel monitoring systems and are generally restricted to waters where there is limited domestic activity.The government believes the arrangements outlined above support and strengthen AFMA's ability to sustainably manage Australia's fish stocks.3) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the subsidiary agreement on long-line tuna fishing with Japan be for a timeframe of at least two years.The Commonwealth Government agrees that there would be benefits in moving towards a longer term agreement, including administrative savings, a better planning environment and a more appropriate timeframe within which to address complex issues. However, the government believes that important external issues such as the setting of annual national catch allocations by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), domestic management arrangements, environmental perturbations and economic changes may erode the extent of such benefits. These issues are dynamic and a flexible approach is required in order that the government is able to respond in a timely manner to the needs of the fishery and to secure the best benefits for Australia (external issues such as those mentioned above may lead to considerable pressure for an annual review of the terms of any multi year agreement, from either Australian or Japanese interests, depending on the circumstances).In giving in principle support to multi-year agreements, it will be important to develop a clear framework and schedule to deal with these pressures, including an elaboration of the mechanisms provided for in the current negotiation process, or there may be frequent ad hoc demands to implement mid-term changes to the Agreement. Should any changes to the Agreement be negotiated during a mid-term review process, these changes would be subject to the treaties procedure and be tabled in Parliament. It will be in Australia's interest to minimise the potential for mid-term changes to the Agreement, otherwise it will be unlikely that there would result any decrease in the workload incurred or in the frequency with which matters relating to the Agreement would need to be subject to scrutiny.The Commonwealth agrees that a properly constructed multi-year agreement, which takes into account fisheries management needs and recognises that it is essentially a negotiated commercial arrangement, would be beneficial.This is particularly the case if multiple year quotas can be agreed in the CCSBT, which would strengthen the case for a multiple year Bilateral Agreement. However, the Commonwealth Government notes that the adoption of such an approach would need whole of government support, including a revision of the way fishing and port access are dealt with, and may also necessitate consideration of alterations to the fee structure and access arrangements.SBT Certification4) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government raises the issue of the introduction of a certificate system for southern bluefin tuna within the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin TunaAustralia has already sought consideration of a certificate of origin scheme for SBT within the CCSBT regime and within the annual meetings of the tripartite management discussions held prior to the formation of the CCSBT. In 1993, Australia formally proposed a certification system similar to that implemented within the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) to be introduced into the SBT fishery. Japan did not support adoption of such a scheme. After being pressed on the issue again in 1994, Japan opposed any attempt to require documentation of SBT trade. Japanese concern reputedly centres on the administrative burden that such a scheme would impose, a concern that Australia shares.It should also be noted that a certification scheme, although useful for tracking fish in transit, only achieves its full value if monitored and enforced at the market for the fish. In the case of SBT, the main markets are in Japan. In such a system Japan would carry responsibility for the administration and integrity of the system for imports from all countries. Further, as Japan is not technically importing product from its own vessels' high seas activities, such Japanese catch may fall outside any certification scheme. Also, catches by Korea and Taiwan are increasingly being directed towards their home markets. Within these contexts, Australia will continue to consider ways of introducing a practicable certification scheme.Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionThe first meeting of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) was held in December 1996. This new organisation has many complex administrative and scientific issues to resolve in developing a strong tuna management regime in the Indian Ocean. Certification schemes are important tools that will need to be examined as part of that management regime. For tunas other than SBT, Australia sees the first step as being the establishment of basic fishery management measures. For SBT, Australia has pressed within the IOTC that the CCSBT has precedence over SBT management wherever the fish occurs. Australia will continue to argue strongly in the IOTC and other relevant forums that a SBT management scheme should be developed and managed within the CCSBT.Indian Ocean Tuna Commission5) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government:a) notes Western Australia's particular interest in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission;b) facilitates their participation in the delegation to and any consultations relating to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission where possible.The Commonwealth Government has fully consulted with the Government of Western Australia on IOTC issues and has extended an invitation for the Western Australian Government to participate in Australian delegations to IOTC meetings. The Western Australian Government has declined to participate in meetings to date, but has expressed its interest to take part in future IOTC meetings.6) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that Australia deposits an Instrument of Acceptance for the Agreement to Establish the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission on or before 2 December 1996.Australia deposited an Instrument of Acceptance of and then became party to the Agreement to Establish the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in November 1996. Australia attended the first meeting in December 1996 and the leader of the Delegation was elected interim Chair.Tasmanian Waters7) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertakes discussions with the Government of Japan to resolve the communication difficulties between the two fleets.The communication difficulties that the Committee has identified arise principally where the domestic and foreign operators are seeking to fish in the same waters and the differing fishing techniques of both cause fishing gear interaction, a situation that arises periodically as the domestic fishery expands its areas of fishing.Conflict of fishing gear belonging to different vessels fishing in the same area can result in losses in effective fishing time and damage to and losses of gear. Where possible AFMA attempts to facilitate communication between fishermen to minimise these incidents. Instances of gear conflict in waters adjacent to Tasmania occurred several years ago, when there were 40 joint venture licensed Japanese vessels operating in addition to the 10 vessels licensed through the Bilateral Agreement. The large numbers of Japanese vessels fished co-operatively by allocation of lanes in which to set their longlines. The Australian Tuna Boat Owners Association (ATBOA) prepared guidelines advocating sharing of details of line setting location and time between the Japanese and local domestic. The number of Japanese longliners operating off Tasmania is now markedly reduced and the incidence of gear conflict has been negligible.In the period of the last Agreement (1996) there was only one reported instance of gear conflict which was off the NSW coast. In response to this report AFMA immediately notified the Japanese industry indicating that it should maintain a radio watch and communicate with domestic operators to resolve issues. The observers present on the boats operating in the area were advised to facilitate any dialogue. Even though it was only one isolated instance the issue was subsequently raised at the negotiations with the government of Japan when reporting on compliance in the past season. If there was a failure to co-operate, the area of access may be changed, excluding foreign vessels from the areas where gear conflict occurs.Japan has complained of alleged gear theft in the east coast fishery, presumably by domestic fishers. AFMA has again attempted to facilitate communications with the Japanese fleet to ensure subsequent investigations are timely and effective, though to date there has been insufficient evidence on which to base conclusive investigations of the allegations.8) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government creates, as a matter of national consistency, an exclusion zone for the Bilateral and Joint Venture Japanese long-line fishing vessels around Tasmania of 50 nautical miles.The government supports the progressive Australianisation of tuna fisheries, however, it believes that an exclusion to 50 nautical miles (nm) around Tasmania at this time would be premature, especially given current reduced levels of Japanese activity.Japanese fishing adjacent to Tasmania brings considerable economic benefit to the State and Commonwealth. The port of Hobart benefits from Japanese access to the AFZ through the use of port facilities, victualling and recreation. Japan has stated previously it cannot accept a 50 nm exclusion adjacent to Tasmania since some high catch rate areas for SBT which attract its vessels to the AFZ are between 20 to 50 nm off Tasmania. A substantial further restriction off Tasmania would jeopardise general bilateral activity and the potential for a future joint venture adjacent to Tasmania, because it is likely that Japanese vessels would choose not to fish the Tasmanian area at all if the 50 nm limit were applied.The Commonwealth received $425,000 from Japan in 1997 as a component of the bilateral access fee for enabling a specified number of its vessels to fish for Japanese SBT quota in the AFZ adjacent to Tasmania. In negotiating the 1997 bilateral access arrangements the Commonwealth's approach was, cognisant of the Inquiry's recommendation, to increase the exclusion zone from 12 to 17 nm from the coast. There are important other benefits associated with Japanese access off Tasmania, including data collection on both SBT and seabirds through the AFZ observer programme. The Commonwealth regards this information as vital to its management of SBT and obtaining information on the incidental capture of seabirds including albatross. It also maintains an important link with the high seas activities of the Japanese fleet.Japanese activity peaks adjacent to Tasmania during May to July. In 1996 only 10 Japanese boats operated in the area. This is substantially less than previous years due to the cessation of the joint venture and is likely to decrease further in 1997. During the May to July period a maximum of six domestic boats operated in any one month. With such small numbers of vessels the potential for gear conflict appears slight.On balance, the government believes its approach in reducing Japanese access from 12 nm to outside 17 nm is appropriate, given the benefits Australia derives from this arrangement, but that this be regularly reviewed in light of the level of Australian activity in waters adjacent to Tasmania. Recreational and Game fisheries9) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertake a review of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to determine if amendments are necessary to facilitate the management of all Australian fisheries to enable the recreational and game fishing industry to be treated as a commercial activity with particular reference to achieving optimum utilisation of the resource.The Fisheries Management Act 1991 provides for the management of commercial, charter boat and recreational fishers, noting that the recreational sector can only be managed by the Commonwealth when under a formal management plan.AFMA is currently considering the jurisdictional issue of charter boat and recreational fishing and the Commonwealth's role in managing these sectors. A paper on the issue was discussed at the July 1997 meeting of the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA). The Ministerial Council agreed to give its `in principle' support for day-to-day management of the recreational and charter sectors of Commonwealth-managed fisheries by the States and Northern Territory, noting Queensland's position that jurisdiction for recreational and charter fishing for tunas and billfish should remain under Commonwealth jurisdiction. A revised policy paper concerning recreational and charter fishing will be released by Commonwealth and State agencies for public comment in the first half of 1998.The views of the Treaties Committee on recreational and charter boat fishing, along with the concept of optimal utilisation, will be considered in developing the Commonwealth's position on recreational and charter fishing management.10) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertakes a full assessment of the relative values of the recreational, game and long-line fisheries and their compatibility as a basis for determining the most appropriate management arrangements for the fishery and the degree of access to be allocated to each sector.The Commonwealth agrees that an assessment of the relative values to the different user groups of the fish resource provides important information to underpin consideration of how to allocate access to the resource in the most efficient and equitable manner. Both the Department of Primary Industries and Energy (through the Fisheries Resources Research Fund (FRRF)) and AFMA have commissioned studies on options for valuing recreational and commercial fishing. These initial studies indicate there are many complex issues which would need to be addressed in a full assessment of practical methods for valuing and allocating access among users. Furthermore, any outcome will likely be contested by one or more of the affected groups.One issue relates to the many claims that have been made by the gamefish/recreational sector that the value (in dollar terms) of a billfish to it is far greater than to the commercial fishing sector. There are a range of techniques which could be used to establish values for the different sectors using the bill fish resource, though estimating values is difficult for the charter boat and recreational sectors, and comparing "like with like" presents major challenges. For the longline sector it is relatively simple to establish value through the use of standard production approaches, although an important requirement of establishing values for this sector is that there is provision of accurate information by operators.For the charter boat industry, values would be more difficult to establish. Prices for boat charter and capture rates of game fish could be used to calculate a value for this sector. However, the problem with such a calculation is that it would be difficult to separate the proportion of the charter price which is associated with the fish resource, as opposed to a number of other factors. These include the quality of the charter service, whether the operator is charging a fair price and the actual importance of capturing fish to the charterer.Establishing values for recreational fishing is probably the most difficult task. If there is market information associated with recreational fishing then this should be identified and considered in the context of the characteristics of the particular type of recreational fishing for which a management decision is to be made. A range of non-market valuation techniques could be used to estimate dollar values for recreational fishing.The application of these techniques is usually complicated and there is no assurance that the estimates will be reliable. Further, the Commonwealth notes that, even if dollar values at a given time can be estimated, allocation on the basis of relative value is complicated by the fact that values change over time.Finally, the Commonwealth recognises that while relative values in dollar terms are of importance in considering allocation of access, the range of impacts, costs and benefits which cannot be expressed in dollar terms should be taken into account when developing fishery management strategies. For example, relative and cumulative impacts on the status of the marine resource must be considered, in conjunction with estimates of the relative values of fishing by various groups.11) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government require all Japanese longline vessels fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone to cut free all marlin (alive or dead), without removal from the ocean.The Commonwealth has agreed to ban the take of blue and black marlin by commercial fishing operators. The ban will apply to both domestic operators and Japanese tuna longlining vessels operating in the Australian fishing zone under the Subsidiary Agreement. The ban will be effected by the introduction of legislation in early 1998 which requires commercial fishermen to return blue and black marlin to the sea whether dead or alive.The Commonwealth recognises the high value placed on blue and black marlin by game fishers in comparison with the commercial catching sector, which regards blue and black marlin as an unintended bycatch. The introduction of the legislation aims to acknowledge these values by establishing an appropriate allocation of resources between the two sectors.Under the new legislation, domestic operators may retain as part of the commercial fishery, striped marlin. Japanese vessels will be required to cut free all marlin species caught in the AFZ (alive or dead) without removal from the ocean. In addition, under the bilateral agreement, Japan has agreed that its vessels will not target any billfish (except broadbill swordfish).A difficulty with the legislation, particularly in relation to Japanese vessels, is the issue of compliance. Japanese longline boats will have on board in freezer holds high seas' caught marlin from the same stocks which can not be distinguished from `in-zone' catch. These marlin will have been caught outside the AFZ, both from the high seas and neighbouring countries' EEZ's, in areas where there are no restrictions on their retention.This problem may be overcome by arranging for the Japanese longline vessels to inform Australian authorities of the amount of marlin on a vessel at the time at which it enters the AFZ. Through random inspections either at sea or during victualling at an Australian port, such information could then be verified.Partly in recognition of concerns over Japanese catch of important recreational/charter marlin species, a range of area closures and restrictions on fishing methods have been applied to the Japanese, including exclusion from the East Coast Tuna and Billfish Fishery management area off Cairns, known as Area E, and 50 nm closures off the east and west coasts.12) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertakes a review of the existing tuna fishing technology to determine if modifications could be made to reduce the bycatch of non-target species.The minimisation of the impact of fishing operations on the environment, including non-target species, is a requirement under Objective 3(1)(b) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991.From industry's viewpoint, there is a financial interest in maximising the catch of high value target species and avoiding bycatch of non commercial species. A range of collaborative work with industry has been carried out and is planned for the future, including research into fishing practices, development of more selective fishing gear and improved mitigation devices. Environment Australia is also preparing a consultative Threat Abatement Plan which aims to minimise seabird bycatch.Research into the reduction of seabird bycatch in tuna longline operations is on-going. The development of tori poles, or bird scaring devices, is a major step forward and an example of what can be developed through co-operative research involving industry operators. Regulations have been put in place to require the use of tori poles by domestic and foreign longline operators south of 30o South latitude. Furthermore the Commonwealth continues to work with industry and researchers on ways to improve bycatch mitigation measures, whether for seabirds or other incidental bycatch.In the case of billfish, specifically blue and black marlin, research is under way to determine where in the longline hauling process these species are taken. Preliminary research indicates that blue and black marlin are taken at a shallower depth than the target tuna species (generally bigeye and yellowfin tuna), i.e. during the deployment or hauling of the longline.However, to accurately determine longline performance sophisticated electronic equipment (such as hook monitors which measure depth and water temperature) and longline deployment