1998-05-273817SENATE314901998-05-27The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous3149Motion (by Senator Minchin) agreed to:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority, on behalf of the National Archives of Australia, for signage on its new headquarters, formerly known as East Block in the Parliamentary Zone.Bills3149r4213149Consideration resumed from 26 May.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The Committee is considering the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998, to which the government has moved amendment No. 1 on sheet B98AF338WB. When the Committee was last considering the bill Senator Margetts had moved amendment No. R1 on sheet 1003 as an amendment to the government amendment. The question is that Senator Margetts' amendment be agreed to.09:32:003149Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to ask Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, how large remitters currently make their payments. Do they all do so by electronic transfer? Or do some use other means such as a cheque? If so, what proportion and/or numbers pay other than by electronic transfer? Are some large remitters paying other than by electronic transfer and, if they are, why did the government amend the original clause to eliminate the option for a large remitter to make other arrangements for payment with the commissioner? What is the rationale for the penalty, particularly if the payments are made on time?09:33:003149Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—You may notice that Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, is absent. I am sure he is rushing down here, eagerly anxious to answer your question, but I am certainly not capable of answering it. I regret to say that, until Senator Kemp arrives, I am at some disadvantage.I do have here some advice from the advisers on withholding arrangements rationalisation and I will put to you the rationalisation.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—This is a filler!JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—That is right. I am advised that remittances made by cash or cheques increase ATO handling costs. Cheques, in particular, have a minimum clearing time affecting delays in collection. In recent years the commercial trend has shifted significantly towards conducting business by electronic means. In fact, financial institutions are actively encouraging the use of EFT because of the benefits it provides: better security, reduced paper flows, certainty of delivery, improved cash management, and reduced processing and reconciliation costs compared to cheques. It has been estimated that 95 per cent of large remitters are already connected to or have access to EFT.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Sorry, was that 95?JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—Ninety-five per cent of large remitters are already connected to or have access to EFT. I am advised that there are 5,500 large remitters, therefore we are only talking about five per cent of large remitters incurring the cost of setting up an EFT facility—five per cent of 5,500. In most cases, it is merely a matter of extending the use of the EFT package to handle payments to the ATO. It is not envisaged that this new arrangement will place any unrealistic burden on this group of taxpayers as the approximate cost of the necessary software is between $75 and $400.09:35:003149Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer. I think the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer has read from advice that puts the finger on exactly what I was saying yesterday, that it is 95 per cent of large remitters, so five per cent do not. But there is no indication that there was actually a problem. The only indication of a problem in the advice that has just been read out was that that was what financial institutions would prefer. That is what they are pushing everybody to do. Here we have, in my opinion, legislation being used as a kind of corporate fascism.The corporations would like to reduce their profits, so it is not actually to do with choice but rather it is about the fact that the banking corporations do not want to process other people's cheques. They are starting with some bits of legislation, obviously chewing the ear of the government successfully and saying, `We would like you to legislate to reduce our costs by taking away choice.' In this particular case it is choice that affects companies.We have examples of the choices to occur in relation to analogue and digital televisions, and analogue and digital telecommunications, but I believe we are going to see a raft of legislation to take away the choice of businesses and to take away the choice of consumers, penalising people not because it is late but because they have paid by cheque, even if they are on time or early, to reduce the costs of corporations. In the end, I believe that leaves less choice for the rest of us because we will get legislation saying, `To go in line with the rest of corporate practice, we are going to legislate that everybody has to do their banking and everybody has to make their payments at some stage by electronic transfer on the basis that we assume that, eventually, everybody will have access to the Internet.' I am not using the slippery-slope thing as my major argument; what I am suggesting is that you have not given any argument, other than that the banks and the financial institutions want it, to suggest why we are actually imposing penalties on companies for not paying in the manner that banks want them to pay.09:38:003150Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have to say that I think that you have completely missed the point here. You said, `I'm not using the slippery slope argument,' but the reality is that I think the Hansard will show that some 60 per cent of your comments related to the so-called slippery slope argument. The truth of the matter is that, where governments want to bring in changes, these bills will have to come through the Senate, and everyone will have a chance to comment.The next point I would make is that these are very large remitters. This is not an individual. Under the new withholding arrangements, large remitters are those with deductions exceeding $1 million. These are the larger remitters. This is not Joe Blow in the street. As my colleague, Senator Minchin, pointed out when I was delayed outside the chamber, some 95 per cent of large remitters are already connected or have access to the EFT, and there are 5,500 of them. So the first point is that we are not talking about the small shopkeeper; we are talking about the large remitters, of which there are 5,500. There is no merit in the slippery slope argument because the truth of the matter is that, in each case where we wish to impose particular rules, the bills will have to come through the Senate, and the Senate would presumably have a view on it.The final 40 per cent of your argument is that this is being driven by the banks. It is not being driven by the banks. We believe this is the most efficient way to do it. It is more efficient from the Tax Office's point of view and, frankly, we believe it is more efficient from the corporations' point of view. But it is not being driven by the banks—it is being driven by us. It is better for the Tax Office and better for efficiency to do it this way, and 95 per cent of the people believe it. So you are wrong on the slipper slope, wrong that it may attack small individuals, and wrong that it was driven by the banks. It is driven by us.09:40:003150Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would suggest that the minister look at the actual notes. Basically, the only positive reason that was given was that the financial institutions would prefer it. I was simply echoing the very statements that were made. I wrote down the words that were mentioned by the minister. I did not say that I was not using the slippery slope argument; I said I was not using it as the mainstay of my speech. However, I can give you any number of examples—for example, tax file numbers. What did we hear the first time that tax file numbers were proposed? We were told, `Oh, it's only about this. It's only for ease.' Eventually, tax file numbers will be used for just about every element that is involved with people's personal, financial and other information.The reality is that, with this so-called easy way of slipping information—whether it is financial information; whatever the real security issues are, whatever the choices are, for whatever reason—those five per cent of large remitters have chosen to continue their bank remission. They are choosing that themselves. What you are saying is, `You may not choose it any longer and, what's more, if you do choose it, we are going to slap a fine on you. We are going to say you are breaking the law.'09:42:003151Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Last night, when this debate was drawing to the witching hour, there was some ambiguity in the position of the opposition in the sense that I said I was disposed. Let me clarify the ambiguity: I support the proposal of the government and I do not support the proposal of the Greens. I have great admiration for the tenacity and fighting spirit of Senator Margetts. It is on display again this morning, and one should admire and respect that. However, from the opposition's point of view, large remitters are not downtrodden people and are, by definition, large organisations remitting big licks of money to the Australian tax system.The time value of that money that is remitted is important and cannot be swept aside in this argument. If it comes by way of cheque, the Tax Office does not actually receive the money until it is cleared, which may be several days or a week or more after the cheque has been signed. That might seem to be a small point. Given the volume and amount of money concerned, it is actually quite an important point. To transfer these funds in an efficient way is what the amendment is about.I do not think that anyone will argue that large remitters lack the capacity to do this. In fact, the government has just announced that 98 per cent of them do have the capacity to do this, and I do not think we are imposing an unfair imposition on the other two per cent by doing it this way. In any case, it is with the approval of the Tax Commissioner. Therefore, one imagines an interactive process between the larger remitter and the Tax Commissioner so that the efficiency elements are best dealt with having in mind the capability of the company concerned. But on what side of the argument do you fall—for it or agin it? We fall on the side for the government's position because we do not see the particular imposition. We do think the time value of money is important. This guarantees that that issue is best addressed here.We are moving forward, too, in terms of electronic commerce. This is an element of electronic commerce that is being implemented through the tax system. If anything, one praises the tax system for being aware of modern technological and business practice and in moving with the times in this amendment, not against it. We therefore support it.09:44:003151Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I can read the numbers quite clearly. That was one of the reasons for continuing to clarify the reason this morning; giving the ALP time to make that clarification. I thank Senator Cook for making that clarification, even if I am rather concerned about the outcomes. I want to ask one final question. I know Senator Kemp has been involved with the discussions in relation to the multilateral agreement on investment. Because it is to the corporate benefit in terms of banking, if there is overseas investment in the banking corporations, I wonder whether by making this choice it is now illegal to pay by cheque. If there is any problem with this particular change in legislation, under the multilateral agreement on investment we would never be able to change our mind because it would be imposing an extra cost on the large corporations as opposed to some of those other remitters who may not necessarily be international corporations.09:46:003151Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have to say that this debate is ranging very far and wide. Last night we got into trust losses and franking credit trading. Now we are into the multilateral agreement on investment. I want to make a general plea that we try to keep this debate as tight and as succinct as possible.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—You should have done that last night.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Yes, terrific!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—What I was seeking to do was to respond to a very wide range of questions which I received last night, Senator Murray.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—Minister, please address your remarks through the chair.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am making a general point. I am not trying to score a political point. All I am saying is that this debate is ranging very far and wide.Senator Margetts has raised the multilateral agreement on investment. There are huge divisions between countries in relation to the multilateral agreement on investment, and it is unlikely that they will be resolved in the foreseeable future. The second point I would make on the multilateral agreement on investment is that Australia has some particular problems with it. We will not be signing any treaty which is not in line with our national interest. I know there is a desperate desire amongst some groups to belt this up. The truth is that there is no imminent signing of any multilateral agreement on investment. There are a lot of issues which remain to be resolved.Australia will always protect its national interest, as it does in relation to all treaties—environment treaties, trade treaties and multilateral agreements on investment. Australia's position will always be protected. I can assure you that Australia, above all, will retain the right to make sure its laws can be appropriately and fairly applied.09:48:003152Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If anyone was ranging far and wide, it was the minister in that particular case. I asked a specific question. I was not ranging far and wide. In this particular example, we are being asked to change legislation which will be to the benefit of and will reduce the costs of the large corporate banks. If we make this change under the MAI, which Australia was prepared to sign this month—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—What?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—There was never any statement made that Australia was not prepared to sign in May. All the public statements said that Australia was ready to negotiate this in May—that is, this month. It was other countries who Australia stood behind, saying it was their problems not ours. All those statements said that. Given that that is the case, and at some stage we are going to go back to the table, I simply asked in this measure in this legislation whether it meant that we were taking a one-way step.09:49:003152Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This legislation will not be overruled by the MAI.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Not now, it won't.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The Australian government will insist that it has the capacity to make its own laws in relation to this issue. This government will protect its national interest, as it always has. There has been no statement by anyone that we were ready to sign in May. To be quite frank, I have said quite the contrary. That is quite wrong, and I want to put that on the record.Amendment (by Senator Margetts) not agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Kemp) agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that section 220AAW stand as printed. Senator Margetts, you are opposing section 220AAW?DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I am having trouble finding my place.09:52:003152Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—To give Senator Margetts some time, I think her first motion deals with whether people had to make the transfer by electronic transmission. This one seeks to remove the penalty for those who do not. I think that is the purpose of the amendment moved by Senator Margetts.We are opposing this motion. A lot of the arguments were canvassed in the earlier debate. The penalty of $500 is set at a level above the cost of acquiring an EFT facility. Frankly, the cost of the facility is, as we have said, in the order of $75 to $400 and is designed to influence a large remitter—again, we are talking about very large remitters, those of $1 million and over—into acquiring the necessary EFT facilities. Each time a payment is made by non-electronic means, it raises the costs to the tax office. So, for the reasons which we stated in the earlier debate and for the particular reasons I have stated now, we will be opposing the motion.09:53:003153Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I thank the Senate for its patience. Yes, I suppose, in a way, this is our preferred position. The first amendment to the government's amendment was on the basis that the government's amendment was likely to be dealt with first. Our first amendment was to remove the penalties. In reality, having penalties and having something which is not being allowed are one and the same thing.Basically, our next step is to oppose the section and get the government to go back to the drawing board and work out why they are having trouble with late remitters and, if they are, deal with it. But I really think this is the wrong way to go about it. We have had the debate and I will not be holding the Senate up any longer. But I guess we would need a bolt of lightning to change the way things have been debated so far. So I simply put that we oppose the section.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—The question is that section 220AAW be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.09:54:003153Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I move:(10) Schedule 9, item 2, page 107 (line 25), after "is", insert "to the entity,".After reviewing the submissions that the definition of `payment' was too broad, the government decided to amend the definition to make it exhaustive. A minor consequential amendment is necessary to ensure that the definition covers payments made directly to a shareholder or associate.09:55:003153Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The opposition will be supporting this amendment by the government. We note that the government is amend ing its own bill in bringing forward this amendment. We note as well that it has done so after this chamber insisted on this legislation going to a Senate committee for public inquiry. One imagines that this amendment has been generated by the response to this legislation at the inquiry and because of the interest in this legislation prompted by the inquiry and other people who have been alarmed at this section.But it is worthwhile to note that, since the parliament has insisted on that process of open disclosure and a chance for the community to respond to its measures, the government is now moving, albeit in a minor way. We support the amendment.Amendment agreed to.09:56:003153Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 10, item 4, page 142 (after line 6), after Step 1 of the method statement, insert:Step 1A If your total *savings and investment income is less than or equal to $35,000, follow Steps 2 to 4.Step 1B If your total *savings and investment income is between $35,000 and $39,000, follow Steps 2 to 4A.Step 1C If your total *savings and investment income is equal to or greater than $39,000, you don't get a tax offset under this section.(2) Schedule 10, item 4, page 142 (after line 20), after Step 4 of the method statement, insert:Step 4A Multiply the amount derived in Step 4 by:$39,000—your total taxable income4000Before I move into the motivation for my amendment, I should comment on remarks I made in my speech during the second reading debate concerning our intention to move amendments about employee share ownership. We had discussions with the government, which we appreciated. As a result of those discussions, we decided that our intention was probably not appropriate.We still believe that this is an area where there are problems. We are aware that tax acts come before us regularly. We give notice to the Senate that we will still consider measures in this area which we hope to be able to discuss with the other parties of the Senate. We would make sure that those principles we are pursuing would not allow the rorts that the government has rightly sought to stop with this legislation, an action we support it in. The amendments we would seek would not unduly penalise and discourage more flexible employee share ownership arrangements. So we will be looking at that further, but we thank the government for its advice and assistance in the matter.If I can now turn to the savings rebate amendments we are putting, I would remind you that in our remarks during the second reading debate we indicated our support for measures to increase Australian private savings. That is almost a motherhood statement; I cannot imagine any politician or political party or organisation which would not say such a thing. But the objectives of savings are obviously to reduce overseas borrowing requirements, increase the financing of Australian business and infrastructure development and, indeed, improve our entire national economic health.We must, however, now move to criticism. We, and I think other parties in the Senate, believe that the savings rebate intended by the government will not achieve the aim of increasing savings. Treasury considers that the rebate would actually reduce net national savings, because high income earners will be rewarded for doing what they are already doing and low income earners will generally be unable to save money anyway.Savings initiatives we think should be directed towards increasing medium-term and long-term savings. With this in mind, ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, did suggest four principles for making the rebate more effective and equitable. I will repeat these to the Senate because we thought they were particularly helpful.ACOSS thought the rebate should be restricted to long-term financial savings, such as through superannuation and financial institution accounts that are maintained for at least five years. ACOSS thought that the rebate should be linked to contributions and deposits rather than interest so as to make savings of smaller amounts worthwhile. It thought that the rebate should be added to the account rather than paid to the taxpayer directly. They thought that the rebate should extend to compulsory superannuation so that low and middle income wage earners can significantly benefit or, at the very least, be restricted to long-term financial savings, other than superannuation, and be strictly income tested.We take the view that those principles should be borne in mind by the two major parties competing for who will be in government next time and, hopefully, they will have regard to them when they review the very important issue of trying to improve our Australian savings.The tax rebate we are considering is a very expensive measure. The 1997 budget projected losses in revenue of $350 million, $1.4 billion and a massive $2 billion over the next three financial years, which is a great deal of money. We thought, frankly, that the government should have conceded that they got this policy wrong, but they have not. Therefore, we believe that the rebates must be means tested and that is what this amendment is about.The Australian Democrats said before the 1996 election that a savings rebate should be targeted towards longer term savings and be means tested. The coalition's 1996 pre-election commitment means tested the savings initiative, phasing out between net taxable incomes of $35,000 and $39,000.Our amendment, in fact, presents the coalition's pre-1996 policy of means testing and, in so doing, it would head off a tax windfall for those on higher incomes—who are going to be doing what they are doing anyway—and would save $1 billion a year which hopefully the government might like to put into education, health, legal aid, rail infrastructure or industry policy. I am sure senators could all give a long list of matters in that regard.We are also attempting to introduce what we thought was Labor Party policy. Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, in Hansard on 14 May 1997 in a question to the Prime Minister said:Since the Prime Minister has said that he will not accept the $450 savings rebate, will he then join me in supporting an amendment that I will move to his legislation to ensure that all people at our level are income tested out of this?In other words, this is means testing. On 17 May 1997, Ian Davis of the Canberra Times reported:Mr Beazley repeated his warning that the opposition would attempt to amend the government's savings rebate announced in the budget so as to means test it, while Mr Howard continued to defend the government's failure to test it.However, we were a bit dismayed—and quite often it seems there is conflict—to discover that the shadow Treasurer said on 1 April 1998 in Hansard :. . . Labor's general position that governments are entitled to their major budget measures, however wrong-headed those measures might be. Accordingly I do indicate now that the opposition does not propose to oppose this measure. We think it is very bad policy. We think it is a disgrace, certainly, compared with the company-contribution regime that it replaced.So, Labor continued to have the view that it is a terrible thing, but the shadow Treasurer seemed to be saying he would not do anything about it. I would have thought from the minister's perspective that he would prefer a consistent approach from the opposition, even where he did not agree with it. Certainly, we would prefer that.I make a plea to the Senate to support this amendment. We think it implements the policy of the coalition, which we thought was a good policy; we think it implements the intention of Leader of the Opposition, with which we agree; and most importantly of all, it will save about $1 billion, which could be far better used than giving it to the wealthy and better off in our society.10:04:003155Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) will be supporting Democrat amendments nos. 1 and 2 on sheet 973. We support putting a savings rebate cap on this measure. It is still generous, being on savings and investment incomes of between $35,000 and $39,000. It is an issue of basic equity and I am looking very carefully to see whether the ALP will support this issue of equity on this occasion.10:04:003155Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Since the Greens (WA) are looking very carefully to see whether the opposition will support this measure, let me help them not to have to stare fixedly for too long and declare the position of the ALP.We will not be supporting the amendments of the Australian Democrats and we are not supporting them for the reason that this was a budget measure announced in the 1997-98 budget. I know it is odd and strange that the government has not given prominence to its own budgetary centrepiece from that budget—not of this year, but of last year—by not bringing this legislation into this chamber earlier and fiddling around with it, but it is nonetheless a budget measure and we do not wish to play an obstructionist role in opposing central measures from a budget such as this.However, it is an uneasy decision for us to make because there are two competing principles. They are principles that were enunciated by the Democrats in explaining their legislation, and supported by the Greens (WA), and the principle about budget measures. We opt to take the principle of budget measures as a superior reason in this circumstances. That is not to say that we out of sympathy at all with what the Democrats have put and, indeed, the arguments that they have made for the very good reason that the arguments they have made are sound.While a centrepiece of 1997-98 budget, this is nonetheless a measure which has received considerable justifiable criticism by economic commentators and political parties, not the least of which is the Australian Labor Party, as an ill-targeted and unfair measure and one that will not do anything—or, if it does, very little indeed—to improve the level of national savings in Australia.The budget that has just been brought down this month by the government deals with national savings and in the debate about national savings the government trumpets all of the time the measures it believes it has taken to bring public savings into credit. It has done that, and one acknowledges that.In making that acknowledgment, I do not for one whit acknowledge the very specious arguments that the government puts about the budgetary position created under Labor. That is the most specious, big lie approach to political posturing that I have encountered in recent years, and I do not accept that. But, having drawn a line around that qualification, nonetheless the budget is back in surplus and public savings are therefore returned to surplus.If you look at the budget papers you will see that aggregate national savings are falling, and that is a serious economic problem for Australia. Private citizens in this country do not save and their propensity to save is declining, which means that we do not generate the level of national savings necessary to make Australian owned investments in our development as a country. We borrow from abroad, from foreigners, to help develop our nation. We invite foreign investment to make up the shortfall that we ourselves are unable to meet because we do not generate a sufficient level of national savings.This measure was trumpeted as a means of lifting national savings. The problem with it is that no-one believes it will. Even those generous economic commentators who speak on this point—generous to the government's point of view—say that, if it does lift savings, it will be only very little.The costs, which have been pointed out to the chamber by the Democrats, are set out in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill explanatory memorandum. As to the financial impact, the measure will cost revenue $350 million in the financial year 1998-99, $1.37 billion in the financial year 1999-2000 and over $2 billion in the financial year 2000-01. So at the cost of $350 million, $1.3 billion—nearly $1.4 billion—and $2 billion to the taxpayer the government under this measure will be trying to provide an incentive for people to save money by giving them a tax rebate, in effect. The conditions for that tax rebate are such that really only the wealthy will qualify. So I have considerable sympathy for and have argued the equity point of view myself strongly. That is the overriding position of the Australian Labor Party.It has to be said that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) himself has recognised the unfairness of this measure by admitting on the day after the 1997-98 budget that he would not be claiming the rebate. We were a bit surprised and taken aback when he said that. He was made to look a bit of a goose when the Australian Taxation Office advised that such a change to the legislation to allow the Prime Minister to opt out of claiming the rebate would cost about $1 million, and that he could not opt out. So even the government is uncomfortable with this measure.The most telling and damning part of the equity argument is that high wealth individuals will be the beneficiaries. People like Senator Parer, who has profited from tax minimisation, will be the beneficiaries. This is a spectacle of a government making the rich wealthier at the cost of ordinary taxpayers. That is, in summary, what the equity argument is about. I wish I could vote for this amendment. It is a central budgetary measure. On that basis, we recognise that the government has some rights in this field and that its basic budgetary measures should be supported. So we will vote for the amending bill and not for the Democrats' amendments.10:12:003156Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I must say, I am a little surprised. Senator Cook knows that I hold both him and his arguments in high regard. I have had a great deal of experience with him and as a consequence I have developed that regard. But in this instance I am surprised because the Labor Party has had a position where it has voted against a wide range of major budget items. I recall the debate after the 1996 budget.I supported you when you voted against the R&D tax concession, the superannuation high income earners surcharge and changes to HECS, all of which were major budget items. I would think that the Treasurer (Mr Reith) is absolutely joyful listening to you over there because I think you have just given him the GST. Surely if the GST comes through as a budget measure you will then be obliged on your principle to support it. I am starting to get into an intellectual and political morass here which I cannot find my way out of. I would have thought it was the job of an opposition to oppose bad policy and to support good policy.If I can offer you a lifeline, Senator Cook, one of the things which perhaps you as the Deputy Opposition Leader could do would be to assure the Senate and the people of Australia that if you return to government you will introduce means testing of this measure and change the law as soon as you can to restore equity—and not give away a billion dollars in what may be loosely described as a rort for the wealthy and better off, who do not really need it and who do not deserve it in this instance.10:14:003157Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Perhaps while Senator Cook is thinking of his well rounded response, which will set us in train for knowing what the opposition is likely to do in the future, let alone now, I would like to give a broad picture of what we are dealing with when we are looking for extra national savings. Keep in mind that we have a large number of unemployed people. The government is not making it any easier for unemployed people. The indications are that the government wants to remove the disincentive to be employed. So basically it is going to be tighter and tighter for the unemployed, especially when we have a higher percentage of working poor.Obviously, the classic economic theory is that if we want to look throughout society to see what is available for national savings, we need to have an idea what people are earning, how many people are earning what, and what their costs of living are compared with what they are earning—and see whether they have the capacity to save. We have just had the debate on the social security youth allowance and the government and the opposition got together and said that people on social security measures who are on student assistance cannot actually save $3,000 at the beginning of their year in order to be able to survive the year. We are talking about a wide range of people who are not able to—in fact are legislated against—actually have any savings. It is an irony, isn't it, to be legislated against having any savings backup even to the point of $3,000 at the beginning of the university year. In that particular instance, you can see a pattern; a higher and higher percentage of people in Australian society in dissavings, in debt: bankcard debt, debt to their parents, debt to their friends. What are the options when the debt lines close up if impositions occur and people are in desperate straits? There is the old adage, if you have to eat, if you have to pay the rent and so on, you have three options: beg, borrow or steal. Then we are going to have a law and order election, of course.The issues are about how Australians are saving and what proportion of Australians are saving what. When we have a situation where more and more Australians are either on the margin or in dissavings—that is, they are in debt—we are going to see, with that blind or very tunnel vision, more and more goodies, benefits or kickbacks being given to the rich in our society to get more of their money into savings. I do not know whether that is internationally competitive savings, I would have thought that is internationally uncompetitive savings.The reason we have got to this position is we have concentrated so much on being internationally competitive and have forgotten about what is happening with the rest of our economy, with the rest of our society. The ability of people to purchase goods and services from local markets has been forgotten altogether. We have concentrated so much on being internationally competitive but it is only the rich that are getting rich enough to be able to put any substantial amount of money into savings. I think we have got to address that instead of continuing down this path of continually throwing the rest of taxpayers' money at the very richest in Australia to try to get them to save their money.10:17:003157Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I have been asked to explain the Labor Party's position on two things, given my earlier remarks. The first is the GST and the second is what we will do—should the election that everyone is speculating now will be in August result in a Labor victory and we are in government—about amending this measure to provide greater equity. Let me answer both those questions.The issue of the GST has been raised by the Australian Democrats because, on the amendment now put by them to the savings rebate, we are saying that was a centrepiece of the budget by the present government in 1997-98 and, as a centrepiece of a budget measure, we are not going to oppose it. The GST, however, is in a different category: it is quite distinct, it is clear and reasonable that it is a different category.This government is fond of saying the Australian tax system is broken down and needs wholesale review. We say the Australian tax system from time to time needs routine maintenance to keep itself focused on the principal issues of simplicity, equity and transparency and, because there is a major industry out there about tax avoidance, which constantly tries to find loopholes through any system, a prudent government maintains scrutiny to find where those loopholes have been opened up and close them down as quickly as possible.We do not think the wholesale change to the taxation system is necessary. We do think maintenance is necessary and, at some points of the system, renovation of the system is necessary. Kim Beazley said on the weekend in broad outline that the structure of what we are looking at is a form of negative income tax to overcome positions in which people are caught in poverty traps—if they earn more money they lose a level of entitlements and, therefore, there is an in-built disincentive in the system to actually find work for a category of Australians. That is something that ought to be changed.We have a very firm position on this tax debate. The government, however—and it is a matter now of notorious record—has got a secret tax committee in the Department of the Treasury which keeps no minutes, publishes no reports, makes no explanation to this parliament through the normal forms of estimates and is operating in secret. The chairman of it said to an estimates committee that there are no records, he keeps them all in his head. We asked the reasonable question, `In a complex issue like tax, how do you know what all of those issues are?' and so forth. He is confident of his memory, he said. This is cloak and dagger stuff. This is something that Australian taxpayers are paying for but they are not told about and it is operating on the instruction that the only option it can look at is a GST option. It is the only one. It cannot look at a non-GST tax structure; it can look only at GST options.In 1985 when we were in government we undertook reform of the taxation system. We published a major report which we put out there for public debate. It had a number of options in it. The debate raged far and wide in this nation evaluating the options and it culminated in the national tax summit in which all of the interest groups in Australia came forward, put a viewpoint and, on the basis of that viewpoint, we exercised tax reform. That is what we think is the appropriate course for a government to take on an issue as fundamental to Australia's well-being as taxation.Contrast that with this secretive manoeuvre by the government in which nothing is in the public domain for scrutiny or evaluation. The inspired reports are now saying that the Treasurer may bring down his tax package around 28 June. The newsletter Inside Canberra reports that major accounting houses have been cued by the government to be ready for a tax lockup—that is, to have confidential access to the tax papers in advance of a government announcement on or around 28 June this year.Everyone says that there is very likely to be an election in August. What we are looking at is an ambush of Australia by the government with a complex series of tax changes. It will tell everyone it is for their benefit but not give them the chance to read the fine print and come to an understanding about what the options are for them. It will present a singular option—the GST option, in whatever form—which is not an option at all. It will not canvass any other alternatives, so people will not be able to compare that option with a non-GST tax structure or some other version of the tax structure. It will be a singular option. We do not think that is democratic government; that is electoral ambush. We do not think this is giving the taxpayer of Australia a fair shake or a chance to understand what is being proposed.This will be sold with all the glitter and PR publicity that the government can muster. The reports today are that the government has put out a contract for public relations companies to bid for to market its tax package. This is going to be bells, whistles and Hollywood glitter to get into your minds a few headline points without knowing what the fine print is about. Our position is that if we are not successful at the election we will oppose a GST in the Senate, and I said that in this place on the Thursday after the budget came down, in response to the budget. That is bottom-line clear. There is no doubt where the Labor Party stands. That is where we stand.If the government is not prepared to take the Australian people into its confidence, give them a chance to look at the details of the fine print and understand what it means to them and then run an election; and if we are not successful in the election, we will oppose a GST in the Senate. I think the better option is that we win the election so that it does not arise in the first place. That is far and away the better option.To those pundits who have said that this is a defeatist approach by the Australian Labor Party, I say this: when we said earlier that we would support it because the government would have a mandate, we assumed the government would do the right thing and disclose what its intentions were. That was not defeatist. When we say we oppose it, that becomes defeatist. The only constant thing is that we are defeated in both propositions. Of course the intention of the Labor Party is win the next election, and I think we have a very good chance of doing that.So, to the first question put to me in this debate—where do we stand on the GST?—that is where we stand and that is why we stand there. There has to be a process of scrutiny, democratic evaluation and real choice by electors, not tax change by ambush and, I might say, change which will introduce a regressive tax—a tax that imposes on the rich and the poor the same charge.The second question put to me is: what will we do about this particular item of legislation, and will we amend it to introduce greater equity? That question invites me to say what our policy will be in the whole area of taxation. I know it is not put as some subtle way of creeping into the Labor Party policy machine and invoking an answer about an important detail of policy ahead of time. I know it is put in the context of, `You have said this today. What will you do when you come to government?' That is an honest question.I have to say that we will announce our policies in detail at the opportune time. We have started to unveil some of those tax policies now, and I refer to what the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, Kim Beazley, said on the weekend about a negative income tax. It is no disrespect to the Australian Democrats that I will not answer that question in technicolour cinemascope on the wide screen right now. But what I will say is that we think this measure is inequitable. It will cost taxpayers in the year 2000 over $2 billion and it will benefit the wealthy, not the poor. We do not think that is equity and whether we amend this law or repeal it in its entirety is a matter for our policy.I cannot go into exactly what we will do, but I cannot emphasise strongly enough that we consider that this does not, firstly, do what it says it will do and improve national savings overall for the nation. We are bolstered in that point of view because it is one that economic commentators, independent of our party, also hold with considerable unanimity across the board. It is not us making a political point; it is objectively true. This scheme will not significantly, if at all, increase national savings. Secondly, there is a consensus of view that it does benefit the wealthy at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer. Those two policy principles are foremost in our mind, but I cannot go into the detail of what we will do. I trust that is an explanation in the circumstances that is understood and appreciated by the Australian Democrats.10:29:003159Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I just wish to briefly respond. Quite a wide ranging debate has ensued and I do not want to tackle the large range of issues that Senator Cook has just put on the table. They are debates for another day and let me assure you that we will join those with great vigour.The truth of the matter is that the bulk of the savings rebate will flow to lower and middle income people. We have had a very extensive discussion on that, and it seems to me that no matter how often we put the figures out it does not make any impact on the other side. These are the estimates that we have received, and others may not accept them, but no alternatives have been put out to show where we are wrong. As I said, this is a fair and equitable measure and it provides an incentive to save. I think it will inevitably have the effect of encouraging private saving and that is what the government has stated. We will, therefore, not be supporting the amendments moved by the Democrats.10:30:003160Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam Temporary Chairman, we are reaching the stage where you will be putting the question, and that is a reasonable and appropriate course. But I wonder if, through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, I can ask the Democrats a question, since they asked me a question relating to the amendments that they moved to the government's bill. Their question to me was: will you amend the government amendment should you become the government after the next election? My question to them is: will you support us if we were to? Since the Democrats asked where Labor stands on the GST, and I answered that, I ask the Democrats: where do you stand on the GST? Will you support one if we are not successful at the next election and if there is such a proposal before the Senate?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Patterson)—Senator Cook, I know that that question was asked by the Democrats and that you answered it, but we are straying a long way—and I have been very tolerate—from the topic of the amendments under debate. I draw to your attention, Senator Murray, in responding, that we now have moved a long way from your amendments.10:32:003160Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. I appreciate your direction. I will go to the first question first. It directly relates to our amendments. We would, indeed, support any attempt to means test the savings rebate made by you if you enter government. Even if you decide not to raise the issue again, we might well raise it when we have the opportunity because we think it will give you another billion dollars which you can put into legal aid, health, education and some of the jobs employment policies which you had and which were sacrificed by government—wrongly so, we believe.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Can you direct your comments through the chair, Senator Murray?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Sorry, Madam Temporary Chairman. My apologies. Through the chair, we would respond on that basis. We think the government's savings rebate intention is right, but we think the government's savings intention practice is mistaken. So, yes, we will support you in that and we would indeed move it of our own account.The second question—as you would expect from a seasoned political practitioner—perverted my question. When I asked Labor the question about a GST, I was in fact responding to their reason for not supporting our amendments despite philosophically being in tune with them. The reason they gave is that it is a substantial budget policy measure. It is perfectly possible—in fact, I think it would be automatic—that, if the coalition get back into government, they will introduce the GST as a budget policy measure. Therefore, logically, what you said would require you to support it.You have given the reasons that you would take a different view. Our approach throughout the tax reform package discussion has been that, until a tax reform package as a whole is presented to us, we are inclined to view everything with an open mind, and that is how we will view it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendment Nos. 1 and 2 moved by Senator Murray be agreed to. Question put.10:37:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.39Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S.* Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.West, S. M. Question so resolved in the negative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.3161Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Bills3161r370Billsr3713161Debate resumed from 19 November 1997, on motion by Senator Minchin:That these bills be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)10:44:003161Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—On behalf of the opposition I rise to speak on the national transmission network legislation and to outline our very strong opposition to this legislation, which is the privatisation of the national transmission network in Australia. We have had a reasonable opportunity through the Senate legislative committee process to hear the evidence from the government to justify why this agency should be privatised. In the time given there was a lot of evidence received. Some of it, you might say, was from the usual suspects in favour of privatisation, as you would expect, while others expressed concern about it. The main concern that a lot of people raised was the lack of information provided by the government as to why the agency should be privatised and what the advantage was to the national interest in its privatisation.The government itself could not answer those concerns other than, in our view, by stating an ideological position that it was a good idea to privatise for the sake of privatising. The government mentioned that when the agency was sold, the money would go to pay off public debt. When we asked for any idea of what the agency would bring when it was privatised, the government's Office of Asset Sales said, `Those are estimates we do not want to divulge because it could effect the price we receive.' But, even when asked for a broad range of figures, they still would not give them to us. We even offered to have in camera briefings of the committee to find out that information. Again, that was not forthcoming.Other people have speculated that the agency may bring $200 million, $180 million or $250 million. That is not a large amount of money, and its contribution to paying off public debt will be minuscule indeed. The savings on the interest at the present bond rate of about six per cent would be only a few million dollars at the very most. Compare that to maintaining in public ownership what is a national asset. The community, through various governments of the day, including previous coalition governments and Labor governments, has invested many hundreds of millions of dollars to build a national network right across Australia with something like 1,500 transmitters and translators available for our national broadcasters—the ABC and the SBS—and, where appropriate, for commercial broadcasting services and community broadcasting services.This is a national infrastructure. The government should be assisting in the provision of services to all the community on an equitable basis. A commercial sector would never have built a national transmission agency with a national infrastructure, providing a service to all Australians wherever they live. You would have got them building transmitters in each of the capital cities, but you would not have got them building transmitters and translators out in the rural and regional areas of Australia. Both governments—Labor and Liberal—have, in the past, made that contribution.Yet, for some reason, out of the blue, this government, without justification, has decided to privatise. There is no demand in the community that this agency should be sold off. It is not being sold off because it was not performing or there was a deficiency in its performance, or because the Australian public said, `The National Transmission Agency is useless; let's get rid of it.' No arguments like that came from anywhere. One might say, `Well, a lot of people in Australia may not be aware that there even is a National Transmission Agency in existence.' I think many people probably believe that the transmitters and translators that the ABC and SBS use are actually owned by the ABC and SBS and do not understand that there is a separate, dedicated, corporatised agency providing that service.But, nevertheless, even if they did believe that the ABC and SBS owned the transmitters and they were not performing properly, there would still be issues raised at the political level, at the parliamentary level, that this service was not up to scratch and ought to be changed—that something should be done about it. There was no justification given in the hearings by the government that the National Transmission Agency was inefficient and not performing. In fact, the evidence was to the contrary. Even Mr Hutchinson from the Office of Asset Sales agreed—and the government, DoCA and the finance department agreed—that there had been a substantial improvement in efficiency in the National Transmission Agency since the early 1990s, since it was given a new structure and administrative arrangements under legislation introduced by the previous Labor government. Those estimates are in the report. It is not disputed that there was a 40 per cent improvement in the efficiency and the productivity of this agency in public ownership.If any organisation, public or private, had a 40 per cent improvement in half a decade in the delivery of service, you would give it a big tick. But why would you want to sell it? The only reason is that this government sees it as an ideological position that they want to support. I think it is also part of their view that selling the National Transmission Agency also justifies the ideological position that they took over the major privatisation issue of Telstra.It is no surprise that the Labor members of the committee—Senator Lundy and I—have put in a minority report which opposes privatisation. I also note that the minority report of Senator Lyn Allison of the Democrats is along similar lines to the Labor Party's submission in that it opposes the privatisation. Again, we and the Democrats have a similar view.I want deal with three or four of the major issues from our minority report that did come forward in the hearing, even though the hearing was short. Quite rightly, we did not object to this matter going to a legislative committee. First of all, I want to deal with the community service obligation. It is clear from this legislation that it is a big ask for the Australian people to believe that the community service obligations in this proposal are going to be substantive enough to guarantee that in the future the National Transmission Agency, or whoever buys it, will provide services, particularly to non-metropolitan Australia. Service may be provided for five years while the ABC and SBS have to continue to use the privatised National Transmission Agency. But after that five years is up, it is really buying a very big pig in the poke in terms of what is going to happen to the provision of these services in regional Australia.What has been occurring in the administration of the National Transmission Agency is a natural and proper cross-subsidisation. The administration costs of the provision of services to the regional areas of Australia has in effect been subsidised by having a national agency. There is no doubt that a private operator will start getting into full cost recovery, and that means that in the bush, after the five years are up, operators, whether it is the ABC or the SBS, will start being charged differently. The ABC and the SBS could then say, `Well, we are off. We are not going to have a contract with you mob. We will go and maybe provide our own transmitter or do a deal with somebody else.' What that then means is that a national infrastructure is shredded or broken up into different parts, which means a different level of service to different parts of Australia. That is the logical conclusion of selling the National Transmission Agency.We do not believe the legislation in any way guarantees appropriate community service obligations. We do not believe that there is a mechanism in this legislation to ensure that the higher cost of providing a transmission facility in the rural and regional areas of Australia is adequately dealt with. The minister will get up and proclaim that it is and will say, `Trust us. It will be okay in the future.' People in regional Australia no longer take those promises about the provision of services—the promise of `Trust us. The service will stay the same'—from any government. They have seen too many examples, both in the public and the private sector, that services to regional and rural Australia are the first to suffer when you put in full cost recovery.I also want to point out some other issues of national interest. In our report we comment on the submission from the Friends of the ABC. I know this government thinks that the Friends of the ABC is a bunch of left-wing radicals whose aim is to carry out a political campaign against this government. The Friends of the ABC is actually one of the most moderate organisations of people I have met. They are overwhelmingly Liberal voters. When you meet the Friends of the ABC you are not meeting a left-wing branch of the Labor Party; you are meeting upper middle-class, middle-aged woman and men—overwhelmingly women—who are concerned about maintaining the ABC. The Friends of the ABC are not what this government might choose to call left-wing suspects, et cetera. They are overwhelmingly supporters of the coalition and have been historically for a long time.They raised their concern on the national interest that in the long run these facilities may well be fully controlled by some foreign interest. Having your national transmission facilities run by somebody from another country is an issue. You do not want to be xenophobic about it, but it is an issue that in the national interest this ought to be controlled by Australians, because it is a national structure of communication across the nation. It is the fabric which keeps the nation together. Providing this communication, we can ensure that a government announcement in a time of emergency is distributed right across Australia. Again, the government might say, `Under the Defence Act we can in times of emergency call on those powers to get our message across,' and so on. But I think this goes wider on a day-to-day basis. This is an instrumentality which does provide, under Australian ownership, an infrastructure that is important to all Australians.I now come to an area where I think the government is really asking us to buy the very biggest pig in a poke. It is the so-called compact between the government and the ABC and SBS regarding future funding for transmission. When this bill was being discussed before the committee, we asked the government, `Have you reached agreement with the ABC and SBS on how much money you will provide to them over the next five years to pay for the transmission costs when you are forcing the ABC and SBS to buy those services from a privatised national transmission agency?' The government could not give us any information that an agreement had been reached. When we asked the ABC and SBS, when they turned up, still all we could get was, `Well, discussions are proceeding.' If the government cannot, here in the second reading debate or in the committee stage, outline to the Senate what is the actual financial commitment that the government has given for the next five years to the ABC and SBS to cover the costs of transmission, it really will be an awful outcome. Once the agency is sold and the ABC and SBS have not got a contractual arrangement locked away that the money will be made available, the government can do what it likes to the ABC and SBS and can cut the transmission funding.Normally you might not be too worried that a government in good faith and goodwill will reach an agreement, but you would not trust the this government as far as you could throw it in its dealings with the ABC. This very morning the minister for communications, Senator Alston, is not here debating this bill. Guess where he is? He has gone up to the ABC board meeting in Sydney to beat them around the head over allegations of bias against the coalition and to demand changes within the ABC on programming to overcome the minister's so-called concern on bias. The minister is there abusing the ABC this morning, not down here explaining to us how much money has been committed by the government to the ABC and SBS to pay for the transmission costs.At the very least, the government should have the ethics and the morality to come in here and say, `Yes, we have reached agreement with the ABC and SBS. We are going to provide them with $120 million per annum for X number of years,' or whatever the figure is; and the same for the SBS. It has now been several months since this bill was before the committee. As far as I am aware—I stand to be corrected—no agreement has been reached. I trust Senator Brownhill, the parliamentary secretary at the table, and I ask his advisers from the department, `Have we reached agreement with the ABC and SBS? Has there been an announcement made? If there has been agreement reached, why has it not been made public before the second reading stage of this bill has taken place?' If it has been made public and I have missed it, I apologise, but I do not think it has been reached.Perhaps I am being too harsh on Senator Alston. Perhaps he has gone to the ABC board this morning to say, `By the way, I can tell you that this is what we have reached agreement on and I'm signing off with you here today. We are going to provide you with an appropriate amount of money for the transmission costs of the ABC and SBS.' I have to say, in view of this minister's track record, that that is a very big ask indeed.The next issue, about why this agency should not be privatised, is: irrespective of the running costs of the National Transmission Agency that the ABC and SBS have to pay, what money is available for the digitisation program? We in the opposition believe you cannot divorce the cost of the digitisation program now that it has been put on the table by the government in another bill on the digital program for introducing digital television and digital radio to Australia. In the budget, this mean-spirited, mealy-mouthed government promised the ABC $20 million and then said, `If you are good and if we like what you do in your programming, we may give you some more.'It is blatant blackmail by this government to intimidate the ABC as we lead up to the next election. Never before has a coalition government acted in such a disgraceful way as this minister has, egged on by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello). It is blackmail of the ABC to say, `We will give you $20 million now. Sell all your other property and introduce full outsourcing of programming, and then we may give you some more money for the digitalisation of the ABC for its equipment.' We all know that, early next century, if the ABC's equipment is not digitalised it will go out of existence as a national broadcaster. That is exactly what this minister and this Prime Minister want to happen to the ABC—to destroy it as a broad based national broadcaster, independent of government, providing factual and broad ranging views to the Australian people.It is ironic that, today, this bill for the privatisation of the National Transmission Agency and its major impact on the ABC are being debated when the minister himself is at the ABC board, up there abusing them, accusing them of bias—RD4BROWNHILLSenator Brownhill—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. To make accusations about people doing things when the opposition do not even have a clue what is happening up there at the moment is absolutely out of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—There is no point of order.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I say to the parliamentary secretary, Senator Brownhill, that we know the minister is up there accusing them of bias because that is what he said on the public record. He said it in this place in the last two weeks. He said himself, on the public record, that the ABC is biased in the covering of a number of national issues and, `We don't like your coverage.' He accused the ABC of bias first, then wrote a letter to the chief executive of the ABC demanding a response to his allegations of bias. He should have at least written first if he had concerns and, before he made the allegations and charges and public abuse, then made some comment. He did it round the other way.We know what he is there for. He said it himself. He is going to raise these issues of what he sees as bias. It is intimidation and this sale of the National Transmission Agency is another way in which this government is aiming to destroy the ABC as a national broadcaster in this country. That is why, above all else, we will never vote for the sale of the National Transmission Agency. We believe it is a very important national infrastructure that all Australians would support. I commend to the Senate the opposition's minority report and hope that the Senate has the good sense to defeat this bill in the second reading. (Time expired)11:04:003165Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—As we have heard, the purpose of the legislation that is now before us is to provide for the sale of the national transmission network. The Democrats do not support the sale of essential government infrastructure unless it is proved to be in the public interest. We are not convinced that this is the case with the national transmission network, especially as it stands at the moment.I am sure government members will remember—certainly I remember and I know Senator Schacht will remember—what was announced in the Better Communications policy document, which came out just before the last election. It stated that the coalition would increase the national broadcaster's responsibility for the transmission of their programs. On page 7 of the document, the government states:. . . the Coalition sees no valid reason why the national broadcasters should not have control over their transmission facilities. After all it is the national broadcasters who are criticised whenever their sub-standard transmission quality or breakdowns occur. . . Accordingly, and in line with an increasing trend around the world, the Coalition will fund the ABC directly for its transmission costs on the strict condition that national coverage and existing service commitments to rural and remote areas are continued.How on earth the ABC is able to keep up proper transmission to rural and remote areas with no money to do it, I do not know. Of course, that is what is happening at the moment. Senator Boswell will tell you—Senator Boswell has—that there is a real problem with the ABC's transmission in the bush. That is an absolute, direct result of a lack of funding to the ABC. I hope everybody listening in rural and remote areas realises that. I am sure they do. The coalition's policy also commits to the same outcome for SBS. That is on page 9 of their policy. Unfortunately, though, that is where the good policy stops.The national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, have sought control over their transmission facilities for a very long time. But the Democrats do not believe that the way to achieve that outcome is for the government to sell off the transmission facility, the national transmission network. We would much rather see the national broadcasters properly funded for the costs of their transmission facilities, not as a separate line item in the budget but directly and as part of their total funding appropriation. That way, the ABC and SBS would be able to enter into direct commercial relationships with a number of transmission service providers, including the NTN, commercial providers and others. That may even have the effect of challenging the way the National Transmission Agency, which operates that network, operates.The national broadcasters and the National Transmission Agency have not always had a very convivial relationship. That is not the fault of either of those organisations but the effect has been that, over a considerable period of time, neither the ABC nor SBS has developed a particularly sound working relationship with the NTA, and that has negatively affected all of them.But that problem should not be resolved by selling off one arm of the government's business to the private sector. Time and time again, successive governments have laid claim to the fact that transferring the operational capacity of a government agency to the private sector will produce the scope for greater client focus and responsiveness which flows from commercial practice, and of course that is just not the case. The Democrats reject the notion—and this is something that we hear all the time from this government—that everything in the public sector is inherently bad and inefficient and everything in the private sector is inherently efficient and cost effective. It is Animal Farm: four legs are good and two legs are bad.Selling the transmission facilities does not necessarily set the scene, as the government claims, for a greater degree of competition in the transmission services market. The national transmission network currently operates as a sort of monopoly, with the national broadcasters the only guaranteed customers. Competition is only likely to take place between the National Transmission Agency and a commercial provider, and then only on the eastern seaboard or other coastal regions of Australia. That is where the population is.At the very least the Democrats believe that, if the bill passes the second reading stage in the Senate and the sale proceeds, the government should use the funds to pay for the digitisation of the ABC, SBS and some community broadcasters. And if they cannot find the $1.6 million elsewhere, then they can use some of the funds to immediately reopen the Cox Peninsula shortwave transmission facility.In the latest budget, the government has costed the proceeds of the national transmission network into forward estimates. That is a courageous move on their part. In its submission to the inquiry into this sale bill, the Department of Communications and the Arts stated that the proceeds would pay for the cost of the ABC and SBS contracts for transmission; the cost of funding providers of Radio for the Print Handicapped services and commercial broadcasting licensees in declared remote areas for increase in transmission costs resulting from commercial charging—very noble; discretionary funding to the ABC and SBS for minor transmission enhancements; and the costs of planning and administering transmission services by ABC and SBS. Since the government would have had to fund these programs regardless of the sale of the NTN, why is the department apparently double counting those proceeds?The sale does not result in the government suddenly receiving the money it requires to fund these transmission services. The government simply wants to eliminate, as far as possible, its activities in the direct provision of telecommunications infrastructure, and it is slowly going about doing just that. That is why we recommend that any proceeds be used to fund national broadcasters in their transition to digital technology, and our amendments reflect this. We also make provision for a proportion of the funds to be used by the community broadcasting sector's transition into the digital environment.As Senator Schacht told us just a moment ago, the ABC is being given $20.8 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but it is minuscule. If you talk to the commercial broadcasters, they believe they needs hundreds of millions of dollars to change over into digital processes—hundreds of millions. This government is `generously' allowing the ABC $20.8 million to try to change over with. I have spoken to the minister about this and he tells me that it is really only part one and, depending what happens, then maybe they will get part two as well, and goodness knows what part two will be—$½ million, $1 million. It will not be anything like the hundreds of millions of dollars that they need—or that the commercial broadcasters tell us that they need.The national transmission network's 550 transmission facilities are used to carry television and radio signals for the national broadcasters. Some commercial and community stations access the national transmission network, which also provides the transmission for emergency broadcasters and for Radio for the Print Handicapped. Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone and paging and data services also use the NTN.In his second reading speech, the minister stated that the government recognised the importance of safeguarding important broadcasting policy objectives, including the maintenance of existing ABC and SBS coverage and service quality. We were pleased to hear this. But we do not think that the community service obligations contained in the bill provide adequate access to certain broadcasters. We have the community sector in mind here particularly.The emergence of digital broadcasting will pose special and significant broadcasting challenges, some of which cannot yet be determined, and we believe the bill should at least try to take some of these into consideration. Naturally, emergency service operators, Radio for the Print Handicapped and government and non-profit self-help re-transmission broadcasters deserve special attention, and we are pleased that the bill recognises that. Commercial broadcasting licensees in declared remote areas are also defined as nominated customers in the bill, and they should receive guaranteed access to sites and transmission towers. But the bill cannot guarantee that these services will continue to receive special treatment after the initial five-year contract period of transition from the public to the private sector. Too much remains unclear and undetermined, particularly after that five years.The national broadcasters are of the view that the sale should proceed. That is not because they are of the view that the privatisation of the network is a good idea—they have no view on that—but because the contracts and the compacts have enabled the national broadcasters to negotiate a more suitable arrangement for the transmission of their television and radio services to Australians than is currently the case. The government, in line with their election commitment, should have enabled the national broadcasters to undertake contractual arrangements with service providers regardless of the sale of the network. If the government were truly serious about competition, it would have found other ways to introduce it, not merely by selling a monopoly provider to the private sector. This in itself does not guarantee a competitive outcome.The compact with the government and the contracts with the future owner or owners, the ABC and SBS believe, will provide adequate protection for both broadcasters and the viewing and listening public. In particular, the contract with the future owner will ensure that coverage and service levels for the current services are maintained. While the national broadcasters should not be doubted—as I am sure they have been really cautious in their approach to this whole situation and, of course, they can be trusted—I sincerely hope their predicted outcome is right.The contracts and the compacts will be signed by all parties for an initial five-year period and will be subject to renegotiation for a period of up to 14 years in total. Those measures are designed to protect the broadcasters against higher possible costs from the post-sale arrangements. We hope that is the case, but being subject to the funding whims of this government in particular, nothing can be certain.The Democrats also have concerns about the sale process itself. During the committee process, the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing was not able to provide details of the anticipated sale price or details about the intended purchasers. The Democrats are concerned about a possible conflict of interest if the owner of the network is a commercial broadcaster. We believe that the new owners ought to be specialist transmission providers, not broadcasters.Channels 7, 9 and 10 are all part of the consortiums who have bid for the network. With all the uncertainty underpinning the future of broadcasting as one of the reasons the government wants to back out of transmission service provision, it appears that commercial broadcasters understand the importance of owning national broadcasting transmission infrastructure at this crucial time much more than the government does.We would certainly hope that, in the event of transmission failure, the commercial interests would not override the public interest and that all broadcasting services would be afforded equal importance. Transmission cannot be left to the market to decide when the national broadcasters are dependent on a concept of the public good. The Democrats note that the access regime for the national transmission network is similar to that put in place for the telecommunications industry but only for certain nominated customers. The access regime is designed to guard against any imbalance in power which might lead to an essential transmission service or facility being available.In dealing with the latest Telstra bill, the Democrats have become aware that some provisions in the access regime do not benefit all the players in the marketplace. Those provisions are also designed to ensure that not all services are available at monopoly prices. To invoke the cliche, there is no level playing field in the telecommunications industry, particularly with the strength that Telstra has in the marketplace, and it does not look to us as though there will be in the near future. How can we expect the provision of transmission facilities to guarantee equal access to all broadcasters, particularly the smaller ones?The Democrats have drafted amendments to safeguard access and to provide for a better community service obligation scheme, assuming that the bill gets past the second reading stage. We would prefer that the national broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, achieve control of their transmission facilities from means other than the sale of a government asset, especially one which provides an essential service. We also reject the government's notion that everything in the private sector is efficient and the public sector is inherently inefficient and uncompetitive. The government could have made a number of policy decisions which would have given the national broadcasters control of their transmission facilities, it would have given them secured funding for broadcasting and for their digital conversion, but that is not what they have done.In response, the Democrats have formulated a key amendment to the bill which will see the proceeds of the sale given to the national broadcasters in order that some of the infrastructure development funding they require can be secured. Securing funding for the national broadcasters is far more important than the government's argument about debt retirement or their ideologically position, straight out of Animal Farm, of four legs good, two legs bad.3168Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—(11.17 a.m.)—The national transmission network carries television and radio signals for the ABC, SBS, some commercial radio and TV stations and vital community services, such as Radio for the Print Handicapped. It includes 1,197 radio and television transmitters used to broadcast ABC and SBS radio and television services from 547 owned and leased sites and 520 transmitters belonging to 167 licensed broadcasters. There is also a large number of other transmitters housed for radio communications, police and emergency services and other services.Due to expansion over the last few years, the agency has the potential to reach 18 million Australians, which significantly includes rural and regional Australia. The national transmission network is part of the National Transmission Agency, a separate cost centre operating on a commercial basis outside the department of communications. From all accounts, the NTA is an efficient operation. Over the last few years the NTA has undergone extensive changes in its operations. Telstra held a monopoly over this outsourced operation and maintenance role of the network, but under competitive tendering it now shares the work with Broadcast Communications Ltd, a division of Television New Zealand Australia Pty Ltd. BCL is the forerunner to acquire the NTN. A company from the United States, Castle Group, has also emerged as another frontrunner in the bid to acquire the national transmission network.Tendering resulted in savings of $20 million in 1995-96. Once again, we see an Australian owned enterprise, which is efficient, about to pass into foreign ownership. It is also worth noting that there was a scoping study done for the sale of the NTN by the government, the results of which have not been released. The sale is not in our national interest and will not lead to any economic or social efficiencies. As Stewart Fist pointed out in his article in the Australian earlier this year, the fee and budget estimates match, meaning little real long-term gain, only short term, which is a way of borrowing against budgets of future governments who will have to bear the cost.At the public hearing on 5 February 1998, the Office of Assets Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing and the Department of Communications and the Arts were unable to provide specific examples of any efficiencies that would occur as a result of the sale of the NTN. The bill outlines that transmission coverage for the ABC and the SBS will be funded by the government for the next five years for the purchasers of the national transmission network. The onus, therefore, is on the broadcasters to ensure quality of coverage. There will be a direct commercial relationship between the ABC and the SBS and the transmission carriers, where previously the link was mediated through the government. The government is ridding itself of responsibility to all Australians, particularly those in rural and regional areas.On Monday of this week, representatives of the ABC and the SBS came to my office to speak to me about this bill, to tell me that they support it. I listened to them as they outlined the reasons for their support. The Senate legislation committee which examined this bill heard from representatives of the SBS, witnesses who stressed that the sale of the NTN facilities provided them with the more flexible delivery opportunity that they had been seeking for a number of years. It is okay for our national broadcasters to support this sale. Access to transmission services for them is guaranteed in the bill. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for our community and self-help broadcasters. The question arises that, once the NTA is privatised, will the ABC and the SBS have to have an additional sum of money to pay the new privatised owner the recurrent cost of running the services? There may also need to be an additional fee to cover the capital cost, the amount that these companies will tender to purchase the network. Has any research been done into this issue? Does the minister responsible have any comment or response? I eagerly await his reply.What guarantees are there for the maintenance of existing services and service quality, particularly after the five-year contractual agreements have run out? There is an option for the bodies involved to renew for two terms of five years on terms and conditions to be negotiated. How much will our national broadcasters have to pay for transmission services? Will they be priced out of the market? Perhaps this is a long-term objective of the Howard government: a great way to save money, to starve the ABC of funding by then starving the ABC and the SBS of ready access to government controlled transmission of services and then forcing them to close, saving even more money.The ALP dissenting report points out that there is also the problem of a conflict of interest should a commercial broadcaster purchase the NTA. Commercial programming and services could be prioritised by the potential commercial broadcaster to the detriment of ABC and SBS services. Also there are no guarantees that the ABC and the SBS will continue to receive sufficient funds to maintain and improve their services.Following on from this, the national transmission network sale has particular importance for rural and regional communities, where often the ABC and SBS are the main media and information links with the rest of the world. The NTA annual report for 1995-96 states that almost 90 per cent of the value of transmission assets has been provided to serve regional Australia. That clearly is a big investment on the part of federal governments over the last six years.In its submission to the Senate legislation committee, the Department of Communications and the Arts said that the access regime provisions in the legislation would ensure that residents of remote areas would continue to receive the same level of broadcasting service after the sale of NTN as being received currently. Yet the bill itself contains no guarantees regarding maintenance of service in regional and rural areas. Also, there is uncertainty over the role that the future owner of the NTA will have in the planning of transmitting facilities in rural and regional Australia.A great deal of the argument being used against the full privatisation of Telstra and the potential flogging off of Australia Post can be used for this sale. Many Australians in rural and regional areas now rely on new technologies, such as the Internet and e-mail, to keep in touch with the rest of the world. An article which was published in the Bulletin earlier this month outlines the problems that may arise with the full privatisation of Telstra. Even though only partly privatised now, many claim that maintenance services have been reduced already. This serves as a dangerous example for the transmission of radio and television under a privatised national transmission network.The real fear, of course, is that there will not be any expansions or upgrades in our rural and regional areas, as a private sector transmission company will be more interested in metropolitan areas as they will be more profitable. This will lead to a decline of services over time with the possibility that, if something goes wrong, if there is an outrage when broadcasting goes down, it will take a long time to be fixed or it will not be fixed at all.The last few years have seen an expansion of the network into regional Australia. In 1996-97 the ABC's youth radio network, Triple J, was extended into an another eight regional centres. This extended the audience by 3.7 million, and makes Triple J accessible to 80 per cent of the Australian population, or 14.5 million people. The expansion program of Triple J has been an ongoing one. Announced in the 1993-94 federal budget, the then Labor government said that it would bring the youth service to 44 regional communities via the NTA transmission network. Prior to this, Triple J was heard only in the six state capitals and Darwin, Newcastle and Canberra. Now people in Geraldton and Kalgoorlie, Mackay and Mt Isa, and Broken Hill can listen to Triple J, bringing young people and the young at heart in these rural areas into contact with the pre-eminent youth radio station in the nation.But it is not only our younger generation that have benefited from the NTA's expansion of services and transmission. ABC TV, Radio National and local radio were brought to new audiences by way of 33 transmitters in 1996-97, and SBS was extended to two major regions. Radio National now has 235 transmitters compared with the nine it had in 1981. Even up until January of this year, the network was expanding due to transmission being extended in Queensland, with further expansions expected into rural New South Wales and Victoria.Further, another two NTA translator facilities were installed in Tasmania under the Tasmania broadcasting development program; the ABC's Classic FM was extended to Warrnambool; and agreement was reached with a pay TV operator to share NTA facilities in Tamworth. While on the subject of expansion of the network, the NTA also has a role to play in testing, development and improvements in the quality of service and transmission, more recently running trials using the latest technology, digital radio broadcasting, in conjunction with the Department of Communications and the Arts.The future roll-out of digital terrestrial television has been delayed due to the prospect of the sale of the network. Trials were to begin last September but have been pushed back to June 1998. This is one of the major challenges that will face whatever is left of the NTA after the sale. Up until now the network has had the opportunity to provide the best transmission services for rural and regional Australians. Now it will be dependent on the profit motive and money saving, rather than on providing services. That must be a major disappointment for all Australians but particularly for those who live in regional and rural areas. Community organisations, such as community television and radio, need the current services to be maintained, or they will be unable to keep on operating if fees for transmission are increased. This is a real threat.From the 1995-96 annual report of the NTA, about one-third of the broadcasting transmitters on NTA sites are used to broadcast services other than the ABC or SBS. These are not all community self-help or emergency services; there are some commercial broadcasters involved. They utilise 522 of the 1,719 transmitters across the network. Commercial services utilise 418 transmitters; community services, 24 transmitters; and self-help systems, 61 transmitters. What this indicates is that there are a number of transmissions, other than those of ABC and SBS, that will be seriously affected by the sale of the network.The Minister for Family Services, the Honourable Warwick Smith, assured the parliament that self-help groups, emergency service operators and remote commercial satellite service providers will be protected by the access regime. Capped charges and contracts or supplementary funding will ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged. This is lucky for them, but not for all the other community providers and broadcasters. Community broadcasters will be the hardest hit. They will be the first ones to feel the pinch when access and transmission fees are increased, and the least able to afford to continue broadcasting.The ALP dissenting report indicated the grave concern that the community service obligations contained in the bill are more limited than those currently in existence. There are no guarantees on charging and access issues and community broadcasters are concerned that they will be forced to close down if they are charged market rates. Also, the legislation has ignored the needs of the hearing impaired.While the member for Bass talked about capping, there is no guarantee on how long it will last. Senators can rest assured that the capping or supplementary funding will expire and these other broadcasters—and I am particularly concerned about the community broadcasters—will be left in the lurch. They will be abandoned and unable to serve their communities because of the Howard government which is intent on selling off everything to the detriment of our rural and regional communities.The sale of the national transmission network could only have a detrimental impact on broadcasting, particularly in rural and regional Australia. Again, the Australian people are faced with another sell-off of a national asset that may not be as well-known as another of our communications facilitators, Telstra, but is just as important to those in our rural and regional areas.This government appears oblivious to community and social concerns about the importance of the provision and quality of these services; services that will no doubt be downgraded or lost when the NTA is sold. The sell-off of the national transmission network is just another sign of the mantra of the Howard government. It has major implications for regional and rural Australia, which again, despite the rhetoric of the Howard government, suffer the worst effects of its policies.11:32:003171Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—As my colleague Senator George Campbell has outlined, the Labor Party will be opposing the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 and the associated consequential amendments bill.There is a very good reason for us opposing these bills, because these measures seek to sell off what is an essential and crucial part of Australia's telecommunications and communications infrastructure; infrastructure that provides metropolitan and regional Australia alike with their broadcasting services. These bills seek to sell off the assets of the National Transmission Agency, assets which are currently owned by all Australians and managed for the good of all Australians.The National Transmission Agency can be held up as an impressive organisation and is in fact one of the world's largest broadcasting facilities. The assets of the NTA include 1,197 transmitters used to broadcasting the ABC and SBS radio and television services right around the Australian continent. Perhaps that gives us an insight as to why this government is selling the network. With what they are doing to the ABC and SBS, perhaps there will not be anything of substance to broadcast soon.The relationship between the cutbacks to our national broadcasters and to this sale of the National Transmission Agency cannot be ignored. This relationship represents a commitment by this government to an ideological agenda of deconstructing the communications services provided through taxpayers' funds for the benefit of all Australians.The NTA facilities also accommodate 503 transmitters belonging to licensed broadcasters and more than 1,000 radio communications transmitters. Why is it that Australia has such an impressive and large broadcasting infrastructure network? It is because, unlike this current government, some former administrations had the foresight, commitment and understanding as to why it was so critical for such a vast country as ours to have a well-defined, efficient and extensive physical infrastructure.A network that is managed by government to ensure that broadcasting services are available to all Australians is what we require. We know, because of what has happened with Telstra and the reduction in services that can be largely attributed to a change in Telstra's priorities as a public organisation—now a partially private organisation—that there is a relationship between that commitment to services to all Australians and ownership. We also know that the intent, will and philosophies of the government of the day also determine the quality through the level of the funding afforded to those services.Out of all of NTA's assets there is one component that is absolutely invaluable and cannot be quantified, and that is the people who work there. In this government's rationalist quantifying of government assets and the sort of dollar it hopes to reap from its sale, it cannot quantify the corporate knowledge and experience of the workers, many of whom have spent their whole professional lives working for this organisation. There are people within the NTA that have seen it grow, develop and provide a remarkable service that they are very proud of as employees of the NTA and the Australian Public Service. They are also very proud of the actual technical capacities that they have been able to achieve.It is because of the dedication and commitment of the people who work there that we have seen the NTA go from strength to strength, with improved and more efficient services as well as clocking up some singularly identifiable and impressive achievements. It is particularly because of the NTA's excellent performance over recent years that there can be no argument and no justification for the government to be bringing the bills before this place. There is no argument or justification from the government as to any inefficiencies. There is no argument from this government as to why it can justify the sale of the NTA in any form.Evidence of this lack of justification, I believe, can be found in the government's refusal to release its scoping study. That scoping study would canvass and seek to quantify the economics behind the structure of the NTA and the services it provides, the cost to government and the returns to government in the form of service. How is this parliament to decide whether the government is proceeding down the most appropriate route in maximising the return to the Australian taxpayers and seeking to protect the public interest without this information being available? Does the government expect us to do it on trust?I believe this government has lost the trust of the Australian people with its short-sighted measures. These short-sighted measures over the last two years and a bit have meant that Australians cannot trust what this government has to say. When that lack of trust is highlighted by a refusal to provide basic informa tion to allow proper parliamentary consideration of these issues, it reinforces the view.The opposition has concerns with many areas connected to these bills. I would like to go through some of those specific areas. Although the bill guarantees access to the NTA facilities for the ABC and SBS for the next five years, there is very little information as to what will happen after those five years. In the midst of a time of great change, of great technological progress, and indeed political consideration of the management of that technological progress, particularly with respect to digitisation, what sort of fiasco is the government trying to establish here? Imagine the difficulty that the national broadcasters are going to be in when they seek to negotiate with a company, or perhaps a series of companies, of corporate entities, which will have a clear monopoly over transmission facilities and the transmission networks.Here is one of the first fundamental contradictions of this whole process. Here we have a government whose rhetoric waxes long and rather lame on issues of competition, of achieving efficiencies, through that means. Yet this proposal is a transfer of what could be construed as a public monopoly to a private monopoly. In the eyes of competition policy, the latter is the far worse result in terms of consumers and certainly in terms of the public interest.I am quite bewildered as to how some senators on the other side of this chamber who purport to represent regional Australia are supporting these bills, considering that they contain no guarantees regarding the maintenance of services in rural and regional areas. We see speculation currently in the context of the Telstra privatisation debate that the only way this government can protect services for regional areas is not through a process of asset sales, of deregulation, of competition in the private sector, but through re-regulation to force those corporate entities to provide a prescribed minimum service in areas that don't `turn a quid'. And let's face it—because we are such a big country, because we are so vast, some areas of this country in the telecommunications context will never turn a quid. In this fact lies the very foundation of arguments supporting the retention of public ownership, not only of our telecommunications service provider Telstra, but also of authorities like the National Transmission Authority.While some members of government have made certain claims that the contract with the purchaser of the network would look after these matters, this guarantee should appear in the bill if this parliament is to have any faith that the government and the new owner will meet these obligations of looking after those in the bush. Over the last two years, time and time again it has been the Australian Labor Party highlighting the concerns of regional Australia. The cuts to the ABC and the sale of Telstra, which I have already mentioned, and the cutting of Radio National are all examples of the diminution of services in the communications area to regional Australia.Here is another bill that does nothing to protect or support, let alone enhance, those critical services. I ask: where are those supposed to be the voices of rural Australia speaking up when this government is making decisions that will hit people hardest out there in rural and regional Australia? We do not hear them in debate because we are dealing with the Liberals' ideological agenda. The National Party representatives in this place are not to be seen when it comes to slashing, funding, cutting and selling off our telecommunications infrastructure.There is nothing in this bill that guarantees that the current policy objectives of the National Transmission Agency will be maintained. While the bill does contain some limited community service obligations, these are far more constrained than those which are currently in existence. How ironic it is that when the government is deciding to sell off Australia's broadcasting infrastructure it actually reduces the community obligations on those who will control the transmission network.With respect to the ABC and SBS, the minister claims they will draw up a compact with the two broadcasters which will seek to spell out what the coverage and quality expectations will be for those who own the national transmission network. Well, how is that for a gesture? The same minister continues to cut the funding of our national broadcaster with each consecutive budget and, with respect to technological progression, an issue which is fundamentally linked to the services that the National Transmission Authority provide, they have restricted the capability of the ABC through lack of sufficient funding for their digitisation strategy.The government claims that in return for this compact it will be covering the costs of the transmission contracts for the next five years. Let us see, does that relate to the timetable for the digitisation strategy? It comes close, it is a big longer. How does it relate to the out years funding commitment by this government to the ABC? All these things must be reviewed alongside each other. Five years does not afford the protection to the national broadcaster that is required to make what is fundamentally an irreversible decision to sell the authority. I think it is also a reasonable thing to say that I can assume that undertaking is about as good as Minister Alston's undertaking a couple of years back to actually guarantee ABC funding.It is very difficult for anyone to claim that the NTA is an inefficient organisation. To what degree the government will lean on this, I expect we shall hear. The NTA over the last few years dramatically expanded its network, resulting in the substantial expansion of radio and television services to regional Australia. In fact, the expansion of the network since 1992 has facilitated an extra 1.3 million Australians having access to national radio and television services. ABC services alone have been extended to a further 468,000 Australians over the last six years, with 453,000 Australians also now having access to SBS television.This growth, this improved access to these services, has got to be attributed in some way to the dedication of the team at the NTA and the former Labor government's vision and commitment to expanding the network. This vision and dedication is lacking from this government and I am yet to hear how this vision will emerge in the private sector. This government stands up here and says that a corporate entity which purchases the NTA will arrive with such a vision, with such a commitment to expanding the opportunities of all Australians to access such services, with an underlying philosophy of equity of that access.I want the government to tell me how it will do that, because experience shows us that the only way governments can enforce a commitment to those issues by corporate entities is through a re-regulation, through a strident compliance regime that in turn starts to eat into any perceived deficiencies that they hope to attain through the sale in the first place. And with a compliance regime must come penalties, there must come a disincentive if that corporate entity does not conform with the desired requirements of the government.Here is the second greatest contradiction: the government is floating these concepts up against the rhetoric that we hear from it about free market enterprise, about how the private sector always does it better than the public sector, but it starts to ring very hollow and is exposed as not being an argument of substance when it comes to the selling off of public infrastructure in this way.Like many senators on the other side of the chamber, I too am a keen listener of Triple J and one of the greatest achievements of the National Transmission Authority was its expansion of the network that has facilitated the broadcast of Triple J to thousands upon thousands of young Australians. Triple J has been revolutionised as a result of regional broadcasting and has not only acted as a wonderful new service to young people in rural and regional Australia but has brought metropolitan young people and rural people together. It has provided a unique unifying factor amongst the youth of this country. Where is the vision going to emerge from this government and what are their solutions to address these concepts? Triple J's series of `Unearthed' concerts have been great examples once again about how we bring rural and regional Australia together with metropolitan Australia, sharing their culture, sharing their voice.These are the tangible examples of what I am talking about when I talk about equity and access and how our communications and telecommunications infrastructure are so critical to all Australians. It is not just about switching the TV on or the radio on and being able to get a service, it is about the quality of service that provides. That point takes me back to an earlier point in that you cannot address these issues unless you look at the big picture, the funding issues relating to the national broadcasters that use the NTA. It is all linked and it all points to how critical the retention of public ownership of these services is because that allows philosophies of parties like the Labor Party to shine through and allows these services and the opportunities that they subsequently provide to continue to be a feature on the Australian political landscape. In conclusion, I would once again like to recognise the dedicated work of all the employees of the NTA over the years. They are a group of people who have much to be proud of.11:52:003175Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In listening to the debate so far today, I have been very cheered to see issues of public interest brought up continually, in particular by the ALP. I took particular interest in that because for some time, in fact since before 1995, we have been dealing with the issue of competition policy, that is, the major shift in policy that has occurred—and we know that it is supported by both major parties—where everything that can be done by the private sector and everything that can be opened up to the market will be opened up to the market. This is an ongoing process. What happened in 1995 is not the be-all and end-all. We are involved in this process as we speak and in the end, by legislation, we will be required to open sectors up to the market unless there are exemptions, and I have not seen any.I find their contributions encouraging but also concerning because public interest was never a strong point of the 1995 competition policy legislation. Whether it is opening up markets, opening up public provision of services to the market or, as in this case, privatising what is currently a public asset, we have no legislative guarantee that the public interest will prevail. It is all very well for the Labor Party to rail against the ignoring of public interest in this regard, but they did not listen in 1995. They are still resisting and, in fact, they told me they would not vote for an inquiry—a long overdue inquiry—into the social impacts of competition policy. That motion stayed on the Senate Notice Paper for weeks—in fact, probably months—waiting to see whether there was some iota of support in the Labor Party for looking at the whole gamut of issues involved with competition policy to see if we can responsibly assess, as a community and as a parliament, whether we are going in the right direction and whether we have put public interest in the right place in terms of public policy. And they have resisted it.We know the government is likely to resist it. We know that in 1995 there was a Labor government and a different Prime Minister, but there is time to reassess that now. It is no good saying, every time one of these issues comes up, `The government of the day is not acting in the public interest' when we had the chance, and still have the chance, of assessing whether we can put public interest more strongly into the competition policy regime.I will move to the Greens (WA) position in relation to the National Transmission Network Sale Bill. The Greens (WA) are not convinced that the sale of the national transmission network is ostensibly in the public interest. The plan is to sell off the range of assets currently contained in the National Transmission Agency. Essentially, the assets consist of transmitters used to broadcast ABC and SBS television and radio programs throughout Australia. The government's argument is that it will enhance customer service through competition. In addition, the government proposes that the sale will benefit the public by retirement of debt.Going back to the debate we had in 1995, what we could find out in 1995 from both major parties was that public interest equals competition equals public interest. It was a circular argument. There were some exemptions but they were very limited. We find these arguments less than convincing. Competition and debt retirement seem to be the government's catchcry and pet argument whenever they cannot think of a rational reason to pursue their endless privatisation and deregulation agenda. We heard it with Telstra and the banks, and the same line has been pushed again in relation to the national transmission network. It is highly questionable whether increased so-called competition and debt retirement are in the public interest in this case. While these things are not necessarily bad in principle, it is necessary to look at the costs associated with going down this track. It is also necessary to look at alternative means of achieving the same results.The national transmission network, under Commonwealth control, is an extremely efficient network. As mentioned by other speakers, in the last few years it has dramatically expanded its network and, in doing so, has performed an admirable role in extending radio and television access. A lot of that has come, I have to add, by parliamentary pressure. It could be pork-barrelling and it could be before elections, but parliamentary pressure has added to that. Pressures within electorates, we know, have added to that.The national transmission network has spent a lot of money keeping its equipment up to speed, despite funding cuts. Over the last few years, the national transmission network has not only updated and expanded its services but has also managed to implement significant savings in its recurrent costs. As the NTN is already providing excellent and efficient service to its customers and the community at large, the claims of efficiency through competition—another of the famous catchcries of government, despite any evidence to the contrary—does not hold much water. When you cream off the profit margins here, who is getting more benefit than they got before?The Greens (WA) have major concerns about the continuation of national coverage and customer service obligations in regional, rural and remote areas. We have already heard of the plans to make digital telephones and television services compulsory and to cut off the access to analogs. This is another situation where, in the future, technology itself may cut off access, and what direct implications does that have for parliamentary input into the provision of services?Facilities in the bush are faced with yet another threat by this sale. The community service obligations are a watered down version of what is already in existence, and we have seen that before. Whenever there is a government asset for sale, in order to push up the price, they reduce the compliance for those networks. So instead of having more oversight and more regulations, as they would usually do in America when there is a public service provided by a private provider, they are actually having less; and I find that extraordinary.The government is making noises along the lines of `she'll be right, mate'. The government plans to ensure national coverage through the contract with the purchaser of the network. This is clearly an unsatisfactory arrangement. Any protections or assurances of access in the bush should be in this bill so that the parliament can determine whether or not they are adequate. Will the contract ensure quality of access? Will it even ensure current access? What about the price of continued access? What about those rural and regional areas that do not have current coverage? There are no promises made about extending coverage to those people who do not already have access.Remember that, under corporate law, the primary obligation of the corporation which purchases the national transmission network, whether they are from Australia or from overseas, is to their shareholders. They will do whatever is best to enhance the profits of their shareholders. If that means cutting, reducing or limiting access to services in remote and regional areas in Australia, under corporate law that is what they must do unless there are laws to tell them otherwise. We note that commercial broadcasters will be provided with a grant to operate in declared remote areas. This grant should be extended to national and community broadcasters.Long-term access to transmission facilities for the ABC and SBS is another issue that is still up in the air. The bill assures access for the next five years, but what will happen after that? Will we be assured by another wink and a `she'll be right' from the government? The ABC and SBS will undoubtedly be in under dog positions when it comes to doing their own bargaining when the five years is up. They will be bargaining with owners in a distinct monopoly position. As the government has acknowledged—and, indeed, is proud of—the ABC and SBS will be in a direct commercial relationship with a provider. A direct commercial relationship comes with all the power imbalances that come with any monopoly provider and with all the pressures to make direct commercial decisions and not public interest decisions.Another concern is that the national interest objectives of the ABC and SBS will be undermined. The Friends of the ABC are concerned that working in a commercial context could put unwanted and unwarranted pressure on the ABC and SBS to cede to commercial interests, especially when the five years are up. On top of that, the ABC and SBS are reliant on the government to fund their access to the network. How long will that last? Promises of funding have been made and broken in the past. The promise of maintaining funding in real terms to our national broadcasters has proved to be hollow. Our national broadcasters have had to feel the pain and have been made sacrificial lambs every year when the knife comes out at budget time—of course, this is less so in an election year. Not only are the ABC and SBS faced with the uncertainty of continued access but also they will not know the price of access or whether the government will provide adequate funding.The government claims that the ABC and SBS want this direct commercial relationship and that it is just playing fairy godmother in making that wish come true. Obviously I have heard from representatives of the ABC and SBS, as have many other players in this debate. They said to me quite clearly that they want to have some aspect of control of the network. Will this do it for them? I think the government misstates the position of the ABC and SBS in this regard. What they really want is, as I said, greater control of the transmission network. This does not necessarily mean the sale of the national transmission network. We would argue that, with the sale of the network, the ABC and SBS potentially may have less control through public accountability. So, yes, they do want some control of the network and to have a greater say in transmission. I am not entirely sure that, in the current commercial environment, this is necessarily in the best interests of consumers in remote and regional Australia—that still has to be argued. Does the sale of the network give them greater control? This is yet to be proved.The government could have allowed the ABC and SBS greater control by directly funding their transmission costs and providing them with control of the radio communications spectrum used to broadcast their services. The sale of the national transmission network does not have to be a step towards giving greater control; in fact, it may lead in the other direction. Although I imagine that it would be heresy if the government extended the funding to the ABC and SBS when it was something it could flog off to service debt, it is something that should be considered.Community broadcasters are also under threat. These energetic and colourful broadcasters do not, under this bill, receive any kind of supplement or real guarantee of access to transmission facilities. The government is showing a complete lack of understanding of the role and importance of community broadcasters. They play an important and unique role that cannot be replaced by commercial broadcasters. They present a diversity of views and opinions that provides a unique service which caters to local people. Many community broadcasters would go under if they had to pay full prices for access to broadcasting services. This would be a grave loss to the community and a significant reduction in diversity. But maybe it is in the interests of the government to have those voices silenced. Is this the kind of vision that the government has for the future of Australia?Another concern relates to who will buy the national transmission network. There are no limits on foreign ownership, for a start. Also, the bill makes no provision for potential conflicts of interest if a commercial broadcaster bought the network. What are the implications there? Will there be any restrictions in the legislation? No. For instance, if there were a breakdown in the network, the commercial services would be repaired ahead of the national broadcasters.All in all, the Greens have not been convinced that the government has provided enough assurances to the Australian community. We have been asked to stand at the abyss and to take a leap of faith that things will work out better not only for the bottom lines of broadcasters—the ABC and SBS—but also for the provision of services to the Australian community. We are talking about short-term budget bottom lines as opposed to long-term interests. I have strongly argued that we have never assessed long-term Australian public interest in relation to competition policy; the Labor Party has resisted us doing that. Now that we have more and more examples of where this is going wrong without any real control by the parliament, maybe the Labor Party will agree that it is time to go back and look at public interest and the social impacts of competition policy. The benchmark should be community service, not an ideological agenda. This bill does not address the real impacts of service provision in Australia.12:08:003178Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. We apologise that Senator Alston is not able to be here. He is on his way back to Canberra and will be here shortly. He has asked that I sum up the second reading debate and move to the early consideration of the bill in committee.A number of important issues have been raised by honourable senators opposite during this debate. Can I say from the outset that I share with Senator Margetts an interest in the approach of the Australian Labor Party to these issues. We saw, as Senator Margetts will remember, an approach by the Australian Labor Party in government which—and I believe to former Prime Minister Keating's great credit—embraced competition policy. We saw a move to bring the benefits of competition to the Australian economy, and I praise the former Prime Minister for that. Although he had many failures as a Prime Minister, one of his great achievements was to bring competition policy to many parts of the Australian economy that had not previously be exposed. He did so in a sensible, practical and workable way.The Australian Labor Party in government had that approach to competition. They also, as Senator Margetts will recall, had an approach to privatisation—the privatisation of great Australian icons. In government, of course, having promised at the 1990 election that they would not sell the Commonwealth Bank—and Ben Chifley would turn in his grave—they sold the Commonwealth Bank. It was the Victorian Labor Party that sold the State Bank of Victoria.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That is national infrastructure.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—We will get to infrastructure, Senator Schacht, because you are pretty good at selling that too. You sold Australian Airlines. The people opposite sold Qantas. Of course, it might be argued that one of the two major airlines formed a significant part of the national infrastructure. After promising they were not going to sell, Labor sold the airline. It also sold the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—a massive, dominant and crucial part of the social fabric of this country that provides serums and a range of other pharmaceutical products.Senator Schacht, by way of interjection, mentioned infrastructure. We know from reading what has been written since the defeat of the Keating government that the first tranche of the Australian Labor Party's telecommunications privatisation program in the area of telecommunications infrastructure was well afoot in 1991. Their plans to sell Telstra, in fact, were well afoot. Their plans to privatise the Yellow Pages and a range of other parts of Telstra, and indeed Telstra itself, were well in hand at the time the Keating government was defeated. The first tranche of the Australian Labor government's telecommunications privatisation program was the sale in 1991, as I recall, of Aussat. You have to go back—I think it was the Aussat repeal bill in 1991—to see who supported the sale of that important part of a telecommunications infrastructure.Senator Schacht has gone very quiet now—he is complying with standing orders for the first time in his parliamentary life. He has gone very quiet now we raise Aussat, this crucial part—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have always had an attitude that when people get up and drop a bit of abuse on you and so on, that that is the give and take of the parliament. I have never been a great one for taking points of order. But I have to say that I have been here for nearly 11 years and I have always complied with the standing orders and the direction from the chair. I know Senator Ian Campbell is enthusiastic in exaggerating my role in the Senate, but I have to say that I have always complied with the standing orders in the Senate and I think that you might want to reconsider the broad scope of his remarks in that area.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Senator Schacht, you have made your point, but there is no point of order.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The point I was making, of course, was that the Australian Labor Party in government was pretty gung ho about selling major bits of infrastructure, and Aussat was clearly a part of that. A substantial part of the telecommunications infrastructure of Australia was sold and, of course, it could only have been sold if the Senate had passed the Aussat repeal bill in around 1991. This was very much part of Mr Beazley's policy when he was communications minister, it was very much part of Australian Labor Party policy, and it was the first bite of the Labor Party's implementation of their plan to privatise telecommunications in this country.The sale of Aussat did not really need the support of the Democrats to get through this parliament because clearly the coalition would have supported it. You hear from the Democrats fairly regularly, when a privatisation debate comes up here, that they have never supported a privatisation. The fact is that when it came to Aussat, a crucial piece of telecommunications infrastructure—the sale of the substantial satellite network of Australia—the Labor government was supported, of course, by the Australian Democrats. At the time, I understand Senator Kernot led the charge to get the Democrats to support that legislation.Senator Margetts, I know you were not here in 1991, but your party has been the only non-coalition party in this place that has been consistently opposed to privatisation on fundamental philosophical grounds. We have always supported privatisation.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You are just filling in time until Richard gets here.4J4Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am not; I am making the point about the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party when it comes to these debates. They have not given any reason why the national transmission network should not be privatised, and I wanted to knock over a number of the arguments in relation to that. The Labor Party's philosophy and policy in relation to this, if they were to be consistent, would have a number of logical consequences. They have said that we cannot sell this—and Senator Schacht, by way of interjection, has made it clear that this is their philosophy—because this is a major part of infrastructure, and it should not be sold. Firstly, they sold Aussat—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—There is no comparison between a satellite and 1,500 transmitters across Australia.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—There is no comparison, but of course Aussat is a network; it is a communications network. If you continued in a consistent manner the application of the Labor Party's philosophy and principles and policy in relation to this matter—and the great thing about the Labor Party, I guess, is that they do not follow a consistent path, because if they did, the country would have been in a worse position than it was. They are very pragmatic, they change, depending on which way the wind blows, like an old windmill. If the wind blows from the east, they swing around like a wind vane. If you cross the Tweed River—this is the Wayne Swan doctrine and the Kim Beazley doctrine—just in the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales, their policy, position and rhetoric on native title has to quickly change. If you move from Western Australia across the Nullarbor Plain, their position on native title has to change. When Mr Beazley, Mr Smith, Senator Cook and Senator Bishop, amongst others, go to the city of Kalgoorlie, they have a position on native title, but when they get over here it is different. So I guess, in a way, the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party and their smorgasbord approach to policy—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance, and what the Labor Party's position north of Tweed Heads has to do with this bill.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Senator Conroy, the minister is summing up the second reading debate, and I am quite interested in hearing what he has to say. I am finding it rather difficult with interjections from my left, I might say.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—On the point of order, as part of my summing up of this debate, I am going to get to issues effecting regional—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What has Wik got to do with this?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I was about to get to issues effecting regional Australia. Mr Acting Deputy President, we have had all of the coalition senators talking about the government's range of policies in relation to regional Australia and, if I am allowed to under your stewardship of the chamber, I am going to get to the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party in relation to the treatment of regional Australia, particularly when it comes to things like Wik, and that is why it is important to look at regional Australia.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think you have made your point on the point of order. There is no point of order, and I ask you to continue your summing up on this particular bill.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I appreciate being allowed to continue. This is where the hypocrisy is, and I was getting to the point about consistency in policy as it relates to telecommunications quite specifically.If you were to apply the Schacht doctrine, the Lundy doctrine, to the ownership of telecommunications infrastructure and the ownership of networks, they would not have sold Aussat, they would have kept that in public ownership, and, quite frankly, they would have purchased from Vodaphone, or Iridium, their low earth orbiting satellite network. They would go and buy 66 satellites because it is a crucial part of Australia's emerging telecommunications infrastructure and they would say, `Sorry, this is national telecommunications infrastructure and the public should own it.'Furthermore, they would go to Foxtel or to Telstra corporation and they would say, `This cable that you have rolled out on the ground to enable hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians to get the benefit of cable—'4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Iridium cannot broadcast television; it is about mobile phones, dill!10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, you have been continually interjecting. I note from the speakers list you have already spoken, you will have an opportunity in the committee stage to reiterate your position. I would like to hear the minister make his points in silence.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. I spoke to the bill. It is their bill. He has spoken about everything else that is not in the bill. Iridium is a satellite system that has got nothing to do with television or radio broadcasting—it is about mobile phones, for goodness sake. We have had talks about Wik; we are asking him to debate the bill.We know he has got to fill in 15 minutes of time until Senator Alston gets back from abusing the ABC board, but we ask the minister at the table to talk about the bill. Further to my speech in the second reading debate, could he please explain, simply, whether the government has signed an agreement with the ABC or SBS on what money it is going to provide for the next five years to pay for transmission costs? It is a simple request from the second reading debate, and you still have not answered it. I can tell you, Parliamentary Secretary, Iridium is not the way to deliver ABC broadcasting.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If that was a point of order, it was a rather long one. There is no point of order. Minister, will you continue your summing up, and I remind you that, presumably, the questions asked by Senator Schacht will be answered in the committee stage.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—If we do not have this constant interruption with points of order, I will get to it. I have got a series of responses to very important points made by honourable senators opposite—mostly, other than Senator Schacht.There is a key principle here: we are trying to look at the position of people like Senator Lundy, who contributed to this debate on the public ownership of the means of production and these distribution networks, when it comes to telecommunications. If you can argue that broadcasting and the ownership of broadcasting networks is not related to Telstra and Foxtel's cable, then Senator Schacht is drawing a very long bow, if not a very long cable. If you apply their principle, which is that the Commonwealth should own this transmission network, then the Labor Party's policy should be that they would nationalise the Foxtel cable network. It is as simple as that. There is no difference.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—The Foxtel cable is owned by Telstra which we want to keep in public ownership.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Schacht reinforces our position that they would prefer to have a cable network, and indeed Optus is cable. Senator Schacht might by way of interjection—without encouraging him any further—suggest whether the Labor Party intends to nationalise the Optus cable network.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Here we go.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—In principle there is no difference. This is a transmission network. To get to the specific points, we do need to ensure that regional Australia receives a better service than it is receiving at the moment. We do need to ensure that. The privatisation of the transmission network is the best opportunity that regional Australia has to ensure that their transmissions are received efficiently and at the best price. The ABC desperately want this new regime because it gives them options. It gives the SBS and ABC the benefits of price competition. It gives them a whole range of new options when it comes to rolling out new services into regional areas. That is why the ABC and SBS and regional areas in particular benefit from this.I get to the point that I was discussing when we were debating that point of order earlier, Mr Acting Deputy President. These Australian Labor Party people opposite would have you believe that they are the friends of people in remote and regional Australia. I ask Senator Schacht or Senator Lundy to go out to Wyndham, Kununurra, Leonora, Leinster, Laverton, Esperance, Halls Creek, Mount Magnet or Meekatharra—any of those places—and hold a discussion on public policy out there. I will tee up the venues.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Yours is the first government ever to put a TV station off the air—GWN in Wyndham.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I challenge Senator Schacht. We will have a debate about public policy in Kalgoorlie. Do you know what they will say to the Australian Labor Party? `Don't you pretend to be our friends up here. We know how you voted on the Wik legislation, we know what you were doing to our economy. Don't come and talk to us about ABC or SBS.' You would be lucky to get out of there in one piece, Senator Schacht, after voting the way you did on the Wik legislation. You are destroying regional Western Australia.Oppostion senators interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The people in remote and regional Western Australia know that you do not get the best expansion of transmission services by having the transmis sion network owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. What you have got to ensure is that you have a good access regime. We have already put in by way of contract between the ABC and SBS a five-year guaranteed contract. Everyone talks about five years but it is actually 14 years. They all ignore that. You have got five years plus three years plus three years plus three years, so the access is guaranteed for an absolute minimum of 14 years.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You have not guaranteed the money for 14 years.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The Commonwealth has guaranteed the funding. Furthermore, the access regime is guaranteed as well. In terms of coverage and quality of ABC and SBS services, the legislation does provide a regulatory framework which will underpin contractual controls to ensure that the government's commitment to preserving the existing coverage and quality of ABC and SBS is met. The opposition, of course, choose to ignore that. Furthermore, the minister's approval will be required if the NTA wishes to sell or transfer some or all of its assets needed to supply these services. There is a guarantee: if the NTA does choose to move out of an area, it will have to come back to the minister, and the minister is required—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—He will cave in absolutely. In all of these matters he is an abject coward.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—God help Australia if Senator Schacht ever becomes the minister. The people of Australia remember very clearly what happened with ministers for communications when the Labor Party was in power. We had this fantastic roll-up. We had Mr Beazley when he was minister for communications stuff up Aussat. Then we had Senator Bob Collins. He was a ripper. Who remembers cascading bids? That was a lot of fun, wasn't it?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Has this got any relevance whatsoever?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Well, Senator Schacht interjected about the minister for communications, who has actually got communications policy back on the track. We have got a quite clear policy being imple mented. I say to the people of Australia: on communications policy, compare Senator Alston, somebody who knows what he is doing, a quality minister, to old Mr Beazley, who spent the first couple of years in the portfolio trying to find out what a policy was—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, could we return to the summing up of the bill?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—We are talking about it, Mr Acting Deputy President. This bill is a crucial part of our policy to try to fix up the mess that the Australian Labor Party left communications policy in in this country. Cascading bids: say no more. Senator Collins, I hope you are enjoying your retirement, because the communications industry certainly is.We need to look at the very important issues relating to community broadcasters and radio for the print handicapped. The 19 community broadcasters which currently use the NTA transmission facilities will be required to pay commercial charges. This will put these 19 broadcasters in exactly the same position as the more than 120 other community broadcasters who already make their own arrangements for the use of non-NTA sites. The government estimates that the aggregate increase for these 19 broadcasters will approximate $30,000. The government today announces formally that the Community Broadcasters Foundation will be given—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—More notes, quick. He has run out.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I have got plenty of notes here; it is just that part of the writing is slightly hard to read. I formally announce that the government will be providing to the Community Broadcasters Foundation an annual grant of $30,000, which will more than cover that.Can I also say that, in relation to SBS self-help programs, today the minister will be announcing new funding to be provided to the SBS to establish a program to help new self-help groups with their establishment costs. Senator Schacht may want to listen to this. The funding will be around $150,000 in 1998- 99, $300,000 in 1999-2000, and then $500,000 per year ongoing from the year 2000. That is to assist SBS self-help programs.Furthermore, today the minister will be announcing that new funding of around $2.5 million will be provided to SBS over the next three years to assist with improvements in the quality of SBS television reception in Sydney. While it is entirely a matter for SBS, it is likely that the funding will be used to relocate the main transmitter. As I have said—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You must be getting some political heat. You're trying to drag some money out.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Schacht talks about heat. They say that they are friends of the ABC. The ABC is extremely keen to ensure that it receives the benefits of the improvements that the increases in the efficiency of national transmissions will deliver to it. The ABC and the SBS, as Senator Schacht would admit if he were to be entirely frank about this, will be significant beneficiaries of this reform. It is a great shame that the Australian Labor Party have refused to support this. It is clearly an act of hypocrisy compared to their position on these matters in government, particularly in relation to the way they sold Aussat. I commend the bill to the house. (Time expired)3183Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—by leave—I wish to make a brief personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Senator Ian Campbell, said at one point in relation to the sale of Aussat that the Democrats had voted for the sale of Aussat. If he checks Hansard of December 1990 he will find that the Democrats and former Senator Jo Vallentine were the only senators to vote against the sale of Aussat. He is probably thinking about the Aussat Repeal Bill, which was an appropriation bill as a consequence of the sale of Aussat. No vote was taken but the Democrats did indicate that we would reluctantly agree to the appropriation being made because the sale had already taken place.3183Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I wish to make a brief personal explanation in relation to a speech that I think has been misunderstood. I would never seek to knowingly mislead or misrepresent anything that Senator Bourne says. I am sure that she would accept that on the face of it. But I did refer specifically to the repeal bill.TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—That's not the sale. You said we voted for the sale.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, I did refer to that bill by name. I was grappling for the exact name but I did say the Aussat Repeal Bill. We can have an argument about whether or not that constitutes agreeing to a privatisation. Senator Bourne, I accept, on the face of it—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—This is extraordinary! The minister at the table is filibustering.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am not filibustering, I am making an explanation, in relation to a speech, under standing order 191, and that is that I specifically—Senator Schacht interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—I will try to abide by the standing orders even if Senator Schacht cannot—I was quite specific about the bill I referred to. If Senator Bourne believes I have misrepresented the position of the Democrats, I fully accept her explanation. Question put: That the bills be now read a second time.12:44:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator P.H. Calvert)34Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W. *Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. *Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Crane, W. Quirke, J. A.Watson, J. O. W. Carr, K.* denotes teller(Senator Alston did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous3184Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—as amended by leave—agreed to:That the government business orders of the day relating to the following bills may be taken together for their remaining stages:Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 and 10 associated billsFinancial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998.Matters of Public Interest3184318412:45:003184Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise today to speak about an issue which I believe is of great importance: the issue of securing our financial future. When I was a youngster going from primary school to secondary school, Australia's financial situation was in a very good state. For young people of my generation—and I include you in that, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds—the world was our oyster. There were opportunities galore and jobs galore. But gradually, over a period of time, those opportunities have been whittled away, particularly over the 13 years that Labor was in government.On 12 May 1998 Peter Costello, the federal Treasurer, announced a budget surplus of $2.7 billion for the financial year 1998 to 1999. Further budget surpluses are projected to reduce net debt from a peak under Labor of about 20 per cent of GDP to around 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2001-02. That is an extraordinary achievement. I am often asked why this government is so determined to reform the economic management of this country and reduce debt. The reason we are so determined, firstly, is that there are a lot of older Australians that I have met as I moved around the country doing consultations for the International Year of Older Persons who are alarmed that the legacy they left us, the inheritance they left us, was being squandered and that the inheritance of the next generation was being spent by this generation—and basically by Labor when it was in government for 13 years. What we were doing was using up the inheritance we had, and we were borrowing against the inheritance of the next generation.Debt does not exist in isolation. When you have debt, as all of us who have mortgages or have bought something on time payment know, interest must be paid on the debt. When government debt grows, as it did under Labor, it must also be paid for through interest repayments. Those interest repayments represent opportunities forgone. In the terms of economists, what you spend on interest you cannot spend on other things. I remember a lesson I learnt when I was a youngster. I wanted to buy a dress. In those days people used to go door to door selling clothes on time payment. My mother warned me about buying this dress, but I wanted a new nylon dress. They were the days when nylon had come out.CX5MACDONALDSenator Sandy Macdonald—Still got it?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—No, I have not still got it. But I decided that I was going to buy this dress, and I was going to pay two shillings a week on this dress. My mother was right because, by the time I had finished paying for the dress, the dress had worn out and was out of fashion. I learnt a very big lesson from that about buying something on time payment. I also had to pay interest, and I paid a lot more for that dress than I should have. It was a very good lesson. Thank heavens it was only on a dress that I learnt that lesson.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Not on the national accounts.