1998-05-283817SENATE330101998-05-28The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.330110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:330153WW4Kemp Sen RodTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations3. Not sign the MAI unless substantial amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be heldSenator KempWW4Senator Kemp(from 53 citizens)330128738U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in the Parliament.We the undersigned, wish to bring to the attention of the Government, the urgent need for funding, to enable scientists and doctors, involved in researching the bite and damage caused by the White Tailed Spider, to find a test, treatment, and antivenine, to be used in the treatment of victims who are suffering unnecessarily. The need is extremely urgent as funding was cut.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 2,873 citizens)Petitions received.Notices330133013301Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—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 alter the Constitution with respect to the qualification and disqualification of members of the Parliament and Parliamentary candidates. Constitution Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament—Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998.Business33013301Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day:No. 6— Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1998No. 7— Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998No. 8— Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 1) 1998No. 9— Taxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Bill 1997No. 10— Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998No. 11— Consideration in committee of the whole of the message No. 561 from the House of Representatives. (Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 ).No. 12— Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 19983301Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(a) general business order of the day: No. 29— Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995 [1996]Uranium Mining in or near Australian World Heritage Properties (Prohibition) Bill 1998(b) consideration of government documents.3301Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator George Campbell) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1084 standing in the name of Senator George Campbell for today, relating to the response of the Government to estimates questions on notice, be postponed till the next day of sitting.3302Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1121 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the division of senators into two classes for the purposes of rotation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.3302Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1155 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the appointment of Mr Don Henry as executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, be postponed till the next day of sitting.3302Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1089 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act, be postponed till the next day of sitting.3302Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 1157 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the prevention of childhood diseases in Africa, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Bills3302s1663302Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.330209:36:003302Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—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 purpose of this act is to spell out the terms of a prohibited activity in any part of a World Heritage Area. For the purposes of this act a prohibited activity means the mining, extraction, treatment and transport of any uranium or uranium bearing ore.This bill is an attempt to protect, in particular, the Kakadu World Heritage Area from further uranium mining or milling, and from any transportation of uranium ore.The strength of this act lies in its sensible and reasonable aims which are to prevent the tainting of a World Heritage Area by uranium mining and associated activities. Having a uranium mine in a World Heritage Area is like having a large industrial grease trap in the concert hall of the Sydney Opera House. A rubbish dump in a church. A chemical factory in the Healesville sanctuary.This bill is specifically about protecting superb world heritage areas, and in particular Kakadu World Heritage area, from the risks associated with uranium mining.Kakadu is a magnificent National Park and World Heritage Area in the Northern Territory. It is one of only 17 World Heritage sites out of 440 globally which were inscribed for both outstanding natural and cultural heritage values according to the strict international criteria.Kakadu was inscribed on the World Heritage register in 3 stages, 1981, 1987 and stage 3 in 1992 which included the controversial Coronation Hill area.It contains magnificent wetlands, representatives of most of Australia's bird species. It protects almost the entire South Alligator River Catchment area, and is an area of great and abundant diversity.From a cultural perspective I have viewed extensive rock art galleries there with art possibly dating back 40,000 years. It is a place where Aboriginal people live and interact with their environment and their heritage. Many Aboriginal people have told the Democrats over the years that it is a place they believe is too precious to be disrupted for a uranium mine.The Government will argue that the local Aboriginal people will receive great benefits from the mine. Those benefits are supposed to flow from a minority percentage of the royalty equivalents. But in effect these payments are used to make up for the neglect by Territory and Commonwealth governments.They are used as a justification for not giving funding from other sources for what could be best described as citizenship rights; for example basic health services, housing and basic infrastructure. The Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth governments have demonstrably and continually abrogated their responsibility for the traditional owners of Kakadu.It is morally bankrupt for any Government in this nation, State, territory or Federal, to pressure Aboriginal people to agree to a uranium mine on their land so they can have some hope of getting basic services.Yvonne Margarula, the Senior Traditional Owner of the Jabiluka area has done everything she can to protect her land. She has talked about her country to people all over the nation, she has quietly resisted the work started on the land, and she will not give up.She is rightly concerned about the environmental and social impacts of the mine.But the Government won't listen. They have tried to pretend there won't be any problems. They commissioned a social impact study that demonstrated the mine will not help the people of the area. They are working hand in hand with the company to force this mine through.The Northern Territory government is also culpable. They have arrested Yvonne Margarula for walking on her own land. How can that be? How can the Senior Owner of land be arrested for walking on it?How can this government spread the rot about native title that they do. These people have had native title for many years and they can't even stop a uranium mine on their land.There are so many concerns about this mine.One of the many concerns about uranium mining is the potential effect of radioactive spills of contaminated water and its mobilisation into the environment, particularly downstream in catchment areas.The Government will also try to say there are no safety or environmental problems with mining uranium, they will say it is OK to take a chance on more mines in Kakadu. But remember this is a World Heritage area and you don't use Ming vases in a juggling act.The 1985/86 Annual Report of the Office of the Supervising Scientist states:"Disposal of uranium mill tailings in surface dams, no matter how well stabilised and protected, almost certainly involves the acceptance of eventual tailings release into the environment.While this risk may be reduced. . . it is unlikely that any containment structure could remain totally impregnable to the natural processes of slow erosion over periods comparable to several half lives of the longest lived isotopes retained in the tailings"Ranger and Narbarlek and the Jabiluka and Koongara deposits are in high rainfall catchment areas. Tailings from uranium extraction contain more than 70 per cent of the radioactivity of the original ore. Impacts from uranium mining and milling are measured in a geological time scale as half lives of radio nucleides and in many cases are measured in tens of thousands of years.Unauthorised and authorised releases or spills have occurred at both Ranger and Narbarlek in the past. A notable spill at Narbarlek occurred as a result of a split in a pipeline allowing about 5kgs of tailings slurry to spray outside the Narbarlek restricted release zone.In early 1995 during a heavy wet season, the management of Ranger applied to release contaminated water from Retention Pond 2 in the restricted release zone, which would have flowed into the Magela Creek system.The Traditional owners of an area of Arnhem Land downstream from the mine in the Magela Creek region objected strongly to the release and sought an injunction to prevent the release from the Northern Territory Supreme Court which was heard on the 16th March.The Judge rejected the application for a permanent injunction and effectively paved the way for the release of contaminated water saying `someone' had to explain to the traditional owners and affected peoples downstream that the releases were safe, because the scientists said so.The traditional owners point out that if this contaminated radioactive water was to be put in the Sydney water and food supply there would be outrage, yet they were expected to support such a release. Fortunately the time involved in the court proceedings meant that the flow of the creek had slowed to the point that the Office of the Supervising Scientist advised against the release.It is still possible that the Ranger management (or even the managers of other mines should they be approved by the Coalition Government), will