gear (line shooters) are required. The former is not yet commercially available and the latter is quite costly and generally only carried by large vessels dedicated exclusively to tuna fishing. It is anticipated that as the domestic fishery continues to expand, the technology employed by industry to accurately position their longline in the thermocline will be refined and result in cleaner catches of target species.Port Access13) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends the separation of port access from the subsidiary agreement but making port access subject to the continuation of Japan's membership of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna and participation in Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.The Commonwealth is supportive of a reconsideration of the structure for the Bilateral Agreement, including the option of separating port and fishing access, but in doing so recognises the need to fully assess the implications of any changes proposed. In developing any alternative arrangement careful consideration needs to be given to ways of securing the management and research funding derived from the current arrangements, as well as the important issues of the longer term financial and other benefits gained by providing Japan with privileged access to our fishing zone. The provision of port access, without effective means to secure Japan's collaboration in effective international monitoring regimes, could work quickly to erode the integrity of the CCSBT and put the full range of benefits we seek to secure for our domestic industry (both fishing and port servicing sectors) at considerable risk.The Committee's recommendation recognises the risks that giving unfettered port access to Japanese fishing vessels may lead to adverse impacts on the sustainability of the fish stocks if these vessels fish on the high seas without effective management and regulation. The recent identification of forty Japanese vessels fishing in breach of Japan's domestic fisheries management regulations on the high seas off the south western AFZ has highlighted the realities of this risk.To address the risk, the Committee has suggested that any separate port access arrangement must be linked to responsible participation in regional management regimes, such as the CCSBT. The Commonwealth strongly supports this approach, but believes it should go further and deal with a range of related issues not directly addressed in the Committee's report. These include implications for access fees, the incentive to fish in the AFZ, links with the CCSBT and the potential impacts on local fishing and port economies around Australia.Notwithstanding these issues, as Australia's domestic tuna fisheries expand, a reduction in Japanese fishing activity in the AFZ is considered likely in the mid to longer term. Under such a scenario, a progressive restructuring of the access arrangement to provide a greater separation of fishing and port access, with strong obligations imposed for co-operation on data and monitoring needs, may suit both countries in the medium term.Based on the Committee's recommendation and the additional issues identified above, the government is at present evaluating alternate approaches to providing for both fishing and port access in an administratively simple and effective way while securing the wider range of benefits and realistic returns to Australia.Any approach must seek to meet Australia's interests in securing effective co-operation and compliance with responsible regional fisheries management regimes. Matters of importance include the implications for access fees, need to provide for effective monitoring of fishing effort adjacent to the AFZ through surveillance and electronic vessel monitoring systems, high seas observer coverage and in port inspection of fishing vessels entering our ports.Environmental14) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government formalises a process in which management plans relating to international fishing agreements require a specific written clearance from the Environment Protection Group if they have significant potential environmental impacts.The Commonwealth Government accepts this recommendation and DPIE, AFMA and the Environment Protection Group have held discussions to clarify the way in which the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 may apply to the Subsidiary Agreement and to reach clear understandings on how to deal with potential environmental impacts that may arise from the Subsidiary Agreement.15) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Minister responsible for fisheries requests the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to provide all relevant information to the appropriate Commonwealth environment agencies for consideration of issues pertaining to the marine ecosystem.The government is committed to ensuring that relevant data collected by, and accessible to, Commonwealth agencies is used in the most productive way, including as a basis for research on the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems in general and on seabirds in particular. In this respect, DPIE and AFMA have an open approach to providing data to other Commonwealth Departments or agencies which have a need for that data in the performance of their functions, subject to legislated confidentiality requirements.In order to address the specific concerns of the Committee, an informal working group of officers from AFMA and Environment Australia has been established to examine protocols on data exchange and related issues. This group will develop protocols for information exchange and use, as well as investigate processes for evaluating the information needed, the methods of collection and the development of co-operative approaches on issues of common interest.16) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government reviews, as a matter of urgency, Commonwealth legislation to ensure that the nomination for the listing of fish as endangered or threatened is based on merit and not impeded by anomalies in the wording of legislative or administrative procedures.As a result of observations made by the Committee, relevant Commonwealth legislation has been reviewed. The government believes that there are no legal impediments to appropriately protecting fish in either the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (S14) (FMA Act) or the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (ESP Act). The current procedure is that nominations are interpreted in light of the ESP Act and based on merit. The government is not of the opinion there are anomalies in the wording of the FMA Act, but notes that the Act is due for revision in five years.17) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government requests that State and Territory governments review, as a matter of urgency, their legislation to ensure that the nominations for the listing of fish as endangered or threatened is based on merit and not impeded by anomalies in the wording of legislative or administrative procedures.The Commonwealth notes the Committee's recommendation and will invite the State and Territory Governments to review their legislation with regard to the Committee's concerns.18) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that a specialist observer training scheme be introduced with additional emphasis on seabird research, the collection of data on seabird bycatch and the effectiveness of seabird bycatch mitigation methods.The Commonwealth supports committing a proportion of observer time to seabirds, however, the primary focus of their work will remain collection of data on tunas and associated fishes. Observers document and sample seabirds taken during the fishing operation and tori pole use as part of their core tasks. They also undertake discard monitoring and completion of a seabird diary, as time permits.Given the already substantial training given to observers on these matters, AFMA does not see a need to provide additional training. Further specialist seabird observers would not be cost-effective since many foreign vessels encounter few, if any, seabirds on a per trip basis. AFMA prefers, and has frequently done so in the past, to use specialist ornithologists where there is a particular need for expert advice on such things as seabird age, reproductive status, heavy metal content and DNA/race research.Where seabird research programmes are developed and approved, AFMA will maintain the flexibility within the observer programme to assist in the collection of necessary data to support this research.AFMA recognises that the issue will be considered in the process of developing the Commonwealth Threat Abatement Plan for oceanic longline fishing and depending on the outcome of this process that there may be need to review observer training arrangements.19) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government produces an "easy to use" guide to assist the identification of seabirds which is to be issued to Japanese vessels, including Joint Venture vessels, at the time of pre fishing inspections.The government agrees that an "easy to use" guide to the identification of seabirds would be a useful tool for long-line fishers. A number of seabird-related books are available specifically for longline operators. These commonly contain a brief seabird guide.One highly regarded publication prepared by Australians is the book entitled "Catching Fish Not Birds" which was published in Japanese in 1994 and widely distributed by observers to the Japanese longline fleet. AFMA is investigating whether reprints of this book can be made for distribution at the time of pre-fishing inspection. The CCSBT has also agreed to more widely promote the distribution of this book amongst vessel owners and masters.Another excellent guide was produced by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the government is seeking the agreement of the Commission for the reproduction of the seabird identification illustrations from that guide as a single laminated card suitable for use on board tuna longline vessels.This is an issue that will also be raised in the context of the development of a Threat Abatement Plan and at the Ecologically Related Species Working Group of the CCSBT.20) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government expedites research into eliminating seabird bycatch as a matter of priority.Since 1990, the government has funded research into seabird bycatch mitigation measures which have resulted in changes to existing tuna longline technology. These changes include the development of tori poles and bait casting machines. The government will continue to examine research opportunities to develop and enhance current technology.The government views the Threat Abatement Plan being developed under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 as a major opportunity to identify and direct key action on seabird bycatch reduction.The government is currently funding the following Environment Australia programs relevant to the reduction of seabird incidental capture in fishing operations.. status and conservation of albatross and their interactions with fisheries.. oceanic biology of wandering albatross using satellite telemetry . Antarctic Ocean Research Fund monitoring program on Macquarie Island.The government is aware of relevant research programs funded by other Australian organisations. These include albatross foraging studies, research on bait sink rates, preparation of global reviews of albatross populations, population studies of birds incidentally killed and albatross banding programs.The government will be seeking the co-operation of southern ocean fishing nations in research into seabird interactions through a number of international fora. In particular the government will be pressing for identification of research priorities by future meetings of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group of the CCSBT and the relevant working groups of CCAMLR.21) The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Commonwealth Government formally invites representatives from Japan and New Zealand to participate in the development of the Threat Abatement Plan.The government has invited observers from Japan and New Zealand to participate in the development of the Threat Abatement Plan. It is hoped that this will encourage international co-operation and collaboration in research programmes to develop effective solutions to seabird bycatch.17:37:003115Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.3115311517:37:003115Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I present the 71st report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Further possible false or misleading evidence before Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases , together with a volume of submissions and documents.Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—by leave—I move:That the Senate endorses the finding contained in paragraph 22 of the 71st report of the Committee of Privileges.On 5 December 1997, the following matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges on the motion of Senator Woodley:Having regard to the documents presented to the Senate by the President on 25 August 1997, and other relevant evidence, whether any false or misleading evidence was given to the Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases, and whether any contempt was committed in this regard.This report is the second report relating to possible false or misleading evidence before the Unresolved Whistleblower Cases Committee, and involves much the same information as was previously provided in the context of the Privileges Committee's earlier, extremely limited, inquiry.As the present report makes clear, the Committee of Privileges did not consider that it was the most appropriate body to examine these issues but nonetheless received and considered submissions in respect of the reference. It has decided to publish all submissions received. The committee's own evaluation of matters before it was assisted considerably by a substantive submission from the Criminal Justice Commission, which is quoted at length in the report.The committee has concluded that, on the evidence before it, allegations made that misleading evidence has been given to the Unresolved Whistleblowers Committee have been satisfactorily answered by the CJC. Accordingly, the committee has found that no contempt has been committed by the commission. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous31153115311517:40:003115Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Abetz, I present additional information received by the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in response to the 1997-98 additional estimates hearings.Committees31153115311517:40:003115Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 360 entitled Draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1998-99 . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I table the Report on the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1998-99, in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the Auditor General Act 1997.The tabling of this report is an historic occasion for the Committee which has a unique role in oversighting the process of budgetary appropriation for the Australian National Audit Office. This measure is in itself a significant guarantee of the independence of the Auditor-General from Executive Government.In its Report No. 346, Guarding the Independence of the Auditor-General , tabled in October 1996, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts recommended that it be given a statutory power to consider and report on draft budget estimates of the Audit Office as part of the then Auditor-General Bill. The Committee argued that the proper resourcing of the Auditor-General and the ANAO was:'integral to the functional independence of the Auditor-General'. It also argued that it was the `role of Parliament and not the Executive to take responsibility for ensuring that audit functions are adequately resourced'.Although under Section 56 of the Constitution it is indisputable that the Officeof the Auditor-General cannot be legally or financially independent from the Executive in any absolute sense, it has been possible to insulate the Auditor General's financing from Executive influence to ensure that the audit office cannot be starved of funds.A process has been put in place whereby the draft budget estimates are considered by the JCPAA before the budget is handed down, and the Committee's report provided to the Minister for Finance to be tabled as soon as practicable after the budget. This process allows the resourcing of audit functions to be made transparent to the Parliament so that the Executive is held to account for the level of resources appropriated to allow the Auditor-General to fulfil the statutory functions of his office.With respect to the budget estimates for the 1998-99 financial year, the Committee accepts that the budget appropriation figure of $53.703m (as finally adjusted), is sufficient for the ANAO to carry out its functions.The Committee acknowledges the response of the Minister for Finance who commented on the co-operative manner in which this unprecedented process of Parliamentary scrutiny was implemented by the JCPAA and the Australian National Audit Office.I commend the report to the Senate.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills3116r418311617:41:003116Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Watson, I present the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation on the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997, together with submissions received by the committee and transcripts of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.17:41:003116Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees3116311610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jacinta Collins)—I have received letters from the Leader of the Australian Democrats seeking variations to the membership of various committees.Motion (by Senator Tambling)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Participating member: Senator Allison for the consideration of the provisions of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill 1998Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee— Participating member: Senator Woodley for the committee's inquiry into the development of Hinchinbrook Channel.Bills3117r414Billsr404Billsr4153117Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Tambling) 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.311717:44:003117Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT) REPEAL AND AMENDMENT BILL 1998The Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill is one of a package of three bills, the other bills being the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998 and the Superannuation Legislation (Common wealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998.This main purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Commonwealth's civilian employees can participate in our choice of funds policy announced in the 1997 Budget. This will give them greater flexibility and control over their superannuation arrangements.At present, many Commonwealth employees are tied to membership of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS) or the closed Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS). The bill will close the PSS to new members from 1 July 1998 and new employees will be able to choose from superannuation arrangements made available by their employers. My colleague the Minister for Finance and Administration announced on 13 May 1998 that the closure of the PSS and the repeal of the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 would be deferred until 1 July 1999. The Government will be moving a number of requests for amendments to the bill in relation to these matters.From 1 July 2000, CSS and PSS members will, if they wish, be able to cease active membership and choose the alternative superannuation arrangements made available by their employers. The bill will provide for the entitlements of CSS members who exercise choice to be based on the resignation deferred benefit, but adjusted to ensure no windfall gains for members or increase in unfunded liabilities.The bill will make a number of other amendments to various superannuation acts covering civilian employees. For example, it includes amendments to the Superannuation Act 1976 to allow CSS members to transfer amounts held in the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust or other funds to the CSS Fund. It will also amend that act so that reversionary benefits may be paid to a CSS pensioner's spouse or child from a post-retirement relationship with fewer restrictions than currently apply. Similar changes are made in respect of spouses' benefits under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948.In addition, the bill provides for modifications to the superannuation redundancy entitlement arrangements for employees who cease to be CSS or PSS members as a result of a sale or outsourcing, in the terms announced in June 1997. In line with the operational date of the new preservation arrangements to apply to the general workforce, the bill will provide for preservation from 1 July 1999 of the employer financed component of a CSS or PSS lump sum superannuation