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Not on the national accounts. My mother let me have my head, and I am glad she did because I learnt a very good lesson; a lesson which people on the other side obviously have not learnt.If you have a debt on the national accounts, you have interest repayments which could have been otherwise spent. As Senator Vanstone said, it could have been otherwise spent on improving Australian schools, housing and hospitals—and all the other things that people come into our offices telling us we ought to be spending money on. These repayments grow with the debt, and eventually higher interest rates are needed to attract the necessary funds. Higher interest rates affect all Australians. They affect farmers, who find it increasingly difficult to keep up with repayments on their properties. We saw in that time of high interest rates under Labor banks foreclosing on farms and people moving off the land.Families face higher mortgage rates, and a significant proportion of families' income is taken up on paying mortgage rates. The goal of trying to purchase a home by young people is getting further and further out of their reach. Small businesses have difficulty raising funds and meeting repayments. When that occurs the first thing they do is reduce their number of staff. Rising debt and increasing interest rates quickly become a cycle and lead to unemployment. As I have said, businesses are forced to lay off staff to keep up with the repayments of debt.Another factor which occurs is that funds from overseas investors fuel land and price speculation, and they take these things out of the reach of ordinary Australians and again push up inflation. While inflation may give the impression of growth in wages and other benefits, this growth is illusionary as inflation is typically accompanied by high interest rates and rising prices for basic commodities like bread and milk. Successive Labor governments oversaw the cycle of debt, high interest rates, high unemployment and high inflation. I think we constantly need to remind the Australian public that under Labor the budget deficit each year was running at about $10.3 billion. That is, every year we were spending $10.3 billion more than we had, more than we were receiving in taxes. We were living off the next generation's inheritance. For grandparents who are listening, we were spending your grandchildren's money. For parents listening, we were spending your children's money. We were $10.3 billion in excess. Government debt reached $96 billion, or more than $5,000 for every Australian. Home interest rates peaked at 17 per cent, and small business interest rates reached 20.5 per cent. Unemployment climbed to 11.2 per cent, and inflation averaged 5.7 per cent.It took the Liberal-National Party coalition to break the cycle. As announced in the federal budget of 12 May 1998, we expect to achieve a surplus of $2.7 billion for 1998-99. We also anticipate that by 2001-02 government debt will have fallen from $96 billion to $9.6 billion, representing a decline in government debt from 20 per cent of GDP to around 1.5 per cent. As I have said, when you do not have that debt, you are not paying off the interest and you can afford to do other things.Flow-on effects from this sound financial management have seen home loan interest rates fall to 6.7 per cent, the lowest rate since—as the Treasurer (Mr Costello) constantly reminds us—man first walked on the moon. Unemployment is now well down on the rate reached under Labor, and inflation is running at minus two per cent—and that is the lowest that has been seen since the sixties.With debt having been brought under control by this government, we can now implement initiatives for the benefit of all Australians. As many of my honourable colleagues in the chamber know, one of my particular interests is in older Australians. As a result of our behaving in a financially responsible way, we have seen benefits being able to be given to people.We have extended access to the Commonwealth seniors health card to an additional 220,000 self-funded retirees. Many of these people are on reasonably low incomes; some of them just above the pension. However, they have not been able to get benefit. So we have given them a sense of security in that, after they have purchased 52 scrips—I think it is—at $3.20, they then, like pensioners, can receive the rest of their medication for free. This is something which has been asked for by self-funded retirees.But it was never given by the Labor Party when it was spending money willy-nilly, borrowing $10.3 billion a year—never given to those people who really wanted the security of knowing that, if they required an extensive amount of medication, it would be free after having reached a certain number of scrips. When Labor was in government, the cap was so high that it gave self-funded retirees a great degree of concern.We have allocated $280 million to the government's staying-at-home care and support for older Australians package. Again, as we have moved around Australia talking to people, one of the things they say is, `We want choice; when we are frail and need assistance, we want the choice of either staying at home or being cared for in a residential setting.Because we have been more frugal than the Labor Party, the other thing we have been able to do is offer gold card access to qualifying World War II veterans. This has meant the spending of about $500 million, but World War II veterans who have faced hostile forces will now be entitled to a gold card. That, I know—and I have already talked to some veterans about it—gives them a great sense of comfort. But the other thing it does is take off the state bill a number of those people who would otherwise have been in public hospitals around the state, receiving public benefits from, say, dental schemes and puts them onto the Commonwealth bill. So it gives also relief to some older people who will now have space and beds in hospitals and access to dental programs which were being taken up by those veterans. So there is a double effect for the public: first, that those veterans now will be paid for; and, secondly, the spaces they may have taken up will be able to be used by others.Education, training and job prospects for Australian young people are being improved and mutual obligation principles enhanced through a $350 million funding package. What we are saying through a lot of our policies is that there is a obligation, that we have a responsibility to care for those in need, for those who are unemployed, but that those people also have a responsibility back to the community. Many young people are responding in a very positive way to the challenge being put to them that they have a responsibility along with the rights and privileges they enjoy as members of Australian society.The investing for growth industry statement has been announced, with $1.3 billion being allocated as part of our extensive industry reform agenda. Another $180 million has been allocated to addressing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, on top of the $1.25 billion already allocated to the National Heritage Trust by this government.All of this is being able to be done because we have behaved in a way which is responsible, and we are not borrowing to fund these initiatives. The initiatives of previous Labor governments were undertaken with borrowed money—money borrowed from the next generation.Today, in here, I heard Senator Cook saying, `We're going to oppose your tax reform policy because you haven't brought it to the people in time, and they should have time before an election.' He continued, `So, if you get back in, even though it might be a budgetary measure, we're going to oppose it.' Senator Murray challenged him and asked, `Well, what are you going to do on the issue of tax?' Senator Cook then replied, `We're not going to tell you, and we'll tell you in good time in due course.' I believe that section ought to be taken out of the Hansard and given to a first year philosophy student for an exercise in logic. You are saying, `We're not going to support you if you get into government because you haven't released your package,' but you are saying to the Australian public, `If the Labor Party gets into government, it will be okay, but we're not going to give you the details of our tax package or any other package.'Why should we have to give the information out any earlier than the Labor Party? The fact is that the Labor Party is demanding of the coalition more than it is prepared to give to the Australian public. This seems a very odd argument: we were going to support your tax reform; now we are not because you have not released it in time. Come out and tell us what your policies are; come out and tell us what you are going to do about tax reform. Anyway, even if the Labor Party were to tell us what they would do about tax reform, would the Australian public believe it?I remember the 1993 budget. Mr Keating got up here and said, `I will build these personal tax cuts into l-a-w, into law.' He said, `It's not a promise; they are tax cuts written into law.' He told the Australian public that they could rely on it because it was l-a-w, law. And what happened after the election?RD4BROWNHILLSenator Brownhill—Mr Beazley was there too.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Mr Beazley was involved in that too—Mr Beazley and Mr Keating—`This is an l-a-w promise.' But it was b-r-o-k-e-n, broken. That was a promise that was written into law which was broken.Not only that, they ran around telling pensioners that all pensioners would be taken out of the tax system by 1995. What hypocrisy. How terrible. Five days after that election Mr Blewett came out and said, `Oh, that was wrong; we shouldn't have had it in the policy.' How cynical. And within two years of that budget, sales tax on cars went up from 15 per cent to 22 per cent, the Medicare levy went up, pharmaceutical charges went up, company taxes went up from 33 per cent to 36 per cent, wholesale sales tax—that hidden tax that you can slide up without the public knowing—went up 2 per cent, excise on petrol went up and excise on leaded petrol went up even more, which again affected the battlers because they are the ones who cannot afford new cars on unleaded petrol. So if anybody thinks that they can believe the Labor Party on taxes and tax reform, let me remind them of their record. (Time expired)318713:01:003187O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Today I want to talk about a number of matters relating to the actions of this Prime Minister. Firstly, I want to talk about the manner in which the Howard government has gone about its waterfront strategy because that should not surprise anyone. Nor should it surprise anyone that the Prime Minister has been personally involved in this plan from day one. His involvement has been ongoing. Mr Howard ticked off this plan as it was developed from early last year. The Prime Minister is involved in everything because he trusts no one. One assumes with hindsight that the waterfront plan might be renamed `operation Titanic' because it has succeeded only in sinking the political machismo of Mr Reith and his hapless Prime Minister.Even in his own office he leaves nothing to chance. This is especially the case since the departure of Graham Morris. There is a simple reason for this. Within his own party this Prime Minister has always been an after-thought. He has always been the party's second or third choice as leader. A look at the Prime Minister's path to the Lodge makes this point clearly. In the lead up to the 1983 election Mr Howard saw himself as the heir apparent. But senators will recall that the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, had a very different view. Mr Fraser called Andrew Peacock the morning after the election defeat and told him he was prepared to do anything to prevent Mr Howard taking the leadership. His leader dudded Mr Howard and Andrew Peacock got the top job.Senators will also recall that in 1985 Mr Peacock called a meeting of the party and declared all leadership positions vacant. Mr Howard had been working on Mr Peacock's demise and the opposition leader decided to take the matter head on. Mr Peacock called on Mr Howard to declare he would never ever run for the leadership but Mr Howard refused—of course, he said he would never ever have a goods and services tax. So Mr Peacock pulled on a vote to force Mr Howard's hand but Mr Howard did not have the confidence to nominate; he refused to nominate. Mr Peacock was re-elected but his running mate, Mr Moore, was not. The party decided it wanted Mr Howard as deputy leader.Senators will also recall the extraordinary scenes that followed, with Andrew Peacock declaring a vote for Howard was a vote against him and he promptly resigned. So Mr Howard, who would not throw his hat in the ring and would not even nominate after there had been a spill of positions, found himself as leader of the party. Then Mr Howard lost the leadership to Mr Peacock in 1989. Remember the front page of the Bulletin—`Mr 14 per cent—why does he bother' The Prime Minister had another shot at the top job in 1990 but lost convincingly. He tested the water again after the 1993 election but did not have the gumption to run against John Hewson, who had just lost the unlosable election. He finally returned to the leadership position of the Liberal Party on Australia Day in 1995.So, as I said, Mr Howard has always been the party's second or third choice and hence he trusts no one. Not only does Mr Howard not trust his ministry or his party he does not trust the Australian community. He is far more comfortable with the politics of division than the politics of consensus. It is a political strategy the Prime Minister has applied on a number of occasions. In August 1988 Mr Howard expressed the view that the number of Asians coming to this country was too great. He made this statement in the context of a debate about multiculturalism and its place in Australian society. On the ABC AM program, Mr Howard was asked:. . . Mr Howard, is the rate of Asian immigration into Australia too fast?Mr Howard responded:I think there are some people who believe it is.He was then asked what he thought and he said:. . . I wouldn't like to see it greater . . . I do believe that if in the eyes of some in the community, it's too great, it would be in our immediate term interests, and supportive of social cohesion, if it were slowed down a little . . . And what was his view on multiculturalism? He said that it was an aimless concept. In 1988 he was happy to take the political course of creating division within the Australian community in pursuit of his political agenda. It was a simple message: there are too many Asians coming to Australia.In his Future directions document released in December of that year Mr Howard said he wanted to see `one Australia' not an Australia of individual groups. Another simple message: if you want to live in Australia you have to behave like a white European middle class heterosexual. One could be forgiven for thinking that the member for Oxley is a plagiarist.I must add that Mr Howard was more than happy to let the member for Oxley and her motley crew run their campaign of division and bigotry. This was despite the best efforts of many—including John Laws of 2UE—to get him to speak out against her as the Prime Minister of Australia. John Laws was rightly concerned about the damage she was doing to the social fabric of this community. He wanted the Prime Minister to take a stand. John Laws asked him to act like the Prime Minister of Australia and he would not. And why, because he did not want to—he saw political benefit in remaining silent. So Ms Hanson and her acolytes parade the misnomer of one nation. It begs the question: what do we call the Howard Liberals? Half a nation?The manner in which the Prime Minister dealt with the debate over the native title issue provides further and clear evidence that Mr Howard's approach to the Australian waterfront is true to form. On the ABC's 7.30 Report on 4 September last year the Prime Minister said that the problem with native title is:. . . that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, particularly after the Wik decision . . . He then held up a map of Australia and said:Let me just show your viewers . . . This shows 78 per cent of the land mass of Australia—coloured brown on the map. Now, the Labor Party and the Democrats are effectively saying that the Aboriginal people of Australia should have the potential right of veto over further development of 78 per cent of the land mass of Australia.He then told the 7.30 Report viewers:Now that is a very simple message. I think the Australian people will understand that message.It was a very simple message, delivered via a map coloured brown. He was saying to the community that if we are not careful the blacks will take over the place. It was almost identical—and just as misleading—to the crude but effective campaign run by the Western Australian Chamber of Mines in the 1980s. The only difference is that their map was black, not brown.And now the Prime Minister has turned his hand to demonising the wharfies. He has decided to be a more sophisticated person in his approach to this matter. First, he had to create the image. How was this achieved? Through his ministers he appointed Liberal pollster Mark Textor, the principal of Australasian Research Services. Mr Textor, it should be remembered, is closely associated with the technique of push polling. This first appeared on the Australian political landscape in the 1994 Northern Territory Election. Voters were asked if they would change their vote if they knew the following facts. They were then told that Territory Labor planned to introduce two sets of laws—one for blacks and another for whites. The Country-Liberal Party employed Mr Textor in the lead up to that election as a polling adviser. The Liberal Party also employed the same technique in the lead up to the Federal by-election for the seat of Canberra. Mr Textor was the pollster for the Liberal Party for the 1996 election campaign.Last year Mr Howard, Mr Reith and Mr Sharp commissioned Mr Textor to attack not their political opponents but an industrial union. The work was channelled through the ACIL consultancy. Mr Textor then organised a number of focus groups. He showed them parts of a 60 Minutes program and other material designed to colour their view, including edited `highlights' of an address by the Secretary of the ACTU, Bill Kelty. He was paid over $40,000 for his trouble.Despite his best efforts the waterfront and wharfies were not considered to be so-called `top the mind' issues. There was strong concern about waterfront efficiency, international competitiveness and any hindrances to exports. The Textor research was then provided to a second consultant—long time Liberal Party election strategist, Jonathon Gaul. The Gaul plan was to use the Textor research to paint the wharfies as the privileged elite—$100,000 for 14 hours a week and then they all nick off anyway. That is the sort of line we have been hearing from this government and that is the line that was created by Jonathon Gaul.As with the Asians in 1988, the Aborigines and the Wik message, it was both simple and divisive. Madam Acting Deputy President, you would know that the average wharfie is like any other Australian worker. He has to work long hours to make ends meet. He has a family to support. And in many cases he does achieve world's best practice in his workplace. At the port of Burnie in my state, Tasmania, the waterside workers achieved an average rate, I believe, of 33 containers per hour in the week before they were dismissed. In the state of Queensland, your state, Madam Acting Deputy President, Townsville is a port of hard working and highly productive workers. What did the Prime Minister say of their fate? The Prime Minister was interviewed on A Current Affair two days after Chris Corrigan implemented what the government thought was the final part of its grand plan to smash the MUA. He was asked about workers in ports like Burnie and Townsville and why they were sacked along with their colleagues in Sydney and Melbourne. He said:They are all part of the one union.Guilty by association.This country has changed dramatically under the leadership of John Howard. There is now mistrust in the community. There is now a high level of insecurity about what the future might bring. Mr Howard has achieved all of this in just over two years. His is already a remarkable record. I, together with many Australians, hope the legacy of this Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, is a short one.The Senate would recall that the last time Mr Howard lost his job he mocked the suggestion of a possible return by claiming that that would amount to Lazarus with a triple bypass. We now know that we have Lazarus with a triple bypass as our Prime Minister. The question that must be answered and will be answered, and in the hearts of many Australians has already been answered, is: has John Howard got the ticker for the job that he now has? The facts show that he has not.319013:14:003190Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I rise today to talk on a matter of public interest affecting my state of Queensland that has considerable relevance to the outcome of the state election. I am referring to the shredding of the Heiner inquiry documents and further evidence that has come to light and been prominently featured in the media in recent days. All senators know that this is a matter that I have spoken on on quite a number of occasions. Indeed, I referred the matter of whether or not the Criminal Justice Commission may have given false and misleading evidence to the Senate select committee into unresolved whistleblower cases in 1995 to the Senate Privileges Committee on 5 December 1997 for further examination. In making this speech, I am not showing any disrespect to the deliberations of the Privileges Committee, but there is fresh disturbing evidence relating to the shredding that I believe this chamber and certainly the people of Queensland ought to be aware of and fully comprehend its significance.Before I do that, I want to put on the public record something that has personally disturbed me ever since the unresolved whistleblower cases committee tabled its report in October 1995. In that report we described the shredding as `an exercise in poor judgement'. I have given that view very careful consideration ever since and I now wish to disassociate myself from that description and suggest that it was quite inadequate. In my opinion, in light of the facts and the emerging evidence, it was a very soft political view that can no longer stand. I believe that we sent our Australian community a bad signal by not facing the cold, hard facts that a so-called desirable, political objective may not always be lawful. That precise scenario is what the Howard government and Patricks may be facing in the courts in respect of the unacceptable sudden sacking of 1,400 MUA members supposedly to achieve a more efficient waterfront. I remind the Senate that Justice Wilcox said in the appeal court ruling that noble objectives cannot be achieved by ignoble means.It has been argued that the shredding was done to protect people from suing each other over evidence given to the Heiner inquiry because of the way it was established. At first glance this looks fair enough, but standing between that objective was the lawful right of citizens to access those public records or, at the very least, to test that right in court through judicial interpretation of the relevant statute. Indeed, the known would-be litigant, Mr Peter Coyne, and his solicitor were deceived by the Crown into believing that the evidence was secure while, behind the screen of expectation that the Crown would act with the utmost probity, the documents were shredded to stop their use in that foreshadowed litigation. It is my view now that we should have taken greater consideration of the views expressed by now High Court Justice Ian Callinan QC, who represented Mr Lindeberg, that arguably the decision to shred the records seriously breached the criminal law.In moving my motion to have the Lindeberg matter referred again to the Privileges Committee, I indicated that it appeared that what was shredded was evidence of possible child abuse. My worst fears appear to have been realised by the most extraordinary of circumstances. I refer to recent headlines in the Courier-Mail of 25 May 1998 that former Queensland Police Commissioner Noel Newnham, a man for whom I have the greatest respect, carried out a three-day investigation for Mr Lindeberg into what was told to Mr Heiner. I remind the Senate that the current opposition leader, Mr Peter Beattie, has described the Heiner inquiry as `a spat between public servants' in an attempt, I guess, to downplay its importance.However, in his inquiry Mr Newnham found that Mr Heiner was given evidence of possible serious child abuse of detainees. He found that children as young as 10 and 12 had been handcuffed to water grates in the open air all night, with one child, who was told that snakes came out of the grate, being found the next morning with his blanket stuffed down the grate because of his fear. Others, it is alleged, were handcuffed to beds for extended periods. It is also alleged that there was inappropriate use of suppressant drugs for other than medical reasons, and that there was also psychological and physical abuse.I want to add of course that I am not apportioning blame to anyone. That needs to be done by a proper investigation. I am indicating, however, that very serious evidence of possible abuse was given to Mr Heiner, and it was shredded. Undoubtedly, anyone accused had a right to clear their names, but the electorate also has a right to know what was going on behind those closed walls. The shredding prevented this.Mr Newnham points out in his report that the use of excessive or unnecessary force against people in lawful custody amounts to criminal assault. He says:In the case of minors such assaults by custodial officials, directly or indirectly, must always be regarded as extremely serious.He further says:. . . Australia has international treaty obligations regarding the treatment of people in custody and of children. It appears plain that officials disregarded some of those obligations.He also said that it was an absurd notion to suggest that the Crown had to shred these documents to prevent people suing each other. I happen to agree with Mr Newnham. It is absurd to suggest that the Crown cannot handle documents containing such evidence and that its only remedy was to destroy them.This fresh evidence obviously opens up very serious questions that, I suggest, the Privileges Committee may not be able to ignore, especially in the light of other revelations involving the CJC's handling of this matter. Mr Newnham suggests that it is quite inconceivable that the Goss government would have been unaware of these allegations when deciding what to do with the Heiner documents.But it does not stop there. It turns out that a youth worker who gave evidence to Mr Heiner on these matters has been in contact with the CJC since 1994 by phone—and as late as October 1997 in writing—wanting the CJC to investigate these matters. The CJC has dismissed his concerns, the same complaints it now wants to investigate following the Courier-Mail's pressure and the intervention of Mr Newnham. All of a sudden the CJC now has an interest in the matter. The CJC never told the Senate of these contacts, leaving us to believe that all of the Heiner witnesses were relieved to see the so-called defamatory evidence destroyed. I believe that is gross deception on the part of the CJC.On Monday, 25 May 1998, the CJC announced that it was going to investigate these 1989-1990 complaints, after considerable media uproar. It is quite inappropriate for the CJC to come within cooee of this matter. It cannot assure anyone of its impartiality. The fact that the CJC did not see any ethical or conflict of interest barriers to its taking on the task is something of even greater concern to me, and merely confirms that the CJC has lost its plot.I believe that the CJC is an institution which must remain in the state of Queensland. It is critical that it do so. But it is a patient that is sick. It needs to take its medicine, it needs to get well and then perhaps it can get on with the job. The problem I have is that the CJC has not told the public about its glaring ethical impediment to its involvement now and that its deception is of the highest order. It is impossible to dissociate the shredding from what was actually shredded. They are both sides of the same coin.We have already seen what happens to other people who go to the CJC on matters associated with the Heiner inquiry, and now it is inviting more public servants to face potentially the same fate. We have seen Mr Lindeberg disgracefully ridiculed in public by the CJC over his efforts to see the truth emerge. I hold a genuine fear for other people who might believe that the CJC comes to this matter with clean hands for I believe they could suffer the same fate as Mr Lindeberg. I am sorry to have to say that, but the CJC's credentials in relation to the shredding and anything to do with the Heiner inquiry are very much in doubt.Mr Lindeberg made it quite plain in evidence to the Senate inquiry that he views the CJC's handling of his allegations as biased and contrived to obstruct the truth coming out. Mr Lindeberg's serious assertions, in my view, should be heard by the new Parliamentary Commissioner for the CJC, Ms Julie Dick SC, as soon as possible.When this new evidence emerged in the Courier-Mail, the Queensland Premier, Mr Borbidge, publicly suggested that barristers Messrs Morris QC and Howard had looked at the Newnham revelations. That is quite untrue. Mr Morris QC has also dissociated himself from the Premier's comments. I must say that either the Premier was being unacceptably dismissive of them or he is so misinformed as to be out of his depth on this matter—as he is on many matters, I might add—and that is very sad indeed. The Premier further suggested that the Newnham revelations had gone to the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions. That also is untrue.As for Mr Beattie, he wants the CJC to look into the matter. I am afraid that is a joke, and a sick one at that. The CJC is so compromised in this affair that any investigation into the shredding and related matters, including the fresh revelations, must include the CJC's handling of the Lindeberg allegations.Finally, the scale of the corrupt tentacles associated with the shredding is so vast and so serious that it warrants the appointment of a special prosecutor who can take and hear evidence in public under oath and prosecute where necessary. Really we can have nothing less. The system itself is on trial. This matter touches the office of Governor in Council; the office of Cabinet; the office of Crown Law; the FOI Commissioner; the Queensland audit office; the Queensland police; the CJC; senior public servants, retired and serving; a trade union; and goes as far as a credit union. The time to act is long past. Justice has been delayed for too long for people like Mr Lindeberg. The Australian Democrats have continued to be the only political avenue for Mr Lindeberg to pursue justice in this matter. Both of the major parties have failed Queensland and Mr Lindeberg, and that failure continues to this day.If we condone the shredding and ignore these recent revelations by further inaction, dithering and dodging, it will show that we have lost the plot about what a decent society means. We will have reduced ourselves to a state of ridicule and anarchy. This is above party politics. The Australian Democrats demand action to get to the truth of this matter immediately and in full.319213:28:003192Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—If ever proof were needed of just how strong a hold the union movement has over the Labor Party, one need look no further than the debacle over the attempted privatisation of the NSW electricity industry. This is a matter of public importance that I will address in this debate.The issues involved are immense. The Carr government claims the New South Wales industry is worth $22 billion. However, the more realistic figure puts its value at $28 billion. This valuation is more realistic because it uses current Victorian sell-off prices which have been adjusted for interest rate declines. In blunt terms, this puts the industry's worth at between 15 and 20 per cent of the state's GDP.At present NSW has crippling debt of nearly $20 billion. That would be wiped out and the resultant interest savings of $720 million a year would go to schools, hospitals, police and other necessary services. And a report by the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development released only weeks ago says privatisation of the power industry will create about 167,000 jobs. The study, prepared by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, also points to a 10 per cent cost saving from privatisation.The arguments for full privatisation are therefore compelling. The reality is that, if the taxpayers of New South Wales knew how much they had at risk in the New South Wales electricity industry, there would be mass demonstrations calling for its privatisation.All of this must also be looked at in the context of the tax regime in New South Wales. Since Bob Carr came to power in 1995, the state has gone from having the lowest tax growth rate to becoming the highest taxed state in Australia. Tax revenue has risen by $2½ billion in just three years. There have been 13 tax increases, and they include three new taxes—one of which is the iniquitous land tax on people living in their own homes—that have been imposed on the people of New South Wales.During the Carr years, government expenditure has risen unaccountably by more than 20 per cent. On top of this, Bob Carr is looking to a piecemeal sale of the power industry. Even that stalwart of the Labor Party, Graham Richardson, recognises the need to privatise the whole industry. Writing in the Bulletin recently, he said the coalition would go into the next election promising to sell off the power industry. Here I quote Mr Richardson:This will enable Peter Collins, the New South Wales leader of the Opposition, to promise substantially lower electricity prices for businesses and households. He will also have the luxury of deciding how to lavish upon the electorate something like $20 billion which he will reap from carrying out the privatisation policy already espoused by Carr. There is now a competitive market for electricity in Australia and by corporatising the various entities in electricity generation and provision, New South Wales businesses are paying only 40 per cent of what they paid for electricity when Labor came to office three years ago.This makes those entities tremendously attractive to private buyers who would vie with privately owned competitors in Victoria. They will pay top dollar and Peter Collins will promise to retire state debt, fix the schools, fix the hospitals, fix the trains, fix the buses and put police back on the streets. Against all this, Bob Carr will offer his best wishes and his hopes that this party might one day reconsider its position.How humiliating for Mr Carr to have a Labor Party heavyweight publicly acknowledge the Premier's impotence at the hands of the unions over plans to privatise the $28 billion power industry. Although he claims his gover nment is committed to a full privatisation, the latest move from his bunker this month was a half-baked plan for partial privatisation of the New South Wales electricity industry, only, of course, if his union mates agreed to it.Under this latest proposal only the power generators would be privatised and the electricity distribution and retail companies would remain under public ownership. But how did Mr Carr arrive at this bifurcated approach? The answer is he was trying to appease his union mates, those same union mates who constantly rebuff him and put at risk huge sums of money which would help the people of New South Wales by retiring state debt and freeing up capital for infrastructure and social projects.The latest round of privatisation talks have highlighted the power two right wing unions—the Municipal Employees Union and the Electricity Trades Union—have over the New South Wales Labor government. The plan to sell off only the three generators for $10 billion is tailor made for the right wing unions as most of their members are in the six distribution companies. What a surprise!The New South Wales government has sought to sell off the power industry and both right and left wing unions have bluntly told Mr Carr they will not let that happen. What right they think they have to take such a position against the public interest beggars belief.Recently, the left wing Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union broke off talks with the Carr government and walked out of meetings. They took their bat and ball and refused to play, and Mr Carr was powerless to do a thing about it. Not surprisingly, many CFMEU members are employed at the three generators. Mr Carr is unashamedly playing union politics with one of the state's great assets, its power industry.What all this means is that New South Wales is suffering accelerating losses through the Labor Party's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the inevitability of a privatised power industry throughout the area covered by the interconnected electricity grid. A partial privatisation is a nonsense and simply will not work. However, under a New South Wales coalition government there will not be this nonsense as the coalition has stated clearly and often that it will sell the power industry as a whole.One of the primary reasons for the privatisation of the New South Wales electricity industry is to provide a capital boost for the state, as well as lower prices for consumers. The capital boost of more than $20 billion will help to retire debt and rebuild the state's economy with infrastructure projects that will also create jobs.The real benefit is that in retiring debt, the privatisation of the electricity industry will save the New South Wales government, and therefore the people of New South Wales, $720 million in interest payments each year. That $720 million will enable the New South Wales Liberal government to make significant and lasting gains for the people of New South Wales. It will leave the state almost entirely free of debt. That means it will leave a state which future generations can enjoy without crippling taxes and other charges now being imposed upon them to pay the interest debt racked up due to years of Labor mismanagement.So what is it that the unions object to and which tie Bob Carr's hands? The unions have thrown up the usual arguments of possible job losses and erosion of conditions as a result of the sale. Some opposition to any sale rests purely, no doubt, on so-called ideological grounds, but both objections miss the whole point. Electricity supply and generation is now a competitive business, and it will become more so.If the New South Wales electricity generation industry is to remain competitive in the current deregulated market, it will need a substantial injection of funds to ensure it is in the race with other states. No government can really justify such an injection of taxpayers' funds and this, in itself, highlights the inevitability of privatisation.It was the coalition government under former premiers Nick Greiner and John Fahey that first realised this and stepped in to begin the process by putting electricity transmission on a commercial footing. But this has stalled because of the Carr government's impotence.What the next coalition government will do is to privatise because New South Wales needs the money and it makes good business sense to do so. Frankly, New South Wales has come to a dead end in terms of raising new taxes, and the sale of non-core assets is the rational solution to this revenue crunch.Also, there is no economic justification for the government to run non-core assets. There are very few utilities or services that need to be run by the government to operate efficiently and fairly and to deliver an essential service.The notion that governments should own utilities is largely a hangover from the now defunct theory of natural monopolies. This concept refers to an industry in which technological imperatives preclude competition from smaller players or new entrants. Given that only one player could gain sufficient scale in any one market, it was thought then desirable that that player be owned by the government, which could be trusted not to exploit its position.This is all lost on those in the Labor Party who still have their head in the sand. They fail to realise that the privatisation of the electricity industry will create a number of utilities providing competition and better service for consumers. In economic terms it makes absolutely no sense to have billions of dollars of taxpayers' money tied up in an industry that has become highly competitive since it was opened up in May last year. The fact is that the government has no say in the price of electricity, which is set by market forces. In New South Wales, the publicly owned generators and distributors compete against each other and interstate rivals to see who can deliver the cheapest power. What is happening is that, because it will not or cannot sell these businesses, the New South Wales government is unlikely to see a meaningful dividend from this industry for several years. So, while the government's dividend income from ownership diminishes, it is at risk of losing billions of dollars of shareholder value. In a report published in Company Director, accountancy group KPMG writes that there is likely to be a large field of bidders, given the Victorian and other recent electricity sector sales. But it warns that there are unique risks, and questions how long the current situation of oversupply is sustainable in the market. In other words, the time to act is sooner rather than later. This is the point of my speech today. This is highlighted by the recent United Energy float in Victoria, which closed three times oversubscribed. Significantly, the blueprint for the United Energy privatisation closely resembles that outlined by consultants Deutsche Morgan Grenfell to the committee of inquiry last year into the sale of New South Wales power assets. The Carr government could have and should have acted then.Separately, a KPMG analyst said that the longer the government waited to sell the power industry, the greater the risks involved as the assets depreciated, and international interest could weaken. He said also that the longer the government waited, the greater the drain on the state's economy through interest payments on unpaid debt.What the unions refuse to realise is that the window of opportunity to sell power utilities at huge prices is limited. One reason for the high prices being commanded at present is that there is intense overseas interest in the electricity industry. Adding to their high value are low interest rates and high market valuations. The shareholders are benefiting. For instance, AGL, which now owns Victoria's Solaris distributor, has seen its share price surge from $8 to $12.65 in just six months. That is a price-earning multiple change from 3.7 times to 21.7. Utility stocks are on a roll across the share market, trading at a valuation multiple above ordinary industrial stocks.But this will not last forever. When the New South Wales coalition government is elected in March 1999, as it surely will be, one of its first priorities will be to deliver to the people of New South Wales the benefits from a full privatisation of the electricity industry. It will also enable the people of New South Wales to share in the bonanza by becoming shareholders in utilities. All that is being denied to them now, during this twilight period when the unions have decided to refuse their neighbours and their families the benefits to be had. Not even Mr Carr can manage to backflip on this one, and present and future generations of people in New South Wales will only continue to be adversely affected.319513:42:003195Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—In Sleepers, Wake! , the Hon. Barry Jones, MP, a former Labor minister for science and technology, wrote that capital, land and labour, the three factors of production, have been joined by a fourth: knowledge. Information and knowledge are the empowering tools of today's society but, as my colleague puts it: is this information a free good? If so, what levels of responsibility should government take in providing an accessible information superhighway as opposed to a tollway? As knowledge and information are integral factors in production, control over the carriers of information becomes increasingly paramount to our future. If information is a right, then access to the information highway should be freely available and affordable to everybody.By contrast, there are those, like this government, that believe information is a private or commercial commodity that should be sold or licensed. Whilst there are sectors that can legitimately apply an added value in the transmission, it can be said that what we are dealing with here is something that is a resource to this country as opposed to a consumer commodity. By ceding control to the corporate sector the government is, in effect, selling off one of the means by which all Australians can enter and participate in the electronic society.Fair and equitable participation in this new paradigm of communications and information sharing is something that Labor holds true to its philosophies and principles, but something that remains very distant from the philosophies being espoused by the government. As the Howard government begins the process of selling off the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, it is fundamentally important that we assess information technologies not only to find out where they are taking us but also to analyse who is being left behind.One of the largest groups marginalised in the IT revolution and changes to the information and communication paradigm are rural and remote Australians. If you live off the main road then you are literally out of sight and out of mind of this government. Likewise, the information superhighway is bypassing anyone not connected to the main road. Rural people know only too well what it is to be forgotten. The decline in rural banking services is just one example. One in three major bank branches in rural areas closed between 1993 and 1996, rendering 600 rural communities without access to proper financial institutions.Rural residents do not have the same access to support structures that metropolitan citizens enjoy. They must survive without the networks that underpin city life. If you live on a remote or distant property you do not have the same sort of access to support or help to manage your computer's file management problem or if your hard drive crashes. There generally are no local training courses, localised help desks or even computer stores that can offer sales and post-purchase service that the rest of us can access quite freely.Unfortunately, it is not just rural residents who are unable to ride the superhighway. Older Australians, Australians with a socioeconomic disadvantage and, in particular, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are in a similar boat. Statistically, we know, as a result of an ABS survey late last year, that these factors are significant in explaining the inequities to access to the new information technologies. About 60 per cent of Australians on rural and remote settlements are Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, and their telecommunication needs are not being addressed.I recently came across a report that reaffirmed that rural Australians need a world-class telephone system. But they also need world-class television, radio, fax and e-mail services and a quality postal service just to remain a part of society, to have current and relevant connections with society. I know many rural people will laugh at this, but many of them are struggling because they are still struggling just to have a standard telecommunications or telephone service. E-mail and the Internet are pipedreams at the moment. Yet the Internet and enhanced information services can deliver essential information about their primary industry, the weather reports, legal services, the stock market and new product and marketing opportunities.With the recent developments in electronic commerce, being on-line means overcoming the lack of commercial and retail services that rural communities and small towns cannot offer. This in turn introduces a whole range of social challenges and regional economic issues that will have to be confronted. To ignore the ramifications of some of these changes in this context is certainly at the government's peril. The principle goal of any government should be to ensure that rural consumers and rural citizens have the same telecommunications and information services as city residents.One of the more interesting developments in this area is the current pricing regimes between the carriers providing Internet services to rural areas compared to metropolitan areas. I watched with interest the pricing disadvantage that currently exists between the two groups in this country, and relate it back to how those rural people are, on the one hand, being encouraged quite stridently by government to participate in this new on-line revolution but, at the same time, the government is choosing to ignore the means that they have at their fingertips to ensure price equity and access equity to the services.We often hear too from this government about its commitment to small business. The recent electronic commerce summit here in Canberra highlighted access issues for small business, particularly those in rural and regional areas. The pricing inequities that currently exist between the two metropolitan areas and the rural areas show that Telstra at that time provided a significant disadvantage to rural consumers. I note with interest in yesterday's Australian that Telstra's Internet product, Big Pond, has joined the rush to provide flat rate Internet access. This is quite an intriguing development, given that the major carriers and certainly the major providers of ISPs moved away from flat rate Internet access quite early on in the development of that market on the basis that industry analysts and their own economics in providing that service demonstrated that that was unviable in the long term.So what do we see now? We see, once again, competition perhaps playing a role in the provision of these flat rate services, given that another provider of Internet services, OzEmail, instituted the same regime just recently. What we have in two major metropolitan areas is a response from Telstra to a move by OzEmail to instigate, once again, a flat rate Internet access pricing package. What we do not see is a rural centre being offered the same service or the same pricing regime. What we do not see are those non-competitive areas in this country getting offered a cut-price or discount regime or access to the Internet.What we do see are the metropolitan areas that are well serviced, that have a profit margin that is worth it for these private companies to actually pursue market share and to extract a profit from, being the sole beneficiaries of the competitive pressures that are existing. What is happening is that rural and remote Australians do not even get subjected to the competitive pressures that could lower the costs that are currently being imposed on them for Internet access.I also note with interest media speculation on this specific area, where it talks about the contemplation by the government of enhancing the regulatory regime to actually ensure that somehow the services are maintained to rural and remote Australia. This comes back to quite a powerful contradiction that is underpinning or, I suppose, upstaging to a large degree the government's whole rhetoric about their move to full privatisation of the carrier Telstra.The government cannot guarantee the delivery of adequate services, either on the Internet or even in telecommunications generally, to rural and regional Australia without enhancing the regulatory framework to enforce it. Why? Competitive pressures do not exist where there is no profit to be made out of a given market. Because Australia is such a big place, there are several areas in this country which will never make money on behalf of a carrier, an Internet service provider or anybody else.How will the government put pressure on the various Internet service providers, for example, to lower their costs for those regional subscribers? How will they ensure that OzEmail, Big Pond or regional ISPs actually want to compete in rural and remote communities? The fundamental flaw in the government's plan is that that will not happen. The only way it can deliver a base level of service is to regulate and to provide for compliance measures and, hopefully, penalties that will stick.To go back to the earlier points I made about inequities between rural communities and metropolitan communities, and the value of knowledge and information in our society: we have a grave situation emerging where the information poor and the information rich will be divided, not just along socioeconomic lines, but along geographical lines as well. At a time when we on this side of the chamber are so mindful of these widening disparities, these social inequities, we have a government that consistently ignores the structural ramifications of its policies in relation to privatisation and to playing with the regulatory structures in regard to competition policy.All of these arguments lead to a fairly straightforward message. The existence of information rich and information poor, and the widening gap between the two, is not an argument in itself against the privatisation of public assets. But the implications of that policy extend far beyond economic considerations and public and private revenues. They extend far beyond a comparative benefit to shareholders or potential shareholders, and the public interest. What they go to is how we will cohesively, as a society, progress and develop—how we will cohesively take advantage of the information revolution, this new paradigm that we are already embracing but that many Australians have no opportunity to participate in.To deal with these issues in isolation is to deliver the largest proportion of Australians to exclusion from these developments and changes. This, obviously, is an act of gross negligence on the part of this government. We have seen so many examples of efforts on their part to demonstrate to the Australian community that in some way they have tapped into the information revolution.We saw a very belated establishment of the National Office of Information Economy. It is now struggling to play catch-up with critical issues that have been affecting other economies in other countries for a number of years. We see a conference on electronic commerce come over two years into the government's term. Was it preceded by a conference on the social implications of this information revolution? Was it preceded by a conference on just what it meant to be excluded from the information revolution? No, straight to the business aspect, straight to the economic angle.Unless this government puts people first in its consideration of information technology matters, these inequities will only increase. It is an imperative. (Time expired)Sitting suspended from 1.57 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice319831983198Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is to Senator Ellison, Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. Is it not the case that job brokers like Employment National, Drake, Mission Australia and the Salvation Army have no legal and contractual obligations to help find a job for those not on benefits? Is it not also correct that for the middle-aged unemployed the best thing is to get them job help immediately?Can the minister confirm that, under the government's new system, if you are middle-aged and married, you will be denied immediate guaranteed free employment services and forced to the back of the unemployment queue? Is the minister aware that there are 400,000-plus unemployed Australians who are now being forced to the back of the queue by the new job network?3198Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Of course, that is not true. We have provided more opportunities for job seekers and some three-quarters of those organisations which successfully tendered for this—and there were 310 organisations—were involved in existing programs in relation to job search and looking after people who are looking for work. Over half involved case management and skillshare people and 50 per cent were involved in dealing with the more disadvantaged section of the job seeking population.That means that, out of the 310 organisations, a good percentage of those people who will help people look for work have had experience in dealing with disadvantaged people. In that I include indigenous people, migrants and those people who are older. When Senator Sherry looks at those figures, he can rest assured that there are people in the job network system who are experienced in dealing with this sector of the market.We have contracted with these providers to provide jobs for the allowees, that is, those people who are eligible job seekers. They get paid when they find those people work. That is part of the job network system. It has also brought into the system experienced people to assist those others whom Senator Sherry has mentioned, and these people have that experience. Fifty per cent of these people have experience in dealing with disadvantaged people, and I include in that those people who have some sort of disadvantage—such as those who have English as their second language, migrants, indigenous people and the older cohort.31983198Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Yesterday in the other place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Evans, sought to evade—I am sorry, my question is actually addressed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I think she had a rough idea.TH4Senator KNOWLES—I am sure she did, the moment I mentioned the first line. Yesterday in the other place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Evans, sought to evade responsibility for issuing Mr Skase with a new 10-year passport by asserting that he had no discretion to refuse its issue. Senator Bolkus then claimed that Mr Skase's new 10-year passport had been of absolutely no use as it had no travel stamps or visas in it. Could the previous government have stopped Mr Skase from getting a new 10-year passport and would Mr Skase's new 10-year passport have been of any use to him at all?3199Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Knowles for her question. Yes, the previous government could have stopped Mr Skase getting a new 10-year passport, and yes, a new 10-year passport would have been of use to Mr Skase.The former Senator Evans, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, had four clear options; four discretions to stop Skase getting a brand new passport valid until the year 2003. He could have firstly thought about it for longer than two working days. He could have given it the attention it deserved.Secondly, he could have refused to issue a passport under section 7D of the Passports Act. Thirdly, he could have cancelled any passport under section 8(1) of the same act and, fourthly, he could have issued a new passport, a very short-term one, say for three months, or even a one-way travel document back to Australia.Let me turn to the first issue. There is no requirement to issue a new passport in a couple of working days. The minister could have waited a couple of months and considered the matter properly. This was a sensitive matter. A passport alert had been issued. Thousands of Australians had lost their money and a minister is entitled—indeed, obligated—to give the matter proper consideration. Mr Evans admitted that the former government was trying to get arrest warrants issued which would have given one ground for refusing the new passport. Mr Evans could have and should have given the matter better consideration.Secondly, former Senator Evans and Senator Bolkus have been out there claiming that section 7 of the Passports Act in effect only allows a minister to refuse a passport if a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the applicant. Now, that is just not true. They failed to mention section 7D of the Passports Act. Senator Bolkus failed to distribute section 7D to the media, which entitles a minister to refuse to issue a passport if somebody already has a valid one, unless there are special reasons.Mr Skase had a valid passport on which he could have travelled back to Australia, but of course Mr Skase told everybody he was too sick to travel. What were the special reasons that Mr Evans and his department accepted as being good and proper reasons to give a new 10-year passport to Mr Skase?Thirdly, section 8 of the Passports Act gives the minister a very broad general discretion to cancel a passport. Mr Downer cancelled Mr Skase's passport. Why didn't Mr Evans do the same? Fourthly, Mr Evans could have issued a limited short-term passport for, say, four months and by that time possibly the arrest warrants that he was seeking to have issued would have been issued.Here we have Mr Evans claiming that he had no choice and that he was just the innocent minister, when in fact he had four options not to give Skase a brand new 10-year passport. Mr Evans was the minister, and he is clearly culpable.Of course a passport is of use to someone. A valid passport can be used to travel to countries where a visa is not required. So a stamp does not need to be put in it. But you need to show that you are an Australian citizen so you do not need a stamp. You can use it to cash travellers cheques to buy the necessities of life, like a wheelchair or an oxygen mask or some golf clubs. You can use it to open bank accounts in Switzerland, where you store all the money that you perhaps have taken out of Australia. You can use it to rent expensive properties. A passport has a whole range of uses—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—How did he get to Switzerland?7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus is clearly unaware of the uses of a passport. That is why he does not care that Labor gave Mr Skase a brand spanking new 10-year passport. It is an absolute disgrace. The passport could be used to identify yourself to collect cargo—(Time expired)3200Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. If the minister has time I would like to know what some of the other uses of the passport are that Senator Bolkus does not obviously realise. Also, given your answer, Minister, was Senator Bolkus's explanation—that Labor would have cancelled the passport if someone had suggested it to them—a reasonable defence?3200Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I read with deep regret Senator Bolkus's press release yesterday, when he indicated that law enforcement authorities had never suggested the cancellation, and if they had, he said—let me read it to you:If they had ever suggested to us that cancelling his passport was the best way to proceed then we would have acted on their advice immediately.What does that say? It says, `We didn't have any ideas in our own heads as the government.' That is what it says. They had no ideas. Nothing has changed there. Then he says that if they had thought about it, and someone had suggested it, they would have acted without consideration. They would not have considered the advice; they would have done it immediately. How does that contrast with what Senator Bolkus said in the past? Listen to this. This is Senator Bolkus:And what really grates with me is that the Prime Minister is basically making the bureaucrats take the rap for a decision that his own minister could very well have taken.Senator Bolkus knows that this is the decision that Mr Evans could have and should have taken and did not, and now he is trying to say that the bureaucrats did not suggest it. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors320010000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, led by the Chairman of the Senate, Senator Wasim Sajjad. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate. I trust that your visit will be both informative and enjoyable. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I would propose to invite the Chairman to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Senator Wasim Sajjad was seated accordingly.Questions Without Notice320032003200Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Given that the minister was not able to answer my question yesterday regarding the property holdings of Kiskin Ltd—I suppose it is difficult to keep track of such wealth—I ask: can the minister confirm that some or all of the property holdings of his Kiskin company have direct or indirect links with the minister's portfolio responsibilities for coal? Specifically, can he confirm that Kiskin owns the Hillview cattle property, and can he confirm that this property contains significant reserves of coal deposits? When will the minister acknowledge that these very real and substantial conflicts of interest continue to damage the credibility of the government and the Prime Minister?3200Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator Faulkner kicks off these questions with statements that are incorrect. I do not have a company called Kiskin, never have had a company called Kiskin. As has been disclosed—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Is it your family trust?KI4Senator PARER—the family trust, which has been legally moved across to the family where it operated for about the last two or three years or more, had an interest in that of two per cent. Part of that process was that Kiskin, which was really owned by the four major shareholders of the company, had its assets outside coalmining leases. This included a range of things, like the housing I mentioned yesterday. It also in the process—I think the time was about 1993—acquired a cattle property.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about Kiskin unit trusts? KI4Senator PARER—What are you taking about, you galah?It acquired a cattle property, and it operated as a cattle property. Since the time that I resigned as Chairman of QCMM I have no knowledge whatsoever of the ongoing ownership—of what Kiskin owns or what it does not own.3201Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Given that the Minister for Resources yesterday admitted that he owned through Kiskin a number of residential properties used to house workers and contractors in his own coal mine, namely Jellinbah, is that the real reason that the minister did not fully declare his property holdings through Kiskin? When can the parliament, Minister, expect a full and truthful disclosure of all your conflicts of interest, shares and property? When will the minister do the right thing by his colleagues and by his mate the Prime Minister and resign?3201Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—We have Senator Faulkner regurgitating this over and over again. There has been no conflict of interest. You have shown no conflict of interest, and no potential for the conflict of interest. Here you are asking me to run out individual properties. I suppose you want to know the names of the people who live in the houses. The actual assets themselves could well have been held by QCMM. If they were, you are saying you want nominated what piece of machinery. I am sure that pieces of machinery up there would be worth more than a house. This is just rubbish stuff coming again from Senator Faulkner. Full disclosure has been made. There has been no conflict of interest. As I said to Senator Robert Ray yesterday, you are flogging a dead horse. Full disclosure has been made.32013201O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—My question is also to the Minister for Resources and Energy but, by contrast, it is actually about an issue of national significance. I ask the minister whether he is aware that the Australian gold industry, particularly in Western Australia and Queensland, is under significant pressure as a result of two factors, one of which is the falling gold price and the other is the current impasse in the Senate in relation to native title. I ask the minister: what is the effect of native title on the gold industry, particularly on jobs and investment?3201Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am pleased to report that my colleague Senator Crane and I had a meeting yesterday with the high level working group on gold which came out of a very successful gold round table held earlier this year. The meeting was once again an opportunity to speak frankly about the issues confronting the gold industry at this time and develop joint strategies to address these issues. The meeting heard of the gold low price and some uncertainty, particularly in respect of Korea, which is placing substantial pressure on exploration and new supply.There was also general acknowledgment of the need for targeted consultation on a number of key issues. By far the most significant issue raised was the effect of native title and their palpable anger with the Labor Party. For example, in Western Australia the average time now taken for the grant of a mining lease is more than double that of 1994-95 and many of the applications have now been outstanding for more than two years. Delays in granting exploration titles are being experienced across the whole country, particularly Queensland, Western Australia and parts of New South Wales. They place an enormous burden on the nation. They increase costs to industry, costs to government and administration, and costs arising from court actions. The bottom line is they cost jobs. Again, in Western Australia over 4,000 mining lease applications cannot be granted because they are held up in the native title process, while in Queensland there are 700 applications for exploration permits and over 400 applications for mining titles currently held up as a result of the Native Title Act and the Wik decision. Yet, the Labor Party continues to frustrate the government's sensible and fair proposals for amendments to the Native Title Act. This has not gone un-noticed in the community. Writing in the latest annual report, Mr Ryan, the President of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies—which, I might remind the Senate, represents the battlers in the industry—made a statement which sena tors will want to listen to, particular the Western Australians. He said:The federal Labor opposition has lost its way on native title and has been remarkably recalcitrant in addressing the nation's interests, rather than matters of ideology and short-term political gain.Labor is also speaking with forked tongue. It cannot be trusted. Last year, Senator Crane and I went to Kalgoorlie, but just before we arrived there, guess who was there? Mr Beazley and Mr Smith were there and do you know what they told the miners? They said they could relax because they were going to support our native title amendments. That is what the miners told us. What hypocrisy. They either misled the miners or they were rolled by the left, Senator Faulkner.Madam President, do you know what they have done in Queensland because there is a state election on? They have told their shadow ministers that any statements on native title will have to be cleared through Wayne Swan. The Labor Party is unfairly penalising Queensland and Western Australia and it must take responsibility for the effect native title is having, creating the continuing uncertainty which will have disastrous medium- to long-term effects—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Goebbels running the biggest clearing house in Queensland.