request to release contaminated water in the future as it has stated it has only deferred the release.This controversy followed earlier requests for release of contaminated water in 1986/87, and 1989. The 1989 incident Ranger released water by allowing it to overflow to a spillway into Djalk mara Billabong using the rationale that the Billabong would act as a filter for the water.Despite the Office of the Supervising Scientist refusing to give approval, the Northern Territory Government did, and the release went ahead.Following this incident, the Office of the Supervising Scientist released this statement in their 1988/89 report:"Over the past year or so, Ranger/ERA has shown an increasing tendency to regard certain environmental requirements as `legal technicalities' the strict application of which ERA has described as an impediment to developing the Best Practicable Technology'. Ranger has been reluctant to adhere strictly to the ER's where compliance leads to operational inconvenience, or additional expenditure and it has disregarded technical advice from the OSS resulting in a number of incidents or deliberate actions whose environmental implications are undesirable".For all these reasons, spills and the potential for more, the effect on the Aboriginal comminutes and the effect on one of the most precious places on earth, I ask all honourable Senators in this place to forget their party and industry allegiance just for one minute.We've inherited unique, rich world, with clean rivers and seas, an abundance of life in all of its different forms and rich soils and resources. We have a chance, possibly unique, to protect this and to live in a way that protects it for future generations, to live simply so that others may simply live.Think of the world you want to pass on to your children and grandchildren, the life chances you want them to have, the places you would like them to see, the experiences you would like them to enjoy. With all that in mind, let's be very clear, nuclear accidents sully and contaminate our environment and our very genetic blueprints on a time line measured in generations.I am sure when you take the chance to honestly reflect on my words and on the content of this bill, you will all agree that Kakadu is too precious to put at risk, too precious to expose to further radioactive waste.Now with the possibility of more uranium mining rearing its ugly head again in the Kakadu World Heritage Area, the Democrats are re-introducing a bill as we believe it is vitally important this mine does not go ahead.As it now stands, the Australian people have an invaluable treasure-an area of unique scenic, archaeological and ecological importance.In a report on archaeological research in Kakadu National Park, leading Australian archaeologist, Dr Rhys Jones, and Tia Negerevich wrote: "Along the base of the great cliffs . . . are rock shelters which constitute one of the world's most important storehouses of information about the prehistory and the art of hunting and gathering man. In terms of the number and age of occupied rock shelters, and the staggering profusion and antiquity of the brilliant rock art sites, the Kakadu area can be compared with some of the classic archaeological locations of the world.. . . in Kakadu, the Aboriginal owners are the direct descendants of the people who lived in the rock shelters and who painted the art . . . The conjunction of living Aboriginal traditions, and extremely diverse and rich landscape and the wealth of archaeological sites, some with proven antiquity back to 23,000 years ago, makes the Kakadu a key zone for research into the prehistory of Australia." (Rhys Jones and Negerevich)The writers liken the importance of the Kakadu sites to the Dordogne cave paintings in France, with the added factor of the direct descent of the traditional owners from the inhabitants of the area over 23,000 years ago.There would be a significant increase of dust in the atmosphere, and that, as well as other adverse ecological effects of such a mine would cause direct degradation of the archaeological sites, as well as the indirect degradation caused by scars on the landscape from roads to the mining area, noise and air pollution, and pollution of the water table. None of this must be allowed to occur. The area is of such obvious international significance that its inclusion in the World Heritage listing for Kakadu is utterly appropriate.It is no good to say, we only produce uranium ore, or we only produce it for power, or our uranium can't go into weapons. The fact of the matter is, we are producing a material which will become waste which has to be dealt with and will last many thousands of years. The fact of the matter also is that there are no guarantees, no absolute guarantees that Australian Uranium is not being enriched, flag swapped and used in weapons manufacture.We must be responsible with the uranium in this country, we must admit that it is producing waste and the effects of that waste in biological and environmental damage are measured in a geological time scale, not a human time scale.The management and final disposal of radioactive waste has presented some of the most profound and enduring difficulties for nuclear power and uranium mining. This is in start contrast to the great improvements in managing and disposing of almost all other types of wastes created by modern societies.Wastes from nuclear reactors have some of the very longest lived wastes and so need to be kept isolated from the biosphere for hundreds of thousands of years. It is virtually impossible to guarantee there will never be leaks, cracks, earthquakes, breakdown in maintenance or other occurrences which could cause leakage of the waste material in the time scale needed. Both ocean and land style disposal are being used globally for attempted disposal and there are many, many problems.I would also anticipate an argument from the Government that our uranium is needed to fill a gap in the increasing demand for uranium for the power industry. However our information is that the industry is actually contracting.Between 1994-2000 approximately 60 reactors globally will be past their design lifespan. There are 48 new reactors in the pipeline which are supposedly coming on stream between 1994-2000. Of the 48 planned perhaps as many as one third have financial or political problems and may not ever be completed. However there are also existing reactors being decommissioned which will be past their design lifespan. For example 10 plants in the US, 20 in the UK, 5 in Japan and 3 in Germany will be past their design lifespans Even assuming all 48 overcome financial and political problems there will still be 12 fewer by the year 2000 than there are now. Therefore reactor numbers and subsequently nuclear power is actually decreasing.The current demand for uranium is about 60,000 tonnes per year globally taking into account the fact that new reactors initially use more because a full core load is needed. Supply at present is about 30,000 tonnes per year because a number of mines in Canada, the US, Australia and Kazakhstan operate at 50 per cent or less capacity. This is offset by large stockpiles and large quantities of enriched (in some cases up to 95 per cent) uranium on the marked from the USSR (between 500 and 700 tonnes) and the USA (600 tonnes).Finally, we must remember that our uranium doesn't get special treatment in the case of theft or use for terrorism. This century has seen the proliferation of several terrorist friendly technologies--plastic explosives are one example. However some of the most potentially dangerous technologies are those associated with nuclear, biological and chemical means of warfare. Of these the worst scenarios are where terrorists achieve control over nuclear facilities, material or even weapons.The disaster at Chernobyl was an accident; the deliberate destruction of an operating reactor's containment could have equally catastrophic consequences. These are problems recognised by many Governments in the world.To sum up, there are simply no good arguments for Australia to sell its uranium overseas. To use the fatuous notion that if we don't sell it, some other country will and we won't get the money is like saying we should sell cocaine, or the Cartels in Colombia will sell it and we won't get the money. There are problems with the entire nuclear cycle, from producing and transporting the ore, to enrichment, to use, to waste and to disposal or use of that waste. And those problems are measured in our very genetic blueprints and in a timescale most of us can't imagine.The Australian Democrats implore the Senate to deal responsibly with this vitally important legislation and ensure its speedy passage through both houses.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.Miscellaneous3305Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone), no later than 4 pm on 23 June 1998, any briefing papers prepared by the Commonwealth relating to the proposed non-violent erotica classification provided to the members of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General prior to the past three meetings where the proposal was discussed.Committees330533053305Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous33053305Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that notice of motion No. 1151 standing in my name for today be made a formal motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Formality is denied, Senator. Business33063306Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Bills3306r501Billsr4613306Bills received from the House of Representatives.3306Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.330609:39:003306Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1998The main purpose of this bill is to insert into the Excise Tariff Act 1921 Excise Tariff Proposals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1998.As part of its aviation policy, the Government reduced the rate of excise and customs duty on aviation gasoline ("avgas") to $0.17403 per litre, with effect from 3 July 1997.On 31 January 1998, the legislation package implementing the fuel substitution reforms, which I will discuss in greater detail shortly, came into effect. Part of these reforms involved a complete restructure of item 11 