redundancy payment.The bill will also amend the Superannuation Act 1976, with effect from 5 December 1997, to restore its original intention in relation to the acceptance of late elections for preservation of rights. The operation of this provision has been changed progressively by interpretations placed upon it by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court. The changes included in the bill are designed to balance out the interests of the Commonwealth with the interests of current CSS members and former members, who seek to make a late election. Without these changes the Commonwealth could continue to incur costs in the order of $10 million per year.Finally, to simplify and streamline the administration of our civilian superannuation arrangements, the bill includes amendments to simplify the operation of relevant legislation and subsequently repeals a number of acts applying to those arrangements. Savings and transitional provisions relating to these repealed acts are included in the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 contained in this package. The other bill in the package, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998, will provide for new rationalised administration arrangements for the closed schemes and for the continued administration of the repealed acts by a new Board, the Commonwealth Superannuation Board.Financial ImplicationsThis bill will result in a net increase in Budget outlays as a result of increased funding of future superannuation accruals. However, this will be offset by a reduction in future unfunded superannuation liabilities. The financial implications of the bill are explained in more detail in the explanatory memorandum.COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION BOARD Bill 1998The Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill is part of a package of three bills, the other bills being the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998 and the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998.This bill will establish a new Commonwealth Superannuation Board to administer the closed Commonwealth superannuation schemes and, where determined, other schemes covering Commonwealth civilian employees.The Board will comprise an equal number of member and employer representatives and will have an independent chairman appointed with the agreement of the other Board members. Member representatives will be elected by scheme members.The new Board will have greater responsibility for administering the rules relating to the Commonwealth's closed superannuation schemes subject to certain caveats, including in relation to the employer costs of the schemes.The Board will be able to recover its administrative costs from employing agencies. Budget funded agencies not currently meeting these costs will receive the funding that was previously allocated to ComSuper.Financial ImpactThis bill does not involve any additional Budget outlays.SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT—SAVING AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1998The Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Bill is part of a package of three bills, the other bills being the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998 and the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Bill 1998.This bill will put in place saving and transitional provisions as a consequence of certain amendments to the Superannuation Act 1976 and the subsequent repeal of the Superannuation Act 1976, Superannuation Act 1990, Superannuation Act 1922, Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 and the amendment of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973 as provided for by the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998.The bill will also ensure that the Commonwealth Superannuation Board will continue to use ComSuper for the provision of scheme administrative services for a period of at least three years from 1 July 1998.Financial ImpactThis bill does not involve any additional Budget outlays.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Committees31183118Message received from the House of Representatives notifying changes in the membership of joint committees as follows—Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee, Mr Prosser in place of Mr Sinclair. National Crime Authority—Joint Statutory Committee, Dr Southcott in place of Mr Bradford, discharged.31193119Message received from House of Representatives, relating to an extension of time to 1 June 1998 for the Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund Committee to present its advisory report on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998.Business31193119Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request of Senator Lees) agreed to:That business of the Senate notices of motion Nos. 1, 2 and 3 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, relating to the disallowance of Declarations made under the Telecommunications Act, be postponed till the next day of sitting.3119Motion (by Senator Tambling) agreed to:That government business notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer (Senator Ian Campbell) for today, relating to the consideration of legislation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Bills3119r4213119Consideration resumed from 25 May.17:46:003119Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In the light of the debates we had in this chamber last night and discussions we have had today, I rise to make a statement about schedule 5 of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 dealing with the choice of fund proposal.Under the current superannuation rules, many employees have no choice about which superannuation fund is entrusted to invest employer superannuation contributions made on their behalf. This applies to many award employees and to non-award employees. It intrigued me in the debate which we had last night—which was not much of a debate, I have to say; it struck me as more of a filibuster—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I have another hour.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You have an hour, have you? That is exactly what I thought, Senator. It was interesting that it came through in that debate that somehow we can allow employees choices about whole aspects of their lives—their jobs, whether they get married, whether they have children; all those important things—but we dare not, apparently, according to some of the speakers, allow employees to make choices about their superannuation. The decision as to which fund invests their money seems at present to almost be a random accident of who happens to be their employer. Employees who want to entrust contributions to another fund cannot do so. We believe that this is undemocratic, uncompetitive, unfair and unAustralian. The government's bill brings in our view greater democracy, fairness and competition to Australia's superannuation industry.The Australian Labor Party and the Democrats have put forward detailed alternatives to choice. These alternatives are unacceptable to the government. There are a number of reasons why they are unacceptable but one is paramount—neither the Democrats nor Labor guarantee employees any choice of a superannuation fund at all. The government believes employees should have the right to choose their superannuation fund, just like they have the right to choose their home loan, the sort of car they buy or what political party they vote for. We give employees all these rights, but I have always said that when it is a choice between trade union interests and worker rights it is always easy to see where the Labor Party will come down.The government cannot accept choice of fund legislation that does not provide employees with a right to choose. Of course, the gov ernment believes that it is important that employees are able to make informed choices and that is why we have worked hard to develop, in consultation with industry and consumer groups, a comprehensive disclosure regime and effective information campaign.Sadly, our repeated offers of briefings and consultations with other parties have not been taken up. I regret that. However, I do congratulate the Greens, the Australian Consumer Association and others who have taken up the offer we have made. We would hope that the ALP and the Democrats will be able to accept the principle of allowing employees to choose once they—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—They already do.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No they do not. We hope that on reflection they will show more confidence in employees—people whom, from time to time, they like to say they are representing.The government remains committed to introducing legislation that provides employees with real choice of fund and to providing a disclosure and information campaign in support. However, I regret to say that the numbers in this place at this time appear clear. Monday night saw, quite frankly, utter filibustering by the opposition and what could only be described as an extended set of second reading speeches. Senator Conroy has already loudly and boldly made further threats to do exactly the same thing today.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—If you want choice then have a discussion about it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator, this is the constructive way you deal with these matters. It might suit you at Labor Party conferences to attempt to shout people down but you are in the Senate chamber now so why don't you just listen for a change?After we went into the committee stage we did not even get around to debating any of the amendments put forward by the non-government parties on schedules in the bill. I regret to say that the end point of continuing in this vein is evident: we would use up a very large amount of Senate time—that was clearly the intention of the Labor Party senators—yet we would probably not have a bill that would guarantee choice of fund and open competition, which is important from the government's perspective.Such a course of events would jeopardise the prospect of a number of other measures in the bill, particularly the savings rebate, and I can see we are going to have an interesting debate on that as well. The government simply cannot accept this, and I wish to emphasise that the government will continue negotiations with all other parties in an attempt to reach an acceptable position on the choice measure. The government believes that if other parties put the interests of employees first, such an arrangement could be made so that a choice bill could be passed, hopefully in the these sittings of the Senate.To this effect, the government will be seeking to introduce the choice bill in the other place as soon as possible and will be seeking consideration of this new bill at an appropriate time during these sittings. I have circulated some amendments that I would propose to move and which would, as I said, have the effect of excising the schedules on choice from this bill.17:54:003120Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Firstly, I want to take up the allegation from Senator Kemp that my colleagues and I were engaged in a filibustering exercise last night. I totally reject that accusation. One of the frustrating things in dealing with this government and particularly with you, Minister, is that we do not get answers of substance to questions. I put on the record last night seven or eight questions relating to the issue of choice—and, indeed, the rebate issue—and the effect it has on private savings. This is a very important issue which I must say, Senator Kemp, you have done your very best to avoid since becoming a minister. You have done your very best to avoid direct, succinct, accurate and relevant answers to questions in respect of this issue. I reject the issue of filibustering.I am not going to take up a lot of time but I want to briefly respond to a couple of the other points you made. You made the point in your comments, and you have made it on a number of other occasions, about what is wrong with Australians having the right to choose. Superficially that is a statement of some appeal, but you neglect to acknowledge that, unlike purchasing a house, purchasing insurance or even getting married, superannuation in this country is compulsory. It is compulsory for employees to be members of a superannuation fund. They have to do it. You do not have to buy life insurance, you do not have to buy a house, and you do not even have to get married.So we have a system, very similar to Chile's, where it is compulsory to have private superannuation. What you consistently fail to address are the failings of a system such as Chile's. It is a very good working example, with some horrific outcomes, of where superannuation is compulsory. There are very significant flaws in a model that forces choice.I would like you at some stage—obviously not in this debate because you are withdrawing schedule 5—to attempt to explain how we are to overcome the problems of a choice model. As well as the problems of inducement and coercion in respect to people being forced into a particular superannuation product, there is the fundamental problem we have in this country of between two million and 2½ million people being functionally illiterate. How on earth are they to sit down with these key feature statements and analyse, in a compulsory superannuation savings environment, what is in their best interests when they cannot even read or write? You can have all the education campaigns in the world, all the television advertising, all the literature going out and people being bombarded with propaganda, but how are they to understand what they cannot read? That is one of the fundamental failures of a full choice regime.Even in the United Kingdom, and I gave examples, where people were convinced that choice was good for them, about one million people withdrew from very good superannuation funds to join a model—wrapped in the rhetoric of freedom and choice—imposed on them by the then Thatcher government. Of the one million people who exercised choice, 900,000 of them got ripped off. These were not illiterate people, either. They were teach ers, miners and public servants who could certainly read and write, as I understand it, but they got ripped off to the tune of £10 billion. This is a very good example of the Thatcher government's ideological obsession to impose compulsory choice—a contradiction in terms—and people who were well educated got ripped off.The government has not attempted to explain, not only to the Senate but to the Australian people, how people will be better off under a choice regime. What I find most ironic, if not obnoxious, Senator Kemp, in your government's approach to its argument on choice is that when employers kicked up about the choice model, you backtracked. Employers did not want full freedom of choice. Employers did not want the employee to have the ability to say, `I want my superannuation paid into my particular fund' because employers feared the administrative difficulties that would emerge. Theoretically, if employers employ 100 different people, they would have to pay superannuation into 100 different funds.When the employers pressured you and the Treasurer, Mr Costello, you quickly backtracked. You put a veto on choice, and the veto is: if the employer does not agree, there is no choice. You know that the employers were very concerned about the administrative difficulties of paying into a multitude of different funds on employee demand. So the very model that you were offering—in the guise of freedom and choice and the other rhetoric you surround it with—is in fact employer choice.I am gravely disappointed, Senator Kemp. The ongoing debate about superannuation has convinced Labor that, where an employee wants to opt out of a particular fund and it is administratively convenient for an employer, and the employee and the employer mutually agree—this is your approach—at a workplace, that is not a bad thing. This is reflected in the Labor amendments. So it is a grave disappointment to me that you have got uptight and upset. The numbers do not look good for you, although we will see how the cards fall in the Senate. But you have started pouting and blowing out your bottom lip.We want this debate on choice. We want debate on the amendments that Labor is proposing that provide fundamental employee choice—worker rights. We welcome that debate, and we want to see our amendments, which improve your choice model, passed by this Senate. We are very gravely disappointed that, in your fit of pique, you have withdrawn it. That is a grave disappointment. But we would still like answers to the questions that were posed last night by me and my colleagues Senator Conroy and Senator Hogg. I think they were very relevant questions for this debate.I will conclude by saying that this issue of employee choice of superannuation, which is effectively the deregulation of the retail market, is one of the most radical prescriptions—economic changes, fundamental changes—that your government has proposed. We will agree on that, I suspect. It is one of the most radical changes, that will affect millions of Australians. The overriding principle must be: will it generate a higher retirement income for Australians who have superannuation? That is the overwhelming principle. It is not whether it is in the best interests of banks, life agents, the money markets, financial managers or life companies. It is what is in the best interests of Australian consumers, millions of Australians who have superannuation, and fundamentally your model fails the test.18:03:003122Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Firstly, can I thank Senator Kemp for withdrawing schedule 5. I think that is a victory for commonsense.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—That's not what Sherry said.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Unfortunately, I suspect it has more to do with the legislative program that you are trying to push through in these last few weeks than actually responding to community concerns, because here again in today's papers we see headlines such as `Super fund choice has firms in a flutter' and `Employees' super choice is to opt out'. Today's papers are again pleading with the government to reconsider its choice regime—because it has not been initiated by employers; it certainly has not been initiated by employees. I would like to think it is not a factor that you are struggling to get through your legislative program. I understand that MIB is also possibly not going to get before the chamber because of that legislative program. I really do hope that you are genuine when you say you would like consultations and you would like to try and find a choice regime that everybody in this chamber can support. I hope that is the case because a number of issues which Senator Sherry has already referred to really do illustrate what I believe is not actually a genuine position on the part of the government.I asked yesterday about the details of the money tree program. I am still waiting. It would be three months since I first asked this question. I think I asked it in Melbourne—some of the officers here would be aware of the request that I put via the superannuation committee. But still to this day a simple thing like `what did the Labor government spend on the money tree program?' is unavailable from your office. Table it. Is it a secret?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Don't you know what you spent on your own program?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I actually do.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Why are you asking me?