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you are sitting with your back to me, which is not really polite, and so is Senator Hill—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The statement I made was, `Senator Faulkner, you are sitting with your back to me as is Senator Hill,'—and if you had not shouted so much, you might have heard it. I resent your sitting with your back to me shouting, either of you.KI4Senator PARER—The ALP must take responsibility for the continuing uncertainty which will have disastrous medium- to long-term effects in a reduction in exploration, no additional exports, no additional jobs in mining and no additional jobs in associated manufacturing—(Time expired)3202O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am indebted to the minister for his answer, particularly in relation to the effect on jobs. I am concerned about jobs in North Queensland amongst Aboriginal communities. I ask the minister whether he is aware of a further legal challenge to the construction of the Gregory River Bridge and what effect that would have on the construction of the Century mine and jobs?3202Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—It is a great disappointment that native title issues are again impeding the Century Zinc project, following the successful completion of earlier protracted negotiations which senators will recall included the Hon. Bill Hayden, ex-Governor-General, who made scathing remarks about the Native Title Act. The construction of the Gregory River Bridge is essential to ensure access to the Century mine in the wet season. Because of the legal vulnerability of agreements made under the Native Title Act, this $1.2 billion project has again been called into question, even though it is widely supported by the local Aboriginal people and has received native title clearance to proceed. The current obstacles reinforce the government's view that the passage of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] is essential to secure agreed arrangements such as the Century proposal. It is yet another example of the inability of Labor senators opposite to put aside politics and consider the national interest, the interests of pastoralists, the interests of miners—particularly small miners—and the local Aborigines, who have much to gain from this project. (Time expired)32023202West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Has the minister been informed of the chaos in Katoomba in the electorate of Macquarie where, despite promises, there is no government jobs agency available? Is the minister aware that the CES office has shut and has a sign on the door telling job seekers to trudge half a kilometre away to what is now a non-existent Employment National office, hidden up a flight of stairs in a dingy building? Is the minister aware that when an Employment National office finally opens in Katoomba, it will only be available on Wednesdays from 9.30 a.m. until 3.30 p.m.? Can the minister explain how this is an improvement on the old CES, which was open and available to the people of Katoomba five days a week?3203Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I will certainly look into the point that Senator West raises. While I am answering this question, can I just say that there are some 1,400 sites which have replaced 296 sites formerly run by the CES so, across Australia, there is a many-fold increase in the number of sites available to job seekers. In relation to the particular instance Senator West has raised, I will look into that.32033203Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. I refer to the longstanding claim by Dr Kemp that government schools would receive $2.3 billion more in the four years to the year 2000 than if the funding was held at 1996 levels. On 5 March, Dr Kemp said in parliament that this was $2 billion—a reduction of $300 million, or 13 per cent. Minister, yesterday you said there would be an extra $382 million a year spent on government schools. Australian parents are having difficulty believing the claims you make about increased spending on government schools at any time. Is Dr Kemp wrong, or how do you explain the disappearance of $300 million?3203Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—What I said yesterday was that the increase for government schools over previous expenditure was $382 million this year, not per year. I think Senator Allison has got that wrong for a start. In relation to Dr Kemp's figure, he no doubt was referring to over a period of time and not in one particular year, so you cannot compare the figure that I mentioned yesterday with Dr Kemp's. What I can tell you is that the minister for education in New South Wales is certainly spreading a case of distortion and misconception when he says that we are cutting expenditure to schools in Australia.AW5CARRSenator Carr—In real terms that is right.9X5Senator ELLISON—No, it is not. Totally, we are spending $382 million for the government sector and, in total for all schools, over $500 million more this year.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is a decline—in real terms.9X5Senator ELLISON—Through you, Madam President, I say to Senator Carr that we have an increase on Labor's last year of $382 million for the government sector this year and, when you bring in the non-government sector, it is more than $500 million. That includes added incentives for things like numeracy, literacy, civics in schools, the discovering democracy project and VET in schools—which is a new initiative which I note the Leader of the Opposition certainly did not mention when he addressed the AEU conference in New South Wales on the weekend. It is a very important issue which directly touches on at least 70 per cent of Australia's school children.I would say to you, Senator Allison through you, Madam President, is that you want to look more to what this government is doing by its new incentives and its new programs, and tell the people of Australia what the Democrats are going to do. What are you going to offer the students of Australia? Where are your policies for school programs? What are you going to do in relation to numeracy and literacy? I would ask the Democrats what they are going to do about vocational education and training in schools. The silence is deafening.3203Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I did not get the figures wrong. I am quoting Dr Kemp, who has talked about $2.3 billion but, on 5 March, he revised this to $2 billion. I am asking you what happened to the $300 million. On the point of the question to me about what the Democrats would do, may I suggest that the minister might himself have attended the education conference last weekend, then perhaps he would have known. However, can I suggest that this may be a case of $2.3 billion being a rubbery figure in the first place. Doesn't the real figure—that is, the $2 billion—mean that any increase is just inflation and that, per capita, private school funding is still increasing at a faster rate than that for government schools?3203Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I might Senator Allison of her use of figures when she talked about the 1996 unemployment figures for Bendigo. Senator Allison said that there was increasing rate of unemployment in Bendigo, which put it at the lower end of the scale. When you look at more recent figures—1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—Madam President, I raise a point of order as to relevance. I did not raise questions about unemployment.9X5Senator ELLISON—On the point of order: Senator Allison has called into question the use of figures by Dr Kemp and me. As part of my answer, I am referring to her lack of credibility in the use of figures. I think that is directly relevant.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There certainly was a lot in that question other than question. There was a lot of comment and it is difficult to suggest to the minister that he cannot make comment. I would ask you primarily to adhere to answering the question, Senator.9X5Senator ELLISON—On the basis that Senator Allison has been the source of unreliable figures in the past, I would say that what she needs to do is to have a look at the positives of this government in relation to its educational program, particularly in relation to government schools and our increased funding thereof. When I see what the Democrats have to offer in relation to the schools of Australia, I will take them a bit more seriously.32043204Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Can the minister confirm that formal responsibility for federal government funding—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Order on my right! Senator Parer is entitled to hear the question.3L6Senator CONROY—I will start again. Can the minister confirm that formal responsibility for federal government funding for alternative energy sources such as ethanol production has been removed from the minister's duties by the Prime Minister? Can the minister also confirm that this action has been taken because of the continuing public perception that any statement or decision by the Minister for Resources and Energy is just not credible because of the minister's well-known conflicts of interest with his private shares and property interests in coal? Doesn't the Prime Minister's action in relation to ethanol funding add further weight to the clear impression that the Howard government Minister for Resources and Energy has no credibility on any resources matter whatsoever? In light of this fact, isn't it totally impossible for the minister to properly carry out his duties as minister?3204Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Madam President, isn't it extraordinary? Here we have these wild statements coming in about ethanol funding.Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—KI4Senator PARER—A good interjection from over there, Senator. This has been canvassed at great length. There were two parts to the ethanol funding scheme. I will talk about the substantive parts of it. One was a subsidy paid on ethanol itself which was to go to two groups, one in Mackay and the other one in Manildra. The other one was a contribution of moneys to an ethanol pilot plant to handle the production of woody wastes.The second one is, I think, the one Senator Conroy is referring to. I do not think Senator Conroy knows, Madam President, but at least the Democrats are aware of this, and I think Senator Brown is too. But Senator Conroy has no idea. He just wants to get up there and make these sorts of remarks that he has been trained to make by the organ-grinder up the back, Senator Robert Ray.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Yes or no? Do you have responsibility or not?KI4Senator PARER—You should read former Senator Richardson's book, Senator Conroy. I was interested in it because I could not help but notice—I read it the other day—that he described his old tennis playing mate, Senator Robert Ray, as the most vicious man he ever met in parliament. Old Sid Vicious over there, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, I invite your attention to the question.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, you can have a supplementary question if need be.KI4Senator PARER—I do not think Senator Conroy knows, but I think he is talking about the pilot plant. That was an amount of money of $2 million that was set aside to build a pilot plant in conjunction with equal amounts of money put up by industry and, I think, if my memory is correct—I stand to be corrected on that—something from New South Wales. That program remains in place.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You wouldn't know what you're doing; you're too busy counting your money.KI4Senator PARER—Which Pacific island are you going for a holiday on, Senator?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much intervention in the chamber. Senators on both sides will cease interjecting.KI4Senator PARER—The program to build a pilot plant has been continued in the last budget and as far as I know it is going ahead. I do not know what Senator Conroy is talking about in saying it has been taken from my responsibility. My understanding is that it has not. But, if it has, it is something that will be done in conjunction with me and Senator Hill.3205Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Minister, isn't this conflict of interest and your inability to make an unbiased decision on funding for the ethanol program the very reason for the complaining letter sent to you by your colleague the member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash, on 13 August 1996? Wasn't the member for Gilmore wasting her time drawing your attention to the moral dimension of reneging on agreements? When will the minister acknowledge, as the colleagues surrounding him have known for some time, that he is an absolute liability for the government and for his mate the Prime Minister?3205Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Again Senator Conroy has got the whole matter totally confused. That is not surprising; he has got a confused little acolyte brain anyway. I think he is now talking about the ethanol bounty, which has been abandoned. It was a program that was abandoned— Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are senators on both sides shouting across the chamber. You are in breach of the standing orders and it is almost impossible to hear—and I am sure those at the end of the chamber cannot hear—Senator Parer's answer.KI4Senator PARER—In the 1996 budget, bearing in mind we inherited the Beazley $10 billion deficit, which people on the other side denied for 2¼ years, one of the programs that fell out was the $20 million ethanol bounty. There was a departmental review of that bounty—as the Democrats would know, because at least they raised it in estimates, which people in the Labor Party did not—and we found that it could not be justified on environmental or economic grounds at that time.32053205Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts who seems to be making a welter of pressure on the ABC in recent times. Is the minister aware of threats to the ABC of legal action by mining or logging corporations—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Hope so.QD4Senator BROWN—The senator opposite says, `Hope so.' I hope not to the government—including threats involving intimidation with a view to achieving censored or biased reporting? What has been the cost to the ABC and the public purse of meeting such corporate threats? Moreover, what competitions, prizes or other incentives to listeners have been used by ABC radio commentators in Tasmania or elsewhere to foster the interests of industrial logging? Are such promotions consistent with an unbiased ABC?3205Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am sure Senator Brown has got a fevered knowledge of these issues, but they have not been brought to my attention. They certainly were not canvassed with me by the ABC, either at any time prior to my meeting with the board this morning or during the course of that meeting. To ask whether there is any cost to the taxpayer or the budget as a result of measures that the ABC has to take to somehow ensure that it is not subject to pressure from mining and logging interests, all I can say is that assumes that such pressure is there and that the ABC is actually responding in the way that Senator Brown suggests. So I have no knowledge of any threats. Nothing has been brought to my attention. If there is something happening in the bowels of Tasmania that has got Senator Brown excited then I assume that he will probably bring it to my attention in due course.3206Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. I ask the minister: will he investigate whether the ABC has been subject to such threats by mining and logging corporations, what action has been taken and what the cost of meeting those threats has been? Secondly, will he investigate whether there have been incentives given to listeners in the promotion of industrial forestry in Tasmania or elsewhere?3206Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—One of the joys of being an Independent senator or a senator from a minority party is that you have absolutely no prospect of ever having formal responsibility, but maybe Senator Brown could have a trial run.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. As Senator Alston knows full well, I am not an Independent senator. I represent the Australian Greens, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—He did refer to Independents or minor parties.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. Senator Brown has just misled the Senate because on the Tasmanian ballot paper he was registered as a Tasmanian Green, yet whenever he comes up here he tries to parade himself as an Australian Green. You had better make up your mind.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, we may be accused of many things but I do not think we can do much to help resolve Senator Brown's identity crisis. If he does want intensive counselling then I am sure there are plenty of people available to help him. Can I simply suggest that if he wants a dry run as a minister, what he ought to do is actually sit down and write a letter to the ABC, or even pick up a telephone, and ask them what the facts are.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Why don't you?LD4Senator ALSTON—Because no-one has brought it to my attention. If you think I am going to proceed on the basis of what you say in this place somehow constitutes a factual statement, then I can assure you that I have better things to do with my time. If you ascertain the facts and you present them—Senator Forshaw interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I will tell you shortly—you may then be in a position to say that there is a requirement for further action to be taken in a formal sense. But do your homework first, get hold of the facts, see if there really is an issue, and then we might be able to help you later. (Time expired)32063206Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Isn't it true that the Australian Taxation Office has found that around 100,000 trusts have declared $26 billion in income, yet claimed $1 billion in losses? Isn't it also the case that the vast majority of trusts were established to avoid paying tax? Why is it that the government continues to shy away from forcing high-wealth individuals who use trusts, such as Senator Parer, to pay their fair share of taxation?3206Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for that question, Senator Cook. In relation to the particular statistics you quoted, you would appreciate the fact that I would always want to check them carefully, particularly as they come from you, Senator Cook. I will check those figures to see whether the matters you stated are in fact correct.In relation to trusts generally, Senator Cook, you will be aware there has been a very prolonged debate in this chamber on trusts, trust losses and the taxation of trusts. It was intriguing to us all that suddenly the Labor Party, after 13 years in office, discovered that from their point of view there were some problems with trusts. I suspect that if we looked we would find that a great number of the trusts were established during Labor's term of office. It has to be admitted that right at the last moment the Labor Party came to the conclusion that they were a bit concerned about certain aspects of the taxation trusts. Can I also say, Senator Cook—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, would you address the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Looking at the general issue of the taxation of high-wealth individuals, we note on this side that the Labor Party during its term of office opened up a number of major loopholes in the tax act which to many individuals made the paying of tax almost optional. Let me instance one scheme of which you have been a very strong supporter, Senator Cook—R&D syndicates. You were a strong supporter when they were brought in by the Labor Party and, Senator Cook, you opposed this government's attempt to close up that particular scheme. Of course, when this was brought into the chamber, the Labor Party certainly opposed it.The Labor Party has opposed a number of other tax loophole and equity measures that this government has brought in. It will not surprise you to know that I recall that the Labor Party opposed in this chamber the superannuation surcharge. That is what they opposed.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Tax!WW4Senator KEMP—So I would have to say that, after the 13 years in office in which the Labor Party left the tax system in a dreadful state of repair and in which the Labor Party had opened up some major loopholes in tax system, of which R&D syndicates were certainly one, it is passing strange indeed, Senator Cook, that you would have the gall to get up and ask that question. In relation to trust losses, you will be aware that a bill was passed through this parliament and, again, I think in the end the Labor Party supported that bill. In the end, you voted for it.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Conroy jumps up and down and whips himself into a lather but if I remember, Senator Conroy, you voted to pass that bill, so why you are getting yourself into a lather, I simply do not know. In relation to the overall issue of the taxation of trusts, again, as has been stated on quite a number of occasions, that has been folded into the wider issue of tax reform, which the government will be making announcements about in due course.3207Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister, for that smear—inaccurate and misleading though it be. But you did evade the question I asked you, and you might direct your attention to answering it. Why is it that the government continues to shy away from forcing high wealth individuals who use trusts, such as Senator Parer, to pay their fair share of tax? Would you answer that question, Minister? While you are at it, can you also answer this question: will you assure the Senate that the reason Mr Howard refuses to move on trusts is not that he is protecting the vested interests of Senator Parer and the other 19 trust owning members of his frontbench? Will you do that? Will you just answer the questions put, for a change?3207Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I answered the question that was put to me. You asked me about the taxation of trusts, and I mentioned that a bill had recently passed through this parliament in relation to trust losses. You asked me what we are doing about it and I said, `Weren't you in the chamber when we had that major debate? Weren't you aware of the wider debate in the community on that issue?' In the drafting of that question, you seem to have completely forgotten that there was a bill in relation to trust losses which went through this parliament.In relation to my alleged smear of you, if you did not support R&D syndicates, if you did not oppose our measures on that, stand up and correct the record. But you have never done it, because you did support R&D syndicates. So it was no smear; it was dead accurate. Of course, having complained about what you say was a smear against you, which in fact was accurate information, then you attempted to smear large numbers of people on this side of the parliament—and, I might say, a few on your own. (Time expired)32083208Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston. The minister met today with the board of the ABC to discuss matters of broadcasting significance. Will the minister inform the Senate of any outcomes from these discussions? Does the government remain committed to a strong, independent, balanced and, most importantly, impartial ABC?3208Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Yes, indeed, I did have a very significant meeting with the ABC board this morning, and we did canvass a number of issues. I elaborated on some concerns that I had previously expressed in writing about ABC coverage, particularly in relation to the waterfront, and I provided them with some other matters that I think are worthy of further consideration. I also canvassed an alternative approach to the investigation and consideration of complaints which would involve a much more proactive approach. There was one matter that I did think to be of particular concern, and that was to assure the ABC that the government recognised that the ABC has statutory independence in terms of programming, but that, as I put to them—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Not the way you do it; you accuse them first then write to them.LD4Senator ALSTON—My principal witness in this regard was Senator Schacht. I said there was bipartisan support for the proposition that the government of the day had not only a duty, but indeed an obligation to raise matters of bias with the ABC.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht!LD4Senator ALSTON—When I mentioned Senator Schacht's name, there was a deafening silence. It seemed to me that they were simply shuddering at the prospect that Senator Schacht might ever one day have any degree of responsibility for the ABC.Honourable senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not think it was even more than a fleeting suspicion—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, just a moment.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you have been interjecting throughout the answer to this question—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—He is telling lies.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You will have your opportunity to speak later.LD4Senator ALSTON—I didn't see you there. Madam President, as I have indicated, normal transmission was quickly resumed and I was able to have a very useful discussion with the ABC board, in the course of which I did put to them a number of approaches that I thought might actually help to strengthen the ABC in the eyes of the general community in terms of ensuring that it is seen to be able to meet the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality. In particular, I referred them to the BBC's royal charter, which includes a statement of promises to viewers and listeners, setting out services and standards that viewers and listeners can expect each year. I also pointed out that the governors of the BBC state that the new charter has more specific provisions relating to the governors' responsibility—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Are you going to amend the charter?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, I am warning you to cease interjecting.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I was not going to interrupt Senator Alston, but now that he has been interrupted by Senator Schacht's interjections, I point out that on two occasions when he was interjecting Senator Schacht said that Senator Alston had told lies. I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, if you made those statements, I ask you to withdraw them.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—At your request, Madam President, I withdraw, but the minister is actually—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht!4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—The minister is taking—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, there is an opportunity for you to debate this matter and you may do it at the appropriate time.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I withdraw, but the minister is exaggerating and making points that cannot be verified.LD4Senator ALSTON—You think an exaggeration is the same as a lie, but I can assure you there is a difference. If you really want to do something after question time, that is the time to do it.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, I have warned you to cease interjecting.LD4Senator ALSTON—At the same time, you might explain to the Senate why you leaked a copy of that Senate report on Telstra to Steve Lewis of the Australian Financial Review . Madam President, the BBC also has a very important arms-length approach in terms of editorial policies. They have an editorial policies unit and a program complaints unit, each of which provides for an overall approach to be taken by management at the same time that those who are in arms-length positions are able to pass independent judgment.They also have independent advisory panels which review program performance and quality, with some 50 outside experts being involved in that exercise. I did suggest that the ABC might find that model was one that could be adapted here in order to provide greater objectivity and a more regular and ongoing analysis of implementation of the guidelines. I also pointed to the national media archive, which is an experiment in Canada which I think does provide a very sensible basis for trying to achieve some objectivity of measurement.It was a very important meeting. The government is very much committed to ensuring that the ABC is strong, independent, balanced and impartial. I note that the Friends of the ABC think that the ALP has been silent and has avoided a commitment to the ABC since the 1980s. That is what they say in their newsletter when they point out that Senator Schacht has remained particularly quiet. All I can say is that we are very committed to ensuring that we have the best possible outcomes. (Time expired)3209Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Regional areas have voiced great concern about the proposed changes to ABC coverage of racing. Did you raise this matter with the ABC, and did you receive any encouragement in that regard?3209Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I did raise that matter, and I did point out that there was a considerable degree of concern. I have already written twice to the ABC, but I said that I expected—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Trying to intimidate them.LD4Senator ALSTON—No, not at all, Senator Carr. We know your definition of quiet persuasion. The most extraordinary episode that I have come across in relation to the ABC in the last 24 hours is the press release by Senator Schacht referring to Mr Kennett's inquiry as bizarre. He ends up saying:Why doesn't Mr Kennett speak strongly and directly to the Minister for Communications, or don't members of the Liberal Party in Victoria speak to each other?The fact is that I have spoken to Mr Kennett about this twice in the last week. This is the bloke who has not spoken a word in years to the bloke sitting next to him and, if you asked Senator Quirke, he has nothing to say to him at all. So, in terms of talking to people in your own state, it is no wonder that Bob McMullan has been wandering around taking a very keen interest in the communications portfolio, because he knows that you will not be troubling the scorers for much longer on that account.32103210Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Is the minister aware of recent media comments on the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package and concerns from accountants that farmers who access the farm retirement scheme could be subject to substantial capital gains and income tax liabilities? Can the minister inform the Senate of government plans to correct these flaws in the program, or is the minister not able to comment on this farm assistance plan because of his own holding in a farming property in the Banana Shire, albeit that it is held for the valuable coal deposits underneath it? Or would the minister be concerned about the perception of a conflict of interest in considering the tax implications of this program, given that the public are well aware of the tax manipulation and avoidance techniques practised by his family trusts and coal companies while he was chairman of the board?3210Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—We have the gall of someone like Senator Cook getting up here and talking about smears. We have had a series of questions this time which bear no relationship to the running of this country, to the good government of this country or to the economic affairs of this country. There have been a series of statements and I suggest, Madam President, that it may be worth while looking at the sorts of questions that are asked, because they are statements and not questions. They are incorrect statements. We had, for example, Senator Murphy just then talking about avoidance. Let me make the position absolutely clear: I have never deliberately avoided paying tax in my whole life and I do not intend to start now.I am surprised at you, Senator Murphy. I know that you are being prompted by the Sid Viciouses of this world in asking these questions.Senator Conroy interjecting—KI4Senator PARER—There is the acolyte over there. He is part of it. Let us get this thing straight. It is quite extraordinary, isn't it? Here we have a budget that has come down after three years which has been applauded by everyone, including, I might say to Senator Murphy, the rural industry. They are very supportive of the efforts by Minister Anderson in tackling the very serious problems. We have removed a $10.3 billion deficit over three years and converted it to a $2.7 billion surplus, without any tax increases. Has the Labor Party taken any interest in this? Have they asked any questions about that? This mob over here left us with a $96 billion debt. We have reduced that $96 billion debt by $31 billion.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of intervention in the chamber is unacceptable.KI4Senator PARER—This government has reduced interest rates to a level never seen since about 1969. Interest rates have been reduced to the extent that a family having a $100,000 mortgage is now $5,000 a year better off, after tax, than under the previous government. We have had the lowest inflation in decades.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We're asking you about conflict of interest.KI4Senator PARER—When we get to the rural side—and this is the basis of the question asked by Senator Murphy, not the smear stuff that we are all sick of and the public is sick of—from a rural perspective we have been confronting very major problems in the Asian financial meltdown, which is probably the biggest meltdown in the history of Asia. Has anyone asked any questions about that? Has anyone asked any questions of me representing the department of primary industry? No. Not one single question on the things that are important; not one single question on the job creation that is being pushed by Senator Anderson, and by me, I might say.One of the things that was said to me by a very senior minister from the previous government was, `No-one on the Labor side will ever understand the mining industry.' You can get up here and you can make these smears, but let me tell you that every time you do the resources industry gives me more and more support. Just keep going. When you knock on the doors at this coming election—and I challenge you to talk to the people in the mining areas—you will get your just desserts. (Time expired)3211Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Obviously, from that non-answer, one has to assume that you take the view that you cannot comment and you do have a concern about the public perception. Is the minister aware of the social security anomalies currently contained within the farm assistance package? Can the minister inform the Senate what action the government plans to remove these anomalies from the scheme? Or can you not comment on these anomalies because of your well-known dodgy pension scheme operated through QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd, which was closed down by the Labor government?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order. He knows that that is unparliamentary and it should be withdrawn.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Would you withdraw that imputation against the senator?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on that point of order, I would not have thought the words `dodgy pension scheme' were unparliamentary. A couple of days ago we had the extraordinary situation where you ruled out my use of the words `lame duck' as being unparliamentary. `Dodgy' has not been ruled out on previous occasions.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It was not `dodgy' on its own, it was the whole phrase and the manner in which it was directed personally. Senator Murphy, I ask you to withdraw.FX5Senator MURPHY—I withdraw the word `dodgy' if that is the offending word.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It was the phrase.FX5Senator MURPHY—I will rephrase it. Or can you not comment on these anomalies because of your well-known, well-documented pension scheme operated through QCMM (ESP) Pty Ltd, which was closed down by a Labor government?3211Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—With regard to the question on social security, I have to say to you that I would guess this is a typical Labor Party tactic. They have made up the first part of the question, which I am happy to refer back to Minister Anderson. I am sure there is absolutely no substance to it—never was, never will be—because all he wanted to do was to raise that as sort of a trick. It is an old Senator Ray type trick. We are all used to them. We have seen the old Sid Vicious on the other side in action again in recent days.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—If you contest the next election, you've had it.KI4Senator PARER—The old frogmouth owl at it again. I do not believe there is any substance at all to what Senator Murphy said in his question in the first place. It was just a set-up question. I will refer it to the minister and if there is a response I will give it to you.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice3211321115:03:003211Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday Senator Neal asked me a question about indigenous housing. I wish to add further to that as time had expired. Expenditure on housing and infrastructure over the years 1995-96 to 1997-98 was reduced as a result of the 1996-97 budget to a new base of $210 million. Since then the base has been maintained, after allowance for one-off adjustments in each year. What I said yesterday was perfectly correct. In respect of the 1998-99 ATSIC budget for housing and infrastructure, there has been a slight reduction from 1997-98—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—A slight reduction?VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—wait until you hear the rest of the answer—as a result of the government redirecting $5 million to the TSRA for housing and infrastructure. On the question of the ATSIC home loans program expenditure, the figure quoted $38.2 million is a conservative estimate. It is a self-funded program and expenditure depends on receipts from loan repayments and loan discharges. I am advised the estimate could be as high as $44 million.Questions Without Notice3212321215:04:003212Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—At the end of question time yesterday, Senator Faulkner asked about delayed questions that he had asked previously. I am pleased to inform Senator Faulkner that I have responses to his questions Nos 864 and 1168 from the acting Minister for Health and Family Services. I seek leave to incorporate those in Hansard .Leave granted.The answers read as follows—SENATE QUESTIONNUMBER1168SENATOR FAULKNER asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:With reference to the Medicare offices closed since March 1996:(1) (a) How many sites were owned by the Health Insurance Commission (HIC); and(b) how many were leased.(2) For each of the leased sites: (a) in which State and suburb/town is the site located; (b) what is the unexpired period of the lease, (c) what is the lettable space involved; and (d) what is the cost of the unexpired period of the lease or of buying out the lease.(3) For each of the owned sites, if any, what does HIC intend to do with the site.SENATOR HERRON— The Acting Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a)Three (3).(b) Forty (40).(2) (a & c) See Attachment.(b & d) The Health Insurance Commission (HIC) considers the information requested in 2(b) and 2(d) could be used against the HIC in contractual negotiations. The HIC negotiates leases with a range of major commercial property owners and managers throughout Australia. Release of this information may compromise the HIC's ability to negotiate the most favourable terms for the Commonwealth.(3) The owned sites transferred to Medibank Limited upon its separation from the HIC. The HIC no longer has any responsibility or control over these sites.ATTACHMENTHEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSIONLEASING DETAILS OF CSCs WHICH HAVE/WILL BE CLOSINGCSC NameOwn or LeaseLessorClosure DateNET Lettable Space Occupied (sq. metres)Shop NumberShopping Centre NameStreet AddressTown/Su burbStateP'codeNSWAuburnLeaseBacaran26 Sep 97149Shop 8BAuburn Shopping Village41 Auburn RoadAuburnNSW2144BelmontLeasePrimewest Enterprises27 Mar 9884Shop 7Belmont Citi CentreMacquarie StreetBelmontNSW2280CabramattaLeaseCalabro Property Holdings P/L12 Sep 9782Shop 23Commercial CentreCnr Arthur & Railway StCabramattaNSW2166CampsieLeaseState Authority Superannuation26 Sep 97135Shop 38Campsie Centre14-28 Amy StreetCampsieNSW2194CorrimalLeaseKemant P/L G Huxley-L Merlotto07 Nov 9777Shop 2235-239 Princes HighwayCorrimalNSW2518Dee WhyLeaseGold Ioana P/L21 Nov 97113876 Pittwater RoadDee WhyNSW2099Erskine StreetOwnMedibank Ltd12 Sep 979633 Erskine StreetSydneyNSW2000 LeichhardtLeaseState Authority Superannuation31 Oct 97106Shop 57ALeichhard MarketplaceCnr Flood & Marion StsLeichhardtNSW2040MarrickvilleLeasePalos/Psomad ens31 Oct 97123222 Marrickville RdMarrickvilleNSW2204MerrylandsLeaseBurns Philp Trustee Co17 Oct 97143Shop G24, Gallery LevelStockland MallMerrylan dsNSW2160Mt DruittLeaseSuperannuation Fund Inv.Trst.27 Mar 98120Shop 167Grevillea/M markettownMt DruittNSW2770North RocksLeasePerpetual Trustee Co26 Sep 97105Shop 78Westfield Shoppingtown328 North Rocks RoadNorth RocksNSW2151RandwickLeaseCentral Pacific Management P/L14 Nov 97100Shop 73Royal Randwick Shop CtrBelmore RoadRandwickNSW2031RockdaleLeaseTewino P/L10 Oct 97125464 Princes HighwayRockdaleNSW2216St IvesLeaseE.K. Nominees P/L24 Oct 9772Shop 29St Ives Shopping CentreMona Vale RoadSt IvesNSW2075SylvaniaLeaseANZ Staff Superannuation10 Oct 97106Shop 19Southgate Shopping CentrePort Hacking RoadSylvaniaNSW2224WarrawongLeaseP.T. Limited28 Nov 9772Shop 130Westfield ShoppingtownCnr King & Cowper StsWarrawongNSW2502QueenslandCannon HillLeaseYuan Chen P/L20 Feb 9877Shop 15K-Mart Shopping CentreWynnum RoadCannon HillQLD4170CooparooLeaseArmajit Tajinder Singh20 Feb 9875Shop 8Cooparoo MallOld Cleveland RoadCooparooQLD4151Queen StOwnMedibank Private27 Mar 98163Ground Floor444 Queen StBrisbaneQLD4000WynnumLeaseAarro Holdings P/L27 Mar 9881Shop 276 Edith StreetWynnumQLD4178SABlackwoodLeaseWbk Nominees26 Sep 9795Shop 1Magnet Shopping CtrCoromandel ParadeBlackwoodSA5051EastwoodOwnMedibank Ltd14 Nov 97n/a209 Greenhill RdEastwoodSA5063GlenelgLeaseOdessa P/L05 Dec 9799Shop 18Bay Junction Shopping CentreJetty RoadGlenelgSA5045Ingle FarmLeaseDebonair Nominees P/L26 Sep 9768Shop 31Ingle Farm Shopping CtrMontague RoadIngle FarmSA5098KilkennyLeaseCoom.Fund M/Mint Ltd29 May 9898Shop 143Westfield ShoppingtownTorrens RoadKilkennySA5009Rundle MallLeaseInfo on Medibank Files28 Nov 97Citi CentrePulteney StreetAdelaideSA5000SalisburyLeaseDW DLH Garde25 Jun 9897Shop 120 John StreetSalisburySA5108Sefton ParkLeaseNorthwood Investment P/L12 Dec 97105Shop 1Northwood Plaza221 Main North RoadSefton ParkSA5083TASMoonahLeaseCharles O'Connor P/L5 Sep 9790103 Main RoadMoonahTAS7009VICBoroniaLeaseDavid Burstin & Morbur P/L6 Feb 98153.29Shop 11The MallFloriston RoadBoroniaVIC3155ClaytonLeaseMr A Oliver27 Mar 98120.77357 Clayton RoadClaytonVIC3168CroydonLeaseMarkwood Heights13 Feb 9819062 Main StreetCroydonVIC3136Deer ParkLeaseColonial Mutual20 Feb 98113Shop T54Deer Park CentralNeal RoadDeer ParkVIC3023 FootscrayLeaseFoo Qan Eng Holdings P/L20 Mar 98157.71Shop 11-13Metro WestCnr Paisley & Albert StsFootscrayVIC3011HeidelbergLeaseYarraman Investments27 Feb 98153.75Shop T25 & 26AWarringal Shopping Centre56 Burgundy StreetHeidelbergVIC3084KeysboroughLeaseAgent-Lendlease Retail6 Mar 98159.3Shop N3Parkmore Shopping CentreCheltenham RoadKeysboroughVIC3173ReservoirLeaseWestpac Properties13 Mar 98222.25301 Spring StreetReservoirVIC3073WACloistersLeaseCloisters Property Management27 Mar 98165 Shop 21Cloisters Arcade865 Hay StreetPerthWA6000East Victoria ParkLeaseJones Lang Wootton12 Sep 9784Shop 17The Park CentreAlbany HighwayEast Victoria ParkWA6101InnalooLeaseWestfieldMid-June 98112Shop 28Innaloo Shopping CentreOswald StreetInnalooWA6018MaddingtonLeaseCentro Properties17 Oct 97144Shop 79Maddington Sq Shopping CtrCnr Burslen Dr & AttfieldMaddingtonWA6109MirrabookaLeaseJones Lang Wootton19 Sep 97105Shop 2Mirrabooka Sq Shopping CentreYirrigan DriveMirraboo kaWA6061SENATE QUESTIONNUMBER 864SENATOR FAULKNER asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 9 September 1997:(1) What is the location of all Medicare offices.(2) How many transactions do they perform each year.(3) For those Medicare offices that will remain open: (a) what is the term of the lease; (b) what is the annual cost of the lease; and (c) when was it last renewed.(4) What is the population that each office services.(5) What is the location and transaction turnover of those Medicare offices proposed to be closed.(6) For those Medicare offices proposed to be closed: (a) what is the annual cost of the lease; (b) when was it last renewed; and (c) when does it expire.(7) Are there any offices in (6) on a day to day lease; if so, from what date.(8) What were the criteria that were used to determine which offices would close and which would remain open.(9) With reference to the Government's decision to separate all Medibank Private functions out of Medicare offices:Will separate offices be established to service Medibank Private; if so: (a) how many; and (b) will they replicate the remaining Medicare offices: if not, why not.(10) Have any additional costs been identified or alternatively estimated to rent Medibank Private offices; if so, what is the annual cost.(11) What is the estimated additional one-off and recurring cost, over and above rent, to separate functions.(12) How many staff positions will be lost to Medicare as a result of the decision.(13) Has a new minimum staffing level for Medicare offices been developed; if so, what is it.SENATOR HERRON— the Acting Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator's question:(1) The answer is at Attachment A.(2) The answer is at Attachment A.(3) Medicare offices currently provide both Medicare and Medibank Private services until 30 June 1998. The Health Insurance Commission (HIC) considers the information requested is commercial-in-confidence and could prejudice contractual negotiations.(4) The answer is at Attachment A.(5) The answer is at Attachment A.(6) See Answer (3).(7) See Answer (3). (8) The criteria which were taken into consideration when identifying Medicare branch office closures included:. claiming patterns including cash service workloads (ie less than 400 daily average Medicare cash services);. proximity to other branch offices (ie no more than 12kms by road);. capacity to redeploy staff; and. leasing and other property issues.All 43 branch offices identified for closure are 12 kilometres or less from another branch office and enable the HIC to effectively redeploy staff from offices which are closing. The HIC in its assessment of branch offices sought to minimise any inconvenience to the public.Lease expiry and other property issues were utilised to optimise closure arrangements in conjunction with the other criteria.(9) Medibank Private will cease sharing branch offices with Medicare in the middle of 1998.Separate offices are being established from late 1997 through to 30 June 1998.Separation of Medibank Private from the HIC will not diminish access to Medibank Private services and members will continue to enjoy a very high level of service.Medibank Private will establish a distribution strtategy that caters to all its customers.Medibank Private has not announced the final number of branch offices in the network.Medibank Private considers this information to be commercially confidential.(10) Medibank Private will contribute significant funds to the operation of the joint network of offices until 30 June 1998. These funds will then be allocated to establishing a separate network.(11) Separation of Medibank Private from the HIC was undertaken without additional cost to the Commonwealth budget. The HIC will manage any change in costs within its current budget allocation over the period of the forward estimates.(12) None.(13) This is not deemed necessary, see (12).Attachment ABRANCH OFFICE NAMETOWN/SUBURBSTATETOTAL PATIENT SERVICES 96/97ESTIMATED POPULATION SERVICEDNSW-ACTALBURYALBURYNSW266,42092,187ARMIDALEARMIDALENSW126,31843,708%AUBURNAUBURNNSW100,50334,776BALLINABALLINANSW160,15355,416BANKSTOWNBANKSTOWNNSW200,00369,205BATEMANS BAYBATEMANS BAYNSW112,28238,852BATHURSTBATHURSTNSW131,83145,616BEGABEGANSW147,37050,993BELCONNENBELCONNENACT283,21281,617%BELMONTBELMONTNSW181,20562,701BLACKTOWNBLACKTOWNNSW220,30476,230BONDIBONDI JUNCTIONNSW339,604117,510BOWRALBOWRALNSW108,52337,551BROOKVALEBROOKVALENSW404,266139,884BURWOODBURWOODNSW136,34347,177%CABRAMATTACABRAMATTANSW61,15421,160CAMDENCAMDENNSW120,30241,627CAMPBELLTOWNCAMPBELLTOWNNSW243,86384,382%CAMPSIECAMPSIENSW78,69827,231CASINOCASINONSW179,95262,267CASTLE HILLCASTLE HILLNSW246,87185,422CESSNOCKCESSNOCKNSW168,42358,278CHARLESTOWNCHARLESTOWNNSW272,43594,268CHATSWOODCHATSWOODNSW403,514139,624CIVICCIVICACT341,85998,519COFFS HARBOURCOFFS HARBOURNSW190,72965,996COOMACOOMANSW130,82945,270%CORRIMALCORRIMALNSW134,08746,397COWRACOWRANSW119,04941,194 %DEE WHYDEE WHYNSW178,19861,660DUBBODUBBONSW218,80075,709EASTWOODEASTWOODNSW244,61584,642ENGADINEENGADINENSW127,82144,229ERINAERINANSW151,88252,554%ERSKINE STREETSYDNEYNSW67,67023,415FAIRFIELDFAIRFIELDNSW128,57344,489GOSFORDGOSFORDNSW190,47965,910GOULBURNGOULBURNNSW151,38152,381GRAFTONGRAFTONNSW282,96197,910GRIFFITHGRIFFITHNSW222,30976,923GUNNEDAHGUNNEDAHNSW106,51836,857HORNSBYHORNSBYNSW346,872120,025HURSTVILLEHURSTVILLENSW190,98066,083INVERELLINVERELLNSW118,04740,847KATOOMBAKATOOMBANSW131,58145,530KEMPSEYKEMPSEYNSW106,26736,771KOTARAKOTARANSW247,62285,683LAKE HAVENLAKE HAVENNSW190,98066,083%LEICHHARDTLEICHHARDTNSW139,60148,305LISMORELISMORENSW214,28974,148LITHGOWLITHGOWNSW107,27037,118LIVERPOOLLIVERPOOLNSW208,02371,980MACKSVILLEMACKSVILLENSW71,17924,629MAITLANDMAITLANDNSW182,20863,048%MARRICKVILLEMARRICKVILLENSW56,64219,599MARTIN PLACESYDNEYNSW284,21498,344MERIMBULAMERIMBULANSW96,49333,388%MERRYLANDSMERRYLANDSNSW141,10548,825MIRANDAMIRANDANSW247,62285,683MOREEMOREENSW128,82444,576%MT DRUITTMT DRUITTNSW72,43225,063MUDGEEMUDGEENSW131,33045,443MUSWELLBROOKMUSWELLBROOKNSW135,09046,744NAROOMANAROOMANSW132,33345,790NARRABRINARRABRINSW82,20728,445NEWCASTLENEWCASTLENSW264,16491,406%NORTH ROCKSNORTH ROCKSNSW165,41657,237NORTH RYDENORTH RYDENSW254,38988,024NORTH SYDNEYNORTH SYDNEYNSW205,26671,026NOWRANOWRANSW143,61149,692ORANGEORANGENSW225,81878,138PAGEWOODPAGEWOODNSW144,36349,953PARKESPARKESNSW90,22731,220PARRAMATTAPARRAMATTANSW182,96063,308PENRITHPENRITHNSW299,753103,721PORT MACQUARIEPORT MACQUARIENSW138,09747,784QUEANBEYANQUEANBEYANNSW132,33345,790%RANDWICKRANDWICKNSW71,93124,890RAYMOND TERRACERAYMOND TERRACENSW147,87251,167RICHMONDRICHMONDNSW151,88252,554%ROCKDALEROCKDALENSW78,69827,231ROSELANDSROSELANDSNSW145,11550,213SHELLHARBOURSHELLHARBOURNSW139,35048,218SINGLETONSINGLETONNSW146,11750,560SPIT JUNCTIONSPIT JUNCTIONNSW239,85382,994SPRINGWOODSPRINGWOODNSW119,30041,280%ST IVESST IVESNSW164,91557,064%SYLVANIASYLVANIANSW107,52037,204TAMWORTHTAMWORTHNSW246,62085,336TAREETAREENSW192,48466,603THE ENTRANCETHE ENTRANCENSW147,87251,167TORONTOTORONTONSW142,85949,432TUGGERANONGTUGGERANONGACT227,57265,583ULLADULLAULLADULLANSW90,97931,481UMINAUMINANSW166,16857,497WAGGAWAGGA WAGGANSW352,636122,020WALLSENDWALLSENDNSW125,06443,275%WARRAWONGWARRAWONGNSW132,33345,790WARRIEWOODWARRIEWOODNSW214,03874,062WODENWODENACT353,388101,841WOLLONGONGWOLLONGONGNSW209,27672,414WYNYARDSYDNEYNSW449,881155,668YORK STREETSYDNEYNSW314,791108,924YOUNGYOUNGNSW116,79440,413TOTAL FOR STATE18,686,2216,396,068QLDAITKENVALEAITKENVALEQLD428,577143,337ASHMOREASHMOREQLD165,41655,323ATHERTONATHERTONQLD142,10747,527AYRAYRQLD168,17356,245BEENLEIGHBEENLEIGHQLD113,53537,972BOWENBOWENQLD150,12750,210BROOKSIDEMITCHELTONQLD271,93490,948BUNDABERGBUNDABERGQLD303,262101,426CABOOLTURECABOOLTUREQLD137,59646,019CAIRNSCAIRNSQLD368,175123,136CALOUNDRACALOUNDRAQLD103,51034,619%CANNON HILLCANNON HILLQLD84,96428,416CAPALABACAPALABAQLD105,01435,122CARINDALECARINDALEQLD147,87249,455CHERMSIDECHERMSIDEQLD260,15487,008CITY PLAZABRISBANEQLD140,85447,108CLEVELANDCLEVELANDQLD149,87750,126CLIFFORD GARDENCLIFFORD GARDENSQLD141,60647,360%COORPAROOCOORPAROOQLD150,12750,210DALBYDALBYQLD150,37850,294GARDEN CITYUPPER MT GRAVATTQLD317,548106,203GLADSTONEGLADSTONEQLD225,06675,273GYMPIEGYMPIEQLD192,98564,544HERVEY BAYPIALBAQLD158,89953,144INDOOROOPILLYINDOOROOPILLYQLD333,839111,652INGHAMINGHAMQLD188,47463,035INNISFAILINNISFAILQLD197,99866,220IPSWICHIPSWICHQLD237,59779,464KAWANA WATERSKAWANA WATERSQLD139,10046,522KINGAROYKINGAROYQLD149,62650,042KIPPA RINGKIPPA RINGQLD217,54772,758MACKAYMACKAYQLD423,815141,744MARYBOROUGHMARYBOROUGHQLD198,49966,388MT ISAMOUNT ISAQLD158,39852,976NAMBOURNAMBOURQLD169,17556,580NORTH ROCKYNORTH ROCKHAMPTONQLD256,14485,667PACIFIC FAIRBROADBEACHQLD307,272102,767%QUEEN STREETBRISBANEQLD119,04939,816ROCKHAMPTONROCKHAMPTONQLD270,93190,612SMITHFIELDSMITHFIELDQLD129,32543,253SOUTHPORTSOUTHPORTQLD330,080110,395STRATHPINESTRATHPINEQLD128,82443,085TOOMBULTOOMBULQLD178,95059,849TOOWOOMBATOOWOOMBAQLD275,94492,289TOWNSVILLETOWNSVILLE CITYQLD175,69258,760TWEED HEADSTWEED HEADSNSW240,85583,341WARWICKWARWICKQLD142,60847,695WINTERGARDENBRISBANEQLD305,769102,264WOODRIDGELOGAN CENTRALQLD108,77336,379%WYNNUMWYNNUMQLD97,74632,691TOTAL FOR STATE10,059,7873,367,265SA - NTALICE SPRINGSALICE SPINGSNT103,51064,292BERRIBERRISA218,80065,706%BLACKWOODBLACKWOODSA167,92250,427BROKEN HILLBROKEN HILLNSW162,91056,370CASUARINACASUARINANT417,299259,192COLONNADESNOARLUNGA CENTRESA253,63876,167DARWINDARWINNT172,183106,946%EASTWOODEASTWOODSA215,29164,652ELIZABETHELIZABETHSA172,43351,782GAWLERGAWLERSA179,20053,814%GLENELGGLENELGSA190,22857,126%INGLE FARMINGLE FARMSA198,24859,534%KILKENNYKILKENNYSA240,35472,178KING WILLIAM STADELAIDESA308,02492,500MARIONOAKLANDS PARKSA227,32168,265MOUNT GAMBIERMT GAMBIERSA218,54965,630PORT AUGUSTAPORT AUGUSTASA169,17550,803PORT LINCOLNPORT LINCOLNSA127,06938,159PORT PIRIEPORT PIRIESA163,91249,223%RUNDLE MALLADELAIDESA227,07168,189%SALISBURYSALISBURYSA121,80636,578%SEFTON PARKSEFTON PARKSA133,58640,116TEA TREE PLAZAMODBURYSA291,98487,683WEST LAKESWEST LAKESSA264,16479,329WHYALLAWHYALLASA235,09170,598TOTAL FOR STATE5,179,7701,785,259TASBELLERIVEROSNYTAS274,94168,564BURNIEBURNIETAS158,39839,501DEVONPORTDEVONPORTTAS210,78052,564GLENORCHYGLENORCHYTAS204,01350,876HOBARTHOBARTTAS383,71595,689KINGSTONKINGSTONTAS135,84133,876LAUNCESTONLAUNCESTONTAS325,06781,064%MOONAHMOONAHTAS149,37537,251TOTAL FOR STATE1,842,131459,384VICAIRPORT WESTAIRPORT WESTVIC204,51463,514ALTONAALTONAVIC231,08171,764ARARATARARATVIC146,36845,456BAIRNSDALEBAIRNSDALEVIC138,34842,965BALLARATBALLARATVIC399,254123,992BENDIGOBENDIGOVIC326,320101,342BENTLEIGHBENTLEIGHVIC327,824101,809%BORONIABORONIAVIC167,17051,916BOURKE STMELBOURNEVIC321,05799,707BOX HILLBOX HILLVIC277,19786,086BROADMEADOWSBROADMEADOWSVIC128,82440,007CAMBERWELLCAMBERWELLVIC350,631108,892CENTREPOINTMELBOURNEVIC370,181114,963CHADSTONECHADSTONEVIC347,373107,880CHIRNSIDE PKCHIRNSIDE PARKVIC219,05168,028%CLAYTONCLAYTONVIC174,94054,329COBURGCOBURGVIC175,19054,407COLACCOLACVIC156,64448,647COLLINS STMELBOURNEVIC189,72758,921CORIOCORIOVIC156,89448,725%CROYDONCROYDONVIC211,03065,537DANDENONGDANDENONGVIC338,100105,000%DEER PARKDEER PARKVIC147,12045,689DONCASTERDONCASTERVIC373,439115,975ECHUCAECHUCAVIC156,14248,491ELSTERNWICKELSTERNWICKVIC347,123107,802%FOOTSCRAYFOOTSCRAYVic107,77133,469FOREST HILLFOREST HILLVIC218,04867,717FRANKSTONFRANKSTONVIC399,254123,992GEELONGGEELONGVIC517,050160,574GLEN WAVERLEYGLEN WAVERLEYVIC401,760124,770GREENSBOROUGHGREENSBOROUGHVIC334,591103,910HAMILTONHAMILTONVIC189,72758,921%HEIDELBERGHEIDLEBERGVIC214,03866,471HIGHPOINTMARIBYRNONGVIC201,00562,424HORSHAMHORSHAMVIC171,93253,395%KEYSBOROUGHKEYSBOROUGHVIC187,72258,299KNOXWANTIRNA SOUTHVIC339,854105,545MELTONMELTONVIC175,94254,640MILDURAMILDURAVIC236,59573,477MOONEE PONDSMOONEE PONDSVIC271,18284,218MORNINGTONMORNINGTONVIC227,57270,675MORWELLMORWELLVIC128,32339,852NORTHCOTENORTHCOTEVIC214,53966,627NORTHLANDPRESTONVIC252,38478,380PORTLANDPORTLANDVIC129,07440,085PRAHRANPRAHRANVIC301,50893,636%RESERVOIRRESERVOIRVIC159,15049,425RINGWOODRINGWOODVIC277,94986,319SALESALEVIC215,04166,783SHEPPARTONSHEPPARTONVIC386,722120,100SOUTHLANDSOUTHLANDVIC543,366168,747SWAN HILLSWAN HILLVIC139,85243,432TRARALGONTRARALGONVIC180,70456,119WANGARATTAWANGARATTAVIC211,28165,615WARRAGULWARRAGULVIC140,35343,588WARRNAMBOOLWARRNAMBOOLVIC176,69454,874WAURN PONDSWAURN PONDSVIC163,91250,904WAVERLEY GARDENMULGRAVEVIC241,10674,878WERRIBEEWERRIBEEVIC163,91250,904WODONGAWODONGAVIC185,71757,676TOTAL FOR STATE14,787,1704,592,289WAALBANYALBANYWA224,81585,644ARMADALEARMADALEWA138,34852,704BOORAGOONBOORAGOONWA415,294158,207BUNBURYBUNBURYWA342,110130,328CANNINGTONCANNINGTONWA245,36793,473%CLOISTERSPERTHWA150,37857,287%EAST VICTORIA PKEAST VIC PARKWA209,27679,724FREMANTLEFREMANTLEWA225,56785,930GERALDTONGERALDTONWA205,01578,101HILLARYSHILLARYSWA157,14559,865%INNALOOINNALOOWA191,23172,850KALGOORLIEKALGOORLIEWA222,81084,880KARRINYUPKARRINYUPWA235,84389,845%MADDINGTONMADDINGTONWA151,63157,764MANDURAHMANDURAHWA131,83150,221MIDLANDMIDLANDWA237,84890,609%MIRRABOOKAMIRRABOOKAWA166,66963,493MORLEYMORLEYWA265,668101,207ROCKINGHAMROCKINGHAMWA193,73773,805SUBIACOSUBIACOWA319,804121,830WESLEY CENTREPERTHWA306,019116,579TOTAL FOR STATE4,736,4061,804,345Questions Without Notice3220322015:05:003220Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—On Thursday, 14 May, Senator Brown asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, whether the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs had spoken during the previous few days with their opposite numbers in Indonesia about the situation there. I have sought the Prime Minister's advice and he has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Neither I nor the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke to our Indonesian counterparts during the few days before 14 May.Miscellaneous322015:06:003220Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—by leave—In relation to notices of motion 1133 and 1136, standing in the name of Senator Bourne, the government is quite happy to provide the substantive information referred to in the orders for the production of documents arising from those notices of motion as follows. To address part 1 of Senator Bourne's first motion directed to me, following consultation between Senator Bourne's office and my office Telstra has supplied a statistical breakdown of employment reductions by region, covering the period April 1996 to March 1998. That information is contained in document 1. To address part 2 of Senator Bourne's first motion, the Department of Communications and the Arts has identified three documents which may be relevant to this request. That information is set out in documents 2A, 2B and 2C.To address part 1 of Senator Bourne's second motion addressed to Senator Kemp, the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing has prepared a document setting out its estimate of the $580 million cost of the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. That information is contained in document 3. To address part 2 of Senator Bourne's second motion, the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing has prepared a document setting out a detailed breakdown of the cost of the sale of the first one-third of Telstra. That information is contained in document 4. I now table all of those documents.Personal Explanations322015:06:003220Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation under standing order 191, as I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, Senator Ellison.Leave granted.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Senator Ellison said that I had misled the Bendigo community on Sunday last by using figures which I think he insinuated were out of date. I did in fact talk about the figures of the most recent census—that is, the 1996 census. I drew attention to the fact that, in the Bendigo electorate, there were 13.4 per cent unemployed and that that electorate ranked No. 12 in all of Australia. It is also ranked second for the whole of Victoria. I also drew attention to the fact that for families earning under $500 a week, Bendigo ranked twelfth in Australia and, again, second for Victoria.I used these figures as being the most recent census figures. I do understand that there are unemployment figures from December 1997. However, those figures are collected from the department, and I suggest that the figures that I used are more accurate because they come from a self-assessment—that is, from the census itself. The department's figure is 12.2 per cent, which is still extremely high, and is based on a much narrower definition of unemployment than is used by the census.15:09:003220Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.Leave granted.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—In question time today Senator Alston, in reply to a dorothy dix question, I think from Senator Sandy Macdonald—and I have had this checked from the tape from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—said:At the same time, you might explain to the Senate why you leaked a copy of that Senate report on Telstra to Steve Lewis of the Australian Financial Review .The tenor of those remarks was that the `you' was being directed at me.I want to say that I have not in any way breached the standing orders. I have not leaked any document to Steve Lewis. The only person I know of in any Telstra issue over the last couple of years who has been involved in leaking documents and breaching the privileges of this place has actually been the minister himself on the first Telstra report.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Withdraw that.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—The matter is before the Privileges Committee—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, it is not a matter to be canvassed—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—And the answers the minister himself gave publicly in the estimates committee confirm that he actually got hold of the document and leaked it to his own department.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you ought not to be canvassing a matter that is before the Privileges Committee.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Madam President, I absolutely deny and categorically refute the fact that I, according to the minister, leaked the Senate report to Mr Lewis. I would appreciate, if the minister has any evidence, that he do the right thing and put it before the Privileges Committee.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I will consider that.Miscellaneous3221322115:11:003221O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I have two matters to raise pursuant to standing order 74(5). Firstly, pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 1121 of 30 March 1998.15:11:003221Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am advised that the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs is considering the response and anticipates that it will be provided to the honourable senator by the end of the week.15:12:003221O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the explanation.I do so because this answer is well overdue. As I said, it was lodged on 30 March, some 59 days ago. It is one day short of being double the time provided for under the standing order. It is also an important question because it goes to possible breaches of Mr Howard's ministerial code of conduct and the code laid out in the cabinet handbook by the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Trade. To quote the cabinet handbook:Ministers at meetings of the Ministry, Cabinet and Committees, must declare any private interests held by themselves or members of their immediate family in matters under immediate discussion where those interests conflict or might conflict with their public duty as Ministers.It continues:Ministers should adopt a broad interpretation of the requirement that they take into account the interests of family members and all the interests of their own in considering whether there is a conflict or a potential or apparent conflict which should be declared. General declarations should be made in all cases where an interest exists which could not be said to be shared with the rest of the community.It seems that Mr Anderson read the handbook when he became a minister. When he was interviewed on the ABC's Countrywide program in early May 1996, he said he would absent himself from both the discussions and votes of cabinet where the matters being considered could place him in a conflict of interest. Let me quote exactly what Mr Anderson said. He said:I think my requirement is that I satisfy the Prime Minister and Cabinet that there is no conflict of interest and in any particular situation that might arise where a decision has to be made then I can declare my interest. I would always do that and if necessary refrain from debate and even voting. Former Senator Collins, who was pursuing the matter at that time, asked whether or not Mr Anderson, as a farmer, would receive a rebate under the diesel fuel rebate scheme. In reply, Senator Parer said that Minister Anderson was a farmer and, as a result, he would get the normal diesel fuel rebate that applies to rural producers.But did Mr Anderson absent himself from the expenditure review committee and the cabinet deliberations on the future of the diesel fuel rebate scheme? He did not. In a press release issued on 13 August 1996, Senator David Brownhill, the then parliamentary secretary to Mr Anderson, welcomed the announcement of the retention of the diesel fuel rebate. Senator Brownhill said:I know the persuasive arguments put to the ERC by the National Party Deputy Leader, John Anderson, and his role in ensuring the scheme retention cannot be overemphasised.In a press release dated the same day, Mr Anderson said:I have consistently argued the case for the DFRS.Madam President, the diesel fuel rebate scheme is not an interest that is shared by the whole community. It is a benefit available to a relatively small sector of the community, including Mr Anderson, Mr Fischer, Mr McLachlan and Senator Parer.The question on notice that the government has had before it for 59 days asks what financial benefit these ministers—who were all in the cabinet room arguing for the retention of the diesel fuel rebate scheme—received. The Senate and the public have a right to know. The public record shows that Mr Anderson breached the cabinet guidelines by participating in a cabinet debate where there was a clear conflict of interest. I will be interested to hear whether Mr Fischer, Mr McLachlan and Senator Parer ignored the rules as well. I note that I am to receive an answer by the end of this week. I await that answer with great anticipation. The commitment has been made that I will get it this week. I expect to get it.Question resolved in the affirmative.322215:15:003222O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston, for an explanation as to why answers still have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 1118 and 1129 which I asked on 30 March and 7 April 1998 respectively.15:15:003222Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I do not have any direct instructions on the matter but, as I understand it, it is under active consideration by the minister's office. I will report back to the Senate if I am in a position to take the matter any further.15:16:003222O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I move:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Senator Alston), no later than immediately after question time on 28 May 1998, answers to questions on notice Nos 1118 and 1129 relating to waterfront reform.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order. According to standing orders—and I might be in error—I am not sure that that is an allowable motion. I know that he can move to take note of the minister's answer that was given, but can he move another motion without having leave for it to be moved?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I do not think he moved to take note of the answer. He moved a motion, and he is entitled to do that. There have been precedents for it.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Under the standing orders, does the motion not have to be to take note of the minister's explanation, which gives him the opportunity to make his comments on that? Surely he is not allowed to move a motion about anything he likes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I will read the relevant paragraph (c), which states:in the event that the minister does not provide an explanation, the senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.The senator did that.BH4HILLSenator Hill—With respect, Madam President, I suggest that was not what he moved at all. He did not move a motion in relation to the failure to give an explanation. He moved an entirely different motion, which was that certain documents be tabled within a certain time. I would suggest that is not covered by this provision of the standing orders. On the basis of that interpretation, if it were correct, he could basically move a motion about anything he liked. That is clearly not the intention of this particular provision.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is plenty of precedent for a motion of that kind having been asked in relation to the minister's failure to give an explanation.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I did provide an explanation. It may be one that Senator O'Brien regards as less than ideal, but that is not the point. If I had not provided any explanation, he may have been in a position—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That is not an explanation.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—My explanation was that I understand the matter is still under active consideration, and I will report back to the Senate after I have had discussions with the minister. I have not received any instructions from him, so I am not able to advise Senator O'Brien on the run about the current state of play, but I did indicate that I would take the matter further.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, when you got to your feet I understood you to say that you had no information on the matter.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—You must judge the answer from the substance of it. I do not recall using that precise form of words but I certainly indicated that I did not have any personal knowledge of the matter. That was what I was conveying, not that I had no explanation in terms of the motion.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—So you have no explanation. LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I had no knowledge that the matter was going to be raised until Senator Evans said to me, `You might like to hang around the chamber because Senator O'Brien is about to get to his feet and give you a mention.' Apart from that, I had no knowledge at all of the substance of the matter. I therefore made that plain when I rose, that I was effectively taken by surprise. I went on to say that I did not have instructions from Mr Reith, that I understood the matter to be under active consideration and I would come back to the Senate if there was anything further that Mr Reith was able to add.All of that amounts to an explanation, albeit it one that Senator O'Brien might regard as less than satisfactory, but that is not the point. The standing order does not talk in terms of providing a less than satisfactory explanation. It says `no explanation at all'. You have to construe what I said in terms of whether it constitutes any form of explanation. If there is no answer, if I got up and said that I have nothing to say, there is no explanation. If I explain where the matter is at the present time, I have provided an explanation.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No, you haven't.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—There can be no doubting that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on the same point of order: can I draw your attention—BH4HILLSenator Hill—We've all got it now.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That is good. If you have it, you would be withdrawing your point of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, you should be addressing me.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Indeed, Madam President. If I could draw your attention to the same standing order, standing order 74(5), it states:If a minister does not answer a question on notice asked by a senator within 30 days of the asking of that question, and does not, within that period, provide to the senator who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that senator of why an answer has not yet been provided—and then three courses of action in (a), (b) and (c) are listed.BH4HILLSenator Hill—We can all read.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Indeed. Quite clearly, Madam President, we have a situation where in this particular case Senator Alston, as the minister representing the minister in this chamber, has neither answered the question nor provided a satisfactory explanation nor provided an explanation satisfactory to that senator. Obviously it is competent for Senator O'Brien in those circumstances to move a motion in the form that he has moved.I would also suggest to you, Madam President, that this has been a course of action that has been undertaken on very many occasions—perhaps not in the life of the current parliament, but certainly on quite a number of occasions I can recall during the life of previous Labor administrations. It might even have been a device or a parliamentary procedure used by Senator Alston on occasions. Certainly a number of his colleagues did precisely the same thing. I suggest to you, Madam President, it is quite in order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—On my understanding of the standing order and the precedents which I have had a brief opportunity to look at relating to the occasions on which similar procedure has been used—first by Senator Macklin on 23 November 1988; and even on one occasion I think a censure motion was moved at a similar stage in proceedings when a senator did not get an answer to a question—I would rule the motion in order.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, can I ask for—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Move dissent if you don't like it, but get on with it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I am asking for an explanation. Madam President, on the point of order, are you ruling that I have not provided an explanation? Bear in mind that Senator Faulkner interprets this and has submitted to you that I have not provided a satisfactory explanation. There is the world of difference. You are being asked to rule on part (c) of that standing order which, on the plain face of it—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—My understanding of it and what has happened in the past is that the answer you gave is not an answer to the question and has been ruled so in the past. I am happy to defer this and look at it in more detail, but my ruling is that it is in order.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Could I ask that you do? Could I just put one other matter, which is effectively a point of priority?UNKNOWNOpposition senatorOpposition senator—There is no such thing.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I know that you do not understand the meaning of the word, but I might be able to help you. Madam President, I simply would elaborate a separate point which I think is important in the context of whether you make a decision now or later.As I have been advised just recently by a member of my office, Senator O'Brien's office have, indeed, been in contact with my office on a number of occasions asking for, effectively, a progress report and, as I am advised, have also indicated that they would not attempt to bring the matter on or move any motions without giving warning on the matter. No warning has been given to me, and that may well be because I was not in the building until about 1—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, it is quite clear to me from everything that I have—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, could I just complete that submission?