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. As a result of that restructure the duty rate for avgas was set at $0.18003 per litre. This rate did not reflect the Government's 1997 decision in relation to avgas.The amendments made in this bill reduce the excise duty payable on avgas, as from 3 July 1997, to $0.17403 per litre.On 31 January 1998, a package of 9 acts, implementing the Government's Budget decision to combat revenue loss through the minimisation of fuel substitution practices commenced. The prime object was to ensure that petroleum products dutiable at concessional rates of excise duty were not used as fuels in internal combustion engines.Fuel substitution avoids paying the correct excise. It also is a fraud on consumers and on the vast majority of those involved in the petroleum products distribution and retail system who follow the rules.Moreover, in many cases, use of petroleum products not designed for use in engines can greatly harm engine performance and expose consumers to great danger as the blends contained in these products may have a much lower flashpoint than proper diesel.These acts were passed by the Parliament in the 1997 Spring sittings.The petroleum industry was consulted at all stages of policy development and implementation of this package. It was concerned the new structure may create misunderstandings as to how much excise was payable on some petroleum products intended for particular uses, particularly products used otherwise than as fuels.Accordingly, the technical amendments contained in this bill are designed to remove any such uncertainty. The amendments insert new subheadings of "other" in all subitems of item 11 except subitem 11(A) and 11(D), to cover petroleum products used for purposes other than as fuel.These amendments do not widen the intended scope of the fuel substitution minimisation legislation.Other technical amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 are discussed in the bill's explanatory memorandum. TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CARRIER LICENCE CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1998This bill provides for the imposition of annual charges to recover costs incurred by the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism (DIST) in monitoring telecommunications industry development plans prepared by carriers under the Telecommunications Act 1997.Part 3 of the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 provides for the imposition of an annual charge on a carrier licence that is in force at the beginning of a financial year beginning on or after 1 July 1998. The amount of the annual charge is ascertained in accordance with a disallowable instrument determined by the Australian Communications Authority (ACA). The act provides for a limit on the total amount of this charge on carriers having regard to the amounts attributable to the ACA's and ACCC's telecommunications functions and powers for the immediately preceding financial year, the proportion of the Commonwealth's contribution to the budget of the International Telecommunication Union for the calendar year that is to be recovered from carriers and an estimate of the grants likely to be made by the Minister during the financial year to fund consumer representation and research in relation to telecommunications.Currently, the licence charge payable by telecommunications carriers does not recover costs incurred by DIST. The bill provides that, in addition to the amounts mentioned above, the total charges imposed on carrier licences in force at the beginning of a financial year may include an amount determined, by a written instrument made by the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, to be the proportion of DIST's costs for the immediately preceding financial year that is attributable to the administration of the industry development plan requirements contained in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1997.Financial ImpactThe cost associated with the administration of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Act 1997 is expected to be in the order of $600,000 in the first year and is likely to grow as the number of carriers increases. The bill will enable these costs to be recovered by the Commonwealth.Debate (on motion by Senator Chris Evans) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Committees330733073307Message received from the House of Representatives notifying a variation in the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as follows—The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that Mr Halverson has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in place of Mr A.C. Smith.Committees33073307Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to require captioning of certain television programs and videos for the deaf and hearing impaired, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.330709:41:003307Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Captioning for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Bill 1998 aims to increase the availability of captioned services for the benefit of the deaf and hearing impaired Australians. This will be done in three ways:(i) by increasing the broadcasting of captioned television and like services;(ii) by captioning of videos for hire and sale; and(iii) by having television sets and videos with the ability to decode captioning signals.The proposed amendments require changes to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to require the captioning of each television program on or after 1 July 2000, for those programs which start on or after 4pm and before 10:30pm, as well as each news and current affairs television program on or after 1 July 2000 and every program on or after 1 July 2010.Changes to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 will require videos for hire or sale on or after 1 July 2002 to include captions, and hired or sold televisions will have to be able to decode captioning signals on or after 1 July 2002. Failure to meet these requirements will be the basis for a claim of discrimination.At present only 15 per cent of all Australian broadcasts carry closed captions. This is comparatively low compared with that of the United Kingdom and the United States broadcasts, which are at a rate of 45 per cent and 90 per cent respectively. We are behind and for the benefit of deaf and hearing impaired Australians we need to catch up. The United Kingdom Broadcasting Act requires 50 per cent of all commercial broadcasts must be captioned by 1998 and in the United States the Telecommunications Act requires everything must be captioned by 2008. The proposal set out in this bill are consistent with international practice and provide a compromise between complete captioning now and moves towards complete captioning.Under existing laws there is a commitment to captioning through Codes of Practice. Section 123 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 requires commercial broadcasters to develop and abide by codes of practice relating to captioning. The ABC's Code of Practice makes similar provision. However, the level of broadcasting in Australia with captioning is relatively low by international standards, despite these legislative options.I however acknowledge the significant contribution of Australian broadcasters in increasing the level of captioning. For example, I understand SBS captions nearly 45 per cent of their programs, excluding the re-broadcast foreign news programs.Without legislation setting particular targets it is very likely those in our community will be forced to rely on the existing provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Section 24 of that act makes it unlawful for any person who provides goods and services (whether for payment or not) to discriminate against another person on the grounds of another person's disability. The term "services" would arguably include television and possibly videos.The case of Scott & Another v Telstra Corporation Ltd (1995) EOC 92-717 related to a complaint made against Telstra for not providing a service to a profoundly deaf person. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner found for the plaintiff for the following reasons:(i) the definition of a `service' proposed by Telstra was denoted as a product, and not as the purpose of the product for which it was to be supplied;(ii) by providing a service that those members of the community who were not profoundly deaf could access, therefore indirectly discriminating against those who were; and(iii) the magnitude of unjustifiable hardship faced by the plaintiff was weighed between the difficulty facing the respondent in supplying the service, as opposed to the benefit received from the provision of the service. The decision was made on the basis that the financial impact did not outweigh the benefits that the service could provide to people with profoundly limited hearing.This decision indicates the very real possibility that failure to provide captioning is open to a finding of discrimination.Challenging captioning on the basis of discrimination legislation would be an expensive and lengthy undertaking, with no guarantee of a positive outcome for any parties. Therefore, clear legislation is an appropriate measure to ensure captioning targets meet the needs of this particular sector of Australians. As a further indication of the need for legislative intervention, the Federal, New South Wales and Western Australian governments have policies in place which require compulsory captioning for all their advertisements and videos.This bill provides a clear statement of what measures need to be undertaken and will avoid the need for litigation and hardship in the deaf and hearing impaired community.Taking into account international practices and through consultation with the National Working Party on Captioning (NWPC), I have suggested the following captioning goals. The proposed amendment stipulates that prime time television segments (ie starting at or after 4pm and before 10:30pm) are to be captioned on or after 1 July 2000, as well as each news and current affairs television program service on or after 1 July 2000. I believe these are achievable with sufficient lag time to allow appropriate planning and implementation.The benefits of this bill extend