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The government wants to stand up here and say we are the ones filibustering and we are the ones delaying this legislation when in actual fact the information has been available to you for months and you have not supplied it to the chamber. So don't come in here and get pious and say, `The Labor Party is filibustering on choice.' You have had the waffle machine on full bore. You have not been prepared to answer the questions that many senators, including many on your own side, have asked about this. You have not been prepared to sit down and discuss the issues.You have had an ideological barrow to push that is about attacking industry funds, that is divisive, that is reducing national savings, that does not have a serious education program to address ABS statistics—statistics that have not been made up by the industry, ASFA, the Labor Party, the Democrats or the Greens. You have not been prepared to discuss those issues. You have not been prepared to come before the chamber and actually put those issues on the table—and that is disappointing.I would like to thank Senator Murray and the Democrats, Senator Harradine, and Senator Margetts from the Greens for also being willing to say, `We don't think this is quite the right package. We think there should be further discussions and we think that a compromise could be reached on this issue.' The sides are not really that far apart if Senator Kemp and the government is interested in achieving choice for employees—not achieving choice for employers, which is what this bill does. There is not that much between us. So I would hope that everybody will be willing to sit down in the next few weeks and have some discussions about that, Senator Kemp. I hope that that is the case.As Senator Sherry said, the key here is whether we will see retirement incomes for ordinary working Australians improved through choice. That is the bottom line; those are the key tests that the government has to be prepared to demonstrate to the Senate and to the broader Australian community. How do we address that? How do we give choice to people who cannot read bus timetables? How do we help them to understand the issues so that they can pick up the key feature statements and look at the earning rates and the crediting rates. Most Australians would not know that there is a difference between an earning rate and a crediting rate—a very important issue.Super funds of all complexions—I include industry funds in this—should not be able to highlight a crediting rate to disguise their earning rate. It is very important that Australians know how their superannuation fund is performing, not what they are being credited, not what reserve is being brought into play. It is important that they know whether money is being syphoned off in the good years to pad out the bad years. Those are very important issues.I know we have a busy schedule and that there is plenty of legislation before the chamber but, hopefully, we will have time to discuss issues such as these. We need to ensure that there is full and proper disclosure, that there is no third line forcing, that there is no capacity for spivs to approach employers and say, `Here's the package. Here's how we'll do this: you put all your employees into my little package. Maybe we can talk about the Chile situation where they have kickbacks.' Everything from brown paper envelopes to lotteries, to free mobile phones, to cheap loans have come into play in Chile.We have seen the shocking outcomes in England where many people have been convinced to leave their super fund and join a new super fund, which is far inferior, and then have not been able to switch back to defined benefit funds. These are the sorts of issues in the government's legislation and they desperately need to be addressed and desperately need further discussion. I hope they will also be part of the debate and discussions that we are going to have in the next few weeks.I leave that with Senator Kemp because I know he will want to move onto the savings rebate. I know he is looking forward to telling us about how the savings rebate is going to improve national savings, despite what Ted Evans the secretary of Treasury said. I know he is looking forward to doing that. I know Senator Cook is ready to ask a series of questions. I hope the government and Senator Kemp are genuine about discussing the choice regime, because I will certainly be involved. I absolutely object to the suggestion that we have been filibustering.I am passionately committed on these issues; anybody in this chamber will tell you that. I am passionately committed to making sure that ordinary working Australians have decent retirement incomes and that they are not being dealt with in a mean minded manner. I am passionately committed to choice for ordinary Australians, and genuine employee choice, not some bogus choice where employers get to pick. I will finish here and thank the government for seeing commonsense in withdrawing schedule 5.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that schedule 5 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now move to schedule 4, item 1, government amendment No. 1.18:13:003124Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—As has been noted by a number of speakers, a large number of questions were raised last night. In fact, I have never been in the chamber and seen people more keen to ask questions and less willing to receive answers. Senator Conroy chalked up about 30 questions, and he was backed up by Senator Bishop and Senator Hogg. They all came up with a fascinating series of questions. As we analysed them this morning, we noted the overlaps. Nonetheless, a lot of questions were put on notice, and I assume that at least some of them were put in with a degree of sincerity and want answers. Therefore, I shall respond to those that relate to the bill currently before the chamber.One of the issues raised—I think this was touched on by Senator Conroy and Senator Jacinta Collins—was how the mere distribution of moneys from a trust contribute to the national savings when the moneys received by the beneficiaries do not have to be saved. If we cut through a lot of the comments, we can see that the question asked by Senator Jacinta Collins was similar to the question asked by Senator Conroy.In response to the general comments, the government has examined the available evidence on the provision of tax concessions for savings. A great deal of work has been done in looking at the various savings vehicles, and particularly international experiences where the concessions have been offered on savings and specific savings vehicles.The evidence points to increased savings in the particular vehicles without necessarily resulting in a net increase in national savings in the countries concerned. The upshot of this is that the least distortionary approach was to provide a broad based concession, as the government proposes to do. Trust distributions may not have been saved by the beneficiary but this is not the point. The distributions result from earnings on particular investments that the trustee has made, which is a form of savings. A broad based incentive is in our view— 3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It is not generating economic gain.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, you are not at a Labor Party conference or a faction meeting, you are in the Senate chamber. You jumped up and down all last night and all today, and a series of questions tumbled out and I am trying to give you the curtesy of responding to them. If you can keep quiet for about three minutes, I will deal with the first part of the question that you asked.A broad based incentive is the best way to encourage an increase in national savings; the government does not want to merely change the composition of Australian savings. If you put extra conditions on the incentive, for example, only new savings—and I think that was one of the issues—or savings held for a certain period, you would, by definition, attract less savings.There will always be people who do not want to accept the condition, whatever it is. The group of people who are encouraged to change their behaviour would be smaller. A condition of `new savings' only encourages people to shift to so-called new savings. The point is that a savings rebate with any design limitations will thereby suffer limitations in its chances for success. Accordingly, the savings rebate has been deliberately designed to reward current savers and encourage new savers.As I have said, that was a question asked by Senator Conroy. I am pleased that he has been able to keep quiet for a few seconds so that he could listen to the response.Senator Sherry asked me to outline in detail what the precise addition to private and national savings of the savings rebate is. I think that is probably a fair summary, Senator Sherry, of the question that you put to me. I will try not to pout, Senator Sherry, in giving my response to you. Of all the things you said, Senator Sherry, a lot washes over one's shoulder, but that rather surprised me.Projections by the retirement income modelling unit, RIM, indicate that the government's superannuation policies, including measures announced in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 budgets, will lead to an increase in net private financial savings of 1.7 per cent of GDP by the year 2000-01, and 3.9 per cent of GDP by 2019-20; and an increase in national financial savings of 1.5 per cent of GDP by the year 2000-01, and 3.6 per cent of GDP by 2020. This projection assumes no behavioural response to the savings rebate.If it is assumed that there is a 12 per cent increase in member superannuation contributions as a result of the savings rebate—for example, that is one-third of the response assumed for the former government's co-contribution policy—it would produce member contributions exceeding the cost of the savings rebate on undeducted member contributions alone. The potential increase in private savings is projected to be 0.1 per cent of GDP by 2000-01 and 0.2 per cent of GDP from 2019-20—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It is the net effect.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We have assumed no behavioural change, and now we are looking at making very modest assumptions. Because the public savings loss is negligible, this is also an increment to national savings.If it is assumed, for example, that there is an effective increase in member contributions of 24 per cent in response to the savings rebate, there will be a projected additional increase in private savings of 0.2 per cent of GDP by 2001-02, and 0.45 per cent of GDP by 2019-20. National savings are projected to increase by a further 0.2 per cent of GDP by 2001, and 0.4 per cent of GDP by 2019-20. So these are some examples.The projection of behavioural responses is very hard, as I think was discussed in Senate estimates hearings. I believe, Senator Conroy, you probably did not quite accurately quote Ted Evans's comments there because I think, resulting from an earlier intervention by you, he made some further comments—and I am sure that, if you want me to, we can read those to the chamber.As I have said, the modelling by the retirement income modelling unit, referred to in my earlier response, takes account of the government's policy measures announced in both the 1996-97 and 1997-98 budgets, including choice of funds and opting out of the superannuation guarantee. With this modelling, you can feed various assumptions in.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Will you table it so that we can look at the assumptions?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We will provide you with some material that we can table. I am not quite sure whether it is in the appropriate form tonight, but we are happy to table that. We are always happy to assist the Senate, as you know.Then the question was raised—and it was done I think by a number of speakers: what is the government's and the Treasury's view about how they imagine the bills will assist private savings? I think that summarised a number of thoughts which came through.The savings rebate will reward existing savers as well as providing a significant incentive for potential savers. To the extent that individuals respond to the incentive to save provided by the savings rebate, private saving will increase. The design of the savings rebate is such that, if private savings increase as a result of the incentive, there will be a smaller offsetting decline in public saving and, of course, national saving will increase.The government is confident that there is no question in relation to savings. I think there would be general agreement that there was a significant decline in national savings during the 1980s. There was no doubt that public savings—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It has been going on for 25 years.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—It is a serious topic. Senator, you were in government for 13 years; we have been in government for two and a bit years—and I assume that will continue on. But there is no doubt that there is a savings issue in this country, and I would hope both parties would look constructively at how they can encourage private savings.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—National savings.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Private savings and public savings, with an overall rise in national savings. There is no doubt that Australians in the last number of decades have been very dependent on the savings of foreigners. I would have thought there was general agreement around that it was important to increase national savings. We believe that the savings rebate is one—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Why does your budget show a reduction in national savings?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—What we have done in relation to public saving, as you would be aware—RF4COOKSenator Cook—How can aggregate national savings go down in your budget?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I think that is carefully explained in the budget papers. If you want me to read it out to you, I will. I would have thought it was unarguable that this government has moved very effectively and quickly to repair the problems in public saving. There can be no debate about that. Even the shadow Treasurer recognised there was a problem there.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Four billion dollars in bracket creep.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I think in the last four years of your government you racked up deficits of some $70 billion, which was quite significant, and left us with an overhang of some $10 billion, which the shadow Treasurer accepted.I think Senator Sherry asked a question as to whether the medium term was three, five or 10 years. This referred to the discussion on page 3-11 of budget paper No. 1. It makes clear that the medium-term projection for private savings encompasses a number of factors. Some of these, such as the low and predictable rates of inflation and the superannuation guarantee, are already having an effect. Some of these, such as the savings rebate, will begin to take effect over the next one to two years. Some of these, such as demographic change, will take effect over the next decade or so. Perhaps that is not quite as simple as Senator Sherry might have assumed, but the medium term encompasses three, five and 10 years in looking forward.I think another issue that Senator Sherry raised is how giving the savings rebate to self-funded retirees, who are people in the community most likely to dissave, is going to encourage national savings. One of the great advantages of the savings rebate is that it does reward people for saving. Under the co-contribution, which I do not think Labor could have ever delivered—it certainly found it difficult to deliver while it had the levers of power—the savings rebate will reward those who have saved in the past, such as self-funded retirees, as well as providing an incentive to new savers. We think that is a good thing. We think it is important in a fair and equitable model.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I would hate this to be nursing homes. It will not help.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, you were able to control yourself for at least five minutes. Perhaps I will sit down and see whether we can move on. Before I do, I move:(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 17 (lines 18 to 26), omit section 220AAF, substitute220AAF How amounts must be paid A large remitter must pay an amount by a means of electronic transfer approved in writing by the Commissioner. If a large remitter pays an amount other than by electronic transfer, the large remitter will be liable for a penalty under section 220AAW.I table an additional supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 26 May 1998. The amendment I have moved is of a technical nature. It ensures that there is a clear statutory obligation for large remitters to pay by electronic means, and this overcomes some of the constitutional doubts about the present drafting. Let me make it clear that it does not in any way change the substance of the measure.18:26:003126Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I thank Senator Kemp for being a little more informative about the estimates of the contribution to private saving as a result of the savings rebate. I will read the material that you have provided to us with interest. There was one area that I did want to correct you on. You referred to my questioning the benefits of the saving rebate being given to retirees. I did not. What I did question—and it is in the Hansard —was an issue on page 3- 11 of the budget paper No. 1. In the commentary it refers to a suggestion of an improved outlook for private savings. I did express my surprise that demographic changes over the next decade or so were 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.The reason I asked that question which expressed surprise is that we have an ageing population, and people who are retiring are net dissavers. I would be very surprised if the rebate in the context of people who have already retired actually added to their saving levels. I would be very surprised. I would be very surprised if you claimed that the total level of saving amongst people who are retired will go up as a result of the rebate. The point is that it would seem to me that because of demographic changes there will be pressure towards a reduction in private saving because of demographic changes, not the reverse, which is claimed in budget paper No. 1. You might care to address that point at some stage in the debate.The other question I was going to raise is that, when this measure was announced in the budget, I recall the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, being asked a day or two later in question time whether he was going to collect the rebate. As you would be aware, Senator Kemp, the rebate applies in respect of superannuation contributions, and I assume that is why the Prime Minister would be eligible for the rebate. I do not wish to know the Prime Minister's personal savings habits, but can you please explain to the chamber what is the latest position regarding the Prime Minister's acceptance of the rebate? It is an important question, because he did considerably undermine this measure and contribute to the lack of confidence in the rebate measure by declaring that he was not going to accept it. Can you inform the chamber whether the Prime Minister will be accepting the rebate or not?18:30:003127Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You raise a number of issues. One is an interesting debate, and seeing as you wish to pursue the nature of the demographics on savings—and it is of some value—I will provide you with a more de tailed response to that. I believe it was canvassed in a serious manner so we will naturally respond in a serious manner. Always, Senator Sherry, when I think you are attempting to elevate the debate and my hopes start to rise, I find my expectations being dashed; of course you got back as quickly as you could into the politics. Senator Sherry, my memory is that the Prime Minister did make a statement on that; we will find that statement for you. I have a feeling that it may have been in question time.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It was splashed all over the front page.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No, you asked me what the latest position is and I will provide you with the statement the Prime Minister made.18:31:003127Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I want to clarify something Senator Kemp said before. We recently dealt with the bill to do with trafficking in trust losses. I am sure you remember it—it was quite controversial for those battlers in Brighton. The principle that the government advanced, which we supported, was that the individual that incurred the economic loss should not be allowed to transfer it to another individual who did not incur. It seems to me that the same principle, therefore, says that the economic gain of the income/savings should be incurred and the recipient should be the person who incurs it, not using that structure of a family trust to open a couple of bank accounts for your kids and have a distribution to them, because the kids clearly have not incurred the economic gain. They are not the recipients of the economic activity.When you talk about how proud you are of where you are at on the savings rebate, I am interested in trying to analyse whether or not the individual who actually earns the income that creates the ability to claim the rebate is then able to transfer the income to another party through that vehicle of the family trust, and therefore generate the capacity to make the claim. I am interested in trying to find the consistency between trafficking in trust losses and what is, in effect, trafficking in trust gains.18:33:003127Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—You are really stretching it now, Senator Conroy. I am not sure this has got all that much to do with the amendment before the chair.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—We're talking about the savings rebate in the bill.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No, we actually have an amendment that is before the chair which has been moved, which I do not think you are even aware of. Do you know what it is about?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Do you?