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Yes.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Therefore, given that Senator O'Brien himself has indicated, through his office to my office, that he would not bring the matter on without warning, it would seem to me only fair that you should take further time to consider whether the precedents—8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I've been chasing your office for weeks.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—effectively establish the proposition that saying that the matter is under review constitutes no explanation. That is what you are effectively ruling if you decide that what I have given is no explanation at all.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That has been exactly the approach in the past and certainly was done by Senator Ellison on 19 May 1995. I am satisfied that what has been done is consistent with the standing orders and what has happened previously.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Can I simply put it another way: that, short of not providing the document, it presumably could then be argued that you have not provided any explanation. An explanation is normally a reason for a course of conduct; it is not simply giving a blanket refusal or saying `I have nothing to say'. In this situation, I have explained why the document has not yet been produced—and that is because it is still being considered by the minister's office.If you say that is not an explanation, I would ask that you give careful consideration to your ruling because I would be very surprised—and I hear what the clerk says, that they are all on all-fours—and I think it would be very helpful to the chamber to examine what those cases were to see what actually constitutes a failure to provide any explanation at all.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think you are canvassing the ruling, Senator.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I was asking for it to be deferred.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—On the point of order, Madam President, could I invite you to take Senator Alston's suggestion of considering this in some detail? The reading of the standing orders by Senator Faulkner to you was, with respect, quite ingenuous, because he did not continue then to read on subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c). They are very pertinent, particularly subparagraph (b) which states:(b) the senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation—not answer to the question, but—move without notice—That the Senate take note of the explanation; or(c) in the event that the minister does not provide an explanation . . . Quite clearly, with respect, Madam President, the minister did get up and provide an explanation. Whether you like the explanation or not is, with respect, irrelevant to the ruling you are required to make. The issue before the chair is simply whether or not an explanation has been provided.Madam President, you and other senators may well make a determination that the explanation is strong, weak or indifferent. But, if an explanation has been provided, the only course open to the honourable senator, in my submission, is under standing order 74(5)(b) and not (c). If Senator Alston had said, `I have no explanation whatsoever' or if he had sat there mute then, in my respectful submission, Madam President, Senator O'Brien would have been entitled to move pursuant to standing order 74(5)(c) in the manner that he has tried to. I must say that I have great difficulty with the ruling, but I do not seek to canvass it. I think, however, for the future—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Well, sit down then!N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Would you mind not being so rude, Senator Faulkner? You are just disgraceful in this place.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You pompous ass.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, with respect, what I am asking you to do is to consider this matter in some detail and then come back to the Senate at a later time with a considered determination in the matter. In my respectful submission, there is a substantive difference between an explanation and an answer to a question, and I think that is what the standing order seeks to differentiate. Unless that differentiation is made, it would seem that vast parts of standing order 74(5) are quite irrelevant for the purposes of this particular type of proceeding in this chamber.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I confirm my previous ruling and I base it in particular on the situation that occurred with Senator Ellison on 19 May 1995: that the senator is entitled to move the motion that he moved at the end.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—In speaking to the motion, the minister in fact would recall that I raised the matter of these outstanding answers to questions on notice nos. 1118 and 1129 with him on 12 May. The minister advised the Senate:As I understand it every endeavour will be made to comply with that request as soon as possible.It is now 26 May. Mr Reith and his department have had before them question no. 1118 for 57 days and question no. 1129 for 49 days. Question no. 1118, among other things, goes to the issue of expenditure of public funds by the government on consultancies as part of its waterfront strategy. It goes to the question of any new consultancies that the government has commissioned, in addition to the ones already on the public record. It goes to the question of final expenditure figures on these consultancies.These consultancies have received an enormous amount of media coverage since their existence was revealed in the estimates process last year. They have been very much a live issue for this government. It is not as if the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business or the Department of Transport and Regional Development would be required to search archives out at Fyshwick or Mitchell to find the information I require. I am confident it is at their fingertips.Let me remind the Senate of just how long this list is and who those consultants were. There was the ACIL 1 consultancy with Dr David Trebeck, a former policy director of the Liberal Party and NFF officer, as the lead consultant and Mr Paul Houlihan, a consultant to Mr Reith on industrial relations and former NFF officer, employed as a subcontractor.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 187, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The senator needs to be relevant to his motion.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—He is reading the speech.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Certainly, the senator should not be reading a speech.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—That is fine, Madam President. I am not reading any speeches, just as no coalition senators read speeches. There is a second ACIL report known as the ACIL 2 report and again Dr Trebeck was in charge. But this time the pollster Mark Textor picked up some work, along with Jonathan Gaul, the Liberal strategist. Then we had the Webster consultancy. Dr Webster was an employee of the former Tasmanian Liberal Premier, Robin Gray, and an employee of Andrew Peacock. His offsider was Dr John Davies, who was almost identical in terms of his political heritage, political activities and former employment situation. Then there was Minter Ellison, BGC Media, Corrs Chambers Westgarth and the National Institute of Labour Studies.In November at the estimates hearing, Dr Greg Feeney from the Maritime Transport Division of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business gave the committee details of those consultancies. He said that Dr Davies was paid $96,376.88. He also said that Dr Webster was paid a sum of money under the same sort of consultancy arrangement of $95,254.42.BH4HILLSenator Hill—I raise a point of order. It relates to the motion that is being debated. Having accepted your ruling, Madam President, that there was not an explanation and the senator is therefore entitled to move a motion, he is nevertheless constrained in the motion he can move. It has to be with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.I do not want to give you hints or anything, but he could move a censure or some other form of punishment against the minister, or he could presumably move a motion that the question be answered within a specified period of time. But he has not done that. He has moved an unrelated motion and that is that certain documents be tabled, as I understand, within a particular time.I would suggest to you that the standing order as it has been drawn is not so wide as to allow him to move a motion that is not directly related to the question he has asked. It is a different subject matter.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the same point of order, Madam President. Senator Hill in his rather flimsy point of order talks about certain documents being laid on the table. What he failed to apprise you of—which I am sure you are aware of anyway—is that these documents that he describes as `certain documents' are in fact answers to questions on notice nos. 1118 and 1129.As I understand it, Madam President, you might be able to inform the Senate as to the question before the chair, but I understand that Senator O'Brien—and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong and I will certainly withdraw this comment if I am wrong—has moved that there be laid on the table by a particular time answers to the questions that are subject to this matter pursuant to standing order 74(5).If I am wrong in that, perhaps we can move on. That is my understanding and you could perhaps apprise the Senate and Senator Hill of that being the case. It is not certain documents; it is, in fact, answers to questions.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is certainly open to anyone else who participates in the debate to challenge whether the documents in question relate to the questions that are asked or not. But there is no difficulty in asking that documents that do relate to the questions be laid on the table under this provision. That has happened previously, as I indicated, on 19 May 1995 when the Senate did pass a resolution that documents be laid on the table in these circumstances.Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator O'Brien is speaking to his motion and when he has finished, others may speak to it and challenge what he is putting, if they wish. It might help if Senator O'Brien re-read the original motion he is putting.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I am quite happy to. I gave it to Senator Faulkner so that he would be fully apprised of the facts when he spoke to that point of order. The motion was:That there be laid on the table by no later than immediately after question time on Thursday 28 May 1998 the answers to questions on notice Nos 1118 and 1129.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Which is what I said, you dopes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is not helpful to have this shouting across the chamber.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—As I was saying, another of the consultancies related to Minter Ellison. They had a contract which commenced on 21 August and concluded on 3 October, and received for that the principal sum of $151,375. As at 12 November we were told that by Dr Feeney. But he did say at that time that he had not received all of the invoices; there were a few to come. We were told that the Corrs Westgarth contract was worth $89,956.28 and the Webb contract had a return value of $23,871. What did BGC Media get?—$8,857.3. The contract with the National Institute of Labour Studies returned them $15,375 exactly.The process involved in letting those contracts was far from normal, as senators would recall. It was highly unusual to let one contract not through the proper tender process but simply at the direction of a minister. But as Dr Feeney told us, the Department of Transport was directed by the then Minister for Transport, Mr Sharp, to engage Dr Webster because that was what he was told to do. Then, apparently, Dr Webster was given authority to hire anyone he liked, and Mr Sharp, of course, was going to pay for this.I want to quote from Dr Feeney's evidence at the estimates hearings because this is an important point. When I asked about the contracts that were let at the request of Dr Webster and whether they were let specifically at his request, the answer was: `Yes'. When I asked whether this was at the direction of the minister's office, the answer was: `Yes'. He also added that the approvals were subject to the minister's office approving them. So Dr Feeney said that Dr Webster told the department who he wanted, and the department signed them up.Senators would be aware that originally Dr Webster had been employed as a subcontractor to David Trebeck under the ACIL consultancy. Apparently they did not get on so he refused to work with this former Liberal Party policy director. He was able to get one of his friends, a Mr Peter Wilson, who worked in Mr Reith's office, to organise a contract of his own. That led to a payment to Dr Webster of $95,000. Dr Webster then organised a contract for one of his old colleagues, Dr Davies, and he received $96,000. It is nice to have friends in high places.So there was no tender process for all this money to be paid out. He just picked who he wanted. The department was required, at the direction of the minister's office, to sign them up and to put them on the payroll. So it is doubly important in this case that there be proper scrutiny of exactly how this consul tancy money was spent. Given that this money has been spent, we also ought to be able to look at the process and see that proper process was not followed in the appointment of these consultants.The Senate and the community do have a legitimate right to be satisfied that a million dollars worth of taxpayers' money was spent on what the contracts required them to be spent on. We also have the right to be satisfied that we, as taxpayers, got our money's worth out of these deals. That is what question No. 1118 goes to.In relation to all of these consultancies, and any others we do not yet know about, we want to know the details of each contract. We want to know whether there was an actual written report. If there was a report, we want to know how comprehensive it was. We want to know what the subject matter was so that we can be satisfied that the terms of that contract have been met. We also want to know what happened with each of the reports that arose from the consultancies. Lastly, we want to know what the final cost was.We have already been provided with information about contract costs in these matters, but there now appears to be some confusion over the costs given to the Senate to date. The minister, I am sure, would be aware that the proposed cost of the first ACIL report—the ACIL 1 report as it is being called—was to be $60,000. We have been told that that blew out to $80,000. Now we find, in response to another question on notice—the answer to which appears in the House of Representatives Hansard of 14 May—that the cost of the ACIL 1 contract is now out to $118,761. It is about double the original estimate, and $40,000 more than the so-called final cost that we were given.In relation to the Minter Ellison consultancy, we were told last November that its cost was about $151,000. That there were a few invoices for some minor costs still outstanding was the codicil added to that response. The estimates committee was then provided with an answer on notice advising that the final Minter Ellison cost was $158,283. Then we received another final costing for that contract and it had gone up to $162,567. It is clear that it is in the public interest that the minister provide the Senate with the amounts of money spent on all these contracts. It is also clear that in the public interest the cost of any other consultancies and the nature of those consultancies—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Madam President, I take a point of order. Senator O'Brien is quite clearly breaching standing order 187. Not in the wildest of dreams could anyone suggest that he is referring to copious notes; he is clearly turning over page after page. Senator O'Brien obviously is not capable of making a speech without reading it but can we perhaps save time and just get him to table the speech—it is all written—and we can go on to some more important business.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator O'Brien, I draw your attention to the standing orders about reading speeches.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Madam President, you have drawn them to my attention before and the rather pale, insignificant comment that the senator makes I think is undeserving of comment, because I am clearly referring to matters of substantial detail that do require reference to copious notes. I go on, Madam President, accepting what you say. This matter also goes to the details of the government's consultative processes with the waterfront industry with regard to its waterfront strategy. Again, those are matters of legitimate public interest.I want now to go to the question of Minister Reith and his actions in refusing to answer question No. 1129. The cost to the taxpayer for the employment of Dr Webster and Dr Davies was something approaching $200,000. Dr Webster's consultancy ran from 30 July to 3 October but we are told he commenced work before that date. He was paid $1,000 a day and in addition he was paid expenses.The contract with Dr Davies commenced on the same day as that of Dr Webster; that is, on 30 July. He apparently received the same daily rate and apparently the terms of reference for both consultants were the same, but Dr Webster was the leader and Dr Davies was the assistant. We also know that, in addition to the $1,000 a day consultancy fee, there were other costs including travel costs and incidentals. We are also able to know that Dr Davies paid his bills and was reimbursed while Dr Webster submitted invoices. We know that the payment of incidentals was subject to a review by the department. In fact, we do know that Dr Feeney personally vetted these claims.So the information sought by question 1129 was clearly in the knowledge of the Department of Transport and Regional Development and is now, I assume, still with Dr Feeney, but in the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. I believe that the Senate is entitled to be satisfied that the money paid out to the two consultants was properly spent. The money was paid by the department of transport because it was directed to do so by the minister. After Mr Sharp was directed by Mr Reith to engage Dr Webster he was told by ministerial staffer Mr Wilson to sign the contract.Question 1129 asks the minister to provide all invoices that relate to these contracts, because that is the only way the Senate can be properly satisfied that this money has been properly spent. The question also seeks information about the relationship with the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. As the Senate was told on the last occasion I raised this matter, I do not chase answers to questions on notice in every case when the time elapses that is allowed under standing orders for the question to be answered. I do so when the matter is important.I believe I have demonstrated that this matter is important. There is a significant amount of information which is clearly available to the department and can be provided. As I indicated earlier, these questions have been outstanding for 57 and 49 days respectively. There is no good reason why the answer should be withheld from the Senate. In terms of providing the information, it is clearly information which the department must have in order to have been able to pay these moneys and there can be no good reason advanced as to why the questions should not have been answered. Hence, I propose in my motion that the minister be directed to table his answers tomorrow, because there is no good reason why he should not be able to do so.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Madam President, I take a point of order. Under section 168(2) of the standing orders, I respectfully ask that you direct Senator O'Brien to table the documents from which he was reading.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It has previously been held that speech notes used do not constitute a document under this section.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Further to that point of order, Madam President: that is not a speech note in my view, although I do take notice of that direction. What Senator O'Brien quoted from clearly were documents. For the duration of his speech he was quoting from a document; they were not, literally, speech notes.SF4COONEYSenator Cooney—On that point of order, Madam President, standing order 168 relates to documents quoted by a senator. It does not talk about a document quoted from. That refers to the situation where there is a document that you want to use to prove your case as a matter of evidence and that is the sort of document that that clause refers to. I think what is being complained of is that Senator O'Brien is reading from a document.Senator Abetz interjecting—SF4COONEYSenator Cooney—Even if he had read from a document, standing order 168 would not apply because that standing order applies to a situation where Senator O'Brien may have quoted from a letter or a document that he says supports his case, and that should be tabled so that people can see that the document is accurate. But that is not the situation here. What he has been accused of, in the light of what was said earlier, is that he was reading his speech. He is not allowed to read his speech, but that is not what standing order 168 refers to. It refers to a different situation than what is being complained of here.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Certainly there were two points of order taken earlier in the speech alleging that he was reading speech notes, and I drew to the senator's attention that he ought not to be reading a speech using notes. But there have certainly been rulings previously that this section does not relate to speech notes but does relate to documents being quoted from.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, I wish to raise a further point of order, if I may.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—The same point of order?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—No, on a different matter, and it relates to the matter that was raised earlier in relation to standing order 74, where I had invited you to consider the matter in further detail and report back to the chamber. There was no direct answer given. Madam President, I direct your attention to the Hansard of 11 May 1995, where you refer to the precedent of Senator Ellison and Senator McMullan. The reality there is that no ruling was made on that occasion by the chair because nobody raised a point of order.Just because a procedure is adopted in the absence of a point of order does not make it an appropriate procedure, just as much as, for example, if Senator Conroy interjects an unparliamentary word and it finds its way into the Hansard. If nobody raises a point of order against it and it is in the Hansard, that does not clothe it with the authority of being parliamentary. The fact is, nobody raised a point of order to stop the Senate from behaving in a manner contrary to the standing orders.The precedent that was being relied upon, in my respectful submission, is not a ruling by the Senate in any shape or form. If we turn to page 473 of Odgers, there is talk about the established practice if an explanation is not forthcoming. The same paragraph tells us:The practice of ministers leaving the chamber immediately at the end of question time has meant that on several occasions the relevant minister has not been present to give an explanationIn this case, we clearly did have a minister in the chamber giving an explanation. All I am submitting to you, Madam President, is not to change your ruling in relation to this. But I would seek to convince you that, at least on a prima facie basis, the matter that Senator Alston has raised—and I have raised as well—is a matter of substance worthy of your further detailed consideration. That is my only plea to you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are a number of other precedents. The one I quoted that occurred on 19 May 1995 is just one of the more recent ones.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—On the point of order, Madam President: I asked you whether or not you would consider the matter in more detail and return to the chamber. I am not asking for a ruling now. If you will not, that is fine. But I think, with respect, I am entitled to the courtesy of a response from you as to whether or not you accept my respectful submission to you that there is a matter of some substance and whether or not you are prepared to consider it in more detail. Madam President, you refer to the Senator Ellison situation as a precedent. With respect, in the absence of a ruling, it cannot be asserted to be a precedent. I would have thought that would be a fairly fundamental point.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I had referred previously to the fact that there had been others since 1988. If the Senate wishes, I am happy for this matter to be adjourned for 15 minutes and come back.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I do not think I have made my position clear.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think you have, Senator.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I am not asking that this matter be adjourned. I am not asking you to delay this particular proceeding. I am just suggesting, with respect, that it may be appropriate to give detailed consideration to these provisions to ascertain exactly what they mean. At the end of the precedents referred to in the eighth edition of Odgers there is the very telling sentence about the practice of ministers leaving the chamber immediately at the end of question time and not being present to give an explanation. I would have thought, with respect, that this is a matter of substance and that it would be appropriate to give some clarification for the benefit of all senators in the future. I do not seek that clarification today. A week, a fortnight or a month would suffice.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I will look at the matter again; re-read Odgers and confer with you, Senator Abetz.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous3231323115:59:003231Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to a question without notice asked by Senator Cook today, relating to taxation on family trusts.It is hard to take note of an answer given by Senator Kemp because waffle is pretty hard to take note of.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on a point of order: Senator Conroy has ruled himself out of order.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Sit down!LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, I ask you to accept his ruling.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I would suggest that you make your remarks totally relevant to the issue under discussion, Senator.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am taking note of the waffle. Senator Kemp made some sort of play, claiming that the Labor Party had in actual fact ignored the issue of trusts. I hope you stay, Senator Ian Macdonald, because you are someone with a personal interest in this. You might be interested in this debate.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, would you like to address the chair, please?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Certainly, Madam Deputy President. Senator Kemp talked about how the Labor Party had ignored trusts. `It all happened while you were in government,' is his standard defence of the inaction of this government on this issue. In 1993, just before the 1993 election, the tax office informed the then Treasurer, Ralph Willis, that the biggest single growing problem with tax avoidance in this country was family trusts.What happened after we won the 1993 election? We commissioned a number of reports. We asked the tax office to have a look at it and make suggestions. After a lengthy examination of the statistics involved and a long look at the spivery that had been going on, they came up with 12 recommendations. Not long before the last election in 1996 they put some recommendations to the government showing the top 100 taxpayers were avoiding up to $800 million through family tax structures. That is nothing more than blatant tax avoidance.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Why didn't you do something about it?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—After the election we introduced a number of bills to do with this very issue. One of those opposing is shouting, `Why didn't you do something about it?' Bills were introduced in parliament, Senator Ian Macdonald.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address the chair, please, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—What happened after the election when the coalition was elected? With no explanation whatsoever they dumped one of the bills that would have dealt with this problem. They let it slip out. There was no explanation whatsoever. What did we see in the recent tax office statistics? One in four trusts posted tax losses despite having a combined income of $26 billion—$26 billion and they made a loss! They have got to be pretty badly managed—$26 billion in income and they made a loss. There are 400,000 trusts involved. That means almost 1.8 million Australians received distributions from these trusts. These are blatant examples of tax avoidance and spivery.I am glad some of those opposite have stayed in the chamber because what we have seen in this government is John Anderson, Alexander Downer, Tim Fischer, Robert Hill, Ian McLachlan, Daryl Williams, Richard Alston, Jocelyn Newman, Chris Ellison, John Herron, Judi Moylan, Warwick Parer—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, would you like to refer to these people by their correct titles, please?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Have I got to name them all again?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And others.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—And others have all got family trusts. No wonder the family trust debate has been allowed to slip under the carpet on that side.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—You didn't mention me.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I would love to, Senator Macdonald. But thank you for nominating yourself. There are 105,069 trusts. They have a total business income of $26.2 billion and they declared a loss. That means there was no tax payable on the income that was earned and distributed to the beneficiaries, some of whom are probably on that side of the chamber. They paid no tax on it because they have been able to take advantage of the trust distribution laws. We know that 33,956 trusts—that is, less than 10 per cent of trusts—had a taxable income of more than $100,000. Only 10 per cent paid tax, despite the total income of the trusts being $118 billion. The 33,956 trusts had an income of $118 billion and only 10 per cent of those poor trusts could manage to pay tax on over $100,000.Family trusts are nothing more than tax avoidance vehicles. They use income splitting and they use the lower marginal tax rates—that is what they are about. This government has promised to protect family trusts. They are going to protect family trusts. They are going to put a tax on food and they are going to put a tax on health. (Time expired)16:05:003232Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—The previous speaker, Senator Conroy, might indicate to us some of the taxation provisions for trade unions. Do you know whether they pay tax out of their huge earnings? If you want to get into a debate about that, we might have a look at the fact that trade unions do not pay tax. That might be an interesting question.Senator Heffernan interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, Senator Heffernan—they fund the Labor Party entirely. They are absolute captives of the trade union movement. That is why the Labor Party will never look at the taxation of trade unions. It demonstrates the shallowness of the Labor Party on this as on any matter they seek to raise on this particular issue.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Do you have a family trust? YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—As the previous speaker said, I have a family trust. I think, from memory, I entered into mine in the years of the Whitlam government—that is how long I have had mine. I think most of the people for whom I acted in my legal practice in a farming community in North Queensland had family trusts and have done so from those days. I and a lot of other Australians have had them since 1972 quite legally. It was done in conjunction with the law.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It is spivery.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—It is spivery? Senator, why didn't Mr Whitlam's government do something about it? Why didn't the Labor government do something about it?Then we move to that fateful year—I think it was 1983—when the Labor Party won an election. Regrettably, they won a few elections after that. I think you won five elections on the trot, didn't you? Why didn't you do something about this great problem that you have now identified—all this chicanery? What did you call it? What were the adjectives you used? Have you forgotten?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Through the chair, please.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was just trying to get some assistance from the senator on the terrible adjectives that he used to describe these horrible family trusts. If they are as bad as you say they are, why didn't your government do something about them in the 13 long years that you were in power?Senator Conroy interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Give me those adjectives again so I can quote them back to you. What did you say? Why didn't you do something? Senator Heffernan tells me that one of the reasons might have been that Mr Keating had a family trust and that as Treasurer or Prime Minister he did not want to do anything about it. But Mr Keating did nothing wrong. He acted quite within the law and he did what any sensible Australian would do to arrange their affairs properly. Senator Murphy, one of your colleagues I think, has a family trust—nothing wrong with that. Good for him! He is one of the few people on your side who shows a bit of acumen, a bit of sense and a bit of understanding of the laws that the Labor Party government implemented and managed over 13 long years.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Effective tax planning, is it?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, I am going to pause here. I am going to allow you to interject, if I may, Mr Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Through the chair.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I know it is improper, but I am just going to pause and wonder a bit myself why it was that the Labor government, in 13 long years, did not do something about these family trusts that Senator Conroy has spent the previous five shallow minutes describing. I will just ponder to allow Senator Conroy to interject.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Why did you withdraw the legislation from this parliament that we put in the last one?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I do not hear Senator Conroy yet. I know I am a bit slow—I confess that. But if it is so bad now, our government is doing something about it. We are looking at it. Senator Ian Campbell, Senator Kemp and Mr Costello are looking at some of the worst rorts in the tax system that your government allowed to be perpetrated over 13 years. My colleague mentions Mr Keating and some of his Danpork trusts. We are looking at those trusts that your government allowed to be perpetrated. (Time expired)16:10:003233Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I also wish to take note of the answers to questions asked by Senator Faulkner, Senator Conroy and Senator Cook. It is clear that the issue of tax reform will be a central element at the forthcoming federal election. Tax reform, of course, encompasses a range of issues: the GST; the appropriate mix between tax on income and tax on expenditure; the role of tax in savings policy; and the role of tax as a driver or initiator of change in the productive side of our economy. Equally, levels of taxation for individuals, corporate entities and other legally sanctioned arrangements such as trusts should, and one presumes will, be part of that overall debate—in that context, the future role of trusts is part of the continuing debate. There is nothing magic about trusts—nothing new. Family trusts have become a very popular tax minimisation device in this country in the last eight or nine years.The previous government was moving to eliminate many of those artificial and contrived arrangements when it was derailed by the previous opposition in late 1995. The current government went a small way to eliminating some of those abuses with the Taxation Laws Amendment (Trust Loss and Other Deductions) Bill of late 1997 and early 1998, but it did not seek to remedy the critical problems in trusts, and two defects spring readily to mind. Firstly, trusts, properly structured and utilised, can be used to minimise tax exposure, particularly for those who earn a substantial part of their income from investments. Secondly, hundreds of thousands of people have sought to use family trust arrangements to change their tax profile. All too often people simply use the establishment of family trusts as a device to alter their status as PAYE taxpayers and hence enjoy the lower tax regime enjoyed by trusts.This avoidance, minimisation, re-arrangement—call it what you will—naturally has a serious impact on government and its role in the community. It inevitably leads to arguments about the appropriate tax mix, the breakdown of the tax system, haemorrhaging of the tax system. This, in turn, is used as justification by the government parties, the corporate sector and elements of the welfare lobby for the introduction of new and additional taxes on consumption. It is a very simple equation that is put in this debate: middle and high income earners use trusts to reduce tax payments; the scale of such use is sufficient to imperil the existing taxation system; to maintain the integrity of the new system we impose a new tax, a GST on consumption; and finally, everyone is treated equally because all goods and services are taxed equally at point of sale.What is so bad, so offensive and so inequitable about this trust/GST mix is the wholesale transfer of tax liability and tax responsibility from high income earners—high net worth individuals; those with significant income producing assets—to those at the bottom end of the food or taxation chain. When redistribution occurs, there is indeed a progressive tax system, but it is the reverse of common understanding. The redistribution is from low and middle earners to high income earners. For want of a better description, it is a perversion.Who are today's low income earners, we ask? Low skilled workers, many single income families, many single income parents, welfare and pension recipients, casual and part-time employees. All of these groups currently spend 100 per cent of their income on consumption. Net household debt, figures suggest, is approaching 200 per cent of income through borrowing. The government proposal is to whack these people with another tax—a GST on every dollar they spend—and in one fell swoop reduce their disposable income by 10 per cent, 12 per cent or 15 per cent via the GST. Why? Because so many hundreds of thousands of individuals use trusts to alter their tax liability. They alter it so much, we are told, that the future of the entire taxation system is in peril. Because so many do not pay a share—their fair and equitable share—the system haemorrhages and insufficient revenue is received by government to fund necessary government purposes, and because of that we have to re-jig the whole system. Deliberate evasion, deliberate minimisation, avoidance through family trusts—now in excess of 300,000 or 400,000.(Time expired)16:15:003234Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I would like to speak to the motion moved by Senator Conroy in respect of answers to questions without notice. I found it quite amazing that Senator Cook and other Labor Party senators would ask questions of Senator Kemp on cracking down on tax avoidance because, as you would know through your own experience in our time in opposition, the Labor Party seemed to speak a lot about cracking down on tax avoiders. Every time they tried to say how they were going to balance some future budget—something that they were singularly unsuccessful in doing in 10 out of 13 years in government—they would have this sort of magic pudding, called `the cracking down on tax avoidance magic pudding.' They were always saying, `Somehow we will balance our budget by cracking down on tax avoiders.'Labor were very unsuccessful because they were either lazy or incompetent in government. They always spoke about cracking down on tax avoidance and now, in opposition, they are saying, `We would have got around to doing that in the 14th year,' and `Look at the legislation we brought in in the dying minutes.' It was not even five minutes to midnight. As you would recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that legislation was brought in at about 30 seconds to midnight, just before they were turfed out of office.You have to look at Labor's record on tax reform and attacking tax avoidance; they really did nothing. They talk about trusts, and Senator Bishop from the state of Western Australia has said that these trust structures became very popular over the last eight, nine or 10 years. I remind him that, even though he may not have been a part of the previous government, the Labor Party was in power for all of that decade, and that during that time they did not do anything about trusts—not in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 or even 1990. They did not do anything about them in 1991 or, as I recall, in 1992. In 1993, as I said, at 30 seconds to midnight in December, they said, `Oh, all of a sudden we've got this bill.' The bill, of course, was too little and too late as far as the Labor Party's credibility on tax reform is concerned.Can I say what the Labor Party's concept of tax reform really is? It is well and truly on the record. The Australian people do need to understand what Labor means when they talk about tax reform. It is very hard for Labor to get a policy up because every now and then one of their spokespeople will raise a policy and have it quickly knocked off because they realise that it has not been discussed or because suddenly it is unpopular.Labor's form over the years is well documented in terms of the new taxes they brought in. They promised not to tax capital gains, and of course they taxed them. They promised no changes to the tax system and no increases, and they had this trifecta or whatever it was—that tax would not increase as a proportion of GDP. But they drove it from 22 per cent up to 27 per cent in a short time and still managed, with all of the tax increases, to continue increasing the deficit.Labor's records on deficits, tax and interest rates go hand in hand. They drove deficits up. Their record on deficits averaged $12.2 billion in current dollar terms. This was not for one, two or three years; the Labor Party in government ran $12.2 billion deficits for 10 years out of 13. The average deficit that Labor ran was $12.2 billion. It is a remarkable achievement.Labor Party people may wonder why they get tagged as the high interest rate, high deficit, high tax party. It is because they have got so much form. If you had the sort of form that these people had on deficits, interest rates and taxes, you could pick them in every race. You would not have to get the form guide out; you would not have to get advice from anyone; you would not have to go around and talk to other punters, the trainers and jockeys. You would say, `These guys are absolute, guaranteed winners in the race for high interest rates, high debt, high inflation and high taxes every single time they enter the race.'Senator Faulkner wants carbon taxes and environmental taxes; other Labor people want bed taxes—Premier Carr has already introduced that. The jobs levy was a beauty, a really good idea—let's put a levy on jobs. Brian Howe wants polluter pays and congestion taxes; Wayne Swan wants some luxury taxes; Lindsay Tanner wants inheritance taxes; Martin Ferguson wants more wealth taxes; and Gareth Evans says `let's have some higher taxes.' They are very good on taxes; they increase taxes massively. They had the biggest deficits in Australian history and, as we know, they had the highest interest rates in Australian history. They really have nowhere to go. They spent 13 years in government and were not prepared to crack down on trusts. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.323510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:323524610000VICE-CHAIRMANTo the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:That your petitioners request that the Australian Government take steps immediately to stop the mining and export of uraniumAnd your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.The President10000The President(from 246 citizens)3235123DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo 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 BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 123 citizens)3235469DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identify so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 469 citizens)3236811X4West Sen SueTo 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, decisions by the Howard Government affecting the price and availability of medicines.The decisions to remove (delist) a number of drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and also the decision to pressure people to switch to cheaper, older and less effective drugs, will disadvantage the less well off in our community who will not be able to afford the best most suitable drugs, the drugs their doctors have prescribed for them.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse these decisions immediately.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 81 citizens)Petitions received.Notices323632363236Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the government business orders of the day relating to the following bills may be taken together for their remaining stages:Company Law Review Bill 1997.Managed Investments Bill 1997.32363236Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 1998:(a) the implications of India's nuclear tests and the nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs of both India and Pakistan for regional and international security; and(b) the Australian Government's role in international efforts to constrain nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in south Asia. 32363236Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) calls on the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) to reject proposals for the Commonwealth to offer Higher Education Contribution Scheme-style loans to upfront fee-paying undergraduate students and private universities;(b) condemns the Government's funding cuts to university operating grants of 6 per cent over 5 years; and(c) supports increased public funding of the public higher education systems.32363236Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate(a) notes the obnoxious policies of the One Nation Party on issues such as race, immigration, gun control and the environment; and(b) supports the Greens and citizens action groups which will rally for a multicultural, inclusive and non-violent Australia in Brisbane on 7 June 1998 at 11 am in King George Square.32363236Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Australian pork producers have suffered a $62 million fall in income since the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) lifted import bans on pig meat from Canada and Denmark, and (ii) for individual producers, the average loss amounts to $17 000 for producers nationally and $26 000 for producers in Queensland; and(b) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) instigate a moratorium on pork imports from Canada and Denmark until the Australian industry has recovered, (ii) increase the pork industry assistance package from $10 million over 3 years to $20 million over 3 years to boost funds for researching export development opportunities for Australian pork and to investigate whether low interest loans should be part of the package, (iii) use all upcoming trade forums to push for reciprocal access for Australian pork to overseas markets, and (iv) introduce a 10 per cent tariff on manufactured Canadian pork imports, which is legal and allowable under World Trade Organization provisions if the domestic industry is being damaged by imports.32373237Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to prohibit the mining, extraction, treatment and transport of any uranium or uranium ore in or near any property in Australia in the World Heritage List, and for related purposes. Uranium Mining in or near Australian World Heritage Properties (Prohibition) Bill 1998 .32373237Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that should the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997, the Wik 10-point plan, be passed into law, it will grant significant powers on the State Governments to: (a) upgrade pastoral leases to permit diversification to the full range of activities defined as primary production, (b) substitute the right to negotiate on leased or reserved land with alternative procedures, (c) validate grants made after the Native Title Act came into effect and before the Wik decision, and (d) potentially extinguish or impair native title by activating the previous exclusive possession act provisions, (ii) the failure of the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland (Mr Beattie) to rule out the legislative extinguishment of native title if the 10-point plan becomes law, (iii) that Mr Beattie is reported as saying, on page 1 of the Courier Mail of 22 December 1997, `I'll give you a clear answer. I support what came out of the Senate because that is what the Australian people have said through their representatives', and (iv) the absence of any statement from Mr Beattie that he will not support the validation of pastoral leases in the State of Queensland that were arguably unlawfully issued by the former Goss Government; and(b) calls on the Australian Labor Party in Queensland and in other States and Territories to immediately rule out using powers they may receive, if elected, from the enactment of the bill to extinguish or impair native title rights through state legislation.32373237Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the appointment of scientist Mr Don Henry as executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, (ii) Mr Henry's credentials, which include negotiating the world's largest tropical forests protection package in the Amazon on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature with the World Bank, and other substantial forest conservation gains in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, and (iii) Mr Henry's comment that the rest of the world listens to Australia because of its past reputation with important environmental initiatives;(b) congratulates Mr Henry on his appointment; and(c) recognises that Australia does indeed have an important role to play globally in showing environmental leadership for the benefit of future generations.32373237Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes that:(a) should the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997, the Wik 10-point plan, be passed into law, it will grant significant powers to the State Governments; (b) the Australian Democrats members of the Legislative Council of Western Australia, the Honourable Helen Hodgson MLC and Norm Kelly MLC, have pledged to oppose the racially discriminatory 10-point plan in Western Australia;(c) the Australian Democrats members of the Legislative Council in South Australia, Ms Sandra Kanck, Mr Ian Gillfillen and Mr Mike Elliott, have pledged to oppose the racially discriminatory 10-point plan in South Australia;(d) the Australian Democrats member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, the Honourable Elisabeth Kirkby, has pledged to opposed the racially discriminatory 10-point plant in New South Wales;(e) the Australian Democrats candidates and members in Queensland have pledged to oppose the racially discriminatory 10-point plan in Queensland;(f) the Australian Democrats candidates and members in Victoria have pledged to oppose the racially discriminatory 10-point plan in Victoria;(g) the Australian Democrats candidates and members in Tasmania have pledged to oppose the racially discriminatory 10-point plan in Tasmania;(h) the Australian Democrats candidates and members in the Australian Capital Territory have pledged to oppose the racially discriminatory 10-point plan in the Australian Capital Territory; and (i) the Australian Democrats candidates and members in the Northern Territory have pledged to oppose the racially discriminatory 10-point plan in the Northern Territory.32383238Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) estimates by the World Health Organisation that a bacterial infection, cancrum oris , known in Africa as the `noma', is killing 80 000 children a year in the world's poorest countries, (ii) forecasts by Oxfam that the disease will kill up to half a million children in Niger by the year 2000, (iii) that the disease is entirely curable in the early stages by applications of mouthwash and antiseptic cream, (iv) that the group most susceptible to the disease is severely malnourished children in developing countries, and (v) Oxfam's valuable work in drawing to worldwide public attention the ravages of this disease; and(b) urges the Federal Government to: (i) as a matter of urgency, direct funds for treatment via AusAid's Humanitarian Emergency Fund, and (ii) increase funding in Australia's aid budget for African projects.Miscellaneous32383238Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I have in my hands some documents provided by Senator Vanstone that were the subject of a return to order motion passed by the Senate yesterday, I think moved by Senator Bolkus. There is a short tabling statement which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard and I will then table the document.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—On behalf of the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone) and in response to the order for production of documents agreed to yesterday, I table a report entitled Firearms Legislation in Australia . This report has been overtaken by events. It was prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), at the request of the Executive Member of the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board, in April 1997. An Associate of the AIC, Professor Kate Warner of the University of Tasmania, prepared the report.This report examines State and Territory legislation to determine their level of compliance with the Australasian Police Ministers' Council resolutions of 10 May, 17 July and 15 November 1996 respectively.The report is dated, it was completed prior to the end of the buyback scheme. There are also some significant limitations to the report. It was commissioned in December 1996 and finalised in April 1997, it does not therefore reflect the current position of jurisdictions. The report also limited its examination of the level of compliance of jurisdictions with the National Agreement on Firearms Control to State and Territory legislation in place at the time, however some legislation was not yet completed and further amendments to legislation were foreshadowed.The report does not consider any administrative practices or procedures that jurisdictions had put into place as part of their implementation of the National Agreement on Firearms Control. There are also a number of omissions in the report, which combined with current administrative practices, present a very different level of compliance by some jurisdictions. Given these issues, the complexity and lack of direct comparability of firearms legislation in each of the States and Territories, this report should not be seen as a definitive statement.It is relevant to note that the Prime Minister intended to raise the issue of State and Territory compliance with the National Agreement on Firearms Control at the Premiers' Conference on 20 May 1998. However abandonment of that meeting by the States and Territories has resulted in a number of initiatives being pursued.In March, the Government amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations to further restrict the importation into Australia of semi-automatic firearms. I have also written to all jurisdictions in April, expressing the Commonwealth's concern and indicating that the matter was to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the APMC.Let me be completely clear on the issue of firearms control, the Commonwealth will exercise all powers available to it to ensure that the National Agreement on Firearms Control is not watered down.Committees32393239323916:31:003239Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the seventh report of 1998 of the Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills. I move:That the report be adopted.I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard . (Quorum formed)Leave granted.The report read as follows—REPORT NO. 7 OF 19981. The Committee met on 26 May 1998.2. The committee resolved:That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateFilm Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 (see appendices 1 and 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEnvironment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts11 August 1998Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEnvironment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts11 August 1998Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics25 June 1998Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics23 June 19983. The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1998. Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. Income Tax (Untainting Tax) Bill 1998. National Measurement Amendment Bill 1998. Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998.The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 31 March 1998). Australian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 7 April 1998). Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 12 May 1998). Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 26 May 1998). Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998. Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 [No. 2]. Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998. Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998.5. The committee considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 (see appendix 5) , and recommends that the provisions of the bill be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. The committee did not reach a decision on a reporting date.(Paul Calvert)Chair27 May 1998Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationProvides for the establishment of a pilot scheme for the delivery of tax concessions to investors in the film industry and consideration needs to be given to the adequacy of the level of the proposed tax deduction, to capital gains tax provisions which may be a disincentive to investment, and to whether this scheme will be effective in attracting more investment in Australian films.Possible submission or evidence from:Australian Screen Directors Association (Mr Ian Collie, Exec Director) Screen Producers Association of Australia (Mr Nick Heard, Exec Director) Australian Writers Guild (Ms Sue McGreedy, Exec Director) Movieco (Mr David Court, Director) Australian Film Commission Australian Film Finance Corporation Film Finances (Ms Sue Milliken, Manager)Committee to which bill is to be referred:Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date : As soon as practicable.(signed)Vicki BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee MemberAppendix 2Name of bill:Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationThe bills give the effect to a trial of a scheme of investment in the Australian film and television product.The bills were introduced together and need to be reviewed conjointlyPossible submission or evidence from:Representatives of the film and television industry.Committee to which bill is to be referred:Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date : As soon as practicable.(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee MemberAppendix 3Name of bill:Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationSchedule 1: Retrospective application of sales tax on infrastructure projects.Schedule 5: giftsSchedule 4: possible anomalies in depreciation provisions.Possible submission or evidence from:Australian Constructors Association, Australian Council for Infrastructure Development Limited, Ernst and YoungCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Economics Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date : 25 June 1998(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee MemberAppendix 4Name of bill :Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:This legislation sets up a framework for establishing country of origin labelling claims and consideration needs to be given as to whether this legislation will meet the requirements called for by various industry bodies and whether it will adequately meet public and industry expectations.Possible submission or evidence fromPork Council of AustraliaStrawberry Growers AssociationSouth Australian Farmers FederationNational Farmers FederationCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Economics Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date: As soon as practicable.(signed)Vicki BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 5Name of bill:Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationImpact of increase in disclosure amounts on transparency and intensity of funding and disclosure provisions.Regulations as per item 19—need input into make-up of regulationsClarify use of elector information provisions to members of parliament and senators.Possible submission or evidence from:Political parties and academicsCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Finance and Public Administration Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date : 10 August 1998(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee Member16:33:003241Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the proposed referral of the provisions of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the committee report on 23 June 1998".The committee's report, as presented by Senator Calvert, indicates that, while the committee proposes the referral of the bill, it does not indicate a reporting date and notes that the committee could not agree upon a reporting date. This amendment proposes to the Senate that the reporting date be 23 June in order to enable the Senate to have the opportunity to debate this bill this session.This bill does contain a number of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in a report it made on the 1996 election nearly 12 months ago. That report was handed down on 16 June last year. Of course, the proposals in the report were thoroughly debated by that committee in the lead-up to the tabling of that report and have been in the public arena now for nearly 12 months. In the two-and-a-bit years since the previous election, these matters have been debated thoroughly, have been in the public arena and have been debated by all the parties represented in this chamber. As I said, the committee's recommendations have been in the public arena for all of that time.The government does not really see, in light of those facts, any real need for this bill to go to a committee, but we accept that that is sought by at least one party in the chamber and therefore it will occur. We do think the reporting date should be relatively soon. All these matters have been on the public agenda for quite some time and we think 23 June is an appropriate reporting date for a legislation committee. That will ensure that there is the opportunity, time permitting, for the bill to be considered by the Senate in this session. I commend that amendment to the Senate.16:36:003242Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I oppose this amendment and take this opportunity to briefly address the Senate on the question before the chair and the very much related issue of the motion that stands in the name of Senator Ian Campbell to propose to exempt this particular bill from the provisions of standing order 111. I think it might save the Senate some time if I try to briefly address both of those issues and indicate that the opposition, for its part, will not support the cut-off motion for this bill. It might save debate on that particular motion to make a contribution at this point because, of course, this is the related issue of the reporting date of the committee on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 .We do not accept the paltry arguments that the government puts forward in relation to the urgency for this bill. We wonder why, if it is so urgent, it has taken so long for this particular piece of legislation to come before us. I think that this bill contains some measures that are highly politically partisan and they are, in the view of the opposition, motivated by an attempt to gain clear political advantage before the calling of an election—hence the rush by the government to deal with this particular matter in this session of the parliament.We have made it very clear that some of the provisions of this bill—like, for example, the proposal to increase from $1,500 to $10,000 the amount above which a donor to a political party must furnish a return for the financial year—are not acceptable to the opposition. Of course, it is the Labor Party in this country that has led the charge in relation to improved disclosure laws. We cannot accept the proposal of the government to increase from $1,500 to $5,000 the amount received from a person or an organisation that political parties are required to disclose during a financial year. Again, we think this is very much a retrograde step and very much against the spirit of what the Labor Party has long embraced in relation to disclosure.We are particularly concerned about the issue of the Greenfields Foundation, which is not adequately addressed either in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 or in any proposed government amendments to that bill. We view this use by the Liberal Party of the Greenfields Foundation to launder funds as one of the most serious breaches of the spirit and letter of the funding and disclosure regulations that we have seen. It is up there with the Liberal's use of the Free Enterprise Foundation. Sadly, this bill does not do anything to address this very important issue. We are concerned that the government has been complicit in allowing this rort to exist, and we intend to pursue—and pursue very vigorously indeed—amendments to ensure this multimillion dollar loophole in relation to the loan from the Greenfields Foundation is no longer able to be exploited by the Liberal Party before, during and beyond the next election.We think that there are some very important issues here. Many of them are very politically sensitive. We think they come to the Senate with, unfortunately, the motivation being an attempt at partisan and serious political advantage on the part of the Liberal Party. We think this requires far more mature consideration. When you are going to change the electoral laws so significantly in a country like Australia, by and large, it should receive a fair degree of bipartisan support. That is the spirit with which the Labor Party is approaching these issues, and that is why we oppose the amendment that has been moved by Senator Minchin and will not be supporting the proposal. (Time expired)16:41:003243Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have concerns about this legislation as well, particularly the components of the legislation which pass on information details of electors, including their date of birth and salutation—the title they use—to members of parliament, to senators and to registered political parties.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that the motion before you relates to an amendment to the report of the Selection of Bills Committee—to the referral of a bill to a committee and, particularly, a reporting date. I think that Senator Brown would need to be relevant and, to be within standing orders, to be quite specific about that motion, which is a very specific proposal.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—There is no point of order, Senator Campbell.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I think that is a correct ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President.Another matter that concerns me is the provision that any person sentenced to imprisonment will not be entitled to be enrolled to vote. When and how the committee deliberates on that is important to me. It is important to me because these are matters of fundamental, democratic rights. In particular, there is a need for us to ensure that prisoners are well placed to come back into civil society. We are not talking here about axe murderers; we are talking about prisoners who have short-term sentences up to five years. People who are imprisoned for more than five years already have the right to vote taken away from them. I do not think it is good legislation for the government to be moving to strike all prisoners off the roll because it believes that that is going to give it a voting advantage or for whatever other reason it might have.I am also concerned about the move to make it more difficult for the public to peruse who gives money to political parties and who is, therefore, influencing political parties through their donations because this raises the donation level which is required for reporting when people make donations to political parties. It is very important legislation. It does need proper scrutiny. I and the Greens have considerable concerns about the legislation.16:44:003243Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I would like to foreshadow an amendment but I have not yet had a chance to put it in writing. It was suggested to me only 10 seconds ago.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Who by?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I could not possibly reveal the source. Rather than adopting Senator Minchin's course—which I understand is to report by 23 June—I think our attitude would be to report back on the first day of the next sitting. Maybe those opposite could assist me with when that is going to be.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—10 August.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Perhaps 10 August or 10 November. That is not really in your hands, is it? I was going to put that in writing as a foreshadowed motion, but if this amendment is carried then you will not even require it in writing. Senator Faulkner has given some indication as to why this particular bill should have a little longer hearing, and Senator Brown has reinforced that.I found it interesting in the budget papers to see a figure over three years of $45 million. That is one of the reasons I want to reconsider some aspects of this bill. It is not true to portray this as a necessarily bad bill. It is a bill with some controversial aspects that people may say is good electoral practice or partisanship, but the part that interests me most is the provision in terms of tax deductibility.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—It is not in this bill.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Are you indicating that it is not in this part of the bill?JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—It is in a separate tax bill.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It is going to be in a separate tax bill. I hope that you are not going to try to get that through a cut-off motion this session, because it is quite a remarkable figure. It is in some ways linked, because you always look for all the electoral reform that is being brought in. I found that figure of $45 million fascinating, because it is basically saying that political parties over those three years will receive donations of beyond $100 million. If you take what the company tax rate is and you take what the personal tax rate is and try to average it out, bearing in mind that some donors already giving money will benefit from it, over three years something like an extra $80 million will float into the political process. I hope that is not a start to say that we will do that rather than public funding, because that would lead to a very inequitable position.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—Your members on the committee agreed to this.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, they did. I regret that they did not have my guidance, but they shortly will have my guidance on this particular issue. One thing that the committee did not have, Senator Minchin—and I will finish this part of the contribution on that point—is any estimates. You have put the estimates in the forward estimates, and I have no idea how you calculated them.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—Treasury did not have our guidance.