far beyond those for the deaf and hearing impaired.This bill is a pedestal for the Australian Parliament to stand on in an era of rapid technological changes. We have the technology and we must grasp the possibilities for the benefits of all Australians. We have moved to accept disabled groups in our community through positive legislation, and the next step is to make sure the ongoing technology is available to these groups. This bill makes that step for the deaf and hearing impaired, so that they too can have the benefits of broadcasting and videos.Many deaf and hearing impaired members of the community have contacted me with their views. Their perspective is an insight into the importance of this legislation. One writer stated:"Caption television has brought many deaf and hearing impaired people into the world again. Denied radio, unable to hear in theatres or cinemas, uncomfortable at the most ordinary social gatherings, the deaf and severely hearing impaired, it is not to much to say, often they live for their bit information and entertainment on captioned television. It has become their contact with the world and more importantly, a means of keeping in contact with their family, younger people, giving them a point of contact in their otherwise quite isolated existence. Yet in Australia so little is provided for them on television. The medium which has impacted so much on every hearing person in our culture has almost passed by the deaf and hearing impaired with only a mere nod in their direction. For many of these people it is like being locked out of their culture."Clearly, captioning will have a significant benefit to this community.Further, this is an excellent opportunity for Australia to develop this technology, and benchmark the system for other international markets. Captioning is an international necessity and through domestic captioning we have the potential to develop an international industry with important consequences for our culture and our place in the family of nations. Our export documentaries, films and television programming has international appeal and we can value add to this through an active captioning industry in Australia.These amendments will greatly benefit the lifestyles of those who are deaf or hearing impaired. Their ability to keep up with current affairs, or merely for entertainment, will affect the way they picture themselves as included members of society. As an inclusive and participatory community we must always make sure each cohort in the community is included. This bill ensures the deaf and hearing impaired are not excluded from the central place of broadcasting and videos in our communities.The principal problems anticipated are the costs. The proposed amendments will shift the costs to the community and the commercial broadcasters. The costs the community will incur will become standardised, as the entire population will incur the same fee. This is important so there is no inequality. This cost is important for the community to meet, and by `normalising' this cost it also integrates the deaf and hearing impaired further into our communities. The assumption is made that commercial networks will absorb additional costs. The public broadcasting ABC and SBS may require additional funding. A compromise has been made with the limitation of mandatory captioning to only take place within the prime time television allotments and the period for introduction is lengthy as a recognition that some costs are involved. I believe these costs are reasonable and will be a significant investment for those in our community who are deaf or hearing impaired.At present a sales tax exemption exists on television sets with the decoding ability for these disadvantaged groups. Such an exemption would be unsatisfactory with the introduction of these amendments, as everyone would incur the charges for a television with a teletext decoder. However to revoke this tax exemption would be a small sacrifice considering the consequences of these amendments. This sacrifice is supported by deaf lobby groups, as long as these amendments are introduced.The aim of this bill will not only be to extend the captioned television broadcasts to the Australian deaf and hearing impaired community, but to also provide the opportunity to hire or purchase a newly released videos and television sets. The National Working Party on Captioning (NWPC) has identified their aim for all new video releases were to be captioned by July 1999. The proposed amendment of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 supports these goals, and identifies July 1999 to be the date that any person to discriminate against another person who has a hearing disability by the sale or hire of a new video that does not include captions, is unlawful.This amendment also stipulates that discrimination against another person on or after 1 July 2002 by the selling or hiring by one person to the other person who has a hearing disability, of a television set that is not able to decode teletext, is again, unlawful. Both parts to this subsection will increase the quality of life for the community of the deaf and hearing impaired. A more equitable access to the entertainment industry in both public and private settings will also be achieved with the adoption of these proposals.This bill will not only improve the quality of life for those who are deaf or hearing impaired, it will further their integration into our community.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned.Miscellaneous3310(Quorum formed)09:43:003310Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—by leave—At the request of Senator Lees, I move:That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Optus Mobile Pty Ltd) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No.1 of 1997), made under the Telecommunications Act 1997 , be disallowed.That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Optus Networks Pty Ltd) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1997), made under the Telecommunications Act 1997 , be disallowed.That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Vodaphone Pty Limited) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1997), made under the Telecommunications Act 1997 , be disallowed.The Democrats have moved these motions today because we believe that both Optus and Vodafone should have majority Australian ownership in their share equity. This is the Democrats' philosophy and, when it comes to both companies floating their equity, we argue that the conditions under which they received their licences should remain in force—that is, the majority Australian ownership. We think that the amendments the government has made to the carriers' licence conditions allow both of these companies to be foreign owned and that that is just plain wrong. The Democrats believe that we should ensure that these private companies operating in Australia are majority Australian owned, just as we believe that the government should maintain its ownership of Telstra so we can be sure of a continuing, high-quality, affordable telecommunications industry here in Australia.However, it did not come as any surprise when the Treasurer approved amendments to Optus's articles of association, which had the effect of removing references to foreign ownership. This means two things: firstly, that the Treasurer removed any role for the parliament in determining the outcomes from this delegated legislation and, secondly, that Optus can now effectively become a 100 per cent foreign owned company. Whilst we are advised that the Foreign Investment Review Board will have an overriding concern with any foreign acquisition or takeover of these companies, we are only too well aware of the practical limitations of that particular branch of the Treasurer's department in maintaining Australian majority ownership. Ultimately, we believe that when companies are floated on the Stock Exchange they should clearly be required to continue to maintain majority Australian ownership. These instruments allow the watering-down of the very licence conditions that these two mobile phone operators agreed to when they commenced operation in the Australian market.The issue of the closure of the analog mobile phone network cannot be divorced from this debate. I do not want to deal in detail with this issue but it should not go unmentioned. In 1992 the Labor Party struck a deal with Vodafone which enabled the company to provide a mobile phone network which was exclusively digital. They did not have to provide an analog service. The exchange for this was the requirement for Vodafone to have majority Australian ownership by 2003. It has been proven that digital mobile phones are often useless in rural and regional areas and people who live there simply do not get the same kind of service that we in major cities benefit from.The Democrats have stated before that we consider the closure of the analog system to be a mistake. During the debate on the telecommunications bill in 1996 we moved amendments to retain the analog system, but the closure of the analog system is now enshrined in legislation and if it were to be repealed the Commonwealth says it would have to pay compensation to the carriers to change the policy, although Senator Alston was never willing to say what this cost would be or even engage in negotiations with the carriers.The government has now come to the realisation that the closure of the analog system is not good telecommunications policy. The minister announced that the Australian Communications Authority would undertake a review into the analog mobile phone network in regional areas and report to the minister by 30 June this year. The minister announced a package of measures designed, he said, to ensure that all areas of Australia currently receiving analog mobile phone coverage will continue to enjoy reasonably equivalent coverage after the system is meant to close on 31 December 1999. But the most ridiculous part of the whole review is that any recommendations reached by the ACA on the extension of analog coverage would have to be agreed by the three carriers, Telstra, Optus and Vodafone. The recommendations of one of the government's own departments will potentially be overridden by the carriers, who are closing the system against customer service