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Conroy, as I thought, you do not even know what the amendment is about. There was a very extensive debate on trust losses in this chamber and we were always intrigued to see where Labor was going to come down on it, because there was a huge amount of huffing and puffing on this, Senator Conroy. There may have been some people out there, including those battlers you referred to, who thought the Labor Party was actually going to move one way and then it moved the other way. From memory, you found it very hard to fix a position on that issue, Senator Conroy. This is something entirely separate from this bill. I suppose Senator Conroy will raise every little issue in his kitbag and drag it out, as inevitably occurs in these things, but it has nothing to do with trading in trust losses.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You didn't understand a word of it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I do not think you understand it, Senator Conroy.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You can ask to take it on notice; we will be here tomorrow.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—No, it was explained to you, Senator Conroy. Senator Jacinta Collins raised an issue in relation to the distribution of moneys from a trust contributing to national savings. You have asked the same question again. You are entitled to, but I wish you had listened to the first answer, Senator Conroy. As I was reading through that I noticed some people were listening; some did not.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—I understood it, but you didn't.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I could go through it again. If you can read, we will go through it all again.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Just read it out again.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I do not think I will. I will refer you to—1X4WESTSenator West—They know more than you will ever know, Kempie.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Madam Deputy President, what are you interjecting there? It does not seem to me to be behaviour that is appropriate to one in your high office. Seeing that you are Madam Deputy President, what did you interject then?1X4WESTSenator West—You stop obfuscating and answer the question for a change!ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. The contribution from Senator Kemp at the moment is not relevant to the issue. We are discussing the rebate and the other related matters in this legislation. Senator Kemp should not be inviting interjections from the Deputy President. He should stop wasting the chamber's time.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—There is no point of order, Senator Sherry. That is a debating point.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Indeed, Mr Temporary Chairman, what a fruitless and pointless point of order that was. The question was raised by Senator Jacinta Collins. It was a similar question to Senator Sherry's. Now Senator Conroy has come back to it and he has managed to get trust losses into all this—trust losses which the Labor Party did not do anything about when it was in government but which are now of huge concern apparently. The question was: how does the distribution of moneys from trusts contribute to national savings? Senator Jacinta Collins raised that question, then Senator Sherry raised that question, and now Senator Conroy has come back to that question.The answer I gave was: we looked at the international experience. You will remember I said that we looked at what happened overseas, we looked at the problems of being discriminating in favour of particular savings vehicles, and we looked at the issue of new savings versus existing savings. Then I argued that, in the government's view, a broad-based incentive is the best way to increase national savings. Then I went into some of the problems—the distortions if, say, you have a particular incentive for a particular savings vehicle. Senator, that was the point I was making. I suggest you read what I said. I am not happy to go over it again because it seems a bit tiresome and it seems to be holding up debate unduly, but, if you wish me to do it, I am in the hands of the Senate.18:38:003129Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Minister, perhaps it may assist you if I rephrase my question. The crux is whether or not the individual who is holding the asset—bearing the economic risk—is to be the beneficiary of the savings rebate or not. The key is: who is bearing the risk of the economic activity, holding the asset, and is that the person you are rewarding? If that is the case, then at least you are achieving what you are setting out to achieve—whether we agree with that or not. But it seems that there is an ability to distribute through the trust to individuals who have not borne the economic risk, and they are then the beneficiaries without having generated the economic activity, held the asset or borne the risk. That is the crux of the matter.18:39:003129Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Bearing the economic risk came into the debates we had in relation to franking credit trading and dividend streaming, and I recall it came into some of the debates on trust losses. The savings rebate that you are finding difficult is quite a distinctive measure; the other measures were the subject of other debates at other times. For example, in relation to the savings rebate, the distribution of trust income qualifies because the distributed income would have resulted from the investment of funds by the trust in various forms of savings, such as shares, bank deposits, other property or a business venture. In this sense, of course, trust distributions are no different from interest earned on bank accounts or income earned by a sole trader from his or her own investment in business.Senator Conroy, you are shaking your head. Your government put in place taxation measures which relate to trusts. We have taken some initiatives in relation to trusts, particularly relating to trust losses. But, as I have said, the response to your question is that it is not whether the money is at risk. We have indicated that the savings rebate is widely available to most forms of savings. I think that is one of the merits of it; it is not a problem with it, as you seem to be implying. It is one of the pluses of the design of the savings rebate.18:41:003129Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Honourable senators will have noticed that underneath the government's amendment No. 1 on sheet B98AF338.WB is a Greens (WA) amendment that amends the government's amendment. I move:(R1) Section 220AAF, omit "If a large remitter pays an amount other than by electronic transfer, the large remitter will be liable for a penalty under section 220AAW.".In my speech during the second reading debate, I briefly alluded to the reason this amendment is being moved. It relates to the aspect of the bill that requires remittances by electronic means. The government have created this odd situation in an attempt to rationalise and streamline the system of remittance. It seems that they may have ignored a number of negative or unfair implications. They may have turned a blind eye to the implications for businesses of the changes.Forwarding payments by cheque has previously been a perfectly legitimate form of commercial transaction in this country; now it is not even an option for large remitters. I know that just about every time I go to my own bank they attempt to get me to transfer money by some forms of electronic means or to make payments by electronic means, and I consistently say that I am not interested in that option. Maybe the banks have got to the government and suggested that what is cheapest for them is what they want consumers to do—and not just consumers. We have seen that they have certainly got to the government over the retirement savings allowance. I am just wondering whether the banks have got to the government and said, `Look, this is going to be cheaper for us if these transactions all take place by electronic transfer, and then we won't have to worry about processing cheques.' I do not really think the use of cheques should suddenly be outlawed by governments, even if it is for a limited group of people.Beyond the expensive and time consuming compliance measures that business is faced with, the government is making failure to pay electronically into an offence with a penalty. These fines can be downright unfair and misguided. They are not aimed at what they are trying to prevent, that is, preventing large payers from deferring payment because the cheque is not cleared for some days. These fines are an unfair penalty on large remitters.The legislation proposed in section 220AAW does not seek to penalise late remitters; it seeks to penalise large remitters who choose to use some other form of payment. So they are not penalising a late payment; they are penalising people who would choose to use cheques. So even if a large firm pays by cheque and it is cleared before the due date, the firm is still subject to a penalty of either $500 or 16 per cent per annum on the principal amount for a period of seven days. Many people might think that is a drop in the ocean for a large firm but, considering that large remitters may potentially remit twice per week, the liability for cheque payment, even if they were all on time, could be $52,000 per year.Will it stop there? I just wonder whether, in the end, like analogue telephones and analogue televisions, we will have corporations more and more requiring the parliament to legislate to reduce their costs, the parliament legislating to take away consumer choices. In this case, it might start with business choices and may well end up with the ability of ordinary regular consumers, who may choose still to use cheques, being told that their choices no longer exist. Whilst I would probably like to get rid of the whole section, our amendment removes the penalty from it—and quite rightly so.If, in the end, the government has a sensible way of dealing with late remittances, please come and talk to the Senate about it. I urge the Senate to accept the amendment to that. I am not saying that I necessarily support the government's first amendment on B98AF338.WB but if the government's amendment does not get up, I will be happy to move our original amendment, which is still on sheet 1001 and which does the same thing outside the context of the government's amendment.18:46:003130Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—What is before the chair at the moment is an amendment to the government's own amending bill to which the government has just provided an explanatory memorandum. I have listened to the contributions by the minister and by the Greens. I must say that I am disposed to support the government. I do not understand really what the penalty is on major businesses or big remitters here. There is a penalty for not doing it in the approved manner after you have sought written permission from the commissioner. Why there should not be a penalty is, to me, not a very clear argument and I am therefore disposed to support the government's amendment.18:46:003130Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to make the argument a little clearer. My objection to this is that it should not be a crime to pay by cheque. They are saying the problem is late remittances, but they are not penalising late remittances, they are penalising payment by cheque rather than payment by electronic transfer. I just wonder what the real rationale for it is. I am wondering whether it is the banks saying, `It is cheaper for us to be involved with electronic transfers, can't you put that in legislation?' I wonder about the unfairness; about not targeting late payment but targeting the form of payment—because there is no penalty for late payment, the penalty is for use of a cheque to pay it on time.RF4COOKSenator Cook—That's a fair enough point for the government to answer.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes. The basic question is whether or not in time to come we are going to get the government coming in penalising other consumers because the banks do not want to process cheques. They will say they want people to pay by telephone in the end and, maybe some time down the track, we will get people penalised for not wanting to make bank transfers by telephone.18:47:003131Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will respond to that, Senator. Regrettably, I have been told by the clerks that we have a couple of machinery matters to do before the adjournment. When the debate resumes tomorrow I will provide you with a detailed response.Progress reported.Miscellaneous313118:49:003131Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In response to an order of the Senate made at about 4 p.m. today in relation to the environmental assessment of the alternative of milling ore at Jabiluka, I now table on behalf of Senator Hill: first, a copy of Senator Hill's determination under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1975 directing the preparation of a public environment report; and, second, a copy of Senator Hill's letter to the Minister for Resources and Energy dated 27 April 1998 informing him that Senator Hill had directed the preparation of a public environment report.The order also refers to `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 mine'. Senator Hill is currently preparing a statement of reasons for his decision to direct the preparation of a public environment report. I understand that Senator Hill will table that statement as soon as it is completed.The Senate has, on numerous occasions, recognised that there are categories of advice which relate to the internal workings of government and which should not be disclosed on the basis of public interest immunity. Senator Hill believes that the advice to him from his department referred to in the order is covered by public interest immunity and, accordingly, this advice will not be tabled.The advice from Senator Hill's department also addresses issues which are currently the subject of litigation in the Federal Court between the Northern Territory government, Energy Resources of Australia and, I understand, the relevant Aboriginal organisation. It is established Senate practice that where documents relate to the particular issues for determination by a court and their disclosure may prejudice adjudication of the matter and the rights of the parties there are legitimate grounds for non-production of documents.Documents3131313118:50:003131Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report has been prepared by the Australian National Line, pursuant to the requirement of the equal employment opportunity provisions, and its introduction says:ANL Limited is pleased to present the annual Equal Employment Opportunity report for the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997. This report documents ANL's commitment to equal opportunities for all employees in the workplace.This process was started by then Senator Susan Ryan. I would like to pay tribute to her foresight in getting the equal opportunity concept into employment. It has flourished and is generally accepted now throughout the workplace. There is a reference on page 16 of the report to section 6(c) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. It relates to a responsibility of employers and states:To consult with each Trade Union having members affected by the proposal for the development and implementation of the program in accordance with this Act.The report is simply saying that employers are to consult with each trade union having members affected by the proposal for the development and implementation of the program in accordance with this act. It goes on to say:. The ANL Limited Award 1996 was reviewed with the Australian Services Union. A consideration throughout discussions was to ensure that flexible work practices would be maintained and that no employee would be discriminated against by any new Agreement.The Australian Services Union from its office in Melbourne gives great services to its members. It is just around the corner from my office. It is a union that carries out its duties in the best tradition of its kind. Page 3 of this report says:As one of Australia's major maritime related transport companies, ANL is involved in numerous commercial activities, both internationally and domestically.It is good to see a company of this nature deal with unions on the basis that unions are organisations that make a proper contribution not only to their members but also to the economic development of the company itself and the community generally.I note that this report is a report to the department of which Mr Reith is the head. It would be good if that department and the minister understood that this is what unions—including the Maritime Union of Australia—are about. I commend this report and the approach that has been taken by ANL to its obligations and to the unions with which it deals. It approaches them in a proper way, and in that way we get a good outcome for all Australians.Question resolved in the affirmative.313218:56:003132Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The report of the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council, Environmental Research Ethics: national principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas , sets out ethical guidelines whereby the scientific community can go about assessing the environment. It is interesting to see the principles the council has set out in the report. On page 11 of the report, section 1 outlines `Principles for the assessment and practice of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas'. Under the heading `Basis', the report talks about transparency principles. In section 1.2, the report talks about principles particularly relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' concerns. This is a most appropriate day to highlight this aspect of the report. The goal is, as the report says, to make:Indigenous Australians confident that research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas:. respects their values and customary obligations;. benefits and empowers traditional owners—and so on. The importance of having ethics in scientific research is that the disputes that occur about the environment are normally based on disputed facts rather than on principles. Everybody, whether they are timber gatherers or whether they are environmentalists, says they want to protect the environment or they want to provide work for people.There is little dispute about the principles that underpin our concern for the environment. Little separates people in terms of the principles of getting jobs and developing industries. People want industries to develop. They want people to have jobs. They want to preserve the environment. People want all those things and, as a matter of principle, most people agree. But they disagree about the facts of the situation. Somebody will say about a particular piece of forest, `That's good forest. That's pristine forest. That's forest that must be preserved.' Other people looking at that particular piece of forest will say, `No, this is wasteland. This is timber that would best serve the country by being chipped.'We want a system whereby a true assessment can be made of the actual facts of the matter. It is here that scientists are so important. What we tend to get in areas such as saving the dugong is one lot of scientists saying, `Yes, these provisions should be put into the requirements to preserve them.' Others say, `No, you don't need those provisions in the assignment to preserve them.' We need people who have the scientific ability to say whether that particular area of forest or that particular area in which dugongs live is good or bad.Often people say that you can get whatever opinion you want from lawyers or accountants or from most professions. I think that is too cynical an appraisal; but, in so far as there is any truth in that, it is a bad thing. The only way we can get over that is for people to stand by the ethics of their profession. What this particular report deals with is the ethical standards of scientists that are looking at environmentally sensitive areas. Our arguments about the environment can only be solved ultimately if the people who know about it, the scientists who go about researching a particular area, stick by ethics. That is why this is such an important report.19:00:003133Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The issue of ethics in the conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas is obviously absolutely important. It is probably more important right at the moment than it has been for some time, and I will give you the reason. There are extreme pressures in relation to the outcomes of environmental assessments. At the moment, in Western Australia we have a situation, I gather, where it has recently been announced that for environmental assessments for mining you will have someone called an approved assessor—and I will have to check the wording of that—who not only writes the report but also actually does their own assessment. The ability for such kinds of assessments not only to be wrong or misplaced but also to be ill-informed is enormous, where people may in fact be checking their own work.We have a situation with the environment in Western Australia whereby, for ordinary Department of the Environment assessments, you have private contractors assessing other private contractors, and there is nothing to say that the private contractors will not be assessing their own work. What does it mean if you are in fact employed by the government as a private contractor and you want to continue working for the government? If that government is not wanting environmentalists to be `standing on the hose of development', what does that mean in terms of the way that person will feel, if it is necessary for them to assess those projects?There are other pressures as well. Those pressures relate to the impact of competition policy. When you have a situation where there is more and more pressure to take the lowest cost tender, what does it mean in terms of the ethics involved in environmental assessment, even in sensitive areas? It means this, as far as I am concerned: when people are honest enough to say that a particular area needs a lot of research or has not been well researched, that a particular area can only be researched in certain seasons or may take two consecutive seasons to be researched, or that to do the research properly and present a report properly would take two years, but someone else says, `That's out of the question; it costs too much,' or when a consultant says the hours that they would have to put in to do the job properly, but someone else says, `I am prepared to do it in half the time,' that someone else is saying that because they know how competitive the tendering process is.Where do ethics come into that? The ethics are that the person in this case who is honest may well be the person who misses out on the job. In the midst of all of this, we find people who charge very large amounts of money to be consultants for the government—we are not quite sure under what process—but who do not actually do the work. One example that I can quote is in relation to the Oakagee proposal. The consultant produced a report for the Department of Resources Development. The consultant said in the report, `There is going to be no impact on seagrass meadows, because there are no seagrass meadows.' Funnily enough, that may well have been the answer the proponent wanted, but was it true?A group of other scientists were so angry at that slap-dash way of dealing with environmental assessment that they went to the proposed site at Oakagee, did the measurements, took the dives, took the transect measurements, used a global positioning system and basically quite clearly proved that what the consultant had said was untrue. They proved that what the consultant said was untrue because the consultant had not looked: it was apparently too rough that day, and so he had not done the dives but had apparently only looked at overhead maps and at fisheries reports.So here we have a consultant being paid lots of money to present an environmental report but not doing the work. A group comes in and proves the report is untrue, and guess what? The government does not actually have to do anything about it. Not only are the ethics hugely important, but also governments will have to lift their game, because no longer will people be fooled by that kind of shoddy process. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.313419:05:003134Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I wish to discuss the budget papers relating to science. Before I do so, I would like to acknowledge the comments made by Senators Cooney and Margetts in relation to ethics and science. I should put on the record that there is another important and valuable area of science where we should be evaluating and looking at the ethics of research. That, of course, is in relation to genetic technology. Gene technology and its benefits are dazzling, but there are also some difficult ethical and moral issues surrounding that particular technology, such as with human cloning, owning life forms and stealing cultural practices—and the list goes on.I again put on record my concern and that of my party that our attempts to have a Senate committee to evaluate and investigate some of these ethical dilemmas were rejected by the two old parties. In relation to this year's science and technology budget statements, again this is a disappointment for Australia, a country that has really staked its future on innovation and creativity. Certainly, this government likes to rave on and on about innovation. Last year's Investing for Growth industry policy statement by the government had as its very foundation the notion of innovation. That is what we should be doing, and that is what we need to use the budget to create the chances for.Recently I made an assessment of the government and how it had kept to, or not kept to, its election promises in relation to science. I published that in Australasian Science. In the conclusion, I gave the government about four out of 10 for positive rhetoric while failing to deliver in a few key areas, including its failure to restore infrastructure in the research sector, and its declining support financially for higher education. These are major policy flaws which should have been addressed by this budget.However, I will focus on this year's budget and the moves towards encouraging the private sector to undertake more research and development. This document reports a gross expenditure on RD for 1994-95 of $7.4 billion, up 5.5 per cent over the previous year. This was a contribution of approximately 47 per cent by business enterprises and made up about 1.61 per cent of GDP. More recent figures are not yet available. This document also shows that Commonwealth support for major science and innovation programs has increased from $3.6 billion in 1997-98 to $3.7 billion in 1998-99, which is actually a decrease in real terms of about 0.5 per cent. It is claimed that, excluding some capital works programs, it would show a 0.4 per cent increase in real terms.Sadly, these claims are best interpreted as showing the budget expenditure on science and technology has stayed the same since 1996-97 and the policy reliance on innovation is not matched by budgetary commitment by the government. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this whole story was the dramatic cut in the 1996-97 budget, where there was a staggering 10.7 per cent decrease in Commonwealth funding in real terms. This cut has not been restored since. The report concludes:Looking at the broad changes . . . Budget funding for the research agencies has remained static in real terms over the period from 1987-88 to 1998-99.I believe this just undermines the government's so-called commitment to innovation.It is also concerning that the figures are not yet in to show the effects of the government's decision to cut the 150 per cent RD tax concession down to 125 per cent, saving $2.4 billion over four years. The Academy of Science suggests that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest this single measure will have caused the excellent growth in business RD to falter. This is supported by the budget papers, which show that the uptake for the START program funds has been poor. Does this mean the government has, through its tax policy, stopped business investment in RD in its tracks? I hope not, but I suspect so.The conclusion from this document is the need to seriously re-examine the place of government funding for science and technology and to at least repair the damage of the 1996-97 budget cuts, and to re-examine incentives to encourage business to invest. I look forward to the commitment from the government in the near future to some of these areas. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.313519:10:003135Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report is a national interest analysis, and it obviously includes in it some elements of the more positive approach that has been taken by government in recent times to anti-personnel landmines. But there are still some major issues that remain. I would like to take the opportunity at this point of acknowledging the work that has been done in Australia over time by Sister Patricia Pak Poy internationally but especially within Australia in increasing the knowledge on landmines. That work was in fact acknowledged and celebrated in the awarding of the ANZAC peace prize this year, and very well deserved it was.The national interest analysis includes reasons for Australia to take the proposed treaty actions. I will read from it:The past decade has witnessed a growing number of instances where anti-personnel mines have been used indiscriminately.Of course, one of the arguments that have been used in relation to anti-personnel mines is that it is women, children and non-combatants who are most impacted on. But it is not entirely their use; it is the weapons themselves which are inherently dangerous. It is not a matter of whether you use them indiscriminately. In many cases people deliberately put landmines in places where women, children and non-combatants will encounter them. Whether that is meant indiscriminately I do not know, but in many countries those are the ways landmines are used.So we should be dealing with the fact that not only do we see the majority of victims being non-combatants but that it is not just the indiscriminate use of landmines, it is the fact that the weapons themselves, wherever you use them, are inherently dangerous because most of them are meant to be not easily detected. The reality is that the danger of the landmines themselves becomes the problem and becomes the inhumane element of what we are dealing with. The report says:In addition, the Convention also requires the states parties to destroy or ensure the destruction of stockpiles of anti-personnel mines within a period of four years after the entry into force of the Convention, with provision for the retention of a minimum number of anti-personnel mines for training.We still do not know what this means in terms of numbers. We know in terms of the treaty but we do not know in terms of numbers for Australia. I guess it is unlikely that it is in the terms that each country will make its own decision. I might indicate that under `Costs' the report says:Noting that final destruction methods and exact quantities for retention are still to be determined, initial indicative costs for destruction of the stockpile are $4.1 million, of which stock write-offs total $3.9 million.Landmines themselves per item usually are not a terribly expensive commodity, so $3.9 million worth of landmines is a great many landmines. One wonders what Australia was ever proposing to do with that quantity of landmines, considering all the negotiations that have been going on in recent years.Further on under implementation there is a section in the second last paragraph which reads:The Government will consider on a case-by-case basis requests for assistance from other states parties within the framework of its overall policy response to the landmines issue. . . . receive assistance to the extent possible for mine clearance and related activities.I guess the question is whether or not we assist those countries that have not signed the convention. That becomes, obviously, a very difficult question in terms of the humanity of the situation.I am cruel enough to remind the Senate that in June 1995 I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time, Senator Gareth Evans:How can the government justify not supporting a complete ban on anti-personnel landmines, including their manufacture, given their appalling record as an indiscriminate destructive weapon which is mainly targeted at civilians in regions of conflict and whose effects are felt a long time after the conflict is over?The response from Senator Evans at the time was that our position was `hopelessly utopian'. We were proved correct—the so-called `hopelessly utopian' position was much more achievable than the position the government was taking. Finally, the trip-wire grenades used as mines by the Australian military are still not banned under this provision. 19:16:003136Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I was recently in Angola and Mozambique—two countries that are blighted by war and the legacies of war. One of the legacies of war in both places is landmines, which were laid down in the millions—it seems a hard concept to take on board but that is literally so.In both Angola and Mozambique, Australia has much to be proud of. In Angola I went to a workshop where people made artificial legs to replace the natural ones that were blown off by mines. Australia has put funding into that and made it a successful undertaking. There is, for reasons I cannot go into now, some issue as to whether or not funding will continue to that particular undertaking in Angola. I take this opportunity to urge Australia and Australia's government to see to it that that undertaking is kept going because it does provide much needed aid to women and children, and men as well. Anyone who is injured is entitled to sympathy and to an artificial leg, I would say. Those people are entitled to the legs that they would otherwise be denied were funding withdrawn. Australia is not the only country that people can look to for funding, but certainly we are a compassionate nation and we need to look to that.In Mozambique I witnessed the blowing up of a couple of mines around a particular village. I was with other Australians at the time. The crew that undertook the clearing of mines in Mozambique were trained by the Australian Army. This is a proper time to acknowledge the work that the Australian Army does overseas in actions such as this where its personnel clear mines. It is a task that needs a lot of patience, training and concentration. Those elements have been put into the area by the Australian Army. They were directly in charge at one stage; now they are at the point where they have become advisers. I think that is something to be proud of. Major Peter McIntosh was on duty at the time I was there and I would like to acknowledge the great service he has given to Mozambique and to Australia. I acknowledge not only him but those who went before him and those who will come after him. It is a noble task.Let me end this way, Madam Acting Deputy President: if you do get the chance, do urge the government to keep the undertaking going in Angola. Secondly, if you ever go to Mozambique go and see the mine clearing and make sure you give the Army personnel there great credit. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment313610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.313619:21:003136Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—In the adjournment debate this evening I wish to comment on the current debacle in Sydney over the East Circular Quay development. The erection of a 15-storey building that obscures a view of the Opera House from almost every part of the city is an absolute outrage. Not surprisingly, it has prompted a public outcry. A public meeting last week attracted 1,500 protesters, including the playwright David Williamson, scientist Dr Tim Flannery and broadcaster Margaret Throsby. The meeting heard estimates of the cost to get the site back ranging from $250 million to Premier Bob Carr's touted figure of $700 million.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—He is trying to balance his budget.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Yes, he is trying to balance his budget. Regardless of the cost, the meeting was unanimous in its decision that the building, dubbed the `toaster', has to go and it has the support of international figures such as Robert Hughes and the architect of the Sydney Opera House, Joern Utzon.The depth of feeling locally, nationally and internationally means action must be taken. East Circular Quay is a site of great significance to Australians, as it is home for the building which many regard as our national icon and symbol, the Opera House. It also incorporates other Sydney landmarks: the harbour, the quay and the botanic gardens. Sydneysiders have great pride in the city, and they will not allow this building to ruin its appearance and its reputation. At the moment, arriving at a solution to removing the `toaster' poses great difficulty, as the whole issue—perhaps appropriately, given the site—has become something of an operatic event. The debate must be allowed to return to sensible levels of dialogue; emotion must be contained.The role of the New South Wales Labor government in the fiasco is to be condemned, as is Premier Bob Carr's attempted sidestep to avoid tackling the issue and taking any blame. The fact of the matter is that it was Bob Carr who signed the approval for this building. This was 10 years ago, when he was the New South Wales minister for planning. Not only did he approve the development, he approved it to be 20 storeys high. The present building is 15 storeys high so, if Mr Carr had his way, it would be a third higher than it is now.His approval has allowed a building that blocks out a view of the Opera House from most parts of the city. What great vision this man had, and has, for his state. He signed on the dotted line to allow a building which overshadows the Opera House. His actions have turned what was envisaged as an area for the people into a high-rise accommodation tower which only the very wealthy can afford. Mr Carr's signature has allowed an elitist tower, owned and developed by overseas interests, to spoil an unparalleled icon of our built heritage.Even as minister for planning, Bob Carr exhibited the traits which are all too apparent now: lack of vision, lack of leadership and lack of commitment to the people of New South Wales. Now that the project to which he gave the nod has spun out of control, guess what? He is appealing to the federal government to bail him out. Based on press reports, there are indications that a solution could be brokered with the building's owners, Hong Kong Shanghai Hotels. Pressed about this, Mr Carr showed how diminished is his own party's confidence in him. Mr Carr mentioned a figure of $700 million being needed to buy the site back from its owners. Perhaps his own government does not keep him informed because it now emerges that Hong Kong Shanghai Hotels held private talks with the New South Wales government as recently as last year, at which they reportedly said that they would vacate the site for something in the order of $250 million.The public meeting in Sydney heard that the Save East Circular Quay Committee had received word from an intermediary for the developer that it was prepared to sell the site for $300 million. The total value of the development has been put at $600 million. One thing that must be avoided is a Dutch auction with the owners to buy the site back. Very detailed examination must be made of the true value of the undertaking to the owners. In October last year the site was valued at $85.8 million by the Valuer-General. The fact that only 22 of the 237 apartments in this gross complex have been sold—and all of those before 1996—indicates that the project is something of a commercial dud. Obviously, at prices starting from $700,000 for a one-bedroom apartment to $5.5 million for a sub-penthouse, the owners have priced themselves out of the market and this may be behind their willingness to vacate.Mr Carr and his government have consistently failed to listen to the people of Sydney on this matter and have only taken the cotton wool out of their ears in recent weeks. In the face of continuing protest—local, national and international—Mr Carr, using his $700 million figure, tried to insist that the building was too expensive to buy back and that the whole thing was just beyond his government to fix. Once again, he failed to recognise the values and pride Sydney people have for their city. They will not just turn away from what they regard as a travesty which was foisted upon them against their will.They fought on and, only hours before the protest rally, it was learnt that the Hong Kong Shanghai Hotels had expressed a willingness to quit the site for something in the order now of $300 million. Having been caught out on the figures, Mr Carr has the unmitigated hide to turn to the federal government to come up with the readies to get the site back. Mr Carr's ineptitude in this matter has meant that the obstacles to resolving the problem have not been addressed.A land swap might simply move the problem, not solve it. In the past, there has been justifiably strong resistance to the notion of swapping land next to the Opera House in return for land elsewhere, on the proviso that permission would be granted to exceed height restrictions in other locations. Given Bob Carr's previous penchant for a 20-storey building, such a scenario is a frightening possibility.The government has control of much harbour and foreshore land and it must be stopped from doing any deal which compromises these sites. But there is no doubt that the East Circular Quay apartment building is out of character with the site, with the city and with the wishes of the people, so the problem cannot be left unresolved. The critical question is: where would the funds come from to get rid of it? One suggestion which seemed to have some merit was to start a new lottery to help raise some of the money needed. After all, this was how the Opera House was funded, so it would be appropriate to at least help return East Circular Quay to the way it was envisaged through similar means. But the New South Wales government has poured cold water on that idea.Another suggestion was a one-off fee in New South Wales. Raising $300 million would represent a cost of $67 to each New South Wales resident over the age of 20. This would be in keeping