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I am sure they did not. Maybe we will have to see Treasury to find out how they came up with that figure. I suppose what I am really saying is that this bill does have a chance of succeeding through the Senate with some amendments given mature consideration. If you put a very short reporting time on this, and if you defeat us on the cut-off motion, then it will be Wik II in the committee stage. You do not want that; we do not want that.We would rather some time to try to work out a reasonable proposition. We know Senator Minchin is a reasonable person on these things. He does listen, he does engage in discussion. Sometimes he concedes; sometimes he digs his heels in. We know him in that particular way. We can also say that, if he ever gave his word on something, we know he would keep it. But I do think it would be better on this occasion to have a more extensive reporting date and actually get the job done than to get a quick reporting date. I can pretty much guarantee you—it is not a threat; it is just an indication—that you will not get it done in the committee stage of this session.16:48:003244Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I seek leave to formally move an amendment to Senator Minchin's amendment.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I thank the Senate. I move:Omit "23 June 1998", substitute "10 August 1998".10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Faulkner to Senator Minchin's amendment be agreed to.Question put.16:53:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)26Bishop, M. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Denman, K. J.*Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. West, S. M.40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Parer, W. R. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Bolkus, N. Patterson, K. C. L.Crowley, R. A. Tierney, J.Schacht, C. C. Newman, J. M.Sherry, N. O'Chee, W. G.* denotes teller(Senator Eggleston did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I now put the question that the amendment moved by Senator Minchin be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I now put the question that the motion moved by Senator Calvert, as amended, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business32453245Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1146 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the retention of census data, be postponed till 22 June 1998.3245Motion (by Senator Woodley, 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.Committees324532453245Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of the Senate on 28 April 1998, from 9.30 a.m. to 10 a.m., to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997.Business32453245Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1142 standing in the name of Senator Harradine for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone) be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous324517:00:003245Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the opposition, to advise the Senate of the position that the opposition will be taking as from today on motions dealing with foreign policy issues. In cases where there is not unanimous agreement on such motions, the opposition will not be agreeing to formality. We take the view that foreign policy motions should not be decided without debate. Our position on motions to suspend standing orders to debate such motions, of course, will be determined on a case by case basis.The opposition believes that formal motions are not an appropriate instrument for formulating or conveying positions on foreign policy. They are a blunt instrument: senators may either support them in the form in which they are put before the Senate or oppose them; they may not amend them. The nuances and the subtleties of foreign policy issues and the impact on Australia's relations with other countries need to be carefully considered and debated. The procedures for formal motions in our view preclude such important considerations. Senators will know that formal motions are conveyed by the President to the governments of the countries to which they are directed. These countries do not always distinguish between a formal position of the Australian government and a formal resolution of the upper house of the Australian parliament. So, unless there is general agreement on such motions, and there are many examples of these—those that might recognise national days and such like, which the opposition does believe it is appropriate for the Senate to support through the mechanism of the granting of formality for notices of motion—we will not be granting formality.17:02:003246Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I wish to make a brief comment on the announcement by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The opposition is responding, in effect, to a number of motions that have been put forward by the Senate, as a result of a vote on formality, which have expressed concern about such things as civil rights, human injustices, the need for democracy in places like East Timor, Burma and Tibet and, not least, the tumultuous events in the last few weeks in Indonesia.If I read the opposition's move correctly, it is saying that without unanimity such motions will not proceed. Unanimity means the lowest common denominator; it means that government or opposition will be able to determine in their own good time what motions will be put forward—to the exclusion of the Greens, the Democrats and the Independents in this place. That is the dynamics of it. It means that the opposition is pulling the shutters down on a very important avenue for alternative political expression—about events in places like East Timor and Tibet—to that of the government; not least the Howard government.When Senator Faulkner says that on occasions overseas governments, including dictators, cannot discern between government policy in Australia and a message coming from the Senate, I submit that that is their misfortune. That is no excuse at all. If there needs to be clarification then the government has the wherewithal to do that, and I have no doubt it does. After all, the message does go through the President of this Senate to whichever head of state is involved. On one recent occasion, I understand that the opposition voted down a very important motion that the Greens put forward appealing to President Suharto in Indonesia to ensure civil rights—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Because you did not do what you said you would do. You have to tell the truth.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You have had your turn, Senator Faulkner; I heard you in silence so please do the same for me. It was to ask Present Suharto to ensure the safety of people who were being taken off the streets and tortured.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That is an absolute lie.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You can say what you like, Senator Faulkner, but people can read the Hansard for themselves on that one. The proposition was put to me that it should not have been addressed to President Suharto but that it should have been addressed to Mr Howard to send on to President Suharto. As far as I am concerned, the Senate is not an instrument of government; it is a house of the states and a house of review, and it is an alternative voice—AW5CARRSenator Carr—House of the states!Opposition senators interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It was, until the Labor Party got hold of it. As usual, in this place, I am getting interjections from the Labor Party while the rest of the Senate listens with a little bit more interest. The fact is that we are not here to be ciphers of the government. The move the Labor Party is making at the moment is a giant step towards being that and towards taking away the independence that the Senate has to ensure all community sectors can put forward motions here and have them dealt with equally in their own good time.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Senators can put forward motions but we will debate them. Listen, for God's sake!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The mechanism is there, Senator Faulkner, for you, with your 30 or so members, to look at motions and if you have difficulty with the wording of them to discuss that wording with the Greens or the Democrats or whoever it might be. I do not know of any occasion in which such an approach has been made where that discussion has not taken place—very often with good results. So it is quite wrong to say that the only opportunity you get to get the wording and so on right is when the motion is moved as a formal matter in here. If you think it is difficult for the 30 of you put together to negotiate on wording, tell me about it. There is one Australian Green here, and with my colleague Greens (WA) Senator Margetts, we deal with the lot anyway, and we manage it.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It is because you will not negotiate.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You can express your embarrassment about being pushed time and again on issues like East Timor and Tibet where the Labor Party has a horrendous record. You can try to make that a personal matter as far as I am concerned—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—On a point of order, I was happy to grant leave—and I presume other senators have their reasons for not refusing leave—on the basis that Senator Brown asked to make a brief statement. I do not know what his concept of `brief' is, and I know it is hard to put time limits on by leave statements, but I would not be granting leave, if he were to seek leave to make a short statement again, if this is what his definition of short is. I ask that he at least uphold his own word that he gave to all honourable senators, and certainly to this senator.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—On the point of order: as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, interjections are disorderly and against the forms of this place. If I were not being interjected upon I would have finished long ago. Sir, if you had put a stymie on the interjections which I am getting—of course, I have been drawn to reply to those interjections—I would have been finished long ago. I am almost finished. Without the interjections, I would have drawn this to completion.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—There is no point of order, although I do take the comments made by the Manager of Government Business very seriously in the sense that you did say that it would be a brief statement. I ask you now to draw your comments to a conclusion.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Sir, I ask for your protection from interjections by Labor Party senators and others as I go. Thank you.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You have been getting that protection from me.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It has not always worked; that is the problem. We are seeing the Labor Party making a move to trammel the ability of all corners of this house and all members of this house to express themselves and to get action from the Senate on fast moving international events.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Fast moving!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Fast moving—as has happened in Indonesia in the last few weeks. I do not know whether the Labor Party can keep up with that but the Greens and, I am sure, the Democrats and the Independents can.3247Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I am not sure that members of the Senate realise how few opportunities there are within the Senate program on a daily or weekly basis for views, not of minor parties or independents but of the wider community, to be put on major national and international issues. These are views that do not hit the media necessarily—although some of them do. They are views on issues of human rights, foreign affairs and peace and disarmament that do not get onto the agenda of the major parties. I have heard statements from Senator Harradine in the past regarding his concern about dealing with the issues that are put before him. We have the same pressures, and we have exactly the same number of staff as Senator Harradine to deal with issues. I believe that this time is precious. I am concerned that there may be moves to restrict—6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—You have got double my staff.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—No, I have not got double your staff, Senator Harradine. There are two Green senators here and we both have the same number of staff as you. Each of us takes the responsibility to decide because ultimately it is our heads that are on the line when a decision is made on each motion that is put before the Senate. The Greens do this, as does Senator Harradine, very well in terms of responsible actions and responsible decisions. I would be very concerned about any action that might reduce or restrict the ability during notices of motion not just of us to speak but for the community, whom we represent and whom supposedly everybody else represents, to have a voice to make statements and for those statements to be potentially voted on or debated within the parliament.I think I see some elements of would-be government with the Labor Party's response—`We were government' or `We would like to be government' and `we find this inconvenient'. I can recall that when I first came to this place there were a great many more suspensions of standing orders. I do not actually have the number of times. I am researching at the moment to find out exactly what the situation was. But I recall that on a fairly regular basis there were suspensions of standing orders. We do not have that so much now. This may well happen again if what the Labor Party is suggesting is to be the case. Then perhaps they will come in and moan about how many suspensions of standing orders there are. The government changed the process to allow formality of motions so that motions could be put to the vote or otherwise.Maybe we all have to get together and communicate better. Maybe that is the nub of the question. It is being said that people perhaps are not communicating as well or are not listening to the sides of the argument before a motion is put. Maybe if that issue can be sorted out we will not have to resort to punitive actions within the Senate that may restrict either the voting or debate on these, what many people in the community consider, vital and important issues, whether national or international.3248Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—by leave—Senator Margetts complains about a lack of opportunity to express herself in this chamber. That is because procedures have evolved in such a way that there are fewer opportunities now. We used to have an open-ended adjournment. Then we moved to restricted times, mostly because of staffing considerations in this building. But we left Monday night as an open-ended adjournment so that everyone could have half an hour in which to make a speech to put their views. When we went to extended Monday night sittings that opportunity disappeared. So if Senator Margetts takes her turn to speak on the adjournment, she will get one speech a week only. I think we have to look at that and look at making one of the adjournments open-ended so that every senator can make a contribution. It was a great safety valve for this chamber. It is one that was removed, not through design or maliciousness, but almost by accident. That is something we should look at.Until the last three or four years, the device of formal notices of motion was rarely used. It was intended to be basically on non-controversial matters. Then when the trend came to using them for controversial matters, governments were faced with two choices: they either just voted or took them all on and therefore had suspension of standing orders which, before the most recent change, had unlimited time—now they are limited to half an hour. You could have that debate proceed and lose a whole day's sitting—and that was not satisfactory. The tendency of government was to say, `We can't afford to cost ourselves the program, we'll take this controversial matter and just have a vote on it.'From their perspective I think you can see that that is a sensible management problem, but they have the same problem as we have in many ways. This is why we are not trying to knock off formal notices of motion or have motions carried in this chamber on foreign policy. We are simply saying that, on these complex foreign affairs issues, we simply cannot put the motion through with no debate and no consideration, and with no flexibility to change it—albeit Senator Brown's offer that we can come round to his office and he might amend it. Quite often they are double bunger motions. Yesterday was an example. Part of it was to release Gusmao. Maybe the majority of the Senate wanted to vote for that, but Senator Brown tacked on a view, that we may not share in geostrategic circumstances, concerning the independence of East Timor. We are left in the position that, not liking half of it, we have to vote against the lot of it. At least if it is debated, everyone can give consideration to that and amendments can be moved.We are not saying that this chamber should never carry a foreign affairs motion. What we are saying is, if it is of great import, unfortunately we are going to have to find the time to debate it. We are not going to tick them off, put them through on the knock, when they have repercussions. The fact is that foreign policy in this country is primarily the responsibility of government and the executive—that is part of the traditional breakdown. We are responsible for scrutinising their behaviour on all occasions and using all the devices in the chamber to criticise them and suggest alteration.Senator Faulkner is correct: it does create a lot of confusion out there when a foreign government gets a message from the Senate. It is not their lack of sophistication, Senator Brown, through you Mr Chairman, but it often creates confusion. I come back to the point that foreign affairs issues are often complex. They often have a whole variety of nuances and just to put a motion through on the basis that we want to save debating time is unacceptable to us. It is not that we have changed our mind overnight. Senator Brown is wrong in what he says on the Indonesian situation; some of us have believed it for a year or two or longer, and we have finally been—if you like—given a consideration to take action on it.We are not saying that on every occasion you, Senator Brown, or any other senator, moves a foreign affairs motion we are going to gag you. We are not. But we are not going to say that it can be automatically put up for a vote without debate. That is simply unacceptable to us. If that has alienated the Greens and others, that is the price. We think we are adopting not a pragmatic position but a principled position. We believe it goes to the essential relationship between the legislature and the executive.Miscellaneous3249Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the general business order of the day in relation to the Privacy Amendment Bill 1997 be discharged from the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous324917:19:003249Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In full recognition of what is going to happen, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1120, standing in my name and relating to further underground nuclear testing by India, be taken as formal.Leave not granted.Committees324932493249Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles) agreed to: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 1998.324932493249Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 6th report of 1998 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 7 1998 , dated 27 May 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.Ministerial Statements3249324917:21:003249Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—by leave—I want to take the opportunity on the first day of National Reconciliation Week to confirm the government's strong commitment to the cause of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. This week, all Aus tralians can show a commitment to reconciliation, inform themselves about the indigenous perspective and participate in reconciliation activities. National Reconciliation Week is marked by two very significant dates. Today, 27 May, is the anniversary of the referendum in 1967 which empowered the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people. The concluding date of National Reconciliation Week is 3 June, the anniversary of the High Court's Mabo decision.The theme this year is `Communities Working Together'. All over Australia, local councils, churches, business and community organisations will be acknowledging the cause of reconciliation, and I urge everyone to join in their local activities. Australia's traditional values of a `fair go', of tolerance, of acceptance of diversity and of looking after each other in times of need provide the context for successful reconciliation. In 1991 we were happy to support the establishment of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. We continue to support the council's objective, which is to promote reconciliation based on an appreciation of indigenous cultures, achievements and the unique position of indigenous people in Australia.There are three major elements to a successful reconciliation process. We should acknowledge the realities of our shared history and its continuing effects. We should, in line with the theme for National Reconciliation Week, work together towards a common future in which we share equally and in which we appreciate and respect our varied traditions and cultures. Finally—and this is the key—we need an ongoing commitment to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage.This is one of our major policy priorities. There can otherwise be no meaningful reconciliation. We look forward to the day when indigenous people share equally with all other Australians in the social, economic and cultural life of this country. We look forward to the day when indigenous people are able to leave behind welfare dependence and take control of their own lives and communities. We know that this will not be achieved if indigenous people continue to lag behind in the key socio-economic areas of health, housing, education and employment. The Government's efforts have been concentrated in these areas, and I believe we are beginning to see results.In the recent budget, I issued a ministerial statement which, for the first time, puts on record exactly what the government is doing to meet its goals. It shows that we spend almost $1.9 billion annually on indigenous-specific programs, and over 70 percent of this is in the key areas I mentioned. Since coming to government we have increased indigenous health spending by nearly 40 percent. The Prime Minister announced in February a project to address the severe eye health problems in indigenous communities. In a country with all of Australia's advantages, it is intolerable that so many indigenous people should be afflicted with avoidable blindness. The measures we are putting in place will make an appreciable and early difference. We are also providing an immunisation program for influenza and associated diseases which are a major cause of ill health and death in indigenous communities. It is by practical, realistic and effective measures such as these that we aim to achieve significantly better outcomes for indigenous people.Mr Acting Deputy President, we acknowledge that there is a huge backlog in the provision of adequate housing and health related infrastructure in indigenous communities and, unfortunately, the available funding is not unlimited. We have decided that our priority should be those communities that are particularly needy and which, because of their location in remote areas, cannot access mainstream programs.The innovative ATSIC-army community assistance program, which we initiated shortly after coming to government, has already had some excellent results. Seven priority remote communities have been identified and the army is providing housing, sewerage and better, cleaner and safer water supplies. More significantly, it also has community members who are trained by army personnel to maintain the new infrastructure so that the value of the asset will be preserved, and the benefits in terms of improved health will be sustained. Indeed, during a recent trip by the Prime Minister and me to the Northern Territory to visit Aboriginal communities, we were able to see the very real improvements which will be made to the community of Elcho Island under the program. These include the construction of 10 houses, the provision of solar power and the upgrading of water supplies.Mr Acting Deputy President, these results demonstrate that this program is delivering real benefits to indigenous people in the most needy of remote communities. And today the Prime Minister has announced that the government will commit an additional $5 million to extend the program. I will be consulting with ATSIC to provide matching funding as it did under the pilot program.I particularly want to express my thanks to army personnel who have contributed so willingly to the success of this program and the productive consultation processes which they undertook with local communities. Indeed, the program is an excellent example of this government's approach to the reconciliation process, particularly in light of the very constructive relationships which were formed between army personnel and the indigenous communities.Mr Acting Deputy President, indigenous children suffer particular disadvantage in educational outcomes. The comparative participation figures are very telling. Indigenous children have a secondary school year 12 retention rate of less than 30 per cent, compared with some 70 per cent of other Australians. Only nine per cent of indigenous young people are attending tertiary institutions, compared with 22 per cent of the non-indigenous population. Twenty-five per cent of indigenous students leave school before year 10. For other students, the figure is only two per cent. In terms of educational attainments, 75 per cent of indigenous students in primary schools have significantly low levels of literacy and numeracy, compared with 33 per cent of other students. The situation is exacerbated by the remoteness of many Aboriginal communities which have no educational facilities and are located a considerable distance from the nearest schools.This government is committed to assisting indigenous students to reach their full potential and has provided increased funding, including to the indigenous education strategic initiatives program. I am pleased to note that the government will be providing a package of initiatives of more than $15 million under this program for new equipment and facilities, including computers, school buses and accommodation for teachers in remote areas. The additional funds will also be used for curriculum programs aimed at improving the reading and writing skills of indigenous children, particularly in those vital early primary years. This funding will go to schools, both government and non-government, preschools and vocational and training institutions. It augments the $20 million announced by this government in December for similar facilities and projects for indigenous students in non-government schools and pre-schools.Mr Acting Deputy President, we are also very supportive of the community development employment projects scheme. It may not be very well known that indigenous people have been working for the dole for the last twenty years under this scheme—which was introduced by the coalition government in 1977—both to gain work experience and to improve community amenities. Demand for places has always been high despite some disincentives in terms of reduced welfare entitlements and taxation rebates. In the last budget we removed those anomalies, and we will provide CDEP workers with the same allowances available to mainstream work for the dole participants. This will bring more money into indigenous communities to assist in their economic development.An appreciation in the wider community of the unique culture and heritage of Australia's indigenous people is also integral to reconciliation. I am pleased that I have been able to take the Prime Minister to the Torres Strait Islands and eastern Arnhem Land. The pride indigenous people take in their traditions, the enormous effort that is put into maintaining these traditions and the important role of the family in indigenous communities are to be much admired. Over recent years many Australians will have enjoyed outstanding work by indigenous people in the visual and performing arts.Understanding the importance of land to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is essential to an appreciation of their culture. We have a profound respect for the deep spiritual attachment of indigenous people to their traditional land, and we support the principles of native title as set out in the Mabo and Wik decisions. But of course other Australians have attachments and rights to land as well and a balance must be struck. I believe we have achieved that balance with our native title amendments. If no single group is entirely happy with the outcome, I hope it will be acknowledged that the result is the best compromise amongst varied interests. The other key element is understanding our shared history and recognising that this history continues to contribute to today's disadvantage.Last December we announced a $63 million package of practical measures clearly targeted at the most urgent and pressing need identified in the Bringing them home recommendations—getting family members back together. The funds we set aside will be used by ATSIC to establish `link up' centres in each state and the Northern Territory to assist people wanting to trace missing relatives. Substantial funds were also allocated to provide new and enhanced counselling services in recognition of the trauma and distress that many families have faced.Reconciliation is, however, also about the future; it is especially about the future. It is about determining common goals and building enduring partnerships that will take us together into the next century. We are an egalitarian people, we are a fair and tolerant people. I believe we have a real commitment to those elements of the reconciliation process that I have talked about: acknowledging the past; appreciating indigenous culture; working together; and, most importantly, addressing those disadvantages that prevent indigenous people taking their rightful place in contemporary Australia. We are entering an exciting time in our history and, with mutual trust and respect, the process of reconciliation will be one of the great successes of that history.I congratulate Evelyn Scott and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation on their efforts in coordinating this week's activities and again urge everyone to enter wholeheartedly into the spirit of reconciliation. I table the statement and seek leave to move a motion.Leave granted.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—I move:That the Senate take note of the statement.17:33:003252Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is critical to our capacity to move forward as a maturing nation. It involves reconciliation between our cultures and reconciliation with our shared history. Reconciling with our shared history involves acknowledgment, acceptance and mutual respect. It must involve a shared sorrow and regret for the events, attitudes and policies of the past that brought so much pain then and has left a legacy of personal and social distress with indigenous people today.The Prime Minister has told us that we must acknowledge the realities of our shared history and its continuing effects. We wholeheartedly agree with that. But is this the same Prime Minister who so enthusiastically moved to entrench the expression `the black armband view of history' in common use? Is this the same Prime Minister who said:Call an end to the self-flagellation, the introspection, the willingness to accept unfounded criticisms?Is this the same Prime Minister who, when speaking to the Age newspaper, said:We can look any people in the eye and say we have done right by our citizens?Is this the same Prime Minister whose response to the racist diatribes in the maiden speech of the member for Oxley in the House of Representatives was to triumphantly announce to the Queensland Liberal Party in particular and the world in general:The pall of censorship of the Keating years has been lifted?That brings us, of course, to the coalition's major contribution to National Reconciliation Week: its decision to direct preferences to One Nation in Queensland. Such exquisite timing! They were no doubt mindful of One Nation's Hervey Bay spokesman's acute observation. He said:There's nothing wrong with Asia that an `A' bomb and anthrax couldn't cure—when deciding on this crucial reconciliation issue.The Prime Minister noted that National Reconciliation Week will end with the anniversary of the Mabo decision. The opposition applauds his assurance that the government accepts the outcome of the Wik and Mabo cases. What a pity that the Prime Minister's actions have failed to reflect those words. The Mabo decision was central to and critical to reconciliation. The pride and reassurance that flowed to indigenous Australians from this recognition of their prior rights in this country is real and measurable; measurable in their willingness and ability to pursue the logical benefits of these discovered rights in public and in the courts. It truly affirmed them and gave many of them confidence that our system of justice can recognise and protect them.The response of certain elements in the community, including most of those who currently form our national government, was to attack the decision and deny its legitimacy. Furthermore, they embarked on a deliberate campaign in regional Australia to spread misinformation, fear and panic. Whatever the short-term political results may have been, we will all live with the resultant racial disharmony for years to come.And they did not stop there. They attacked the High Court as well. As Gerard Henderson remarked yesterday, `Neither Ben Chifley in 1949 or Robert Menzies in 1956, despite High Court decisions that cut to the core of their political agendas, ever did such a thing.' Not only did the coalition let loose the more lamentable specimens from the dark corners of their own backbench but also they assailed the court from the frontbench as well after both the Mabo and Wik decisions.The Keating government, in the context of the coalition's campaign of fear and loathing, framed a legislative response to Mabo in 1993. They did so in the face of total non-cooperation from the coalition. The conserva tives did not seek to deal with this newly discovered right; they sought to deny and suppress it. In government their response to the Wik decision was to draft a systematic winding back of the right of indigenous Australians that the High Court had recognised. The Wik decision was about coexistence and the primacy of property rights granted since European settlement. It could have been a major instrument of reconciliation.Confronting truth and understanding past mistakes is a public policy issue. Expenditure programs for indigenous Australians in health, housing, education and training are welcome and necessary. However, if such programs are predicated on the assumption that we are simply dealing with a group within an homogenous wider community that suffers from material deprivation, and that such deprivation can be redressed by targeted spending, then we are all doomed to further disappointment.Australia's indigenous communities continue to bear the scars and the pain and the disabilities that come from a history of dispossession, social dislocation, destruction of their language and culture, and the systematic destruction of families. Public policy makers in this country must accept that reality and respond creatively to the challenges that this understanding brings to effective program and policy delivery.Great numbers of indigenous Australians and many health and education professionals tell us that progress must start with healing and that an apology—an expression of regret—from authorities that have represented oppression and pain is central to that healing. Why in the name of good government, if not in the name of humanity, should this government deny them such a simple, symbolic gesture? The Prime Minister can't apologise. His Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Leaves the chamber.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—He leaves the chamber while this statement is being debated, and he says that apologies are for wimps. Who can forget what he said in question time yesterday? He accused the opposition in this chamber and the opposition in this nation— the Labor Party—of being participants in `the crying game'. Who can ever forget that that is all you get from the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs? And what is the abiding message of all of this? What are we to read into the code? I suspect that what we have, on balance, is a situation in which Australians in favour of reconciliation suspect that they have got no friend in the Prime Minister, Mr Howard.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—And no-one to represent them.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—And those who are opposed to reconciliation, Senator Woodley, privately celebrate their suspicion that they have a secret friend in the Prime Minister. We in the Australian Labor Party, we in the opposition, welcome and acknowledge the start of National Reconciliation Week, and we endorse the Prime Minister's call for all Australians to participate in National Reconciliation Week.We thank indigenous Australians for their patience. We thank them for their acceptance and their forbearance in the face of all that has happened, and we join them and all Australians in the knowledge and the hope that things will get better. We can and will be reconciled. We can and will move forward to a better future.17:43:003254Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I wish to respond to the minister's statement on behalf of the Australian Democrats. There is no doubt that the Democrats are committed to reconciliation. We have put that on the record on many occasions and we will continue to work for reconciliation.But I must say that reconciliation has to be based on justice and there is not much justice in this place, certainly not this week. It is distressing, during National Reconciliation Week, to hear reports of the most anti-reconciliation party in this country, One Nation, rising in the polls. In fact, One Nation is perhaps the most unbelievably misnamed political party in the history of this country, for it represents neither one nor one nation. It is not one because it is in fact many parties, individuals and extremist groups, and it is not for one nation, because if it gains any seats in coming elections it will totally divide and fracture this nation of ours.The Democrats also believe that the Prime Minister of this country must take responsibility for the rise and rise of One Nation. Mr Howard defended the member for Oxley almost from the beginning. In that atmosphere—I suppose one must call it tolerance; I cannot think of another word, although it is a misuse of tolerance too, I think—the One Nation party has survived and thrived.Today, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has said, we hear that the coalition in Queensland has given One Nation its stamp of approval with its second preference. In other words, the coalition in Queensland would rather have One Nation members of state parliament than Labor members. That is shocking, sad and very cynical. We wonder if the federal coalition will follow suit and declare its support for One Nation. I guess that may happen at the end of reconciliation week.We believe that the conservative parties are playing a very dangerous political game. By creating that atmosphere of tolerance, the Prime Minister may have dug his own political grave. One Nation now appears to present a formidable electoral threat to the coalition, federally and in Queensland. This is the cost to reconciliation in this country from the rise of the One Nation party.But there is a bright side: the people's movement for reconciliation is growing larger every day. That is wonderful news. Yesterday in Canberra, hundreds of people were turned away from many of the events which were held to celebrate and, by way of ceremony, say sorry to the indigenous people of this country. Many of us went to the celebration in the theatrette and not only was the theatrette absolutely packed but every square inch of available space outside the theatrette was packed and hundreds—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—The government didn't allow them to use the mural hall for some reason.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—We heard that, although the President has some explanation. But you are right. I was very angry about that, as were people at the ceremony. But that is the bright side: that there are many people, a growing body of people, in this country who really do believe in reconciliation. That is wonderful news.Reconciliation is about mutual respect between people. Mutual respect means people can say sorry to one another; that is the way that mature relationships develop. Having said sorry, we can then go on. The movement around Australia of grassroots people who are saying sorry to the stolen generation is acknowledging their pain and suffering, sharing their grief and then moving ahead. The Democrats were happy to personally offer our apologies to the stolen generation in the sorry books. We know that admissions of guilt are not being sought, but we know that saying sorry allows this nation to grieve, to heal and to move on.I believe, as we note with alarm the rising popularity of the One Nation party in Queensland, it is significant to note the equal rise in popularity for the reconciliation movement in Australia. Sorry Day activities in Canberra yesterday were booked out, so it is not all bad news.I conclude by referring to an article in the Australian today about the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. There was a suggestion of criticism of the chair of that council, Evelyn Scott, and that article quotes me. I want to place on record my unqualified support for Evelyn Scott as chairperson of the council and my support for her as she seeks, through the council, to advance the cause of reconciliation in this country. To that end, the Democrats are unequivocally committed.17:49:003255Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I feel sad about the statement presented today by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). The sadness relates to the lack of understanding that jumps out from the pages of the document that has been presented. The very first paragraph says:. . . confirm the government's strong commitment to the cause of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.The Greens (WA) have always had some concern in relation to the concept of reconciliation. Our concern relates to the fact—and it has been expressed to us by many indigenous people throughout Australia—that reconciliation tends to sound like a `kiss and make up', a `if only we can come together again, then things will be okay'. That superficial element of reconciliation, or some superficial understanding of reconciliation, tends to come from this page. The following statement is made in paragraph 4:The theme this year is Communities Working Together . All over Australia local councils, churches, business and community will be acknowledging the cause of reconciliation . . .What does that mean? I argue that it means nothing because it basically does not acknowledge the need for the healing in the first place. `Acknowledging the cause of reconciliation' is meaningless. It does not give any indication of the need to recognise the physical, psychological and sexual abuse and discrimination that have occurred and that need to be acknowledged for the healing to take place. It does not acknowledge the systematic disenfranchisement, the removal from land, and the ignorance and disrespect for indigenous culture and values. That must be acknowledged. Without acknowledgment, we will not learn and we will not progress. Even so, reconciliation is only a word if it does not mean more, if it does not mean actual actions.We basically have an indication that the government believes that the situation many indigenous people find themselves in is of their own making. The document states:We look forward to the day when indigenous people are able to leave behind welfare dependence and take control of their own lives and communities.Wouldn't that be wonderful? But self-determination is not actually on the government's agenda. So basically this government is saying, `Leave behind your culture, forget what we have done, forget what successive generations have done and pull yourself up from the situation you find yourself in.' We see that further on it says:It shows that we spend almost $1.9 billion annually on indigenous-specific programmes . . . Very interesting. It goes to state and territory governments, in the main. Yet what is the centrepoint of this reconciliation statement? It is dunny based paternalism. The only example this government can give is sending the army in—without actually asking indigenous Australians whether that is what they want to happen in that manner. It is using a special appropriation but requiring that ATSIC put up money from their already stretched budget to provide matching funds. It is not providing extra money but requiring that ATSIC give up some other program, some other priority, in order to match the funds that people in indigenous communities were not asked about in the first place.What kind of dunny based paternalism is this? It basically misses the whole point. Why were state governments not required to put in that portion of the $1.9 billion of federal taxpayers' money that people pay to state and federal governments to provide basic services—basic services that mean public housing that is more than concrete and wire pens like you get in many remote and regional areas of Australia. Would this be accepted in any other portion of the Australian community, especially when, to receive basic health and education services, people have to be forced to sign up to mining agreements, for their basic human rights? So the great contribution to reconciliation by this government is actually to take $5 million off ATSIC from their other programs, or sit and wait to see whether or not they will accept taking $5 million out of their other programs.Is the army the best or most appropriate means of providing the service? I do not know. Have ATSIC been advised? Did ATSIC get a choice? Did Aboriginal communities get a choice? Is this their priority? Is this a way to move towards self-determination? Quite frankly, I think the issue of sovereignty must be brought back onto the agenda. We know that it has never been decided by the High Court because they cannot. The High Court of Australia cannot decide on sovereignty because at the very moment those words come out of their mouths they themselves no longer exist.If Australia cannot deal with the issue of sovereignty in that way, we have got to deal with it in another way. The other way is to actually deal with self-determination: work towards a meaningful treaty process, work towards agreement with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations of Australia and work towards finding real self-determination. If this dunny based paternalism is the best the government can do, we will continue to be in the state we are now, with total lack of understanding of what the real issues are, total lack of understanding of the need for recognition and total lack of understanding that in any program you put together the very least you need to do is find out whether that is what the communities are wanting and, if so, how they want it delivered.This is more than sad; this is tragic. I really think that the people in other countries are looking with great distress and sadness at what this government is doing. I do not personally believe that the big racist problem in Australia is a particular minor party or individuals standing for parliament. They are reflecting the environment that has been created by a political scapegoating, divisive mentality. This government is seeking to gain from that mentality. It is seeking to gain from the distress within the Australian community that has been created by the combined major parties in this parliament. Until we start addressing those, we will always be attacking one or other minor party.I believe there is blame to be had for the simplistic arguments that are put up by those people who are specifically standing on racist platforms. Of course that is not to be applauded. But the government and the Labor Party bear some responsibility for that level of distress that exists within the community. Until we start looking at the cause of this distress and until we start looking at the reason why scapegoat politics and wedge politics and divisive politics are in such a fertile environment in Australia, attacking those people who are gaining politically from it will not address the problem. We have got to start healing this country as a whole. We have got to start helping indigenous Australians to be part of the healing process, but we also have to start healing this nation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees3257325732573257Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—I present the government's response to the report of the Employment, Education and Training References Committee entitled Beyond Cinderella: towards a learning society . I seek leave to incorporate the response in Hansard .Leave granted.The response read as follows—Beyond Cinderella: Towards a learning societyPREAMBLEThe Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report of the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee: Beyond Cinderella: Towards a learning society, which documents developments in Adult and Community Education (ACE) in Australia since its earlier report in 1991 and makes recommendations for future development of the ACE sector. This report will prove to be a valuable resource document for governments, organisations, institutions, educators and individuals.The release of this report follows the release of the new National Policy on Adult and Community Education, endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the June 1997 meeting of the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). Both the report and the new National Policy will contribute significantly to promoting and advancing ACE nationally.State and Territory governments have primary responsibility for the ACE sector. The Commonwealth's role is primarily policy advisory. Consequently, many of the recommendations will require consideration by State and Territory governments.Commonwealth support for the sector is manifested in a number of ways, including:. Commonwealth funding for the Adult and Community Education Programme administered by the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), which provides significant support for: research into ACE; activities such as Adult Learners Week designed to promote the sector; and the continuation of the Australian Association of Adult and Community Education's role as the peak body representing the sector; . at the discretion of State and Territory governments, access by ACE providers to funds for Vocational Education and Training (VET) provided by the Commonwealth through ANTA to the States and Territories;. the new labour market assistance arrangements funded through the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) under which contracted organisations are free to choose the type of assistance, including training, they see as necessary to get a jobseeker a job. These arrangements create a valuable opportunity for ACE providers to market their services to the contracted providers and expand their current involvement in the training of job seekers; and. the Commonwealth's representation on the MCEETYA Taskforce on ACE.The Commonwealth, in considering its role in ACE, must take into account its overall role in, and responsibility for, all aspects of education and training. In this context the Commonwealth's deliberations must be conditioned by two key factors:. the level of budgetary support the Commonwealth can provide for education and training activities across the full spectrum of education and training; and. the most appropriate balance for the distribution of available Commonwealth resources across the various education and training sectors.The way in which the recommendations contained in the report `Beyond Cinderella: Towards a learning society ' have been formulated has presented some difficulties in responding to the report. The two key recommendations are:. Recommendation 2, which calls for a combined National ACE/VET policy; and. Recommendation 3, which calls for the replacement of ANTA by a new body, the National Adult Community and Vocational Education and Training Authority (NACVETA).Recommendations 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19 and 20 are subsequently formulated in a way that makes them dependent upon acceptance, and implementation, of Recommendations 2 and 3.In response, the Government has chosen to respond to the underlying intent of these recommendations, rather than simply in the context of their dependence on Recommendations 2 and 3, which the Government does not support. This allows for the important underlying issues raised by these recommendations to be considered in the Government's response, regardless of its position on Recommendations 2 and 3. RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONSRecommendation 1The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government:. make an unequivocal commitment to the concept of lifelong learning and the promotion of a learning society; and. imbue its education policies and associated funding mechanisms with the values and principles of lifelong learning for all Australians.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth supports this recommendation.The pace of technological and structural change has made it increasingly necessary for individuals to participate in further education and training on a regular basis if they are to acquire, maintain and enhance the skills necessary to participate effectively and fully in the labour market and other areas of society.Consequently, over the past decade or so, governments in Australia and overseas have come to recognise that the traditional pattern of full-time education and training followed by a working career in which further education and training play a minimal role will no longer meet the needs of all individuals in modern industrialised societies. The Commonwealth's response has been to develop and implement education and training policies within the overall context of a growing need for lifelong learning.Commonwealth policies and initiatives now in place that promote and advance the concept of life-long learning include:. a schools literacy and numeracy strategy that will ensure that students acquire the basic literacy and numeracy skills necessary for effective participation in the labour market and/or post-school education and training;. initiatives in vocational education and training, such as refinements to the New Apprenticeship system, and reformed labour market assistance arrangements which will maximise access to appropriate post-school education and training for school-leavers, adults and the unemployed;. providing an increasingly demand driven system where end-users have an effective say in determining the content and delivery of courses and a wider choice of provider;. enabling individuals to move more easily across the various education and training sectors; and. enabling individuals to gain formal recognition of skills acquired in informal contexts. These initiatives are making participation in further education and training a more flexible, attractive and viable option for Australians.The National Strategy for VET developed in 1994 identifies the creation and promotion of lifelong learning as a priority for VET.Similarly the National Policy for ACE, adopted by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA stresses the importance of meeting the lifelong learning needs of adults and fostering a culture of learning in Australian society and organisations. For example, under Strategic Outcome 3 `Promoting ACE' outcome 3.1 states:. 'Governments, communities, industry and other education sectors increasingly recognise the role of ACE as an important agent of lifelong learning.'Recommendation 2:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth Government bring together the National ACE Policy and National VET Policy to establish an integrated National Adult Community and Vocational Education and Training (NACVET) Policy giving effect to the commitment to lifelong learning.Recommendation 3:The Committee RECOMMENDS that, in order to implement, monitor and fund the new NACVET Policy the Commonwealth government restructure ANTA to establish the National Adult Community and Vocational Education and Training Authority (NACVETA ). The membership of the Authority's Board will be modified to ensure that an adequate ACE perspective is available to the Authority, and the way in which the Authority distributes its funds should reflect its revised charter.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support these recommendations.The Commonwealth's main priority in relation to lifelong learning is to ensure that Australians have the skills and flexibility needed to meet the challenges of continuing technological and structural change, and to compete effectively in an increasingly globalised economic environment.The ACE sector and the VET sector have distinct and mainly separate purposes which are reflected in a largely government responsibility for VET while ACE has developed largely from community impetus. Where there is an overlap of purpose, very good arrangements for cooperation have been developed, and as noted above there is strong support from government for ACE through the National ACE policy. Combining the two sectors as recommended in the Report would tend to undermine the primary objectives of each and detract from Commonwealth Government efforts to improve the vocational prospects of school leavers.Under the new arrangements for labour market assistance, there is potentially a new role for ACE. ACE providers will be able to become contracted Employment Placement Enterprises in their own right, and/or provide labour market training to the clients of Employment Placement Enterprises (EPEs) that meets the specific requirements of the EPE and its client.Revised ANTA AgreementThe Commonwealth government has recently settled a revised ANTA Agreement with State and Territory Ministers for submission to respective State and Territory Cabinets for approval. The revised Agreement commits the Commonwealth to maintain funding in real terms for the life of the revised Agreement (1998—2000) and the States and Territories to achieve growth from efficiencies. The revised Agreement continues to cover vocational education and training separately from ACE. Work is also under way on a new National Strategy for VET to provide the framework for the States, Territories and ANTA to achieve the objectives of the revised Agreement.Recommendation 4:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the new NACVET Authority report annually to the Australian Parliament on the achievement of policy outcomes.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation, which is dependent upon implementation of Recommendations 2 and 3 above which the Commonwealth does not support.The National Policy on ACE, endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA, contains specific processes for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on progress under each of the National Goals of the policy. These processes include:. an annual report to MCEETYA (reports from each State and Territory against the National Goals and Outcomes will form the basis of the annual report);. regular monitoring of progress at the National, State and Territory level by MCEETYA through its ACE Taskforce;. a mid-term review 18 months after endorsement of the policy (ie by end 1998); and. a further review in the year 2000 to determine the degree of success in achieving outcomes and to determine future strategic directions and goals.Recommendation 5The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government negotiate with the States and Territories a set of Adult Community and Vocational Education and Training (ACVET) Agreements . These Agreements will require each State and Territory to develop Adult Community and Vocational Education and Training (ACVET) Profile consistent with the National Policy.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation.To the extent that ACE providers deliver publicly funded VET courses, they are already included in the State's Annual VET Plans negotiated between ANTA and States/Territories.From 1998 these plans will be more strategic and outcomes focussed and performance will be measured against agreed Annual National Priorities. The ANTA Ministerial Council has already agreed to the priorities for 1998.Recommendation 6:The Committee RECOMMENDS that:. in order to be eligible for Commonwealth funds, providers be registered as a quality provider with a State or Territory Education and Training Authority;. registration be based on providers meeting standards of quality set by the relevant industry, professional or educational association;. three broad categories of providers be registered as follows:Category A Specific Industry Education & TrainingCategory B Non-specific Industry Education & TrainingCategory C General Education & TrainingRESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation.In many instances, access to Commonwealth funds should be contingent upon the provision of accredited training, as is the case with VET funding, not simply that provided by a registered provider of training.The proposal to make it an essential requirement for eligibility for Commonwealth funds that providers be registered is too restrictive. It has the potential to restrict the flexibility required to best accommodate the education and training needs of Australians.For example, under the labour market assistance arrangements, contracted organisations are free to choose the type of labour market assistance, including training, they see as necessary to place job seekers in a job. The contracted organisations are also free to choose what they view as the most appropriate form of training, regardless of whether it is accredited and/or provided by a registered training provider. This flexibility is an essential element of the arrangements. Registration of training providers would not add to this flexibility and would have an unfavourable effect on the operation of the labour market assistance arrangements. The Commonwealth could not administer such a registration scheme for the purposes of the labour market assistance arrangements.The Commonwealth is already addressing key issues related to registration requirements and associated quality and recognition issues. For example, the National Training Framework for VET agreed by the ANTA Ministerial Council will include streamlined, quality assured training provider registration arrangements. In particular the Australian Recognition Framework was implemented from 1 January 1998 and provides for the mutual recognition of training organisations and the qualifications issued by those organisations.The aim of the National Training Framework is to produce flexible quality training outcomes with a national qualifications outcome.ACE providers who wish to become VET Registered Training Organisations can use the flexibility of this new approach to develop training programmes which are responsive to their clients' needs. The Commonwealth has reservations about the proposal for the registration of three broad categories of providers:. effective criteria for distinguishing between these categories would be extremely difficult to develop;. there would be considerable difficulties in applying the distinctions; and. implementation of the proposed distinctions would have significant effects on the current classification of courses, adding further complexity to already complex classification issues.The Commonwealth believes that when ACE providers wish to access Commonwealth funding they should do so in the context of arrangements that have been put in place for the provision of various forms of training. For example:. to access VET funding they should meet the appropriate VET registration arrangements; and. to access funding under the new arrangements for labour market assistance, they should either:- seek to become contracted Employment Placement Enterprises in their own right; and/or- provide labour market training to the clients of Employment Placement Enterprises (EPEs) that meets the specific requirements of the EPE and its client. Implementation of the National Policy on ACE, endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA, will address some of the underlying issues involved in this recommendation. For example, outcomes linked to Strategic Objective 5 of the policy `Enhancing the contribution of ACE to the world of work' state that:. Increasing numbers of ACE providers will be registered to deliver accredited programmes;. ACE providers will be increasingly able to compete in the open training market; and. ACE will play a greater role in training for local and regional labour markets.Recommendation 7:The Committee RECOMMENDS that a National ACVET Equity Fund be established under the new NACVET Authority to target groups currently under-represented in education and training.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation as it is dependent upon implementation of Recommendation 3, which the Commonwealth does not support.Existing Commonwealth policies already recognise the need for disadvantaged groups to have equitable access to education and training opportunities, and numerous initiatives are already in place to improve access to and participation in education and training by disadvantaged groups.The participation of disadvantaged groups in the Government's new labour market assistance arrangements will be monitored to ensure that the relative representation of disadvantaged groups in labour market assistance is maintained.ANTA has a number of projects under way to address the needs of identified client groups, to improve their access to and participation in training and to enhance the quality of outcomes for them within the national VET system.A new National Strategy for VET is currently being developed by ANTA in collaboration with the Commonwealth, States, Territories and industry. The strategy will provide a framework for planning and determining major directions for the training system. It will be developed around five key objectives, one of which is achieving equitable outcomes in VET.States and Territories are responsible for delivery and administration of VET under ANTA arrangements and have funded a range of initiatives to assist disadvantaged people. States and Territories report progress against the National Strategy.The Authority has developed, in consultation with advisory groups, a number of strategies to achieve access and equity in vocational education and training, which are described in Equity 2001 released by ANTA in September 1996.In the development of specific strategies to achieve significant improvements in access and equity, ANTA seeks advice from advisory groups (such as the Disability Forum and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples' Training Advisory Council) which include, among their members, representatives who bring community education views to this consultation process.The National Policy on ACE endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA has a strong focus on equity. For example:. under `Vision' the Policy states:- 'ACE provision will be determined and shaped by the learning needs of communities across Australia to ensure that: people from all backgrounds and circumstances have equitable access to the knowledge, skills and understandings they need to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life of the community'; and. goal 3 `to strengthen the responsiveness of ACE to learners' (one of the three overall goals enunciated in the National Policy) addresses equity issues in detail:- strategic objective 6 `fostering inclusiveness' (one of three strategic objectives for goal 3) states that fostering inclusiveness is `Ensuring that adults have equitable access to learning opportunities appropriate to their needs throughout life.'; and- the outcomes linked to objective 6 (which provide a yardstick against which progress can be measured) draw specific attention to ensuring greater participation in ACE by disadvantaged groups and that equity principles are built into all ACE services.The endorsement by State and Territory governments of the National Policy on ACE, ensures that, in their strategies designed to achieve the goals and objectives of the policy, States and Territories will give due weight to mechanisms for improving equity outcomes.ACE providers have an important role in the provision of learning opportunities for the more disadvantaged groups in the community. The work of ACE with women, rural and isolated communities and Indigenous Australians is of particular importance in increasing access to education and training. Funding for these groups is an issue for the States and Territories to be determined within the ACE funding context.Recommendation 8:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government . give priority to the infrastructure and capital requirements of community-based providers of ACE;. require that State and Territory governments assist community-based ACE providers to meet the costs of becoming registered providers; and. require that ACE providers have formal representation within the State and Territory ACVET Profile processes.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation.In relation to the first two points of the recommendation, these are matters for consideration by State and Territory governments, which have primary responsibility for ACE.The Commonwealth is, however, aware that many community based ACE providers have difficulty in raising capital for infrastructure and other needs. It is also aware that that there is a large stock of publicly funded school, VET and higher education buildings and infrastructure which is currently not made available to other than public providers. Increased access to those facilities could be an important element in meeting the infrastructure needs of the ACE sector.Much progress on ACE access to this infrastructure has already been made. Many universities provide access to a range of community-based ACE providers, as do some schools and Colleges of TAFE.As State and Territory governments have responsibility for, and control of, schools and public VET institutions, while higher education institutions are autonomous bodies, the implications of this recommendation will have to be considered by them.The registration of training providers is a quality assurance process that benefits both the provider and the client. In any consideration of the proposal that ACE providers receive assistance to meet the costs of registration, the implications in relation to national competition policy would need to be considered.The Commonwealth will suggest that MCEETYA give further consideration to the underlying issues raised by the first two elements of this recommendation.As noted under Recommendation 5 above, ACVET Profiles are not supported by the Commonwealth.Recommendation 9:The Committee RECOMMENDS that, where they have not done so, States and Territories report on the delivery by ACE providers of both accredited and non-accredited programmes as part of the State and Territory ACVET Profile processes. RESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation as it is dependent upon implementation of recommendation 5, which the Commonwealth does not support.The Commonwealth does however agree with the underlying intention of this recommendation, namely that there should be some mechanism for the collection of statistics on both accredited and non-accredited courses/programmes delivered by ACE providers.A number of measures are already in place for the collection of data on ACE activity.The implementation of the Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information and Statistical Standard (AVETMISS) was agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers in 1992. It was also agreed to include adult and community education data from 1995. The Standard was designed to limit the volume of information required from these providers, in comparison to the information required from TAFE providers.For this purpose, an ACE Statistical Collection Taskforce was established. The Taskforce included representatives of adult and community education providers. The inclusion of all activity by recognised ACE providers, both vocational and recreational, accredited and non accredited, was aimed to facilitate the measurement of the role of adult and community education providers in the VET sector.Also, as noted under Recommendation 4 above, the National Policy on ACE contains specific processes for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on progress under each of the National Goals of the policy. These processes may well involve reporting on the delivery by ACE providers of both accredited and non-accredited programmes.Recommendation 10:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the new NACVET Authority review its guidelines for competitive tendering in order (a) to incorporate selection criteria which encourage collaborative tenders, and (b) to require the specification of clear performance indicators in tender documentation.