requirements. The provision of a reasonably equivalent analog to digital phone service for rural and regional Australia seems to be a very long way off.Another part of this very strange situation is the promise of new satellite phones being available and being able to be used anywhere. This is simply another deception. Anyone with even the smallest knowledge of telecommunications and mobile phones can tell you that this technology is not fully developed. Even when it is the handsets will cost thousands of dollars. The system being talked about is called Iridium and those handsets cost approximately $US3,000 at present. I doubt that your average farmer would regard that as a very cost effective replacement for the analog handset even if there is a reasonable future take-up of the technology. We do not know what the costs for connection and calls are likely to be either. Australians living in rural and regional areas have had to fight hard for equal access to telecommunications. The privatisation of Telstra worries people in the bush, and quite rightly so. As we enter into the digital age and with the government so very keen to sell Telstra to the highest bidder, these people will simply be left behind unless the government makes the right decisions in this crucial policy area.Vodafone and Optus were both required at the time they were granted their mobile telephony licence to be majority Australian owned. In Vodafone's case they had until 2003 to achieve this outcome. The Democrats believe that the decision to terminate these particular licence conditions should be disallowed. We also believe that the Treasurer's decision to amend Optus's articles of association is wrong. The government will say that we are sending out a negative signal to those companies who want to invest in Australia. The Democrats simply do not agree with that assertion. We have the very old-fashioned view that the ground rules should be clearly and concisely set out and that we should stick to them. We want to send a strong signal to foreign investors: you are welcome to Australia as long as you prove your commitment to the Australian market by having majority Australian equity and by giving something back to the community.This issue and the closure of the analog mobile phone system should send a very clear message to governments of all persuasions on the dangers of making technical specific policy based on commercial favours. Let us hope that the government is not going to make a similar mistake with its digital television policy. I guess that the government thinks that in the three days they have set aside for public hearings into digital television we should be able to reach a conclusion about it. The Democrats urge the government to consider very carefully the long-term implications of shutting off a crucial means of telecommunications, whether phones or television. These policy decisions are not lost on the electorate, especially in rural and regional areas where these decisions take on mammoth proportions. Australian owned companies benefit Australians. We reject the government's attempt to remove foreign ownership restrictions on Vodafone and Optus and we move the motion of disallowance.09:51:003311Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—On behalf of the opposition I rise to indicate that we support these motions for disallowance. Senator Allison—and some Independent members of the House of Representatives during the debate on this a month or so ago—talked at some length on the issue of the analog versus the digital network. That is not an issue that we believe is relevant to this particular debate.These regulations are about one issue; and that is the level of foreign ownership that should be allowed for two particular carriers. The opposition has already indicated that we support the government's decision to have an inquiry to report by, I think, the end of June of this year over what way we can ensure that the digital mobile phone network can provide the same coverage as the existing analogue system to Australians, particularly in rural areas. That is a debate we will have at that time.We in the opposition will have to be strongly convinced about leaving an analogue system in place so that you end up with two different standards for the future for a mobile phone system and what some might call a generous use of spectrum and so on, with all the problems consumers will have in the long run with two different receivers or having to manufacture a digital and analog telephone receiver all in one unit. Those are issues to be debated at that time.Why the opposition supports the Australian Democrats' motion is that we were the ones, when we were in government, who established the rules for the licences to be given to Optus and Vodafone. We made it clear at the time that we wanted both these companies to be majority Australian owned. When the licences were granted the successful applicants for those licences, Optus and Vodafone, accepted those rules.I know the view has been put that since 1 July we have had an open, deregulated system such that anybody who wants to be a licensed carrier can get a licence after meeting some very basic requirements and that you can be a carrier with full foreign ownership, but we believe that although that is a point to note, both these carriers, Optus and Vodafone, when they got their licence knew that on 1 July 1997 there would be an open deregulatory regime. It was made clear in the original decision of the Labor government way back in 1991-92 that in 1997 the regulatory regime would be opened up and there would be an open system for people who wanted to invest. It would be an open regime which would be more competitive but, first, we would go through a period of five years of first a duopoly and then a triopoly.They both knew that they would be the rules that they were bidding for. They accepted those rules and made their judgment accordingly. The Labor government at the time made it clear that one of the justifi cations that we supported for allowing competition against the then Telecom monopoly was the creation and further development of an indigenous Australian telecommunications industry in all aspects. We recognised that telecommunications, communications and all the new technologies that are coming forth will be one of the growth areas of industry in Australia and in the world economy, and we wanted to make sure that we got our fair share of it, not just as a supplicant for overseas companies but by having investment in Australia by Australians, developing jobs in Australia and exporting those services and skills to Asia, where there would be the biggest growth rate of all in developing communications.I have used the figure before—as have others—that in the first 100 years of telephones in the world about 500 million people were connected to telephones. It is suggested that in the next 10 years, from the mid-1990s, in Asia alone another half billion people would need telephone connections, an enormous growth opportunity that we ought to be part of. We want to be part of it with Australian based companies that are Australian owned. We want to make sure we get those opportunities so that is why we put those requirements on those two companies.They have a special advantage over all the new ones which have come since 1 July. They had an opportunity to establish themselves as the second and third carriers in Australia in a triopoly arrangement which would give them significant advantages in establishing their infrastructure and establishing themselves in the marketplace before others came. That is an advantage that was not insignificant. Whether those companies have taken advantage of it is for others to judge, but that was the rule.We in the Labor Party are not opposed to foreign investment; we have never been opposed to foreign investment. We welcome foreign investment in our telecommunications network, whether on the hardware side or the software side. This is a global industry. We make it clear that we think it is not unreasonable to have an Australian component developing in Australia, using the management and technical skills of our people to develop that industry and create jobs in Australia.We believe it is unfortunate that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has chosen to allow these rules to be changed. I have spoken to both Optus and Vodafone. Of course they support the government's position of changing the regulations to allow up to 100 per cent overseas ownership, as I understand it, from these regulations. Vodafone has said quite openly to the opposition that when they float the company in the next two or three years in accordance with the 2002 deadline they expect there to be majority Australian ownership. We are delighted to hear that and we would encourage them to make sure that occurs.We would also have to say that there are plenty of opportunities for these companies to get Australian shareholders. Institutional investors in Australia and the growth of the superannuation funds mean there will be no shortage of investment funds in Australia for our own indigenous superannuation funds to invest in well run, well managed telecommunications companies in Australia that are growing in a growing market. Therefore, they will have an opportunity to raise that money.The Optus issue has been a bit more complicated, and I admit that, because of the problems Optus had in dealing with a restructuring of their own company to get themselves out of some difficulties with the cost of investment in the cable roll-out which took place over the last couple of years. We all know that cable has cost them. They have had to write off several hundreds of millions of dollars, if not a billion dollars plus, on the cost of the roll-out, and they have yet to get a return.We know that, last year, one of the major foreign shareholders, Bell South, decided enough was enough and sold out of the company. The only other major shareholder that was willing to buy from them—though I think there was a considerable dispute for a while over the price—was Cable and Wireless. Cable and Wireless indicated, I think, that Bell South would have to take some of the losses for the cable roll-out from the price they were paid and that occurred. It meant that Cable and Wireless were sitting