with the desires of the people after a recent Bulletin poll showed people were overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of using taxpayers' money to solve the issue. However, Bob Carr has turned to the federal government and wants money from the Federation Fund to be used to solve the problem. Not one solution has come forward from Bob Carr on his own account. Bob Carr obviously did not confer with his federal Labor Party colleagues on that one.The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, has gone on record saying:There are many priorities confronting that Federation Fund and I'm not sure that would necessarily be the highest.Effectively he has told Bob Carr to abandon the idea. For once I agree with Mr Beazley. The Federation Fund was, however, not established to help remedy Mr Carr's colossal errors of bad judgment. The billion dollar fund was set up in the 1997-98 budget to fund projects of national significance as part of the activities to celebrate this nation's centenary of Federation. Mr Howard made it very clear the funds belonged to everyone. Announcing the plan, he said:Everybody will be treated equally because the centenary of Federation does not belong to one or other side of politics. It belongs to all Australians and this is a practical demonstration of that commitment.Giving money to Bob Carr hardly fits that scenario.The Federation Fund projects are ones of major cultural, economic and social significance. As part of Mr Carr's logic, he claims the coalition government is not giving enough money to New South Wales and he has conveniently ignored the fact that the Corowa bridge on the New South Wales-Victorian border is getting $12 million and that there is funding for the Opera House of $32 million and other money for the cathedral refurbishments and other projects.Mr Carr ignores, in relation to the Federation Fund, that it is up to state governments to develop and to submit proposals for funding of major projects that would have the support of all Australians. Bob Carr has to find his own way to clean up the mess that he allowed to be created at East Circular Quay.313919:31:003139Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—This evening I want to document the frustrations of one of my constituents who has been trying to make the adjustment from CES to working with Centrelink and Employment National. I am not going to make any comments myself. I am just going to use the documents that have been sent to me, because I think they clearly illustrate the enormous problems we have with these changes. This gentleman writes that on 9 September 1997 he was registered with DSS and CES and got casual work for eleven weeks around Christmas. He states:April 1998Getting worried and financially desperate.I am sorry that some members of the government on the other side seem to think it is amusing. I do not think you will as I go further. He continues:But the big glossy ads for the new Employment National give me hope, assistance, training, case management.Read in the Innisfail Advocate that the CES staff of 13 will be replaced by an Employment National staff of ONE serving the area from Cardwell to Babinda. A bit disconcerting but those glossy ads restore my faith.April 17 1998Put in my fortnightly form at Centrelink and ask if I have to do anything for the new system. No, I'm told, your registered on the computer. Too easy, such efficiency, I can hardly believe it.May 1 1998D Day! I try to find the Employment National Office no one knows where it is. The CES is closed. I spend the afternoon ringing to find out something. Centrelink . . . is engaged as usual cant get through Emp. National . . . and . . . at last a . . . human voice but they cant help me they've never heard of Innisfail.I presume it is a central telephone number.They will get someone to ring me back.Someone from Employment National—rings me from Townsville he gives me the old CES number and address then he gives me a Cairns number—I have to pay STD—turns out to be the old CES. He senses my desperation I sense his. He will get back to me as soon as he can. May 5 1998I've somehow been given the number of Jobs Australia Innisfail . . . they apparently are the old Skilshare and are also contracted. They tell me I need a Centrelink Job Search No. and they'll help me. Living 10 miles out of town these visits are not easy. I go to Centrelink and ask for a Job Search No. The staffer looks surprised that I've found out about the secret numbers and reluctantly and with difficulty because the computers are not working properly gives me my number. At last, off I go to Jobs Australia, alias Innisfail Job Centre and their computer isnt working properly but they take my details and will get back to me once I'm linked.I read in today's Innisfail Advocate that Emp. Nat. will be opening tomorrow in a small shopping centre in town.May 8 1998I still havent heard from Jobs Aust. I ring and I'm told I am linked but there are only 4 jobs, none for me, sorry they forgot to ring me.I come to town and to the new Emp. Nat. office. The phones and comps havent been connected yet but the operator . . . seems to know something. As a six to twelve month unemployed I'd be categorised as flex 2 and therefore jobs Australia would look after me. Emp Nat is contracted for flex 1 and 3. Centrelink should have categorised me and referred me!I go home and ring Centrelink . . . its engaged then eventually I get an extensive spiel about things that have nothing to do with me until I'm told to wait for up to three minutes for an operator after 5 more three minutes I give up and ring complaints. I speak to—someone—who takes my concerns tells me shell fax them to Innisfail and Ill get a call within 3 hours. After 4 hours I ring her back shes surprised and says she will ring Innisfail and some one will contact me within the hour.The Innisfail Centrelink manager . . . rings me and seems helpful and concerned about my situation she cant help me now cos the computer isnt working properly but she will find out and have everything by Monday.It goes on:May 11 1998The Centrelink manager—doesnt seem quite so accommodating this morning she hasn't had time to find anything. She checks the computer which isnt working properly and gives me a form to fill in which will allow them to assess and categorise me she doesnt know why I hadn't been given this form earlier. There are teething problems. Funny cos I new about these changes months ago why didn't they?. . . . . . . . .May 13 1998D Day+1? I take my form in and I'm sure its the same info I gave in Sept 97. I wait 30 min to see an operator—she—takes my form and tells me I havent filled it out properly I show her that I have in fact. She doesnt want to process it and I suggest that it is the same info I gave in Sept. No she says, I'm sure says I, well its in a different format says she. Well I want to know what category I am and what assistance I can get. The computers not working properly anyway it will take 2 to 3 weeks for your case to be referred to Jobs Aust or Emp Nat.I DONT BELIEVE IT I'VE BEEN CONNED. Why wasn't all this done before I've been wasting time for two weeks and now you say I have to wait 2-3 weeks more. It doesn't matter she says the training doesnt start till June 15 anyway. BUT there are only 10 funded places.At this point, the constituent rang my office. Senators might say that this is just one example and that perhaps it is a case of the individual being unfortunate or not being able to access the right course for gaining assistance. But I am receiving—as are many of my colleagues in this place and in the other place—these kinds of complaints daily on the telephone. We also receive other letters.I have a letter from a constituent in Bowen. Again, time will not allow me to detail it all but I will give you the flavour of it. It states:At HomeTelephone call No. 1—To enquire when these employment services would be available. The department's officer's reply was `You know as much as I do.'Call No 2. C.E.S Ayr—`No idea.'Call No 3. C.E.S NSW—`No idea.'Call No 4. The officer suggested we call 013 for the number of Employment National.Call No 5. Employment National—Consultant to return our call.Call No 6. Office of De Anne Kelly, M.P., federal member for Dawson, they would look into this matter and get back to us.Reply from call No. 5—Employment National.The consultant from E.N. advised that the available facilities were located at the office of Northern Employment and Training Organisation (NEATO) which has been established in Bowen for some time.Reply from call No. 6—De Anne Kelly's office advised us to call NEATO.Telephone call No. 7—Contacted NEATO and they advised that they would be available to see us on Tuesday—anytime.Light at the end of the tunnel???And so the letter goes on. An interview was then held but they advised my constituent that they were a private employment service and that they covered only the area from Ayr to Cannonvale, and my constituent does not live in that particular area.If this were not so serious, this attempt at replacing the very good service that we had through the CES would be a joke. People are phoning and they are being given the runaround. There is nothing there for them. I hope that the minister on duty will take these concerns to the minister responsible because, as a Queenslander, he must surely be receiving as many complaints as I am. I understand that just as many complaints about the failure of the new system are being received throughout Australia.314019:41:003140Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to report to the Senate on the events of the last couple of days at Jabiluka and on my visit there last month. Before I get to that subject, I must say that Senator Coonan's message regarding the Opera House could just as easily have been said about Jabiluka. The international condemnation and community concern that she talked about happen when you put a uranium mine slap-bang in the middle of a world heritage area. I also entreat her to add her voice to the call for the Sydney Opera House to be nominated for world heritage—this is something that Senator Hill has been most reluctant to pursue since coming to office.But on the subject of Jabiluka, last week the Northern Territory police, along with the Darwin based tactical response team, moved onto the scene of the new uranium mine at Jabiluka. They gave the peaceful protesters there 24 hours to clear the blockade site and told them that they would be arrested, that their materials would be confiscated, and that road access to the site would be cleared for heavy duty construction works. The police and the tactical response group made it very clear that there would be a mass assault on those peaceful protesters.Eighteen people were arrested on Tuesday of last week, including the Mirra senior traditional owner, Yvonne Margarula. She was arrested for being on the lease site, which is, of course, her own land. That very same day we saw protests in eight different countries around the world. Yesterday there was a pre-dawn raid at the site. The police arrived before the protesters had a chance to chain themselves to the blockade and there were a further nine arrests before 7.15 in the morning.The police moved in with six police cars to block the road between Magela Creek and Jabiluka, and they stopped the protesters' vehicles attempting to go through by using the pretence of checking for defects. The protest will go on. There are many people still prepared to go to Jabiluka. These are the people who are carrying the flag for the majority of Australians and who do not want this country taking part in this deadly nuclear cycle.When I was in Jabiluka a few weeks ago, the situation then was that the Northern Land Council had agreed to allow Energy Resources of Australia, the mining company, to proceed with the project in return for the sorts of promises that were made when the nearby Ranger mine began—promises which, by and large, have not been to the benefit of the local indigenous people and particularly not to the Mirra people.ERA's announcement came with the advice that its consultation with Aboriginal people was complete but, of course, the question is: what Aboriginal people? The traditional owners were identified by Mr Justice Toohey in 1982 as the Mirra people. He said that the `Mirra are a local descent group who have common spiritual affiliations to sites on the land that place the group under a primary spiritual responsibility for the sites and the land.'The Mirra people have held fast to their refusal to have a mine on their land. But the decision has been made on their behalf and not by them. It is also fair to say that ERA has attempted to render the Mirra invisible with the language in its publicity that engages in post-Mabo analogies of terra nullius.Clearly, the Mirra people are hampered in their fight by the fact that they live in a place far removed from the central business districts of the eastern seaboard which, of course, are where most of the mining industry cheer squad reside—that is, the finance managers, the major banks such as the National, the ANZ and Westpac, and of course the mining company publicity machines. The latter are helped along by some $333 million of government subsidies to the industry over a five-year period.One of the Mirra people asked me to convey this message to the Senate:Please ask them to think of our children, our children's children, our children's grandchildren; to imagine a world with healthy humans on it for another 60,000 years . . . And ask them to consider that no one is perfect, mistakes will always happen, and that we can't afford to play with such incredibly destructive technology . . . to remember Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Chernobyl . . . and the many other disasters whose repercussions we are already living with and can never take back.Very few politicians have been up to see what it is that is being earmarked for destruction. Unfortunately, this trickle is not threatening to become any sort of steady flow either.It was my first visit to Kakadu, and I must say that I was overwhelmed with the extraordinary beauty of the place—the vast green wetlands, framed by ancient rocky escarpments; diverse forests of paperbark, palm and sheoak. It is a place which is teeming with wildlife, particularly birds. Termite mounds, for instance, two metres high are an attraction to the many tourists who flow through the area. I saw places where barramundi leap out of very clear streams and others where crocodiles lie in wait. You can look at this place and say it is untouched by European-Australian endeavours.But at the same time the signs of Aboriginal culture are everywhere to see. I was taken to Ubirr, which is very close to the Jabiluka mining lease. This is a place to which overseas visitors flock in order to look at rock paintings which are thousands of years old. European and Asian tourists whom I saw while I was there were both alarmed and puzzled that anyone would want to set up a mine in this world heritage area. After they found out it was a uranium mine, they were even more incredulous—and I spoke with visitors who had decided to stay on to join the blockade.I saw a group of houses alongside a river into which sometime earlier the effluent from the Ranger tailings dam had been released. A 35-year-old woman from this area had died a week previously. I was told that people who live in and around Jabiluka do not live much beyond the age of 40. People in this area use bore water instead of collecting rainwater from their rooftops; the reason is that the radon in the air is very dangerous. Jabiluka and the township of Jabiru may be very beautiful, but they are also very deadly places in which to live.Most visitors do not get to see where Aboriginal people in this area actually live. The vast wealth which is dug from the ground has not brought many benefits to the Mirra people or other Aboriginal groups in the area. I saw a typical house; it was a small enclosure that looked much more like a chicken coop than a house in which you would put people. Nevertheless, these houses are crowded, and this is one of the reasons why scabies affects 90 per cent of the children in this community. Scabies is a Third World disease which has been eliminated from most places on the planet—but not here in Australia. And, of course, it is a disease which has long-term effects on these young bodies.Jobs in the mine have largely gone to outsiders. The small amount of revenue from the mine flows on to ATSIC, to the land council, to tourism projects, and to fund services which we here in Canberra or Melbourne take for granted as being government services.A few weeks ago wearing, I must say, a very small moral fig leaf, Minister Downer recalled our ambassador to India in protest at that country's nuclear tests. Australia however, I must say, is complicit in this lethal economy. The boundaries between the peace ful use of uranium and the market that eventually produces nuclear weapons are, indeed, porous. Let us remember that the Australian government cannot guarantee that no uranium finds its way into weapons manufacture.The mismanaged nuclear industry has been propped up with the collusion of governments and banks. An accident occurring at Dounreay a couple of weeks ago is the latest in a long line of disasters in the uranium business. In the meantime, safe and renewable alternatives, such as wind and solar energy, gain a toehold ever so slowly.I do not think we can rely on our present leaders to engage in ideas of responsibility to the planet and to the people in other countries on this issue. For instance, a couple of weeks ago, the submission by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Senate Economics Committee argued that Australia would fall behind in its role in international nuclear policy if the proposed new reactor at Lucas Heights did not go ahead.This logic says that, by consolidating our status as players in this deadly industry, Australia will somehow do a better job of ensuring safety standards at plants in Asia and in negotiating on nuclear non-proliferation issues. It seems that we need more nuclear prowess in order to stop other countries using theirs—a little like the justification India has come up with to defend its own nuclear tests.It is remarkable then that, in this political climate, hundreds of dedicated Australians have travelled to Jabiluka to lend their support to the blockade, and we are not talking about a quick trip here. (Time expired)314219:51:003142Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—I rise tonight to address an area of great interest in that part of Sydney in which I work, the area of Greater Western Sydney—and that is the ongoing success of the University of Western Sydney. Since entering the Senate last year, I have been pleased to firstly establish, and then pursue, an ongoing relationship with the university, and I am constantly impressed with both the staff and students alike.UWS, as it is locally known, has a long history and very complex structure. It began operating in 1989 as a federated university based on three existing colleges of advanced education in Greater Western Sydney: the Nepean College of Advanced Education, the Hawkesbury Agriculture College and the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education.It continues to operate in that way—as a federated university with three separate and distinct parts: Macarthur, Hawkesbury and Nepean. Each of those parts has its own culture, offers to the students its own courses, and services a different area of Greater Western Sydney. In fact, it is highly diverse even in terms of its geography. Between Macarthur, Hawkesbury and Nepean, there are seven individual sites across western Sydney. But it is UWS Nepean on which I wish to focus tonight.Nepean is the largest of the three elements of UWS and is primarily based in Penrith on three sites: Kingswood, Werrington North and Werrington South. I was taken on a tour of the Nepean campuses very early on in my time in this place by my very proud colleague the member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly. In addition to the Penrith sites is the latest inclusion of the Parramatta campus, to which I will return. UWS Nepean offers courses in eight faculties, ranging from business to science and technology, to performance, fine arts and design. With total enrolment at UWS Nepean alone in excess of 10,000 students, the university has proved its popularity with students from both the Greater Western Sydney region and beyond.The Nepean site occupies land on which relics 20,000 years old have been found, with further evidence of occupation in the area indicating the presence of indigenous Australians as long ago as 47,000 years. This heritage is acknowledged and continued through the existence and operation of the university's respected Durali Aboriginal Centre. Nepean itself is situated in one of Australia's most historic urban regions. Penrith is one of the earliest townships established in the colony and was responsible for much of the supply of grains and foods to the colony. Similarly, honourable senators would know that Parra matta also has a rich heritage and is now one of the major centres of Sydney.The newest campus of UWS Nepean is the Parramatta campus. At the beginning of this year, the faculties of business, law, nursing and health studies and some