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation as it is dependent on implementation of Recommendation 3, which the Commonwealth does not support.States and Territories have responsibility for allocating Commonwealth funding for VET distributed to them through the Australian National Training Authority. ANTA does not require States and Territories to provide information on their arrangements for competitive tendering. However, particularly where there are strong links between ACE and VET systems (such as in NSW where cooperative and collaborative arrangements are well established) collaborative tenders are already encouraged. The ACE sector's strengths in providing programmes for some under-represented groups have been recognised in this context.Wherever appropriate, ANTA uses public tendering processes for research activity, and collaborative tenders which bring together organisations with different strengths. Selection criteria usually include demonstrated knowledge of the VET sector, and as ACE sector organisations become more familiar with the development of the national VET system, they will be in a better position to develop collaborative tenders with other organisations.The Commonwealth recognises that, for some services put out to tender, it would be appropriate to encourage collaboration among tenderers. We would expect that it is now standard practice at all levels of government in Australia to include clear performance indicators in tender documentation.Recommendation 11:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government establish a dedicated research program to examine the relationship between intellectual activity and good health, and the ways in which that relationship might be enhanced.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth agrees with the underlying intent of this recommendation.The relationship between intellectual activity and good health is an issue that is beginning to be addressed in Australia and overseas in the context of the pressures placed on governments by the ageing of populations. A number of Commonwealth funded projects have already examined issues relating to the relationship between intellectual activity and health.The findings of both the Action Research Programme and Community Network Pilot elements of the Commonwealth Department of Social Security's Community Research Project provide qualitative evidence of a positive link between physical and intellectual engagement in community based activities, social capital, personal well being and the subjective elements of good health. Such links are being specifically investigated in the Health Development and Social Capital project funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and being undertaken by the South Australian Community Health Research Unit.Results from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health will also have the capacity to inform decisions about the relationship between intellectual activity and good health. As the research participants involved in the Longitudinal Study are followed over time, more information will become available to examine this relationship and the factors that affect it.As a result of the findings from this and other research, some programmes for older people and mental health initiatives implemented by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services already take into account the relationship between intellectual activity and good health.Recommendation 12:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government:. commission a report on best practice in (a) the provision of pre-retirement education, and (b) in adult education programs targeting older Australians living in institutional or retirement village settings;. draw together a coalition of peak senior citizens groups and adult education organisations to advise on matters relating to third age education;. establish a steering group drawn from relevant Government departments to develop and implement a nationwide promotional campaign on the benefits of participation by older people in adult education.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth agrees with the underlying intent of this recommendation.There are three avenues through which the intent of this recommendation will be addressed:1. The Conference for Older Australians.This is an advisory forum comprising distinguished older people established to advise the Commonwealth Government on its involvement in the International Year of Older Persons in 1999. The Conference will develop strategies to promote positive images of older people in the community and to provide advice on matters referred to it by, or through, the Minister for Family Services; and2. The Healthy Ageing Task ForceThis group comprises representatives from Commonwealth and State and Territory units on ageing, and was established by the Health and Community Services Ministers in October 1996. The Task Force has developed a draft National Healthy Ageing Strategy as a basis for consultations across jurisdictions and final agreement by Health and Community Services Ministers. Issues raised in this recommendation are also covered by the draft National Healthy Ageing Strategy.Public consultations on the draft document are currently being undertaken by the Task Force. The Department of Health and Family Services is undertaking consultations with other Commonwealth agencies and national bodies.3. The National Strategy for an Ageing Australia On 23 November 1997 the Minister for Family Services announced that the Federal Government will develop a National Strategy for an Ageing Australia as a vehicle to examine the broad policy issues created by population ageing and to provide a framework for activities already under way to improve the well being of Australians as they age.It is envisaged that the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia will involve a whole of government consideration of the short, medium and long-term issues associated with population ageing to assist in the development of a broad ranging blueprint for action to address ageing in thetwenty-first century. The Strategy will build on the draft National Healthy Ageing strategy and the work being done by the Conference for Older Australians in relation to the 1999 International Year of Older Persons.Recommendation 13:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth urge State and Territory education authorities to develop guidelines for the accessible and affordable use of public education facilities by bona fide, non-profit providers.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth agrees with the underlying purpose of this recommendation.Much progress on this issue has already been made. Many universities provide access to a range of community-based ACE providers, as do some schools and Colleges of TAFE.As State and Territory governments have responsibility for, and control of, schools and public VET institutions, while higher education institutions are autonomous bodies, the implications of this recommendation will have to be considered by them.Recommendation 14:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth adopt ’learning and living in the third age' as its theme for the 1999 International Year of Older People.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth is considering this as an option for the International Year of Older People.An advisory forum, the Conference for Older Australians, comprising representatives of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services and distinguished older people, has already been established to:. advise the Commonwealth on its involvement in the International Year of Older Persons;. develop strategies to promote positive images of older people in the community; and. provide advice on matters referred to it by, or through, the Minister for Family Services. The Commonwealth will ask that consideration be given by the Conference for Older Australians to `learning and living in the third age' being adopted as the theme or one of the themes for the International Year of Older Persons.Recommendation 15:The Committee RECOMMENDS that any follow up to the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) study on technological convergence, or any future national studies on education and technology, take into account the ACE sector.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth agrees with the underlying purpose of this recommendation.Many national projects and studies on education and technology issues already consider the needs of the ACE sector.Commonwealth and State Ministers of Education and Training have established the Open Learning Technology Corporation Ltd which provides services related to open learning for education and training providers, including ACE sector providers.Under the Education Network Australia (EdNA) initiative, an electronic EdNA VET Directory has been designed and implemented. The Directory includes information on ACE. Additionally, an ACE Reference Group is assisting the EdNA VET Advisory Group to design a directory structure for a dedicated ACE section of the Directory.Under the ACE National Programme in 1996/97, a research and development project on Convergent Technology in ACE was undertaken by the Adult, Community and Further Education Board in Victoria and the results were widely disseminated.The National Policy on ACE, endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA, indirectly addresses this issue. For example, two of the outcomes linked to Strategic Objective 8 of the policy `Enhancing the flexibility of learning opportunities available to adults' are that:. ACE practitioners have the capacity to make informed and appropriate decisions about the use of technology in meeting learning needs for individuals and groups in their community; and. ACE providers have access to appropriate, affordable technology.The Commonwealth will draw the attention of appropriate bodies such as the Open Learning Technology Corporation Ltd. and the Education Network Australia to this report and, in particular, this recommendation.Recommendation 16:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the level of the Commonwealth's ACE Grants Program be significantly increased and managed by the new NACVET Authority.RESPONSEAs indicated in the response to Recommendations 2 and 3, the Commonwealth does not support the NACVET Authority element of this recommendation. Funding for ACE projects through ANTA is a matter for consideration in the annual Budget context.Recommendation 17:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth seek a formal response to a draft of the revised National ACE Policy from key women's organisations such as the Network of Women in Further Education and from independent assessors with expertise in the analysis of gender issues.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth agrees with the underlying purpose of this proposal.The new National Policy on ACE was finalised in May 1997 after consideration by the MCEETYA Taskforce on ACE in early May 1997, and endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA. The National Policy has a strong focus on equity. For example:. under `Vision' the Policy states:- 'ACE provision will be determined and shaped by the learning needs of communities across Australia to ensure that: people from all backgrounds and circumstances have equitable access to the knowledge, skills and understandings they need to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life of the community'; and. goal 3 `to strengthen the responsiveness of ACE to learners' (one of the three overall goals enunciated in the National Policy) addresses equity issues in detail:- strategic objective 6 `fostering inclusiveness' (one of three strategic objectives for goal 3) states that fostering inclusiveness is `Ensuring that adults have equitable access to learning opportunities appropriate to their needs throughout life.'; and- the outcomes linked to objective 6 (which provide a yardstick against which progress can be measured) draw specific attention to ensuring greater participation in ACE by disadvantaged groups and that equity principles are built into all ACE services.In developing the new policy key stake holders from all States and Territories were involved in an extensive round of discussions, consultations and workshops. Recommendation 18:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the new NACVET Authority commission a study of best practice in relation to the delivery of adult education and training to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders by community-based providersRESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation as it is dependent on implementation of Recommendation 3, which the Commonwealth does not support.The Commonwealth does, however, agree with the underlying purpose of this recommendation.Relevant research is already being undertaken. $30,000 of the National ACE Programme funds administered by the Australian National Training Authority was allocated in 1997 for a study to develop guidelines for best practice and benchmarking for the delivery of ACE programmes to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.This project, managed by the Federation of Independent Aboriginal Education Providers, aimed to investigate and clarify elements of best practice and benchmarking in Aboriginal controlled adult education. The project involved consultation with community controlled Aboriginal Education providers affiliated to the Federation and resulted in the development of guidelines for best practice and benchmarking. These guidelines will be made available to all providers of education and training to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.Following completion of this project, the Commonwealth will ask the MCEETYA Taskforce on ACE to consider whether follow-up research, funded from the National ACE Programme allocation, should be undertaken.Recommendation 19:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth seek a formal input into the proposed new NACVET Policy from. the Commonwealth Office of Disability, from the peak body National Industry Association for Disability Services [formerly ACROD], and from an independent assessor with expertise in disability issues; and. the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia, and other relevant organisations concerned with educational opportunities for Australians with a first language other than English.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth supports the underlying principle of this recommendation, namely that, where appropriate, organisations such as the Commonwealth Office of Disability, peak disability groups and the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia be consulted in the development of ACE policies that affect disadvantaged groups.The Commonwealth already recognises the potential of the ACE sector in meeting some of the needs of disadvantaged groups and will continue to consult with appropriate peak bodies and agencies in the development and implementation of policies that affect the disadvantaged.Recommendation 20:The Committee RECOMMENDS the re-establishment of the National Staff Development Committee under the new NACVET Authority. Its role should be expanded to address the professional development needs of teachers and administrators working in community-based ACE providers.RESPONSEThe Commonwealth does not support this recommendation.Professional development activity such as that sponsored by the defunct National Staff Development Committee is now largely undertaken through the major Training Package developments funded by the Australian National Training Authority. Trainers, including community-based ACE providers, will be able to access this material when delivering programmes based on Training Packages.The National Staff Development Committee was established during a period in which vocational education and training was delivered almost exclusively by TAFE Colleges and reflected nationally agreed strategies by governments to fulfil their responsibilities to develop their employees, the TAFE teachers. In a more diverse national VET system, it is appropriate now to provide professional development resources through the medium of Training Packages—available to all providers.The Australian National Training Authority is also conducting other major projects addressing broad professional development needs in the Vocational Education and Training sector. Much of the material resulting from these projects will prove of assistance in addressing the professional development needs of ACE sector providers.The improvement of teaching and other professional skills in the ACE sector is primarily a matter for employing authorities at the State and local level and has been addressed in the National ACE Policy adopted by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers at the June 1997 meeting of MCEETYA.Recommendation 21:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government support a national project to identify and develop standards for teaching and learning in community-based ACE settings in a manner similar to the national ACE Standards for Administrators and Managers. RESPONSEThe Commonwealth supports the underlying purpose of this recommendation and will refer it to MCEETYA for consideration. Maintaining and improving the standard of teaching and learning in all education and training environments remains an essential element in the Commonwealth's overall education policies and strategies.Recommendation 22:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government send a ministerial level delegation to the Fifth International Conference on Adult Education in Hamburg comprising relevant officers of Commonwealth agencies, State education authorities and representatives of Australia's ACE sector.RESPONSEThis recommendation was supported by the Commonwealth.An Australian Government delegation led by a senior Commonwealth officer attended the conference, held in Hamburg from 14th to 18th July 1997. The conference addressed adult education issues of importance to all education and training sectors providing education and training to adults. The eight member delegation was comprised of:. Mr Tony Greer, First Assistant Secretary of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs' (DEETYA) Vocational Education and Training Division, who led the delegation;. Ms Shelagh Whittleston, Counsellor for Labour, Education and Social Affairs (DEETYA's representative on the Australian Permanent Delegation to the OECD);. Mr Jack Beetson, President of the Federation of Independent Aboriginal Education Providers (FIAEP);. Commissioner David Curtis, a Commissioner of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC);. Ms Sam Thomas, Director of the NSW Board of ACE and Chair of the MCEETYA Taskforce on ACE (Ms Thomas represented the Taskforce on the delegation and was also MCEETYA's nominee to represent State and Territory government interests);. Dr Alistair Crombie, Executive Secretary of the Australian Association of Adult and Community Education (AAACE);. Professor Chris Duke, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Western Sydney's Nepean Campus (nominated by the AVCC to represent the Higher Education sector); and . Ms Lesley Johnson, Principal Project Officer, Commonwealth State Relations, ANTA (nominated by ANTA to represent the VET sector).The delegation played a successful role at the conference, the outcomes of which were favourable for Australia. For example:. attendance of an official Australian Government delegation reaffirmed Australia's commitment to adult education and its deserved international reputation in this area;. the invitation to Mr Greer to participate on the drafting committee was a clear acknowledgment of Australia's expertise and reputation; and. the leading role played by the delegation in ensuring that Indigenous education issues were reflected in the Declaration and Agenda for the Future was particularly commended by other conference participants. A copy of the Declaration and Agenda for the Future is provided at Attachment B1 to this Response.Recommendation 23:The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth government:. undertake a precise analysis and costing of the public education activities of government departments and agencies;. convene a national workshop of key government departments, information agencies and representatives of the ACE sector to explore public education practice, and the implications for more effective and coordinated delivery of Commonwealth public education programs.RESPONSEPublic education or awareness campaigns undertaken by Commonwealth Departments and agencies are an essential element in implementing Government policy on a wide range of issues affecting all portfolios.The Commonwealth acknowledges that community-based providers of ACE may often be well placed to assist in the development of public education/awareness campaigns. For example, the Australian Electoral Commission has utilised a range of adult and community education providers to assist in the delivery of both long-term and short-term public education and information initiatives.Many campaigns such as national public health awareness campaigns are undertaken in conjunction with State and Territory governments. State and Territory governments also undertake public education or awareness activities independently of the Commonwealth. Consequently, the recommendation to `undertake a precise analysis and costing of the public education activities of government departments and agencies' raises issues that should also be considered by State and Territory governments.The Commonwealth also believes that the complexities involved in undertaking a precise analysis and costing of public education activities could mean that the costs involved may outweigh the benefits obtained. Additionally, project management practices already require Commonwealth Departments and agencies to analyse the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of such campaigns.17:58:003267Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This is the government's response to the Senate Employment, Education and Training report titled Beyond Cinderella: towards a learning society. Yet again, I note that this government response is almost a year overdue, and I might begin my comments with the observation of just how disappointing it is that the government has taken so long to produce a report which effectively says so little. It is a disappointment to me, and not just to me, I suspect, but to the 400,000-odd Australians who are currently involved with the adult and community education sector in this country.The report Beyond Cinderella: towards a learning society was the second report of the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee. The word `Cinderella' in this context refers to the fact that this particular sector, although it involves such a very large number of Australians, is treated badly by all levels in government. It is regarded as the poor relation of the education industry in this country.Despite the fact that some 400,000 people participate in the various programs run by the adult and community education sector, the Commonwealth expends about $685,000 a year—in 1997-98 it spent about that amount of money—through the various international programs. Of that amount, about $185,000 goes to the peak body, the Australian Association of Adult and Community Education. Additional moneys are provided through the National Centre for Vocational Education Research and some assistance is provided through a tutor task force on adult and community education. DEETYA does do some very limited work in this area.As the committee report itself observes, what is frustrating is that everybody involved in the education debate in this country acknowledges the worth of the adult and community education sector. Everybody will tell you just how worthy these organisations are and the importance of the work that they are undertaking. Again and again the concepts of lifelong learning of all types are acknowledged in the official reports of government in terms of the benefits provided. This report here today acknowledges again the importance of lifelong learning as a principle. It is also indicated by the national vocational education strategy documents that have been developed over the years by governments at all levels. The various Australian national training authority officials will come before the Senate and equally explain how important this sector is. But what we see again and again is that that is about as far as it goes.Very limited sums of money are provided. As I said, $185,000 through ANTA is an appallingly small amount of money given the significance of this area of education. We spend something like $3 billion a year on public education for the vocational education and training sector in terms of TAFE and various other measures, but a very small amount of that $3 billion actually finds its way towards this particular sector.The recent ministerial council, held on 22 May, on the national strategy for vocational education and training for the period 1998 to 2003 also identified the worth of the adult and community education sector. But no commitments have been made and no priorities have been established to ensure that adequate levels of funding are provided for people who undertake this work and who provide what are extremely important facilities to many of our older Australians. Mature aged people who are seeking entry back into the education system and a second chance, people who have not been able to enjoy the benefits of a formal educational setting through the primary and secondary education system, those seeking English as a second language programs, those seeking self-fulfilment and enrichment programs and all of those people who enjoy enormous benefit through the adult community education system do not have access to adequate levels of public support, despite all the pious remarks that are made by governments.The essential problem is demonstrated again in this government's response, which says, `This is not our worry, this is somebody else's problem. We are going to get a big mirror and have a good look into it yet again, but we are not actually going to do anything about it. We are going to shunt this problem off to the states to deal with.' These are national issues of national concern and matters that require a national response.What we really have is a fundamental problem that exists within the government's thinking about the relationship between education and training. The fundamental problem that arises is the confusion that exists between the priority that should be given to what are narrowly defined as vocational programs and the broader concerns about the importance of providing lifelong learning and the wherewithal to ensure that education allows for the effective participation of all citizens through the formal and informal educational systems that do exist, to ensure that there is effective citizenship and that people have the opportunity to maximise their personal goals, and to ensure that they can develop the skills to allow them to operate at the highest level of participation, both in the world of work and in society more generally.We have a failure to build the necessary infrastructure through community organisations and through our formal educational systems, be they TAFE or schools, to ensure that there is an opportunity to build creative, productive and socially satisfying relationships that will lead to people securing the necessary skills, habits of thought and ways of looking at the world that will allow them to achieve those objectives. There is a fundamental problem in so far as the government has failed to acknowledge the importance of this sector by putting its money where its mouth is. What this report demonstrates to the Senate yet again is that this failure will continue.What we on the committee argued for was that a more comprehensive national approach be taken to the adult and community education sector that acknowledged just how important it was for this society to provide the wherewithal, through the adult and community education facilities that are available, to provide at minimum cost the opportunity for in excess of 400,000 Australians every year to secure outcomes that allow them to achieve full participation. This is a consideration that goes beyond a more narrow vision of vocational education and is obviously wanting in all aspects.It is a simple fundamental fact of life that in Victoria and a few other states there is a commitment—and I acknowledge this in terms of the Kennett government; these are measures that have continued since our time in government—with the particular acts of parliament, to ensure that there is protection for the adult and community education sector. But it does not happen too often. It has happened because of the forwarding thinking of the Labor government in the 1980s.What you have are the simple facts such as the failure to acknowledge just how much money is actually spent by all governments on this particular sector of education. There is no reliable statistical basis to identify what the unit cost of education is in this particular sector. There is simply not the attention given to the adult and community education sector that would allow us to develop this in a more effective manner than currently exists. I must say that I am deeply disappointed with this response. (Time expired)18:09:003268Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise to speak on this report on adult and community education. This is the second report to the Senate this decade. The adult and community education issue is something that the Senate Employment, Education and Training Committee has taken a great interest in through the 1990s. In 1991, we brought down the landmark Come in Cinderella report. That was the very first report we did on a sector of education which has contributed an enormous amount to education in this country.The adult and community education sector is the so-called fourth sector of education—the first being primary, the second being secondary and the third being tertiary, university and TAFE. What a lot of people do not realise is the actual massive size of this sector. For example, in the state of New South Wales, there are a million people doing adult and community education courses of some description. There are more students at any one point in time in adult and community education than in the universities and TAFEs put together. The difference, of course, is that these are not three- or four-year long courses. A lot of adult and community education courses are quite short. They might go for a few months or they might even go just for a few weeks. But they are very important components in learning, and they do an enormous amount for education in this country and for the community generally.People pick up very critical and important skills not only for their lives in general but often these are little building bridges towards other levels of education. A lot of people, particularly those who have experienced failure in the primary and secondary system and do not want to go anywhere near a university or a TAFE because of that, often gain confidence by spending time in one of these short courses and then going on to higher education. It is the most cost effective sector of education. Quite often courses are run on shoestring budgets and with a lot of dedicated people assisting. It covers a very wide range of areas in the community, and during our inquiries in 1991 and 1997 we went and saw this. We went to diverse places. We went into rural areas, migrant communities, mental hospitals and prisons, and adult and community education had a very major role in these areas.In terms of the response to the reports by governments, it is interesting to see how this has changed over the years. In 1991, the view initially was that adult and community education was something that should be handled at a regional or state level and the federal government should not get very involved at all. In the very first report, Come in Cinderella, there were 33 recommendations to the committee and the last Labor government only ever implemented 11, and they did not put very much money into it either.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Which is a lot more than what your government is going to do.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—As a matter of fact, the last Labor government set up an office relating to adult and community education in the federal bureaucracy, and during one estimates hearing, Senator Carr—I do not know if you were in the Senate at that time—I asked a question on it and they looked around for the officers to answer and they could not find them. The minister at the desk at the time was Senator Schacht, I think, and he said, `Gee, have we actually lost a whole division?' That whole division was the equivalent of about one or two people.So let's get it in perspective, Senator Carr. When you criticise this government about what we are doing in response to the report, let's look at what your government did in response, which was very little indeed. You instituted a number of new measures, brought it in a new direction and did start to put a federal focus, and given that today you have paid tribute to Jeff Kennett and the work he has done in this area in Victoria, I will also pay tribute to that start you made. But let's be serious about it, Senator Carr—you did not really put many resources into it at all.We come to the report that we are dealing with today. I suppose the disappointing thing, looking back on the approach of the committee, was that we were moving towards saying that the whole thing was a matter of reorganising the bureaucracy. I regret that we actually took that approach. I thought, having developed a very good report the first time and having started off in a new direction, that we should have extended that a little bit further rather than just putting bits of bureaucracy together.I think the hope for people in adult and community education is in the way in which the job market structure is changing at the moment and the way in which intensive assistance works in the FLEX 3 where people can, as part of intensive assistance, get extra education and training. They do not have to go to the TAFEs or the universities; they can actually go to adult and community education providers if that is appropriate. These are very effective providers. They are very cost-effec tive providers. I am sure that, under this new regime that this government has set up, the adult and community education sector which is flourishing will continue to flourish.18:15:003270Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I would like to make some comments about this report. First of all, it is very disappointing that we had a unanimous report from our committee that has been so significantly dumped on by the government in this response. I think it is insufficient for Senator Tierney to say that we made recommendations for more bureaucracy and nothing else. That is certainly not the case. I think anybody in the Senate would acknowledge Senator Tierney's commitment to adult and community education. I would like it if sometimes he practised something of the same kind of generosity and acknowledged the initiatives of the Labor government to get adult and community education onto the political agenda at all.The whole point of this report was that, given that adult and community education was on the political agenda, and given that there had been a very significant report, the Cinderella report from Senator Tierney and his committee, five years down the track we should have a look and see what was happening. You would have thought that the government would have been assisted in the whole approach to adult and community education by our reflecting on the state of play. The Labor government, in supporting adult and community education, particularly focused on the vocational education training end of adult and community education. This report was saying, very importantly, but you have forgotten one large part of adult and community education, and we want to recommend that it not be overlooked.There are a number of reasons why. My colleagues have spoken about it, and the report spells out the importance of adult and community education for people who missed out the first time through in education, for people who got through school without being able to read and write, for people who went through school and now need to upgrade their skills. Their education was all right for them when they left school but it is no longer appropriate. We hear again and again of the importance of education for employment these days. Many people are able, with adult and community education, to come back and access education in a very affordable and accessible way.We think this is a critical part of adult and community education. We know its importance, we know its success. It is hugely welcomed by the community and very largely participated in. Our report stressed the importance of it, and this government has chosen to give a big flick to the majority of this report. I find that very depressing. In particular, the committee was interested to note that people from western suburbs and people from lower socioeconomic areas of the country were much less likely to access adult and community education than people from better off areas and from the eastern suburbs.Secondly, a very large number of participants were women, far more than men. It would be interesting if the government had picked up on our drawing this to their attention, by saying that we think adult and community education should have a universal application and accessibility. So will you please find out why it is that men, and particularly men from working class or lower socioeconomic areas, are not making the same access and use of adult community education as others. It is a very important point.For some of my colleagues age has begun to weary us, and it is important that we recognise another very important point from this report: that is, the importance of continuing intellectual activity of adult and community education for preventing the onset of Alzheimers. I am not at all sure that this is proven yet, but there is some nicely documented evidence that if you do your daily crossword and regularly play bridge you can hold off the onset of senility.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—And eat Freddo Frogs.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I am not at all sure what contribution that makes to this discussion, but I take it that it is meant well. It may be that we do not necessarily have to play bridge and do the daily crossword, but it is very interesting.The evidence brought to the committee is quite clear, and it is of great concern to us that, as more and more Australians are going to live to a ripe old age, it is important that more and more of those Australians feel as though they have something useful to do with their lives, something to contribute to the community. One of the best ways they feel that they can participate, keep up with events going on in their community, interest themselves in whatever, is if they have access to adult and community education. I note that the government is somewhat grudging but at least a bit sympathetic to the notion that we should look at the impact in terms of health, particularly the health dollar costs, of the points that I have made.People may smile and say, `We are not sure that it is true about bridge and the daily crossword,' but we do know that the relationship between intellectual activity and good health is an issue that is beginning to be addressed. I do appreciate that this point has been taken up. The trouble is that it does give weight to the notion of adult and community education being something for old people to do to keep themselves gainfully distracted. That is not what adult and community education is about at all. I certainly hope that because of this report, through its support at least of that recommendation, the Commonwealth will establish a dedicated research program to examine this. I am not sure that they will do that, but they are certainly going to look at the connection between health and intellectual activity. I would hate this to be taken as any way skewing adult and community education to old people and the basket weavers in our community. It does no credit to what adult and community education is about.I am disappointed that there was no support for the recommendation regarding the capital needs of adult and community centres, particularly those in the neighbourhoods and in the community. One of our recommendations says that we would like to see educational facilities like schools more available for use by other community groups, and adult and community education might be an entirely appropriate group to use such facilities. However, we also know that not all community groups can move or want to move. They are differently accessible for people, and I am very disappointed that the government sees no need to try to support the capital needs of community and neighbourhood adult and community education centres, in particular, that of supplying a computer. The government has a lot of requirements in terms of data and reporting back but no appreciation that to provide that kind of data centres will need the assistance of some capital money, in particular, for a computer.The final point I wish to make is the overwhelming rejection of this report. That has to be a disappointment for all of us but, I would have thought, particularly for those government colleagues who have actually been belted out of court by their own government.I find it particularly disappointing that, in rejecting the principal recommendations, the government points out that there is a significant difference between ACE and VET. The whole raison d'etre of this report was to say that we recognise that, in picking up adult and community education, the previous government had done that very well, but the focus and the large amount of money had gone to the vocational end and ignored, or somewhat minimally supported, the ACE end. The whole report was about putting those two together, but the government sees fit to continue the separation. In particular, they go on to say:Anyhow under the new labour market assistance there is a potential for a new role to ACE. ACE providers will be able to become contracted employment placement enterprises in their own right and/or provide labour market training to the clients of employment placement enterprises (EPEs) and that meet the specific requirements of the EPE and its client.We have heard already of the unmitigated shambles called the establishment of the new Job Network under this government. There are thousands of community organisations possessing previously gained expertise and skills that have been totally disregarded. Why anyone would think that an undercapitalised community centre for adult and community education might now be able to leap in to become a contracted employment placement enterprise without that backup and support is, I think, drawing a very long bow or, in fact, sheer folly.While I would hope that people who attend any such centres may be able to get assistance with their employment, the suggestion that you can reject the thrust of our report by suggesting that adult and community education centres become employment placement enterprises is unlikely to happen. And it completely misses the point of why we reviewed adult and community education with the Come in Cinderella report. What it means, of course, is that this task remains for the return of a Labor government.Question resolved in the affirmative.327218:24:003272Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I present the government's response to the first and second reports of the legal and constitutional reference than committee on its inquiry into the Australian legal aid system. I seek leave to incorporate the respond in Hansard .Leave granted.The response read as follows—Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry into the Australian Legal Aid SystemThe Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee has released two reports on its Inquiry into the Australian Legal Aid System. The first report was tabled on 26 March 1997. The second report was tabled on 26 June 1997.The Government has carefully considered the issues raised in the Committee's reports and believes that the major recommendations of the Committee are already being addressed.Throughout the Government's response the term "child representative", which is the current term under the Family Law Act , refers to "separate representatives" as used in the Senate Committee's reports.This is the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations.First Report 26 March 1997Recommendation The Committee recommends that the Government give consideration to establishing a high level representative task force to advise Governments on the legal aid system and its place in Australia's justice system.ResponseThe Government is satisfied that existing mechanisms for provision of research and policy advice to the Government are sufficient to allow the Government to foster reform and ensure more cost effective service delivery and greater national equity in the provision of services. These mechanisms include Commonwealth representation at regular meetings with legal aid commission directors through the National Legal Aid forum, participation in the Law Council of Australia's Strategic Initiatives Committee, and involvement in criminal law and family law groups. Appropriate funds have been allocated to achieve these goals and the Government is of the view that commitment of more Government funds would not add value to the legal aid system.Second Report 26 June 1997Recommendation 1The Committee recommends that the Government, in cooperation with the Law Council of Australia, undertake research to determine the extent and nature of, and the motivation for, the legal profession's subsidy of legal aid provision in Australia.ResponseThe Government recognises that the private legal profession, academics and students in law, play a significant role in providing free legal services for disadvantaged members of the community. The Government also recognises the continuing vital role played by members of the profession in the ongoing provision of legal aid.Research into the legal profession's motivation in cooperating with and assisting in the provision of legal aid and to determine the `extent and nature' of the legal profession's involvement is not an appropriate role for Government and is best left to Law Societies and Bar Councils.Recommendation 2The Committee further recommends that the Government formally acknowledge the contribution of the legal profession through an annual award program recognising the pro bono work undertaken by individuals and firms.ResponseWhile the Government is deeply appreciative of the involvement of the private legal profession in providing pro bono legal work, it does not see that it has a role in recognising the work of individuals and firms. The Government recognises that individuals and firms have their own motivations for providing pro bono services and that pro bono work is generally seen as accepting a responsibility to society. Individual legal aid commissions or Law Societies may wish to embark on developing an award system, identifiable by a certificate or other recognisable public symbol, as a demonstration of their appreciation.Recommendation 3The Committee recommends that the Government, in cooperation with the Law Council of Australia, give consideration to the establishment of a new initiatives development and evaluation fund to encourage the trialling of innovative methods of providing legal information, advice and education provision by legal aid services providers. Such a fund would preferably have an out years component to enable successful and effective initiatives to continue to function and provide incentives for sponsor involvement.ResponseThe pursuit of innovative service delivery is not something that requires additional funding. Under the new Commonwealth State/Territory agreements the Commonwealth provides funding for matters arising under Commonwealth law including primary dispute resolution services, legal advice, legal information and community legal education services. Within this framework new initiatives are being appropriately researched and piloted to determine the usefulness of such practices by legal aid commissions. For example, Legal Aid Queensland has established an information kiosk in its head office which provides legal aid clients with an online touch screen service which allows clients to search for information on a range of legal problems and print out forms (basic divorce papers can be filled out and printed off within 20 minutes using this service). Legal Aid Queensland is also trialling electronic lodgement of legal aid applications by a number of private law firms and developing a simplified method of means testing applicants for legal aid.Recommendation 4The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth should ensure that the impact of the Dietrich principle on the legal aid system is monitored.ResponseThe Dietrich principle is not solely an issue for the Commonwealth as legal aid for criminal matters is primarily funded by State Governments. The matter is on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG). SCAG will deal with the issues through a coordinated response.Recommendation 5The Committee further recommends that the Attorney-General take up in SCAG the need for it to complete its consideration of the impact of the Dietrich principle as a matter of priority.ResponseThe Government is already fully committed to resolving the issue through SCAG as an issue of priority. The South Australian Government has developed draft legislation in 1996 to deal with the implications raised by the Dietrich decision. SCAG is awaiting receipt of the amended Bill for further consideration. (South Australia has been having difficulty in finalising the Bill and is reviewing its approach in line with the Kable v DPP decision).Recommendation 6The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government ensures that adequate funding is available to legal aid commissions for the provision of separate representation of children in family law matters having regard to the guidelines set down in the Re K decision.ResponseUnder the recently negotiated Commonwealth/State funding arrangements, family law matters have been identified as a priority for expenditure of funds for grants of legal assistance. One of the Commonwealth's highest priorities is children caught up in Family Court disputes. Funding for child representatives is ensured within this priority, as part of the general allocation of funds to cover Commonwealth matters.Recommendation 7The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department, in cooperation with legal aid service providers and the Family Court, initiate the development of a sophisticated model to determine more precisely the level of resources required to provide separate representation for children in appropriate situations. Such a model will enhance the ability of the Government to appropriate sufficient funds for the separate representation of children on a reviewable recurrent basis.The Committee notes concerns about the lack of a national, uniform approach to the legal aid implications of Re K.ResponseExisting mechanisms identify Commonwealth priorities and will ensure allocation of appropriate levels of funding. The Commonwealth will be moving towards needs based funding for legal aid commissions in future years. Quarantining funding would reduce the flexibility of the legal aid commissions to determine their budgets and would remove any incentive for service providers to pursue greater cost effectiveness in prioritising services. Recommendation 8The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government develop national uniform guidelines to be applied by the legal aid commissions when funding child representation matters.ResponseLegal assistance for matters of Commonwealth priority is administered by the respective legal aid commissions under guidelines outlined in the 1997/98 legal aid agreements.These guidelines ensure consistency across the range of commissions for the provision of assistance in all Commonwealth matters, including child representation matters. The Commonwealth has reviewed these guidelines in consultation with State/Territory governments, legal aid commissions and other relevant bodies, with a view to implementing nationally consistent guidelines by 1 July 1998.The Government notes the minority report prepared by Government Senators on the Committee and agrees with the commentary provided.18:25:003274McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The response that the Senate has received to two reports of a Senate committee is, at the very least and at the kindest, an insult to the Senate. It is also a very sad reflection on a failed Attorney-General.It is an insult to the Senate because it is a further example, if one was needed, that the current first law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia has no conception, no understanding of the havoc caused by the budget cuts made by the government in the area of legal aid; the government has no understanding of the havoc those cuts have caused in our community, and particularly within this country's legal aid system.The Attorney-General (Mr Williams) was handed two quite mild reports from the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. Those reports made constructive recommendations to the government—recommendations which, had they been implemented, would not have cost huge pain on the budget bottom line. The recommendations, had they been accepted and acted upon, would have gone a long way to easing the pain, easing the burden that has been wrought on the citizens of this country, and the great pain that has been levelled against those who operate within the legal aid system in this country.But no, we have seen what can be described as a very pig-headed response. It is so bad that I think, to be kind to the attorney, the attorney himself has not read the report, has not fully digested the recommendations that were made, and has not taken into account the fact that the first report was a unanimous report of the committee—a committee which includes as its deputy chair Senator Eric Abetz. Senator Helen Coonan is also on that committee. The committee does have a National Party representative, but we never see that individual at the committee.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Not good enough; not up to it?1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—Not up to it.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Who is it who is never there?1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—It is Senator O'Chee who is never there—but the committee thrives in his absence. That first report was presented to the chamber on 26 March last year. It has taken the Attorney-General, the first law officer, 14 months to prepare a one-paragraph response to the one recommendation that is contained in the report—a unanimous report. I repeat: it has taken him 14 months. That is something that we are getting quite used to in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee—an inefficient administrator in the position of the first law officer of this country. We wait months, upon months, upon months for answers to questions in the estimates committee process, and we will go through that argument again on Tuesday of next week when the department appear once more before the legislation committee to respond to the answers.The second report was a more considered report and was presented on 26 June last year. So it has taken 11 months to provide five pages of response to eight recommendations of the report—five pages which it has taken 11 months to prepare. The report itself, when it was presented—Senator Cooney interjecting—1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—My colleague has just intervened and prompted me to speak of a judge in New South Wales who has to report to the New South Wales parliament next week, I believe; he is to give cause and reason why, in the exercise of his judicial function, he should remain in his position as a judge. If it is fair enough for a judge to have to do that, I think the Senate perhaps ought to seriously consider whether or not the Attorney-General should be asked to give cause as to why it takes him 14 months to prepare a one-paragraph response and 11 months to prepare a five-page response to eight recommendations. Those eight recommendations, might I say without being insulting to the rest of my committee colleagues, were quite substantial but, nonetheless, they were not going to be a great draw on the government's budget.They were serious and well considered recommendations. Indeed, most of the recommendations that were made were actually agreed to by my government Senate colleagues on the committee and they went through them in their minority report—a minority report, I might add, that stated a qualification as to why it was a minority report. It said in the second paragraph:Whilst Government Senators were prepared, albeit reluctantly to provide unanimity for this inquiry's first report, such support cannot be forthcoming on this occasion due to the partisan nature and commentary of the Majority Report, for example paragraph 3.24.How we became very partisan in paragraph 3.24 I do not know. For those sensitive colleagues of mine it reads:When considering the implications of Australia's international obligations, the Committee considers that the approach of the Commonwealth to quarantine its responsibilities to Commonwealth matters only is unrealistic, impractical and inappropriate.I think that my colleagues are pretty thin skinned if they say that that is partisan. But my colleagues did go on to agree to the majority of the recommendations that were contained in the report.I started this contribution by saying some rather unkind things about the first law officer, the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams MP. Despite his long involvement in the legal system of this country and his intimate involvement, in his previous life before he became a member of parliament, in the legal aid system—and there were many in that system who were dependent upon his knowledge and expertise in the system to try to bring some fairness into it—he has no appreciation even now. That is illustrated in this response to this report but it was also made very public when the Attorney appeared at a symposium organised by the Law Society of Western Australia on 4 April last year. The Attorney, in defending the actions of his government after he had given some 12 months notice of what was going to happen—that $100 million was going to be taken out of the system—stood up publicly and made this statement:We have got 8 per cent unemployment and we have got 20 to 30 per cent youth unemployment.That is what Mr Williams said. He went on to say, and this statement drew laughs from the assembled audience, which included the chief justices of a number of the courts in Western Australia:Let's just put it fairly and squarely on the table. Is it legal aid or is it jobs for kids?It is neither: $100 million has gone from the legal aid system, the unemployment rate is still at eight per cent and youth unemployment is actually rising. Despite the cuts that have been made to the legal aid system youth unemployment is actually rising. Mr Williams ought to do the decent, respectable thing: he should not sack just the individual who prepared this government response, he himself should accept responsibility and present his resignation to the Prime Minister. Clearly, he is just not quite up to the job of first law officer of the Commonwealth. He, by his actions, and the actions of the cabinet and in the budgetary consideration are putting the legal aid system into crisis. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—The time for debate has now expired.3275327518:34:003275Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I present the government's response to the ninth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Amendments to the Bonn Convention . I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES REPORT NO. 9 AMENDMENTS TO THE BONN CONVENTIONPreambleThe Government has considered the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into amendments to the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Bonn Convention), and is pleased to provide the following response. The Government appreciates the support expressed by the Committee for the listing of one species of albatross and two species of cetaceans in Appendix I, and ten species of albatross in Appendix II of the Bonn Convention.Response to recommendationsThe Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Australian Government continues its efforts to optimise membership of international agreements such as the Bonn Convention, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources and the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species.The Australian Government will continue to pursue optimising membership of international agreements with a view to ensuring the membership of each agreement contains as many as possible of those nations affected by or influencing the subject matter of the agreement.Australia will be actively seeking conclusion of a southern hemisphere regional agreement under the Bonn Convention. Under the terms of the Convention, membership of Regional Agreements should include all Range States of the listed species, including those which are not members of the Bonn Convention. The Australian Government will seek the cooperation of a number of nations which are not members of the Bonn Convention in concluding and implementing the proposed Regional Agreement. A first step will be detailed discussions with Valdivia Group members on the feasibility and nature of the proposed Regional Agreement.The Government proposes that the effect of a Regional Agreement will be to ensure effective global action to address the conservation of albatrosses. The Regional Agreement will complement the actions already taken by Australia and New Zealand within their respective Exclusive Economic Zones. The Regional Agreement will provide a necessary and complementary addition to the range of international actions already underway to deal with albatross-fishing interactions, such as those introduced by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).The fourth annual meeting of the CCSBT was held in Canberra in September 1997. Among other issues, at that meeting the Australian Government continued to seek expansion of Commission membership to include all nations and entities which take a significant quantity of southern bluefin tuna. While the Commission was unable to reach agreement on a number of important issues and the meeting has not been officially closed, agreement was reached on the need for urgent action to facilitate closer cooperation in the work of the Commission of key nations and entities fishing southern bluefin tuna. Specifically, efforts are to be made to encourage accession to the Convention of the Republic of Korea and Indonesia, and to secure the cooperation of Taiwan with the Commission's conservation and management measures.The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that all Departments and agencies involved in managing Australia's membership of the Bonn Convention ensure that funds are used to harness the available expertise in the most effective way, including the new technology in such areas as bait settingThe Government emphasises the need for effective communication and coordination between all agencies responsible for implementing Australia's membership of the Bonn Convention to minimise duplication and ensure the maximum benefit is obtained. Those agencies have developed close, cooperative links and regularly exchange views on issues such as those relating to conservation, management and research.The incidental capture of albatrosses during fishing operations is a major source of mortality. It also is a major source of cooperation between nature conservation and fisheries management agencies. These agencies and representatives of the Australian fishing industry are cooperating in the development of a Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds in longline fishing operations, due for completion in July 1998.Discussions between the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Environment Australia and the fishing industry have identified as high priority research into longline gear intended to reduce albatross mortality, examination of the different impacts of day and night setting upon albatross catches, and dissemination of information on seabird bycatch reduction to fishers.In terms of introducing effective mitigation at the international fisheries level, the Government considers the CCSBT to be a critical area of focus. Issues relating to the incidental capture of seabirds are discussed by the Commission's Ecologically Related Species Working Group (ERSWG). A formal Australian ERSWG committee is to be formed to coordinate Australian actions both in and directed towards that forum. Membership of the committee will be drawn from all agencies with responsibilities relating to the conservation and management of both ecologically related species and fisheries.CCAMLR is another critical fisheries forum in which action is being taken to conserve albatrosses. In 1994 the Commission formed a Working Group on Incidental Mortality of Albatross in Longline Fishing. Also in that year the Commission first introduced conservation measures requiring the use of various mitigation devices, initially "tori poles" but now a suite a measures. Australia will continue to actively pursue effective mitigation of the incidental capture of albatross at both Commission and Working GroupTo ensure the actions taken in one forum are consistent with and complement those taken in another, close liaison takes place between lead agencies. This is particularly the case in the development of the Australian positions for major international meetings such as the CCSBT and the Bonn Convention.The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority examine all aspects of its observer program to establish the likely costs and benefits of placing appropriately trained observers on vessels within the Australian Fishing Zone and its Exclusive Economic ZoneAFMA is currently considering the draft TAP to abate the threat posed by oceanic longlining to seabirds. AFMA is a member of the Threat Abatement Team, formed to develop the TAP. The draft TAP has raised the issue of observer coverage for the purposes of collecting data on mitigation measures and seabirds. Further, it seeks to maintain current observer coverage on foreign vessels operating in the Australian fishing zone (AFZ) and is considering its introduction on domestic vessels.The cost of this initiative is substantial (up to $1 million per annum if applied to the pelagic longline fleet). AFMA is currently reviewing its existing observer program to improve its ability to deliver a flexible, cost-effective service that can meet the needs of a number of Government departments and agencies in relation to the collection of fisheries- related information. The Authority is also examining who should pay for each aspect of the observer program through the application of the Commonwealth Fisheries Cost Recovery Policy (March 1994). The review is scheduled for completion during 1998.Under its current observer program AFMA regularly employs (under contract) observers with scientific training and expertise in seabird biology and field experience in pelagic longline operations, to complement the information gathered by regular observers. These observers are also given extensive training and briefing on seabird bycatch monitoring.The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority hold discussions with the tuna fishing industry with a view to arranging observed testing of such techniques as night setting of bait on the high seas.It should be noted that the overwhelming body of existing scientific evidence is that night setting substantially reduces seabird bycatch. A smaller body of evidence suggests that catch rates of target tuna species are largely unaffected by night setting. It is this latter point, and the associated safety aspects of night setting, that would be the focus of night setting trials.Preliminary discussions with representatives from both the domestic and Japanese tuna fleets, scientists and managers on night setting trials occurred during August and September 1997 under the aegis of the CCSBT. However, a major issue as to whether not to proceed with the trials is the development of the TAP which is considering compulsory mitigation measures (including night setting) for domestic and foreign longline vessels operating in the AFZ. The draft TAP also proposes provisions to enable domestic operators to work cooperatively with AFMA to design new mitigation techniques and refine existing measures. The Authority supports this approach.Australian vessels rarely fish the high seas for more than a short period. Further, conducting trials from foreign (most likely Japanese) vessels on the high seas is a complex matter, although it could be pursued by the Government through the CCSBT. A more practical approach currently being considered is to have the trial conducted on Japanese or domestic vessels or a combination of the two in the AFZ.Overall, AFMA in association with Environment Australia and the fishing industry will assess how night setting trials should be progressed in the context of the development and implementation of the TAP within the AFZ. It is possible that the development of the TAP and experimentation on mitigation measures such as night setting can continue in parallel. The Government is aware there has been active discussion in the CCSBT forum of the benefits and impacts of night setting. Night setting is one focus of Australia's discussions within the CCSBT and in other relevant fora. At its first meeting the CCSBT's Ecologically Related Species Working Group clearly identified night setting as the single most effective seabird bycatch mitigation measure. This view continues to be held, although there are insufficient data at present to determine whether this affects the catch of SBT.The Government will actively pursue the introduction of mitigation measures such as night setting in the CCSBT and other suitable international fora.327810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—The President has received letters from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Alston)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Evans to replace Senator Carr for the consideration of the 1998-99 budget estimates.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator West to replace Senator Quirke for the consideration of the 1998-99 budget estimates.Bills3278r4373278Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Alston) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.327818:36:003278Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I table revised explanatory memorandum and 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—The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 contains substantial measures which form part of the major reform package to the Child Support Scheme announced by the Government on 30 September 1997.The reform package underscores the fundamental principle that parents are primarily responsible for the financial support of their children. The Government, through these measures, will not intrude unnecessarily into people's lives. Rather, it will provide a safety net to ensure children are adequately supported and that the community is not asked to carry an undue burden.The package addresses most of the concerns raised by the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Issues.Parents' capacity to provide financial supportThe administrative formula will be modified by increasing the liable parent's exempted income, including an allowance for a shared care child and reducing a carer's disregarded income. Child support payable by a liable parent with a subsequent family will reduce the income used in calculating their entitlement to Family Allowance.The bill will amend the basis of the administrative formula by increasing a parent's taxable income by adding back rental property losses and including exempt foreign employment income.It will also provide for a more accurate assessment through using the most current taxable income, thereby eliminating the requirement to apply an inflation factor.Assessments are to be modified to take into account certain kinds of parents' agreements as to care arrangements, both factual and lawful daily care of a child and a step-child where a liable parent has a legal duty to maintain the step-child.The bill will extend the date by which a person may lodge an estimate of income up to 31 July. The Registrar will be able to reject an estimate where it does not reflect the person's income.The bill will reduce the complexity of the departure from assessment process, clarify the rights of parents to exchange information and the circumstances under which hearings will be granted. The Registrar will have the right to initiate a departure when satisfied that a parent's financial circumstances are not accurately reflected in their child support assessment.Parents' rights and responsibilitiesThe bill will provide the following rights: . either parent may apply for an administrative assessment of child support. the Registrar may suspend payments of child support where the Family Court has been asked to make a decision. parents may move from Child Support collection of child support to private collection by agreement at any time and the Registrar may require parents to move to private collection where satisfied that regular payments are likely to continue. a parent may elect to end their administrative assessment where the Secretary to the Department of Social Security has granted an exemption. a child support assessment or agreement may continue until the end of the school year if a child turning 18 is a full-time student. information shown on an assessment notice in relation to children of a liable parent will be limited. parents may object to all decisions of the Registrar made in relation to administrative assessments.Introduction of a child support minimum liability including provision to withhold from income support payments will emphasise the primary responsibility of parents in caring for their children. The Registrar's power to reduce the minimum liability will be limited. However, if the liable parent is receiving less than $260 income, they may make an application to the Registrar to seek to have the liability reduced to nil.The bill includes measures which will put greater onus on parents to notify changes in circumstances.Flexible and streamlined administrationThe bill contains improvements to streamline administration of the Scheme and provides greater flexibility to meet parents' particular circumstances. These improvements include:. removing retrospectivity in relation to the commencement of a liability. enhancing payment options for liable parents. providing flexibility in how information is provided. allowing the Registrar to offset debts between parents.Non agency paymentsArrangements for direct (non-agency) payments in lieu of a child support liability have been changed in order to make them more flexible and allow payers more choice in the form in which child support is paid by them, while protecting payees and meeting the basic needs for children.The important reforms in this bill will represent the second stage of this Government's response to the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues. Other changes were introduced in 1997. In conclusion, as part of getting on with the job in this area, the Government has established a task force of Government Members to examine further proposed changes to the child support scheme.