on close to a 50 per cent shareholding. Mayne Nickless have now indicated that they would like to sell out of Optus, and Cable and Wireless might like to buy their 25 per cent share, either as a trade sale or whenever the float takes place.One must remember that Optus has been promising for a number of years now that, always `next year', the float of the company would take place and it has never taken place. There are a number of other institutional investors in Australia who are a little cranky about the fact that they invested in Optus many years ago on the basis that there would be a float soon, so that they could get the real value of their shares. That float has not taken place because of some of the difficulties the company has had in investing in the cable rollout and the restructuring with Optus Vision, et cetera.Nevertheless, Optus has been a very successful new entrant into the Australian market, as has Vodafone. They are already making significant profit on the business of international phone calls, long distance and mobile. They are making very significant profits, and we are very pleased they are. The competition they have provided to Telstra in that area has been excellent, and the consumer has got lower prices. This is a vindication of the Labor government's policy of allowing competition back in 1991-92. Because they are making good profits now, we believe there is every reason for Australians to invest and to want to maintain majority ownership of these two important telecommunications companies as they grow in the Australian market.Although those companies may claim they could raise more capital overseas at a lower interest rate, or think they will have more flexibility to compete or a more competitive arrangement, if they were allowed to have full foreign ownership, or certainly increased foreign ownership to levels above 51 per cent, we do not accept that automatically. We believe that the profits they are making mean that they should not have any great difficulty at all in raising their capital in Australia and in raising the interest of Australian investors, particularly from our super funds. Why can't we ensure that Australian small investors, through their super funds, get a big as possible slice of what is a profitable industry with a turnover of already $20 billion and growing at 15 to 20 per cent per annum?Therefore, because we established the principle that these companies should be maintained in majority Australian ownership and minority foreign ownership for the development and advantage of Australia, we believe that we should support this motion to disallow this regulation. If the government has the numbers to reject the Democrats' disallowance motion, when we come to government in a few months time after the election we will inherit the decision that this government has made. Of course, at that time, whether we like it or not, we will have to make some judgments about what we can do, but we would always encourage these two companies to be in Australian majority ownership. Therefore, the opposition supports the disallowance motion moved by the Democrats.10:04:003314Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—This disallowance motion is discriminatory and will not achieve the objective of its mover, which is to attempt to ensure that mobile phone operators within Australia have majority Australian ownership. That will not occur if we disallow this regulation. I ask you: how will it occur? You know as well as I do that Optus and, indeed, new players that come into the field will not be bound by the foreign ownership provisions. It is a nonsense to get up here and perform—though I must admit Senator Schacht was not performing, he was—EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—He never does perform; that's the problem.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—He is a conspicuous non-performer.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—No, I did not mean that.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Address your remarks through the chair, Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I did not mean it the way they are taking it. I believe that we have to look at the facts. The facts are that, if we disallow this, we are not going to affect what Optus is able to do, because Optus went to the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and, with his approval, changed its articles of association, and they could do this under the licence. They are not obliged to have a majority Australian ownership, nor are any new players that come on to the field in this particular area. Let us remember that there is deregulation, and that deregulation had the approval of the opposition as well as the government.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I explained that the two licensees got the advantage of being established, Senator Harradine.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Senator Schacht, you have had your chance. 10000Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I understand that, but here, if we disallow that, we are discriminating against one of the licensees and in favour of Optus. If you want to do that, you can do it. But I do not think that that is an appropriate way for legislation or regulations to apply; they should apply equally and fairly to all.The effect of this is really to target Optus. I say this to the Senate: I carry no brief for any of the companies which provide mobile phone coverage here. I am aware that Vodafone has said that its regional headquarters for the whole Asia-Pacific area is to be in Australia and is, in fact, in Australia. They have recruited a person from South Africa, a very active entrepreneurial person, to be their chief in Australia. He is taking out Australian citizenship and has got his family over here.That brings me to the next point. Optus had in their articles of association that the majority of their board members should be Australian. As I understand that, that may not apply. Chris Gent, Group Chief Executive of Vodafone, has written to me. In the letter he said:We understand however, that Optus may possibly still be subject to surviving conditions relating to the appointment of Australian citizens as directors. While we have been unable to verify this, we believe that parity in this regard is appropriate. We seek no more favourable treatment than Optus on this issue, on confirmation of the Optus situation, Vodafone would amend its articles of association to specifically provide that a majority of the directors of Vodafone Network Pty Limited, the mobile phone licensee, will be Australian citizens. We anticipate that if necessary this could be successfully completed within 2 months.I think that shows Vodafone's bona fides in respect of its commitment to Australia. They have indicated that they would love to have Australian funds. At the present moment they are, I think, only 10 per cent Australian owned. Nonetheless, they are prepared to play their role and continue their investments in Australia and from Australia into the big Asian market when things get a little better there.There are a number of other things that I could say. On the analog question, yes, the termination of analog in Australia was a matter of agreement between the government and the opposition. I am disappointed with that decision because of the effect on the bush. Obviously we are all awaiting the ACA report which I think comes forward on 13 June. But, even so, as far as Vodafone is concerned it has already agreed with the ACA on the retention of 159 analog leased stations. When Vodafone won the licence, analog covered only five per cent of landmass. Vodafone now has 90 per cent of population access to digital. It also owns 10 per cent of Globalstar, which is designed to cover 100 per cent of the population.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—By satellite that is; I think you mean.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, by low orbital satellites. By the way, if the land is at any great height, it will enable the use of small handset units. They have to have in operation, by some time in 1999, the dual mode operation which of course goes from terrestrial towers to the satellite when users are out of range of the towers. The Dubbo tracking station is used to bring satellites into the right orbit. Experimental work is being done on this at the present moment. I mention that simply because I would hope that this ability of rural people to have access—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—At reasonable cost. But that is not—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, reasonable cost. I agree with you, Senator Schacht. That is absolutely essential. But, as you say, that is not the point we are dealing with here. These are quite separate issues.I return to the point and appeal to Senator Allison. If we do vote for your disallowance motion it will, I believe, discriminate against one of the current operators, and that is Vodafone. I do not believe it is proper for parliament to so discriminate. I think it is a bad approach to legislative and regulative arrangements.10:14:003315Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I will not detain the Senate long in view of Senator Harradine's comments. I simply say that he has put his finger on the nub of the issue, and that is that the effect of this disallowance motion, if it were carried, would be a fundamental discrimination against one out of two of those newer entrants. It seems to be an issue that has completely gone over Senator Schacht's head. He really just talked in general terms about foreign ownership and the ALP's obvious irresistible inclination to opportunism on that issue in the lead-up to an election. It is beyond belief that Senator Schacht could not understand that Optus will not be affected by this disallowance motion but that Vodafone would fundamentally be affected.I congratulate Senator Harradine for clarifying Vodafone's position in relation to regional headquarters and majority directorship on its board. The fact is, of course, that since the since 1 July last there have been 19 new carrier licences issued. None of those are subject to foreign ownership restrictions. There are literally hundreds of service providers running