departments of the faculty of science and technology moved to the new Parramatta campus, which is one of particular historical significance. It is situated on the site of the former female orphanage, Australia's first purpose built orphanage, on the banks of the Parramatta River. The campus is home to Australia's oldest three-story building, thus ensuring that UWS Nepean has the honour of the nation's oldest university site; an honour I am sure the University of Sydney previously imagined was well within its keeping.The foundation stone of the orphanage was laid in 1813 by Governor Lachlan Macquarie and the building was completed in 1818 and then began operation. The building had a very varied history, later being incorporated as part of Rydalmere Hospital before it was purchased by UWS Nepean from the state government in March 1995. All the redevelopment carried out by the university has been subject to a stringent heritage plan. The use of the orphanage is therefore extremely limited, but there is an aim of full restoration and use as a major heritage site and a public focus for research and education.The area known as the Vernon precinct is also part of the campus. It consists of buildings constructed in the early 1900s which were also a part of Rydalmere Hospital. They now house the university's commerce faculty and will be used for teaching and for staff accommodation. Late last year I was pleased to be able to tour that site, which is close to my office, with Deputy Vice-Chancellor and UWS Nepean President, Professor Chris Duke; Pro Vice-Chancellor, Professor Harry Irwin; and Michael Charlton, the head of UWS public relations. Wandering around the construction areas even then showed me that the site is truly impressive and will be a very attractive educational facility when fully completed. Whilst there is ongoing work to be completed, the campus is already operational, with courses commencing this year. I know several students whose enthusiasm about their university and the new Parramatta campus is almost bordering on infectious.UWS Nepean has been very successful at integrating with the community in which it is based. Already they have established a range of what they describe as cooperative programs which aim at involving local industry with the university. They have over 70 industry partners involved, and the programs are an enormous success. The first and perhaps one of the most successful is a student industry cooperative program called the cooperative education for enterprise development. It involves industry partners as diverse as the Australian Army, Hawker de Havilland, Barcode Solutions and the Sydney Church of England Grammar School.The students are involved in a vast range of projects, with the 1996-97 graduates having participated in everything from creating an electronic bookshop to the development of a DNA based protocol for identification of native and introduced animals from hair samples. Incoming student projects are similarly as diverse, with projects such as a strategy development for youth and children's theatre in Parramatta and an evaluation of staff perceptions at Nepean Health.The second cooperative program is a research program known as the Nepean summer research awards. It includes organisations such as the Olympic Coordination Authority, and those involved have described it as an invaluable two-way experience that provides us with fresh perspectives and solutions and also as a great opportunity for business to access enthusiastic and talented students. The final of the cooperative programs was introduced last year. The engineering summer placement program has benefited from the involvement of organisations such as Blacktown City Council and the Penrith Lakes Development Corporation, and it can only go upwards from there.UWS also recently established the Western Sydney Research Institute, which is designed to coordinate research programs with regional industry and business groups. Aimed at ensuring integration between all three campuses—the Hawkesbury, the Nepean and the Macarthur—the institute will be involved in three main areas: environmental management, regional development and planning, and urban, social and cultural development. All these areas are particularly important to the healthy growth and wellbeing of western Sydney, with the potential for a direct and positive impact on regional, economic and industrial planning. Already the Western Sydney Research Institute is planning its first project: the construction of an enormous geographic information system for Greater Western Sydney. The university has committed $1 million to this project and is now looking to funding from regional partners involved.I think anyone who has followed the progress of UWS since the late 1980s agrees that it has been an enormous success in giving more Australians access to higher education. Statistics from the UWS Nepean's student intake survey of last year indicated that nearly 70 per cent of students who completed the survey were first generation students. That is, neither of their parents had obtained a degree. The survey also indicated that nearly 40 per cent of respondents lived within 24 kilometres of the university. What is significant about these statistics for the community of Greater Western Sydney is that it is a clear indication that UWS is offering opportunities to students who may never have taken up those opportunities at existing facilities elsewhere in the Sydney metropolitan area. UWS is obviously servicing an appreciative education market.One of the most gratifying aspects from these statistics relates to the number of UWS graduates who are not only finding work but also finding it in the Greater Western Sydney region. In 1993 the graduate success rate of finding work was well in excess of 80 per cent of students in full-time or part-time work, and over half of those in the local region. That is a tremendous boost not only to the individual students but also to their families and to our region.Finally, I am also pleased to say that the University of Western Sydney has become the latest Australian university to appoint a female vice-chancellor. Professor Janice Reid, formerly the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the Queensland University of Technology, was appointed last year and took up her new posting earlier this year. UWS is an institution of crucial importance, not only as an important element of Australia's higher education system but also as one of the key providers of education and employment in western Sydney. All western Sydney residents, UWS staff, students and graduates are and should be justly proud of the progress the university has made in such a relatively short amount of time.20:00:003145Senate adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Documents31453145The following government documents were tabled:Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Act—Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Report—Environmental research ethics: National principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas, May 1998.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal employment opportunity program—ANL Limited—Report for 1996-97.Science and Technology budget statement 1998-99.Treaties—Text, together with national interest analysis—Bilateral— Agreement on Mutual Recognition in relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings, between Australia and the European Community.Multilateral — Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, done at Oslo on 18 September 1997.3145The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposals Nos 9-11 of 1998.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Directive—Part— 105, dated 22 [2], 24 [3], 27 [2], 29 and 30 April; and 1 [2], 4, 7 and 11 May 1998. 106, dated 20 and 30 [2] April; and 12 May 1998. 107, dated 23 April; and 8 May 1998.Customs Act—Instrument of Approval No. 5 of 1998.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instrument under section 90—Variation to Treatment Principles—Instrument No. 4 of 1998.Answers to Questions on Notice3146The following answers to questions were circulated:3146(Question No. 1125)11253146Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:With reference to the recent acceptance of a tender from Jandakot Airport Holdings Pty Ltd for the long-term lease of Jandakot Airport:(1) Is the Minister aware that Jandakot Airport lies on the north-western corner of the Jandakot water mound, a ground water resource feeding water into Perth's public drinking water supply which is of vital importance in helping maintain adequate supplies for Perth's expanding population.(2) Is the Minister aware that two-thirds of Jandakot Airport land is designated Jandakot water mound priority 1 or priority 2 underground water pollution control area (UWPCA) and comprises the most significant area of sand dunes still covered with original native flora south of the Swan River and close to the centre of Perth.(3) Is the Minister aware that a company known as Soils Ain't Soils Pty Ltd, Perth's biggest soil blending company, has a major interest in Jandakot Airport Holdings Pty Ltd: if so, is the Minister concerned about the prospect of soil blending company having access to vast resources of sand in such an environmentally important and significant area.(4) Have any discussions taken place with any of the tenderers for the airport lease, prior to the announcement of the successful tenderer, regarding sand deposits on Jandakot Airport land.(5) Have any discussions taken place with the successful tenderer subsequent to the announcement of the outcome of the tender process.(6) Was the Minister aware when deciding to accept the tender from Jandakot Airport Holdings Pty Ltd that the biggest of the three companies, Soils Ain't Soils Pty Ltd, was convicted in March 1997 of operating its soil blending operations without a permit from its Local Government authority, the City of Cockburn.(7) Is the Minister also aware that Soils Ain't Soils Pty Ltd was convicted again in February 1998 for continuing to operate its soil blending activities without the required permit from the City of Cockburn, in defiance of instructions following the previous conviction, that it cease operations and that it vacate the site.3146Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes.(2) Yes. The Government is aware of the environmental sensitivity of Jandakot Airport, including the areas of significant native flora and the significance of the Jandakot water mound.(3) Yes, Soils Ain't Soils has a major interest in Jandakot Airport Holdings. However, under the proposed lease for the Airport the Commonwealth retains all rights to all mineral deposits. This point has been acknowledged by Jandakot Airport Holdings.(4) Yes, in discussions with all Jandakot Airport bidders, advice was provided that under the lease agreement the Commonwealth will continue to retain rights to all mineral deposits.(5) The Department of Transport and Regional Development will be undertaking detailed discussions on the regulatory requirements with all Phase 2 airport lessees in the transition period, prior to completion of the sale process by June 1998.(6) Yes. The Commonwealth undertook probity checks of all bidders as part of the bid assessment. Post-lease the airport will operate under very stringent environmental and planning controls. On the day of transfer to the new owners the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 will cease to have jurisdiction over the operation of Jandakot airport and the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 (the Act) and associated Airports (Environment Protec tion) Regulations (the regulations) will come into effect.The Commonwealth will retain regulatory control over land use planning, environment and building control at Jandakot airport through both the Act and the regulations. The Act and regulations provide a comprehensive and holistic environmental management regime in relation to air, water and land pollution, indigenous and heritage sites management and noise emissions.An integral component of the environmental protection regime at Jandakot airport is the require ment for new Airport Lessee Companies to develop and implement environment strategies. These must be in place within 12 months of a new airport operator taking over a leased Federal airport, and cover a five year period.Part 6 of the Act, and part 3 of the regulations set out the requirements of Airport Lessee Companies in relation to their environment strategies. In their environment strategy the Airport Lessee Company must identify objectives for environmental management of the airport, areas which are environmentally significant and possible sources of environmental impacts. In addition, the Airport Lessee Company is required to address any relevant recommendation of a body established in the State in which the airport is located, having responsibilities in relation to conservation of biota, habitat, heritage or kindred matters. Further, the strategy must be available for public comment for a period of 90 days prior to submission to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. The Airport Lessee Company must document and address in its strategy comments received through this process.The regulations also implement a monitoring regime at the airport which promotes prevention of water pollution on the airport site. The regulations identify the forms pollution might take, acceptable standards and imposes a duty of care on all operators at the airport to prevent pollution as far as is reasonable and practicable. To monitor this duty, and if required enforce the regulations, the Department of Transport and Regional Development will appoint an Airport Environment Officer at Jandakot who will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of environmental controls.(7) Yes. As previously outlined post-lease the airport will operate under the most rigorous and stringent environmental regime ever put in place at Australia's airports. The Commonwealth will retain regulatory control over land use planning, environment and building control at Jandakot airport through the Airports Act 1996 and the Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations. The Act and regulations provide a comprehensive and holistic environmental management regime in relation to air, water and land pollution, indigenous and heritage sites management and noise emissions.3147(Question No. 1131)11313147Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 April, 1998:(1) From what financial year will Tax Ruling 97/22 apply.(2) Given that the mutuality principle affects the way in which clubs are assessed for tax exemptions: if membership fees are as low as $2 per annum: (a) does the Government recognise that this constitutes a loophole in the assessment of member income as tax exempt; and (b) what action does the Government propose in this regard.(3) Given that the Australian Tax Office (ATO) cannot audit all clubs: what action does the ATO take to audit those clubs who may be using the `honour' system inappropriately for nominating their `non-member' income.3147Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Taxation Ruling TR 97/22 provides information for clubs and associations that will enable them to determine if they satisfy the requirements for exemption from taxation. The Ruling operates for years both before and after its date of issue.(2) (a) The mutuality principle does not determine if a club or association is exempt from taxation. Exemption from taxation is governed by Division 50 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (the Act).For a club or association to gain exemption under Division 50 of the Act, it must not be carried on for the profit or gain of its individual members and it must be established for purposes specified in the Division. As a member cannot personally share in the profits of such a club or association, the Government does not consider that a loophole exists in the taxation law. Rules and fees that apply to the obtaining of membership are matters for the club or association and are subject to laws other than the taxation law.The mutuality principle can only have application to clubs and associations that are not exempt from tax under Division 50. The principle, which has long been a feature of the general law of England and Australia, recognises that the collective membership forms the legal entity that is a club or association and that the club or association can only be assessed on income received from non-members. Because of the principle, funds contributed by members to the club or association remain free of taxation because the contributions are no different than an individual taxpayer paying money to him or her self.(b) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that no action is required at this time.(3) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that the `visitor register', which is required to be kept by all clubs and associations admitting non-members to their premises, forms the main instrument for determining the level of income received from non-members and subject to taxation. The Commissioner stated that clubs and associations are subject to audit activity in the same way as classes of other taxpayers. They are responsible for lodging correct returns under self assessment arrangements. Where any tax return lodged by a club or association is found to be incorrect, appropriate penalties are imposed.Several decided court cases challenging the exempt status of clubs or associations are indicative of the Commissioner's efforts in policing the tax requirements of this kind of instrument.3148(Question No. 1133)11333148Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) With reference to the Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Act 1998, passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the definition of small business specified by that legislation: can an estimate be provided of how many of the nearly one million small businesses, when applying the Australian Bureau of Statistics definition, in Australia will be included in that `$1 million' definition.(2) In what circumstances could any of those nearly one million small businesses be excluded(3) With reference to the $1 million threshold test: (a) would a liquor store with 7 part-time, full-time and casual employees, purchasing $1.1 million worth of liquor from a single supplier, be covered by the legislation, with regard to that customer/supplier contract; (b) would a service station with 15 casual, part-time and full-time employees, purchasing $1.1 million worth of fuel from a single supplier, be covered by the legislation, with regard to that customer/supplier contract; (c) would a manufacturer with 99 casual, part-time and full-time employees, and a 5 year plus 5 year lease, amounting to $1.1 million in rental, be covered by the legislation, with regard to that landlord/tenant contract; and (d) would a computer franchisee with 20 casual, part-time and full-time employees, purchasing $200,000 of goods a year on a 6 year contract from the franchisor, be covered by the legislation with regard to that franchisee/franchisor contract.3148Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) There is no data available on how many transactions might be caught by the legislation.The Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Bill 1997 does not define a small business. Rather, subsections 51AC(1) and (2) limit access to the provision to persons other than listed public companies, and subsections 51AC(7) and (7A) limit the provision to transactions of $1 million or less.Access to the provisions of the legislation is not limited to businesses that have a turnover of $1 million or less. Hence, a business with a range of contracts, for the supply or acquisition of goods or services of more than $1 million in total, may seek relief from unconscionable conduct in respect of a transaction priced at $1 million or less.Also, the $1 million threshold for a transaction may be increased by regulation. I have undertaken to monitor the operation of the new legislation in this regard.(2) Consistent with the response to question (1) above, a small business would be excluded from the provision in respect of a transaction valued at more than $1 million, or where the business is a listed public company.Generally, when considering this issue a court would have regard to how contracts are constructed. A court would look into all the circumstances of a contract, including whether it may have been aggregated deliberately to avoid the provision, for example, if a landlord used its position of power over small business tenants to force them to aggregate leases that would not normally be aggregated.(3) As stated in responses to previous parts of this question on notice, the specific circumstances of each transaction will need to be considered to determine whether a particular transaction falls within the gamut of the $1 million transaction threshold. Generally, except where a court may be required to examine whether a group of transactions has been aggregated to avoid the provision, the amount of a contract is easily understandable. In this context, consideration is likely to be given, among other things, to the nature of the goods or services in question, and the arrangements for ordering, delivering or providing, and paying for the goods and services.