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Carr) adjourned.Bills3279r370Billsr3713279Debate resumed.18:36:003279Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I seek leave to have the vote on the second reading to the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 and the National Transmission Network Sale (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1997 taken again.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What is the explanation?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Perhaps I could throw some light on that. I was the person who missed the division at 12.40 p.m. I had gone to a function in the private dining room at about 12.35 p.m. without my pager and I did not hear any bells up there, nor did anyone draw my attention to it. I missed the division; I was in the private dining room at a function at the time. I ask the indulgence of the Senate to have the motion recommitted. I was the person who missed the division.18:37:003279Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—by leave—You have explained, Madam President, your misadventure, I think is the phrase often used when people miss a division. The Labor Party and the opposition make it clear that we have never, as far as I am aware in my time, refused where people have explained why they have missed a division through circumstances beyond their control or where it is quite reasonable. It happens to us all and it will happen consistently to us all in the future. However, there is a consistent pattern that it seems to be the government members who overwhelmingly are running into misadventure.Madam President, you have a different position and fulfil functions representing this chamber at numerous engagements from lunches through to dinners, presentations, launches, et cetera. My astonishment is why the Manager of Government Business (Senator Ian Campbell) did not arrange a pair for the debate.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Perhaps I can help. I didn't ask for one.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I see. Madam President, I respect the fact that you were being diligent and thought that you would be able to make the division. Being in the private members' dining room on the third floor, there is not much spare time out of four minutes to get back down here, anyway.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is possible, but I didn't even try. I didn't realise it was on.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Madam President, I want to make this clear: we accept your explanation and, I think the phrase is, `misadventure'. That might be a bit too enthusiastic in this case, a bit too wide a description. We are not going to oppose the item being recommitted, but I would say to the Government Manager and to you, Madam President, with due respect, that if you as President of the Senate are representing us at these functions it is only reasonable that you have a pair. That, I am sure, would never be objected to by the managers of our side.During the debate on this bill, the National Transmission Network Bill, which the government has made very important, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) was absent. He had to rely on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer (Senator Ian Campbell). We had one of these strange times where a parliamentary secretary, representing a minister who was absent, was actually filibustering on his own bill to fill the in time so he would not have to go into the committee stage of a bill where there were some technical amendments to be dealt with. Again, this certainly in no way reflects on the President of the Senate. It certainly reflects on the incompetence of the minister and the government in managing their own bill that the minister is away abusing the ABC board and leaves the parliamentary secretary here not well briefed. So we have to have a filibuster at the close of the second reading debate to fill out the time until a quarter to one and then the opposition is told: `You are wasting time. You are holding up the government's program.'It was a very poor performance today on this issue. This was an important bill. It is the privatisation of the National Transmission Agency, which the government has made great play of. It is poor that the minister was not present. I think it is poor that the parliamentary secretary was not able to handle the committee stage so he filibustered so we would not have to go into committee. Madam President, we accept your explanation, as we always have, because we accept in these circumstances—TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—You are not making sense; sit down.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—You will never make sense, Senator Knowles. So on this basis we accept your explanation. Madam President, if I may conclude, I think you should ask for a pair in the future. When you are representing the Senate at these functions you should be able to do so without having to rush for a division.18:44:003280Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—by leave—Madam President, you have my profoundest sympathy. On our side we have very high standards. I will just give you an example of that. I was once in the middle of a squash game when the bells rang. I managed to get back to my office, get changed and be back here with 43 seconds to go—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Alston! You need to seek leave to speak.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I seek leave.Leave not granted. Question put: That these bills be now read a second time.18:48:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W.* Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. 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.32Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V.* Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bolkus, N.Hill, R. M. Cook, P. F. S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.O'Chee, W. G. Quirke, J. A.* denotes teller(Senator Eggleston did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins.)Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Documents3281328118:50:003281Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.It is with some regret that I rise to speak to this report into the Australian National University.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—We share your regret.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—No doubt you will share it a great deal more by the time I have finished. I do not have any direct criticisms of the Australian National University as an institution, far from it. I think it is one of Australia's leading universities. What I am saddened by is the situation that is revealed in this report. The report notes on page 7 that the university has suffered greatly as a result of the six per cent cutbacks in funding by this government—a six per cent reduction in funding to the year 2000. It says that in cash terms that is a cut of between $12 and $15 million annually.That is an extraordinary assault upon one of Australia's leading education institutions, and for that this government ought to be condemned. What you have got is a government that is dedicated to the reduction in the effectiveness of our higher education institutions right across this country, not just at the ANU. But it is particularly noticeable at the Australian National University.The substantial reduction in the priority given to education by this government has seen a reduction of some $4.3 billion right across the portfolio of education. In higher education, there are 21,000 fewer places as a result of public investment in education and as a direct result of this government's reduction of six per cent in the operating budgets provided to the universities of this country. This has resulted in a reduction in the facilities that are made available. Hundreds of jobs have been lost as a result of budget cuts at the Australian National University. In the departments of art history, modern European languages, history and political science, there has been a reduction in courses available. There has been an increase in industrial action as the university has had to try to make up for the reduction in public funding made available by government.Protests by students and teaching staff have highlighted the failure of this government to provide adequate resources to the university sector. Professor Dean Terrell, Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, said in a memorandum, `I consider it to be essential that the general public is made aware of the financial difficulties and associated budgetary challenges facing higher education.' All of this is revealed in the annual report of the ANU and I think the university authorities should be thankful that it is being drawn to the public's attention. What were once regarded as some of the best university programs in the country are under attack as a direct result of the reduction in funding to the university itself.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—One of the board members just walked out.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—That is the point. Members of this Senate are represented on the board—and I thank Senator Ray for drawing that to my attention—and we do not hear one comment from this government's representative on the board of the ANU to indicate to this Senate what his concerns are in regard to the university. I note on page 17 of the report that hundreds fewer staff are being provided to the university as a result of those cutbacks. What have we heard from this government? Not a word. It is an appalling situation which I think the Senate ought to be very concerned about. I hope that as a result of the discussion of this annual report, there is broader understanding in the community about the impact on one particular university of cutbacks to universities across the country.This is a model that we have seen in a number of places, particularly at regional universities in the smaller regions of provincial Australia. The assault that has been experienced by the Australian National University and others is a disgrace and it is something that this government, in the long term, will be condemned for.18:56:003282Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I also rise to discuss the ANU's annual report, which sets out the activities of the Australian National University for 1997. At the beginning of the report the mission statement is set out, which states:The mission of the Australian National University is to be one of the world's great research institutions, distinguished by outstanding teaching, guiding students to the frontiers of knowledge and the best standards of scholarship.These may seem lofty ambitions indeed, and it is extremely saddening to see how such aims have been frustrated by the drastic underfunding of higher education by this government. The previous speaker has referred to some of the drastic funding cuts we have seen over the last two budgets.The impact of such underfunding is made abundantly clear in the report. The `review of 1997' states:Financial constraints caused by reductions in Commonwealth funding to the higher education system made 1997 a difficult year for The Australian National University.The year 1997 was the year in which the Australian National University began to feel the effects of the six per cent reduction in government funding, resulting in a reduction of $12 million to $15 million per year. Combined with an unsupplemented staff increase of nine per cent—this is the first time that the government has not supplemented such an increase—the university has been under tremendous pressure to maintain its high standards under these severe financial constraints.Thus far, administrative areas have been the hardest hit. This has seen administrative staff, already under strain trying to cope with the changes to HECS introduced in 1997, placed under even greater pressure. The university anticipates that its future will see course offerings and research equally adversely affected.To date—and I notice Senator Carr referred to staffing cuts—the university has lost 61 staff from its faculties: 31 academic staff and 30 general staff. The Institute of Advanced Studies, a world-class body, has lost 15 academic staff and 100 general staff, resulting in courses like archaeology and natural history being discontinued at a particular level.Earlier this year, the arts faculty discontinued Russian studies, and many of us in Canberra would have seen the student protests on the news. Last week, further staff redundancies were announced. Target loads for the university have fallen from 7,110 in 1996 to 6,180 in 1998. The undergraduate load has gone from 6,080 to 5,965 in the same period. This has caused a reduction of about $950,000 to faculties, so they are actually losing money as a consequence.The reduction in the target load is such that the university anticipates funding fewer postgraduate positions. The university council has therefore resolved that unless the situation changes and adequate funding is restored, it will charge fees for all postgraduate students from the year 2000 onwards. So we are going to see further up-front and full fees charged as a consequence of this government's actions.The arts and science faculties are under particular strain, and they are projected to run deficits this year. The library, of course, is one of the first places to suffer from funding cuts and indeed it is at the ANU. There was a 13 per cent rise in the cost of serials last year, and a loss of about $600,000 in purchasing power due to the decline in the value of the dollar relative to the US dollar and the pound has seen many of the serials cancelled.The library has also had to reduce its staff levels from 157 to 138, and it has shortened opening hours as well. This has been especially problematic for mature age students and part-time students who face difficulty in accessing the library after hours and on weekends. Students without access to information technology have also been affected as they no longer have sufficient access to library computers. However, despite considerable pressure from government on universities to compensate for the funding shortfall by introducing up-front fees, I am proud to say the Australian National University has thus far resisted such pressure. The Democrats commend them for that decision.This report highlights the situation many higher education institutions around the country find themselves in as a result of this government's brutal slashing of the higher education budget. Like many other institutions, the ANU is struggling to fulfil its high aims despite the ever tightening constraints imposed by a government which fails to appreciate the many benefits which flow from the provision of readily accessible, publicly funded and high quality education.19:01:003283Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise to speak on the same report, the annual report of the Australian National University. I am a member of the council of the Australian National University. Each month I have the opportunity to sit and hear the deliberations of this truly great Australian university.It was interesting to listen to the previous comments, particularly in light of the general response to the initial budget savings under this government. If I recall, it took up about three minutes of the time of the council at that time. But I think what Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Carr forget is the way in which the previous Labor government tried to bring down the Australian National University in many ways. The reason was that it is a very different type of university. Senators will remember that, when Mr Dawkins was the minister, he brought in what he called the `unified national system'. It was his eastern Europe-Communism type approach: his one type of model and `let's have it all pretty much the same' type approach.The ANU stuck out like a sore thumb in all that because it is not your typical Australian university. It has something called the Institute of Advanced Studies, which is a major research section in this university. It has a world-class research centre. The John Curtin School of Medical Research, which is part of the Institute of Advanced Studies, boasts two Nobel prize-winners in just one school of the Institute of Advanced Studies. This is a world-class research institution; a world-class university.Let us look at what the previous Labor government tried to do to it. I was a deputy chair of the Senate Employment, Education and Training Committee that inquired into what Labor tried to do to the John Curtin School of Medical Research. This was the first chink in taking the Institute of Advance Studies apart and trying to make the ANU like any other university. The then government actually moved the funding for the John Curtin School of Medical Research—this first-class research school—out of the ANU and put it under the Department of Health; it was not even under the Department of Education. Our report severely criticised what the Labor government did and was the mainspring for the action that eventually led to the restoration of the John Curtin School of Medical Research within the Institute of Advanced Studies. So the Senate had a major role in keeping the integrity of the Institute of Advanced Study in place.The other little thing the previous Labor government tried on the ANU was to combine it with the University of Canberra, claiming that in this area there perhaps should be only one university. That would have been a major mistake. I think history has shown that both universities have very different missions and fulfil very important roles in the Canberra and southern New South Wales region. So we have the ANU at this point in time.It is claimed in the responses to this report that the ANU has been greatly affected by budget cuts. The cuts have had some minor effects—Russian has disappeared, for example—but from where I sit on the council I cannot see these effects as being major. I am sure they are not as severe as were the cuts in the Dawkins years when university enrolments in this country expanded by 40 per cent. The commensurate finance did not expand anything like that, and therefore the universities were left struggling.It is interesting that Senator Stott Despoja—who, like many of the Democrats, is in fantasy land—talked about `fully funded public higher education of high quality'. It is almost a contradiction in terms because the reality is that, in the current budget situation, the government cannot do that. There just is not enough public money to fund universities to the extent that is needed. Even the Labor government recognised that. Who brought in fees? It was the Labor government—a long cry from the Whitlam era when universities were to be totally free.I was in the system at that time. What actually happened in the universities during the Whitlam era, as there were no fees, was a scaling back of resources and staffing, a lengthening of the hours staff worked and a run-down in general facilities. Why? Because there was not enough money there. The Labor government was finally run over by reality. It brought in fees, encouraged universities to raise money in other ways and introduced foreign full fee paying students—all of which we applaud. That is what they should have done, and that is what we are continuing. (Time expired)19:06:003284Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise to put forward some comments in relation to the annual report of the Australian National University. Listening to Senator Tierney advocate his view in relation to university funding it is quite interesting to note that, nowhere in the rhetoric that we have just heard from Senator Tierney, do we find any commitment to equity of access to higher education in this country. In fact, what we are hearing from Senator Tierney is exactly the opposite: that universities should remain open only to the elite or those who can afford to fund their access. That is the message contained within the Liberals' contribution to this particular debate. We have seen through the massive cuts to the higher education sector the manifestation of that philosophical view.I would like to turn my comments to the ANU and its role in our local region. As senators would know, the Canberra community has suffered many times over from cuts by this government. They are cuts that have affected our community in the harshest way, in the form of jobs and job losses. We have just heard from Senator Stott Despoja the degree to which people have lost their jobs at the ANU as a result of these cuts. Add to this the cumulative effect of public sector cuts and the flow-on to the private sector and we have a severely damaged regional economy. Education in the ACT and region represents over 30 per cent of our economy. We are very proud of our education base and it is one of our great strengths in this region. The ANU is very much a centrepiece of our education infrastructure.The ANU also plays a critical role in technological developments in areas such as AARNet and the introduction of new information services to students, and indeed to the whole network of universities around this country. At no point has this innovation and commitment to these areas been recognised by this government in a way that will sustain and enhance the role that universities have played in improving access to new information technologies. The relationship between the ANU and an absolute myriad of cooperative research centres, associated particularly with the information technology area but also a wide range of other areas, positions the ANU soundly in the structure and affords it the status of being an education leader both in our region and in Australia.Since I was elected to this place just over two years ago I have attended many demonstrations and rallies organised by both staff and students at the ANU demonstrating against the actions of this government. The cuts are not just to university funding, affecting academic and non-academic staff. We are still feeling the effects on almost a day to day basis as the university announces cut after cut forced by those funding arrangements. But students are also affected by cuts to Austudy and changes in arrangements. My electorate office was absolutely deluged as a result of the monumental stuff-up in relation to Austudy early last year.If these attacks on support for students and funding levels for universities continue, the upshot will be less opportunity for young Australians. The upshot, of course, will be a diminution of the status of our higher education institutions in this country. That will result in a decline in general investment in areas like research and development and commercialisation. That, in turn, will undermine our economic growth prospects. There is no denying that these cumulative effects of cuts on universities will affect these longer-term issues.The last point I would like to make is: think of what you are doing to the morale of the students in that place. Students now are facing increased fees. They are facing fewer opportunities as a result of this government. Start linking cross-portfolio areas about youth affairs and higher education. If you address the issue in the context of young people's morale, you start to see a very desolate picture being presented by this government. It has no compassion. It is not committed to the youth of Australia. What it is doing in higher education is a graphic example of that neglect. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.328519:12:003285Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—I move:That the Senate take note of the documents.In speaking to the report Australia's Antarctic Program Beyond 2000—a Framework for the Future , I also want to refer to the government's response to that report which I had the pleasure to present to the Senate on behalf of the government. When the coalition government was elected, my predecessor, Senator Ian Campbell, instructed the government's Antarctic science body, the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee, to look at Australia's Antarctic program beyond the year 2000. They presented the report that is before the Senate today entitled A Framework for the Future . It is a significant report and one which I congratulate the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee on preparing and presenting. It is a document that I recommend that all senators who have an interest in Antarctic matters should read.The government's response has been presented after a long consultation with people involved and interested in Australia's Antarctic program. Last Monday at the headquarters of Australia's Antarctic Division in Kingston, Hobart, I released the government's response to the staff of the division. The government's response maximises opportunities for undertaking Antarctic scientific research and it will enhance Australia's leading role in the Antarctic whilst minimising infrastructure and logistic support costs. The government has accepted ASAC's advice that a strong and efficient Australian Antarctic program needs more flexible logistics and infrastructure to be able to respond more readily to changes in future needs and priorities.I have instructed the Australian Antarctic Division to immediately commence an examination of options for a transport system that is more flexible and efficient than the present one ship system. The examination will include a multi-ship operation that would allow one vessel primarily to be devoted to the conduct of important marine scientific research. I have also instructed the division to prepare a scoping study for intercontinental air transport options for Antarctica. As part of these studies, the division will look closely at the environment and the cost considerations and at potential opportunities for cooperative cost-sharing transportation and supply arrangements with Australia's Antarctic neighbours.Whilst accepting ASAC's advice on the importance of a cost-effective intercontinental air transport capability for `an innovative and responsive future Antarctic program', the government is determined to ensure that this capability is provided in a manner that meets the highest environmental standards and does not cause serious adverse impact. No decisions have yet been taken on how this desired capability would be provided. These decisions will be taken in the light of the scoping study and other developments, including developments in establishing cooperative international transport arrangements.An intercontinental air transport capability will not only increase the program's scientific output but also provide potential for Australia to more effectively conduct surveillance operations in the Southern Ocean, thus providing greater environmental protection. While the government accepts the broad thrust of ASAC's report as an appropriate basis for a focused and effective program, we also carefully considered a range of public comments received and, as a result of those comments, the government has decided not to accept two aspects of the ASAC report.I am pleased to say, in our response, that the government has decided that all four permanent Australian Antarctic research stations will be retained for the medium term at least. We have ruled out the option of making the stations available for tourist use and we have confirmed our view that tourism in the Antarctic should continue to be ship based. Our government is committed to maintaining Australia's leading role in efforts to protect the Antarctic environment and ensuring that Australian activities in the region continue to meet the highest environmental standards. Finally, the government has reaffirmed its commitment to Hobart being the focus of the Antarctic program. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment3286UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Consideration of government documents having concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.328619:18:003286Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I want to acknowledge a very important event which will take place in Tasmania tomorrow. For some time now, there has been ecumenical prayer for mothers and unborn babies in Tasmania. Tomorrow, 28 May, a new milestone will be reached in ecumenical prayer. At 10 a.m. at Saint Therese's Catholic Church, Moonah, there will be the 300th week of the prayer. For the past six years there has been weekly prayer for mothers and unborn babies in Moonah's Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Salvation Army and Uniting Church churches.This could be the longest continuing ecumenical prayer in Tasmania's history. The prayer lasts for about 20 minutes. People of all ages and all Christian faiths attend. Occasionally, there have been interstate visitors. Five Metro buses carry large paid ads for the prayer. The prayer has a very positive focus: that God will keep all Tasmanian mothers and their unborn babies safe and well.This prayer has had great results. The advantages are of course that the prayer is ecumenical, that it is persevering, that it brings continuing help to mothers and unborn babies, that it is very gentle and non-confron tational, that it is pro-life in the very best sense, and that it shows that more things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.328719:20:003287Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—Tonight I wanted to congratulate the Queensland government on its environmental record, which is not often recognised. People who have an interest in the environment are always very quick to criticise and very slow to recognise good works and to congratulate those involved. The instance I want to talk about is one that I only became aware of when I recently visited the Torres Strait area, and Thursday Island in particular. Since my previous visit to Thursday Island a couple of years ago, two huge windmills have been constructed above the Thursday Island township.I was rather surprised that I had not heard of it. I was also surprised that the so-called people with an interest in the environment here—they are pretty limited in this Senate, but the two Greens senators do claim that and the Democrats sometimes suggest they are interested in the environment—had not mentioned it. The Labor Party, regrettably, these days seems to have no interest in the environment whatsoever. But no-one has ever mentioned these here, and none of that limited few with an interest in the environment has congratulated the Queensland government on the establishment of these wind generators.The Queensland Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Brian Littleproud, deserves congratulations on this great environmental initiative. His colleague the Minister for Mines and Energy, the Hon. Tom Gilmore, who had a significant role in their establishment, and the Far North Queensland Electricity Board all deserve congratulations as well for their part.These two huge windmills have been established at a cost of $2.5 million, and they supply about 10 per cent of the island's power. In doing this, they save about 359,000 litres of diesel fuel annually. That is worth about $250,000. I am told that they will pay for themselves in about nine years. Although these wind generators are the latest state-of-the-art technology, previous use overseas has been fairly rudimentary.I make no comment about the visual pollution on Thursday Island. Overseas there is also a noise pollution element, although I am told by locals on Thursday Island that noise is not a problem with these two wind generators. The two generators at Thursday Island progress the technology quite enormously, and the cost efficiency of wind generators as a power source can only improve by this initiative taken by the Queensland government and other initiatives in the like area. I congratulate the Queensland government. They have done this very significant work in the environmental area and they join with the current Commonwealth government as well in encouraging research into the use of natural resources like the sun, wind and waves for energy. So a big tick to the Queensland government for their work in the environment area. As I say, it is an initiative that, surprisingly, has not got the sort of publicity and the sort of exposure that I would have expected for it, and I am very pleased to be able to say to the Queensland government, `Good on you for this tremendous environmental work.'While I was in the Torres Strait recently—and I was there in conjunction with the local member for the area, Mr Warren Entsch, the Liberal member for Leichhardt—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Still looking for the man with the red hat?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—In fact, that is what I am going to talk about, Senator Schacht, but I just want to say first of all that Mr Entsch, the local Liberal member for Leichhardt, does a tremendous job in his electorate generally but he is doing a very useful job in the Torres Strait area. He is very well regarded there. He has done tremendous work for the Torres Strait Islanders and he has a succession of ministers up there. Senator Herron is a regular visitor. I was up there on this occasion with Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. She was inspecting the 51st regiment and she was very well received. She is one of the first ministers to do the trips around the islands and to actually speak with and inspect the various patrols on each island. I must say I was very impressed with the quality and standard of the patrols. The local people who form the patrols of the regiment come from all over the Torres Strait area. Many of them travel by boat for quite considerable distances to attend their regular patrol exercises.Whilst I was up there on this occasion, I again went to Saibai Island, which is the island in the Torres Strait closest to the New Guinea mainland. We spoke there with Councillor Terry Waia, who is the chairman of the Saibai Island council. Councillor Waia is a former navy man himself, I might add, and has a good understanding of the real issues. He is a very deep thinker as well. He indicated the real problem in the islands with drug trafficking, which Senator Schacht referred to. I regret to say that when Senator Schacht was the minister he did nothing about that problem, and that is quite scandalous. The obvious trade is there. I drew that to Senator Schacht's attention many a time, but he was either incapable of or not interested in addressing this vile trade.Councillor Waia indicated to us that the real problem is that marijuana grows very easily in New Guinea; it grows in the jungles. People in the southern New Guinea area live in abject poverty. They look with envy across the two or three kilometres of water at Australia and the Australian social service and health system and they really want to be part of it. They have no jobs, little means of getting any income and little means of providing for themselves and their families. So the easy thing for them to do is to grow the marijuana, which really grows wild, and then to transport it across the Torres Strait. Then it gets into Australia, one of the reasons being the inefficiency or couldn't-care-less attitude of the previous government. It comes through, and it is a vile trade that needs addressing. It is difficult to address, but just before I was up there, the Hon. Warren Truss, the minister for customs, was up in the islands looking at that and other issues and taking some initiatives—much more than the previous minister did, I might say, in all of the time he was there.The thing that I did want to pass on to the Senate and to the Australian public for consideration was Councillor Waia's view that you will never really stamp this out until you do something about New Guinea. His suggestion was that Australia should really target its foreign aid to that southern New Guinea area to try to lift the living standards of the people there. At the present time they have no alternative but to engage in this vile trade. The suggestion by Councillor Waia was that if we directed and targeted our aid into that area it would lift the living standards, and their need to be reliant on that trade would be less. He sees that as one of the only really effective ways of stopping this particular problem. It is something that he explained in some detail to Mrs Bishop and myself, and to Mr Truss the previous time.It is something that we will be taking up with the Hon. Alexander Downer, the foreign affairs minister, and it then becomes a matter of foreign aid and how that all evolves, which is not quite as simple as Councillor Waia would suggest. But it is something that really needs to be looked at. It is, as I say, a vile trade and it is one that is very difficult to stop. We really need to look at new ways. I appreciate that Councillor Waia thinks about this. He knows the damage it does to his people and to all Torres Strait Islanders, and it is useful that he has made this suggestion. (Time expired)328819:30:003288Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I speak on the adjournment tonight on matters that both directly and indirectly arose out of remarks the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) made today in the Senate and elsewhere in press releases on issues relating to the ABC. Today, on several occasions during question time, you called me to order because of my robust interjecting. I accept that, under the standing orders, that was the correct thing for you to do. But I would point out that, on one occasion, the minister said during his answer to me—I think off the top of his head—in passing to Senator Sandy Macdonald, `And while you are doing that you can explain why you leaked a copy of that Senate report on Telstra to Steve Lewis of the Australian Financial Review .'I made a personal explanation at the end of question time, completely refuting the accusation that I had leaked the report to Steve Lewis before it had been tabled in parliament. I think it is due to be tabled tomorrow; it was due to be tabled today. I also want to make it clear that not only did I not leak it but certainly none of my staff leaked it. Only one member of my staff had access to the document in helping me prepare the minority report, which will be tabled tomorrow.I think it is outrageous for a minister to accuse a senator, off the cuff, of a breach of privilege in this place. If he has evidence of a breach of privilege it should be put before the Privileges Committee and be dealt with there. Unfortunately this minister does have a loose mouth from time to time and makes other—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Unlike you.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I do not mind robust debate but, when you start accusing people of breach of privilege, that is a serious matter. I made my personal explanation and I have made it here again tonight. As I said, that was provocative and that may be one reason why I was interjecting more heavily than I normally do. I accept your advice of calling me to order.He also made another remark, and again this is a tactic of this minister that I have noticed over the last couple of years which will force people to interject and react. He said that he was meeting the ABC board this morning, which we know was correct, and that during the meeting, when he mentioned my name, there was a dead silence as though this was some sort of comment about me made in a derogatory manner.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—They'd never heard of you.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—They had never heard of me, right. That was a private meeting he had with the board members. The only way I can verify whether what he said was correct—because he used it to attack me personally—is to go and contact the ABC board members and ask them, on the record, whether that event actually occurred. They will say, of course, that the meeting of the board was a private meeting and that the matters of the board are held in confidence. I accept that. But, when a minister knows that he can make those accusations and use throwaway lines and that he cannot be corrected or cannot have them verified, he leaves the person he attacked in a position where they cannot verify whether it is accurate. I believe that is unethical.I believe that, if you are going to use and repeat private conversations which the person you are using that information to attack has no way of verifying, you will get a reaction. That got a reaction from me today. It is not the first time this minister has done this to members of the Senate and elsewhere. Unfortunately I suspect it will not be the last but, when it happens, there will be a reaction in this chamber from those of us who are the victims of that tactic.I also want to point out that today the minister, both in his answer and in the statement he issued about his meeting with the ABC board, has now raised a number of issues about the future of the ABC and the way this government treats it. He put out late this afternoon a detailed statement about what he would like the ABC to do to overcome the alleged bias. He has suggested it should look at arrangements the BBC has and the Canadian Broadcasting Commission has as examples that he thinks they should copy.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Do you agree with him?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I do not agree with him at all. I believe that these issues have been raised by this minister at this board meeting just prior to the election to put pressure on the ABC—to intimidate the ABC with allegations that they are biased—to the advantage of the coalition in the coming election.For example, he suggests that one of the things the ABC could do is to take on an example from the BBC. He says there is a BBC editorial policies unit which employs a chief political adviser to provide advice on programs dealing with political issues. The BBC has probably got a dealing with the government, previously even the conservative government and now the Labor government, which has left them at arm's distance. But can you imagine what this minister would want? What he would really be after would be to put pressure on the ABC to appoint somebody who would carry out the wishes of the coalition in the coming election.He also suggests that these matters are in the legislation carried by the previous Tory government in Great Britain and that the charter of the BBC is an example. I asked him today, by interjection, if he was going to recommend changing the charter of the ABC to carry out these wishes. That is the thing he should do—put it before the parliament. The Mansfield report of over 18 months ago made recommendations to change the charter. This minister has not responded to those recommendations to either say yea or nay or to ignore it. He does not want to go near the charter; he wants to go through the back door and intimidate the ABC in a sleazy way.The statement from the minister, and the attachment to it raising all of these suggestions, has only one aim—to intimidate the ABC. Yet this is the minister about whom only recently, if he is looking at his own performance, the Financial Review wrote an editorial—the newspaper that is backing this government on every aspect of the economic policies of privatisation, deregulation and tax reform introducing a GST—saying that Alston should be sacked for the way he has handled the introduction of new digital television in this country.Today in the Herald Sun there is an article by Terry McCrann—not noted for being a supporter of the Labor Party on any policies we put forward—which, over several columns, points out the hypocrisy of this minister in allowing the digital licences to be given free to the free to air television yet at the same time makes the comment that the minister was promoting himself about the spectrum option sale that took place only a few days ago. Terry McCrann's article is extremely critical—and quite derogatory—of Senator Alston's performance.In a statement which was quoted in the question today by the minister, I raised the bizarre suggestion by the Premier of Victoria that the performance of the ABC regarding its editorial content should be referred, and is going to be referred by the Premier, to a Victorian state parliamentary committee—the economic committee, I understand. It will inquire and report, according to press reports, by March next year. This is another example of the Liberal Party's obsession with attacking the ABC. I pointed out that Mr Kennett should have it explained to him that the reason there are problems with the ABC in Victoria on content and programming is the $55 million cut that Senator Alston made to the ABC budget. Why doesn't he raise that with Mr Kennett? He did say in his statement today that he has spoken to Mr Kennett twice on this matter. He did not say whether he told him to pull his head in or whether he agreed with this further attack by the Liberal Party on the ABC.This minister's performance is incessantly about destroying the independence, the morale and the content of the ABC and its role as a broad based, comprehensive, national broadcaster. His performance with the ABC is intimidating and bullying—that is the only method he knows—and the way he goes about it is a disgrace for the minister with the statutory responsibility to represent the ABC in this parliament. His final comment was, `I supported his right to go and raise issues with the ABC. I certainly do as the minister with the statutory responsibility.' But he should not abuse them first before he writes the letter. (Time expired)329019:40:003290Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Tonight I would like to talk about the new Martin Scorsese film, Kundun . This is a film about the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Chinese invasion of his birth country, Tibet. It was written and co-produced by Melissa Mathison, who I understand wrote ET . So on a lot of levels, this is an important film.The film opened in the United States and Canada on 16 January this year. In Australia, the original distributors, Village Roadshow, did not want to screen the movie and there were fears that we would miss out on viewing this most important film on the life of the Dalai Lama. Happily though, independent distributor, New Vision, has taken up that challenge. The national release of the film is next week—the week beginning 1 June.The release of Kundun in the United States has been surrounded by controversy. China is reportedly not pleased with the Disney Corporation's support of Kundun and has made it clear that such support could damage the company's attempt to expand into the Chinese market—and that could include film and video releases, merchandise and probably a Disney theme park in Shanghai. So heated has the pressure been that Disney has hired former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, to advise it on the handling of the issue with the Chinese authorities and to ensure that the release of the film in northern America was low key.The Chinese government say they believe Kundun is `intended to glorify the Dalai Lama' and is `interference in China's internal affairs'. This is the standard response of the Chinese authorities when dealing with issues relating to Tibet and the Dalai Lama. Their attempt to displace international criticism by claiming international interference only adds to the criticism. If China had remained silent on the release of this film, I am sure very little negative attention would have been directed towards them. After all, we all have a right to access these stories, especially one which details the events of the life of a spiritual leader as important as the Dalai Lama.Disney has released Kundun in only 439 cinemas in the United States compared with 2,500 for Seven Years in Tibet and 2,767 for Titanic. We are told that this release to 439 cinemas is typical for an art-house release film. But Seven Years in Tibet could itself hardly be considered mainstream. It had an art-house release here in Australia, but it was released through nearly five times the number of cinemas. Then, of course, there is the alternative theory. That suggests that Village Roadshow's decision not to distribute the film here, and Disney's limited release in the United States, have more to do with commercial interests in China than with the telling of an important biographical story. Interestingly, Kundun was nominated for four Academy Awards, including best art direction, cinematography, costume design and original drama score.So what is the film about? Why would it be considered to be so contentious by the Chinese? Kundun is a Tibetan term for the Dalai Lama, and, literally translated, means `presence'. The film chronicles the life of the Dalai Lama from his childhood through the Chinese occupation and his journey into exile in India. Through the charting of such an extraordinary life—and it really is quite an extraordinary life—we see a young, playful child grow into a figure who raises the world's consciousness about the Buddhist spirit and society, the plight of Tibet and the sufferings of the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lama has stood tall on the world stage, refusing to sacrifice the Buddhist principle of non-violence throughout his country's long resistance to Chinese rule. Those who appear in the film are not actors. They are Tibetan people who know the suffering of their own people inside Tibet and the human rights abuses they have endured. In this very credible film, we are exposed to the religious and cultural persecution of some of the world's most peaceful people.To help understand the importance of this story, I will just give a brief outline of the history of Tibet since the Chinese invasion of 1949-50. Mao Zedong's communist government invaded Tibet in 1950. A treaty was imposed on the Tibetan government in May of that year, although it is considered invalid because it was signed under duress. In 1959, a national uprising saw the Dalai Lama take flight into India where he and the Tibetan government-in-exile now reside. The international community reacted with shock at the events in Tibet at the time. The question of Tibet has been discussed on numerous occasions by the UN General Assembly, which has passed three resolutions condemning China's violation of human rights in Tibet, and has called on China to respect those rights, including Tibet's right to self-determination.The destruction of Tibet's culture and the oppression of its people has been brutal. Approximately 1.2 million Tibetans, one-fifth of the country's population, have died as a result of China's policies. Many more languish in prisons and labour camps, and more than 6,000 monasteries, temples and other cultural and historic buildings have been destroyed. Chinese authorities continue to refuse to meet with the Dalai Lama.The dialogue called for by the international community, including Australian governments—successive ones I am proud to say—is designed to resolve the question of the status and the rights of Tibet and its people. Constructive dialogue should not be seen to be threatening in any way. Indeed, China would receive greater respect from the international community if they entered into such a dialogue. In recent years the situation in Tibet has deteriorated. One of the principal factors is the large influx of Chinese into Tibet, particularly into its major towns, where they now outnumber the local Tibetan population by up to three to one. Such intense transmigration has a significantly negative impact on the cultural and the religious life of Tibetans and adds to the political and military control of the Chinese authorities inside Tibet itself.In many ways the screening of films like Kundun is one of the few motivations for the community to discuss issues relating to Tibet but, more generally, to discuss issues relating to the persecution of one group of people by another. Looking through the eyes of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people, perhaps we can all gain a sense of our own spirituality, of our own sense of justice and the importance of recognising the universality of human rights. The common interests between Australia and China are such that the release of this film will not do any long-term damage, or probably short-term damage, to our two countries' relations.After all, Australia is a democracy, and we have the right to see movies which present points of view which might be contrary to the government's point of view. Can we imagine what this country would be like if we did not have a strong rule of law? Can we imagine what the country would be like if political censorship meant that we were not able to see films produced by such a noted filmmaker as Mr Martin Scorsese, no matter what their particular subject matter? As a democratic and independent nation, we should not permit such outrageous censorship to occur. I am so pleased that in this case it has not occurred.The Australian Democrats congratulate New Vision for the courage of their decision to screen this movie in Australia. I am hoping that Kundun will be screened here in Parliament House so that all of those who work in this place will have the opportunity to see it. I have contacted the presiding officers, Madam President, on this matter, and I understand that you are considering it. I sincerely hope that the screening does go ahead. If it does, I would encourage all senators to attend. I most certainly look forward to seeing this film.329219:47:003292Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Senator Bourne has spoken about the essential nature of the rule of law; that society does not go well unless it is underpinned by the rule of law. Parliament makes the law, together with the courts in certain circumstances. The executive carries them out, and the courts interpret them and apply them in specific cases. It is in that situation that the courts make some of the law under which we live. As Senator Bourne has pointed out, the three arms of government are absolutely essential for the wellbeing of society. It is in that context that I want to make some remarks about the response of the government to the report brought down by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, about which Senator McKiernan spoke so well this afternoon.The three arms of government can work only if they have proper infrastructure to support them. The magnificent work that the parliament does, in the Senate in particular, led so well led by its president, is able to be carried out only because of the staff that you yourself have often praised, Madam President, and because of Hansard, the clerks and so on. You really do need an infrastructure to make things work well. Again, with the executive, it has the Public Service to help it carry out its proper function. Similarly, courts need an infrastructure. They need cases properly presented. They need people to know what they are about. They need people who are either charged before them or who have a case before them to be properly represented.It is in that context that we should see the importance of the provision of legal aid. We often think in this society that legal aid is an attachment to social security services rather than integral to the system of law under which we operate. I think it is that concept that has misled whoever wrote the answer to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee report. That report is a considerable contribution to the legal aid debate in this country. Unfortunately, the person who put in the answer to this report has failed to see the essential nature of what the report is saying.The report is saying that the judiciary, the rule of law, is important. We need to make sure that the infrastructure that supports the courts, that underpins the judiciary, is proper and efficient. To see that done, proper aid must be given to those who cannot otherwise properly present their case. Unfortunately, the report has been written without that in mind. It has been written in very economic terms, and that is a great shame because the provision of legal services to people who need them in this community is one of the fundamental duties of society to provide. Unfortunately, they are not being provided properly at this moment.Madam President, I perhaps should declare an interest in talking about the provision of legal services. I have a daughter-in-law, Emma Hunt, who is a community lawyer in North Melbourne; my son Sean, up until recently, was on the Committee of the Victorian Immigration Advice and Rights Centre; another son, Jerome, up until a little while ago, gave voluntary services in a community legal centre; and my wife, Lillian, as a practising lawyer does give freely from time to time of her, may I say, outstanding abilities for nothing. I declare those interests in this area. Nevertheless, the point remains that the profession, as was acknowledged by the attorney, is outstanding in terms of the pro bono or free work they have given to uphold the rule of law. We have community legal workers who do the same. We have legal aid systems which are under extraordinary strain. With their considerable altruism, they are all giving of their time and their ability entirely in the interests of making sure that people get what are their fundamental entitlements in this society.I am a bit concerned that this reply has not addressed those issues. One reason for my saying that can be seen from a particular recommendation and its response. That recommendations reads:The Committee recommends that the Government give consideration to establishing a high level representative task force to advise Governments on the legal aid system and its place in Australia's justice system.The response following reads:The Government is satisfied that existing mechanisms for provision of research and policy advice to the Government are sufficient to allow the Government to foster reform and ensure more cost effective service delivery and greater national equity in the provision of services.As I said before, the whole culture of this answer is an economic culture when it should be a culture of justice and human rights. It is essential to take economic factors into account in any situation where governments must make a decision—but they should not override the priority that should be given to human rights in the rule of law.In this response, there is no mention of an exercise which at the moment is being carried out by the federal government—and that is an exercise trying to determine just what the legal aid needs of Australians are. The government itself is conducting that inquiry, and that inquiry is being undertaken now. This response makes no mention of it.Moreover, if the government is carrying out this inquiry, how can it be so assured in its response that everything is being done as it should be done? How can this response contain the statement that all seems to be going well? That is the impression we get by reading this document—yet the government itself is carrying out research at this very moment to find out more. One would think that at the very least what should have been done was that the attorney give a reply but, additionally, he now also should undertake to give a further reply when he receives this research.The last point I want to make is this: the provision of legal aid is taken very, very seriously by other nations. I did want to continue with a point about British legal aid under former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, but I see that I have run out of time so I will stop there.19:57:003294Senate adjourned at 7.57 p.m.Documents32943294The following government documents were tabled:Antarctic Science Advisory Committee—Australia's Antarctic program beyond 2000: A framework for the future— Our Antarctic future: The Howard Government response, May 1998. Report, October 1997.Australian National University Act—Australian National University—Report for 1997.Maritime College Act—Australian Maritime College—Report for 1997.3294The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment)—Export Control Orders No. 1 of 1998.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —RHQ Company Determination No. 5 of 1998.Public Service Act—Foreign Affairs and Trade Determinations 1998/4 and 1998/5.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 3/98.Documents3294The following document was tabled pursuant to standing order 139(2):Unproclaimed Legislation—Document providing details of all provisions of Acts which come into effect on proclamation and which have not been proclaimed, including statements of reasons for their non-proclamation and information relating to the timetable for their operation as at 1 May 1998.Answers to Questions on Notice3295The following answers to questions were circulated:3295(Question No. 1091)10913295Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 11 March 1998.Can details be provided including the name of the proponent, the title and nature of the project or transaction, the date of application, the date of approval, the value of the project or transaction and the value of the insurance provided of any resource project or transaction which the Export Finance Investment Corporation has approved for support since 1 October 1997, with regard to; (a) mining projects: (b) mineral shipments; (c) export woodchip shipments; (d) dams; and (e) renewable energy industries.3295Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:During the period 1 October 1997 to 28 February 1998 the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC):(a) approved a facility for one mining project: an export finance guarantee relating to the expansion and upgrading of the existing Sarcheshmeh copper smelter in Iran. If this project proceeds, EFIC expects an exposure of A$32.5m;(b)approved insurance cover for mineral shipments as detailed in the Table attached. The row headed `Total Amount Approved' represents the total value of the export contract or invoice. EFIC's liability in the event of a claim would be a proportion of this amount. Often the liability would be 90% of the listed figure, but the liability could be as low as 50%. In addition, exporters may not have utilised the cover (or all of the cover) offered;(c) did not receive information from exporters which permits it to identify whether the export was of woodchip. The information available related to all exports that the exporter has identified under the category of `wood and wood products';(d) did not offer any facilities relating to dams;(e) is not able to identify `renewable energy industries'.The names of proponents of projects, exporters or buyers are commercial-in-confidence.AttachmentEFIC SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES—RESOURCE BASED(Export Credit Insurance and Confirming Bank)Product CategoryCoal and mineral fuelsTotal Amount Approved$434,076,552Significant CountriesRomania, South Korea, Cayman Islands, Italy, and Germany.Approval DatesFrom 18/11/97 to 27/02/98Product CategoryLead and articles thereofTotal Amount Approved$3,139,861Significant CountriesIndonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, China and Pakistan.Approval DatesFrom 08/10/97 to 17/02/98Product CategoryOres, slag and ashTotal Amount Approved$157,588,444Significant CountriesSouth Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, Turkey, China, Pakistan, Hong Kong, and Germany.Approval DatesFrom 25/09/97 to 17/02/98Product CategoryPrecious and semi-precious stones Total Amount Approved$16,891,790Significant CountriesDenmark, Fiji, Thailand, China, South Korea and Japan.Approval DatesFrom 16/09/97 to 18/02/98Product CategorySand, earth and saltsTotal Amount Approved$13,550,972Significant CountriesSouth Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, United States, Brazil, China, United Kingdom, Colombia, India, Hungary, Turkey.Approval DatesFrom 29/09/97 to 24/02/98Product CategoryWood and wood productsTotal Amount Approved$10,964,564Significant CountriesSouth Korea, China, Hong Kong, United States, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Austria, United Kingdom, and ThailandApproval DatesFrom 29/09/97 to 25/02/98NATIONAL INTERESTProduct CategoryMineral sandsTotal Amount Approved$3,600,000CountriesSouth Korea onlyApproval Dates06/02/98Product CategoryIron, aluminium and nickel oresTotal Amount Approved$19,338,000CountriesSouth Korea onlyApproval DatesFrom 13/02/98 to 20/02/98Product CategoryCoalTotal Amount Approved$64,477,000CountriesSouth Korea onlyApproval DatesFrom 13/02/98 to 26/02/98Product CategoryIron and steelTotal Amount Approved$7,158,836CountriesSouth Korea onlyApproval Dates19/02/98SPECIFICProduct CategoryCoalFacility TypeSpecificCurrent Face Value$6,410,000CountrySouth KoreaPolicy Issue Date29/01/98Product CategoryCoalFacility TypeSpecificCurrent Face Value$6,100,000CountrySouth KoreaPolicy Issue Date21/01/98Note: Mineral shipments are defined as any `ore' or `mineral sand'. If the ore underwent any process, it is not included. 3297(Question No. 1112)11123297Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:(1) What amount, in real terms and as a percentage of overall spending, of Natural Heritage Trust funding has been spent on administration, including salaries, sitting fees, consultancies, travel, accommodation and other support, at the; (a) national level; (b) state level; and (c) regional level.(2) What amount, in real terms and as a percentage of overall spending, has been spent on promotion, including printing, advertising and consultancies.(3) What steps are required for local government to receive funding.(4) Is it a fact that some applications, including from local government, have not received funding until close to, or past, the closing date for next year's applications; if so, how can they be fairly expected to show that money received for the previous year has been properly spent.(5) What proportion of Natural Heritage Trust spending is allocated to local government in: (a) rural Australia; and (b) urban Australia.3297Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) At the national level, Environment Australia has been allocated $9.761 million for 1996-97 and 1997-98 which represents 4.3 per cent of the Trust funds for those years on administration and other support costs. In relation to programs administered by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, the honourable senator may wish to direct this question to my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.(b) $210,000 has been approved for administrative and support costs to Tasmania for 1997-98, and negotiations are continuing with other States.(c) No specific administrative assistance has been provided at the regional level, although some projects have administrative elements included in their total budgets. Extracting these costs from all projects would represent an unreasonable diversion of resources.(2) Environment Australia has spent $560,541, which represents 0.25 per cent of Trust expenditure on promotion related activities for the Trust as a whole. Education activities undertaken by Trust programs are not included. In relation to programs administered by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, the honourable senator may also wish to direct this question to my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. (3) Local Government can receive funding by applying through the advertised call for projects each year.(4) For programs within my Portfolio, the vast majority of payments for the first One Stop Shop funding round had been made by Environment Australia to the States or proponents well before the advertised closing date for applications for the Natural Heritage Trust in 1998-99. In any case, Environment Australia will take into account the date at which proponents received funding when reviewing the progress of projects, to ensure that proponents are not disadvantaged.(5) Local Governments are the lead proponent for projects funded in 1997-98 under the Natural Heritage Trust as follows:Rural/Provincial 3.7 per cent of the first round of announced 1997-98 NHT fundingUrban 0.7 per cent of the first round of announced 1997-98 NHT funding.3297(Question No. 1124)11243297Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:In relation to the Government's ministerial code of conduct:(1) What is the definition of `conflict of interest'.(2) what is the definition of `corruption'.3297Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Neither the present government nor its predecessor has adopted a code of conduct and the narrow interpretations a code can encompass. The Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility and the rules on the registration of interests by ministers do not provide definitions of `conflict of interest' or `corruption' but require ministers to make judgements in relation to their own situations. All ministers are expected to behave honestly and avoid giving the appearance of using public office for private purposes.3297(Question No. 1144)11443297Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 17 April 1998:(1) Given that nine departments have now answered in full the questions placed on notice on 16 October 1997 (questions on notice 902-916, Senate Notice Paper of 21 October 1997) relating to qualitative and quantitative research, on what basis was it decided that the department would not authorise the money, time and effort involved to assemble the information required to provide an answer to the question.(2) What qualitative or quantitative research has been undertaken by the department and its agencies since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) What was the nature of the research undertaken, (sample sizes, questionnaire length, evaluation); and (b) to whom were the results of the research available.(4) In each instance, which firm or firms have been engaged to undertake this work.(5) In each instance what has been the cost of the work undertaken.3298Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The basis for deciding that the department would not authorise the money, time and effort to fully answer Question 914 was that retrieving the information requested by the Senator, would require considerable resources that would be more appropriately devoted to other tasks centrally related to administering the government's programs.It should be noted that much of the information that is requested by the Senator is already available in the Department's annual reports.(2), (3), (4) and (5) For the reason outlined in answer to part (1) of the Senator's question I am not prepared to ask my department to divert their resources at this time.3298(Question No. 1148)11483298Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:With reference to the Commonwealth Employment Service offices closed since March 1996:(1) (a) How many sites were owned by the Commonwealth; and (b) how many were leased.(2) For each of the leased sites: (a) in which State and suburb/town is the site located; (b) what is the unexpired period of the lease; (c) what is the lettable space involved; and (d) what is the cost of the unexpired period of the lease or of buying out the lease.(3) For each of the owned sites, if any, what does the Commonwealth intend to do with the site.3298Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Twenty-eight Commonwealth Employment Service Offices were closed between March 1996 and 23 April 1998. Of those offices: (a) One site was owned by the Commonwealth; and (b) 27 sites were leased by the Commonwealth.(2) The attached list provides details of the location and lettable space for each of the closed offices. The only site which has an unexpired lease period is Nambour. This site has been sublet and the net financial cost to the Commonwealth for the remainder of the lease (lease expiry date 31 March 2001) is $22,278, which represents less than 5% of the outstanding commitment.(3) The Granville office which was owned by the Commonwealth has now been sold to private investors as part of the Government's program to rationalise Commonwealth owned property.STATESUBURBAREA—m2NSWBaulkham Hills353NSWBelmont (NSW)241NSWByron Bay289NSWCaringbah655NSWGranville248NSWManly642NSWNorth Sydney777NSWRandwick600 NSWRevesby444NSWWetherill Park315NTBorroloola18QLDBrisbane1102QLDMareeba419QLDNambour696QLDSouth Brisbane658QLDSpringwood647SAMile End485SAPayneham441SASmithfield563TASMowbray400VICBelmont 397VICMoorabbin251VICNoble Park391VICNorth Melbourne841VICNunawading401VICSouth Melbourne518VICWaverly295WAManjimup2073299(Question No. 1162)11623299Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used. (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.3300Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:To answer this question would involve a large amount of resources. I do not consider that such extensive replies are an appropriate use of resources otherwise available for developing and providing services to the public. I am not prepared to authorise the use of these resources to provide the information you have requested on this occasion.