around the country these days. We have got a very deregulated environment. You want to put lead in the saddlebags of the third biggest player in the market; that is what you want to do. You want to make life very difficult for them—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We issued licences on the basis of majority Australian ownership; that was our position in government and we are sticking to it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator MacGibbon)—Order! Senator Schacht, you have had your opportunity to speak.10000Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—There is no need to go back into the history of this—I would if the occasion required it. But all you need to do is focus on the immediate effect of your support for the Democrats.I do not expect the Democrats to know much better on this issue. Senator Allison put it very eloquently when she said, `We have a very old fashioned view.' In other words, the Democrats are really the ultimate conservatives when it comes to foreign ownership issues. They play the card for all its worth. They are not really interested in whether the world has changed, whether it is a global marketplace, whether companies are competing around the world, and whether Australia suffers very significantly in economic terms by having rigid foreign ownership restrictions. If you want to be another Albania—go for it. But you pay the penalty for standards of living as a result. I know you cannot help yourselves on the issue. It is one of those things that keeps you marginally relevant for a small section of the population, so perhaps we should not expect any better.But we certainly should expect more from Labor. I can understand why Senator Schacht wants to pretend that somehow this has got nothing to do with the analogue phaseout because Labor, of course, is acutely embarrassed on that whole issue. There are others running around the countryside trying to pretend that by ripping up those binding written agreements, exposing the government and therefore the taxpayer to lawsuits of potentially billions of dollars, and establishing the most appalling sovereign risk for the future, you would somehow solve Labor's problem.The fact is that this motion has been put forward by the Democrats to try to capitalise on some very understandable concerns about the current quality of digital. We have taken a number of steps to try to redress that as best we can. The Labor Party basically wants to keep its head in the sand and hope that particular issue goes away. But as far as the government is concerned, to support this motion as Labor has now done—nailed its colours to the mast—simply shows that it cannot be trusted. It is not interested in encouraging foreign ownership. Indeed, it seeks to specifically penalise companies such as Vodafone and sets an appalling precedent if we are to try to encourage others to come here and provide the level of competition which we are all confident will lead to lower prices and better quality of service. If you want to see one of the major players fundamentally disadvantaged and effectively encouraged to pack up and go home, then you are going the right way about it.Question resolved in the negative.Bills3316r45833163316O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998 , together with submissions and transcript of the proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills3316r45333163316O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on provisions of the together with submissions and transcript of the proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills3317r48233173317O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Patterson, I present the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998, together with submissions and transcript of evidence.Ordered that the report be printed.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate Senator Patterson's tabling statement in Hansard and to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.The document read as follows—This bill will enable the government to sell its remaining two-thirds equity in Telstra. The Committee conducted three public hearings into the bill and heard from 65 witnesses in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. It received 103 submissions, the majority of which stated that the ownership of Telstra was not the main issue of concern to them. Rather, the main issue was the level and quality of the telephone service accessible to all Australians, especially those in rural and regional areas.Most submissions to the Committee expressed support for a strong regulatory regime which would ensure that Telstra remains accountable to the Parliament for the extent and quality of its services.The Committee considered that the Bill ensures the continuance of the strong regulatory regime under which Telstra operates including through the Customer Service Guarantee standards imposed on Telstra through the Telecommunications Act 1997 . The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will both continue to have information gathering powers and regulatory powers which will be applicable to a privatised Telstra. Parliamentary scrutiny of those agencies will continue as will the right of customers to appeal to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. Further, it will remain an option for any Committee of the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into a privatised Telstra, should the public interest require such an investigation.The Universal Service Obligation (USO) and the Customer Service Guarantee Standard ensure that all Australians and especially those who live in regional areas and remote communities are not unduly disadvantaged in terms of access to telephone services and cost of accessing those services. The Minister has now approved Telstra's Universal Service Plan setting out the timeframes within which customers can expect delivery of services under the USO.The Committee heard evidence that better public information would lead to a better standard of service. It has therefore recommended that the requirement to keep customers informed should be enshrined in the Customer Service Guarantee Standard. It has also recommended an increase in the financial penalty applicable in non-metropolitan areas for failure to provide the services prescribed.Evidence was put to the Committee that the existing level of infrastructure in rural areas would not enable people from those areas to fully benefit from technological developments in telecommunications. To address this problem, the Committee is recommending that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the remaining two-thirds of the Telstra Corporation be used to upgrade the existing infrastructure available for telecommunications services in rural areas.Telstra's competitors submitted to the Committee that telecommunications customers would be better served by a higher level of competition in the industry. In particular, they argued that Telstra's cost structures should be more transparent and that the powers of the regulators should be clarified in order to enhance competition. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) powers in relation to record-keeping rules be amended or clarified as necessary to ensure that the costs associated with Telstra's internal transfer prices are made known in the context of negotiations over cost-based pricing of access to telecommunications infrastructure.The Committee has also recommended that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) be empowered to direct the publication of information kept in accordance with the record-keeping rules.The Committee is satisfied that the government's commitment to use the proceeds of the sale for the purpose of retiring public debt will ensure that the beneficial impact of the sale will be felt through all areas of the Australian economy and benefit all Australians. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill subject to the amendments recommended in this report.Before concluding I wish to express my deep concern and that of my colleagues that the draft report was leaked to a journalist and that the recommendations that were still being considered by the Committee appeared on the front page of The Australian Financial Review on 21 May 1998. I consider this to be a serious breach of the rules of the Senate and I place on the record my view that the confidentiality of Committee documents must be respected in order for the system to work effectively.I commend the report to the Senate.10:21:003318Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—by leave—Senator O'Chee, I know the government has a tight schedule and I am not going to speak for long. I want to point out that the chairman of the committee's remarks have been tabled. They are on behalf of the majority report. The government members of the committee have made a minority report. The Labor members have made a minority report and the Democrats themselves have made—6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—We haven't got a copy.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I think it is being circulated. I want to make a few remarks. I will not delay the Senate because there will be plenty of opportunity when the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 is debated. Firstly, I want to place on record the opposition's appreciation of the ERCA committee secretariat: to Roxane Le Guen, the secretary, and all her staff. The cooperation they provided to the opposition members in helping to prepare our minority report was excellent. In view of the very short time that the government gave for this very important piece of legislation to be considered by the committee, we really do respect and appreciate the way that the staff of the secretariat worked so hard to ensure that the report could be tabled today.We also point out that at the time the legislation went to the committee we accepted that it go to a legislative committee, and the Senate accepted our terms of reference. We pointed out that the time available for a report on this matter would be too short. In the end, the government itself had to seek an extension of a further two weeks to enable the report to be dealt with. Now we have the report tabled. I also thank my parliamentary colleagues Senator Kate Lundy, a member of the committee, and Senator Kim Carr, a participating member, for their cooperation and support for myself as deputy chair in the preparation of the minority report.The issues in this report are very significant for the Australian people. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has made this issue a major one for the election. We believe it is a stunt to put the legislation in before the election and then say, `If we win the election we will proclaim it and put it into action after the election', after the Prime Minister claims he has a mandate from the people. We would point out, as we do in the report, that every public opinion poll published since the Prime Minister's announcement has approximately at least a two to one majority of Australians opposed to the further privatisation of Telstra. In one survey even a majority of the over one million Australians who bought Telstra shares do not support the further privatisation of Telstra. I believe that the Prime Minister has not in any way thought through the consequences not only politically for himself but for Australia by proposing the full privatisation of Telstra.The other thing that became clear in the hearing is that the decision of the Prime Minister to fully privatise Telstra was taken in a capricious manner by himself without consultation with his cabinet. When we asked the Department of Communications and the Arts when the cabinet submission was lodged and how long it took to prepare the proposal for the full privatisation, the officials at the table said, `That is cabinet-in-confidence.' We believe that what happened was that there was no submission to cabinet from the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, on behalf of himself or his department proposing full privatisation. We understand. He was ambushed, like everybody else, when the Prime Minister made a capricious decision to overcome a difficulty with Senator Parer at the time of the national conference of the Liberal Party held in Brisbane earlier this year.It is extraordinary that a Prime Minister and a government would make a decision to create the biggest privatisation in Australia's history, something maybe worth $40 billion more, and there was no cabinet submission that we can ascertain, there was no cabinet discussion—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—How would you know?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—When we asked the question at the hearing, Senator Macdonald, we did not ask for the content of the cabinet submission. We know that is cabinet-in-confidence, and we accept. But they could have taken the opportunity to explain that there was actually a reasonable process. We find it extraordinary.We also find it extraordinary that the Prime Minister apparently did this with either no or very little consultation, even informally, with his own minister. For the Australian people to have this proposition put before them to embark on the biggest privatisation in Australia's history is an extraordinary reflection on the processes, or the lack of process, of this government. That is why they consistently make policy mistakes.I will come back to the second reading speech when this report is tabled. I believe that the short time we had available to consider the evidence and the submissions and the short time the public had to put in submissions was all deliberately done by the government to close down debate. When you read all the submissions, you find that not one from the private sector, who ideologically have no real objection to privatisation, was enthusiastically in there arguing in favour of privatisation. In fact, many were doing the opposite. We had companies, the competitors to Telstra, saying, `For goodness sake, get the competition rules straight.' If you privatise Telstra, the only thing worse for them than a public owned monopoly is a privately owned monopoly. Telstra for the foreseeable future will provide well over 80 per cent, and in some areas of Australia 100 per cent, of the telecommunications needs of the Australian people.Again, I thank the secretariat. I thank my own staff and the staff of Senator Carr and Senator Lundy for helping the three of us prepare this minority report, which we believe will be the focus of the debate. We certainly want to make sure that the public of Australia are fully aware of the extraordinary consequences of privatising a most successful publicly owned asset in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees3319331933193319Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on The current arrangements for the provision of public dental services in Australia , together with submissions and transcript of evidence.Ordered that the report be printed.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to make a few comments concerning the report.Leave granted.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP—Oral health is recognised as an essential and integrated component of general health. Poor oral health has a range of consequences for a person, including often severe pain, difficulty in eating, which can lead to further diet related health problems, loss of self-esteem, and lack of confidence to socialise and become involved in community activities. In general, a person's overall quality of life is affected by poor oral health.The inquiry was generated primarily as a result of the cessation of the Commonwealth dental health program in January 1997. The program had concentrated on providing measures to improve access to dental services for disadvantaged Australians. The program also had the broader objective of altering the direction of dental care from emergency to general dental care, from simple extraction to tooth restoration, and from treatment to prevention.When the program ceased, it was argued that the short-term aims had been met—and that argument has some validity. However, the committee heard evidence that there had been significant effects on the dental care needs of low income and disadvantaged people since the cessation of the program. The major impact has been a dramatic increase in the number of people on waiting lists and in waiting times for public dental health services. Information provided by state and territory governments and dental services confirmed the significant increase in numbers on waiting lists and in waiting times and that these increases were repeated Australia wide.In addition, the committee was informed that since the cessation of the program there has also been a shift in the type of care provided by public dental services back towards emergency care; an inability to maintain levels of dental care in accordance with raised levels of awareness and expectation of dental care arising from the program; the inability of most state and territory governments to make up the expenditure shortfall resulting from the withdrawal of Commonwealth funding; and, finally, a diminished capacity to provide an appropriate level of oral health care to the aged and other low income and disadvantaged groups in the Australian community.Evidence provided to the committee identified low income earners and other groups in the community as suffering particular disadvantage in maintaining a desirable level of oral health. While the dental diseases these people suffer are similar to the general community, it was explained in evidence that the major difference between these two groups was not so much in the experience of oral disease, but in their capacity to access and receive appropriate treatment. The groups within the Australian community identified for the committee as suffering most disadvantage in accessing appropriate oral health care were: low income earners, including health card holders; the elderly, especially the home-bound and those in institutions; preschoolers and certain young adults in the 18- to 25-year age group; Australians living in rural and remote areas; indigenous Australians; and people with other forms of social disadvantage, including the homeless, medically compromised, mentally ill, overseas born and speakers of a language other than English.In formulating recommendations to address the national oral health problems raised in evidence, the committee recognised the power contained in section 51(23A) of the constitution for the Commonwealth to provide dental services. This section of the constitution clearly gives the Commonwealth the power to provide or regulate dental services, but not a legal obligation. The committee has recommended that action is needed to address these national oral health problems, both in the short term by targeting areas of specific disadvantage, and in the longer term through coordinated policy planning and development.For the shorter term, the committee recommended that the Commonwealth assist the states and territories to establish, conduct and evaluate highly targeted pilot programs to address the priority oral health needs of the following specific disadvantaged groups: children of preschool age—1 to 5 years; young adult health card holders—18 to 25 years; aged adult health card holders—65-plus years; the home-bound; those in rural and remote communities; and indigenous Australians. Such programs should include a capacity for the individual beneficiary to make a contribution to the treatment costs.The committee recommended that the Commonwealth should use its constitutional power to adopt a leadership role in introducing a national oral health policy, and give consideration to the possibility of using the national public health partnership as the vehicle for developing and implementing that policy in partnership with the states and territories.The committee further recommended that such a national oral health policy should include the setting of national oral health goals; the establishment of national standards for the provision of, and access to, oral health care and the quality of services; the establishment of national strategies and priorities for oral health care reform, with an emphasis on preventive dentistry; the setting of minimum service targets; and the monitoring of national oral health goals through the maintenance of a national data collection and evaluation centre and undertaking research into current and projected needs.The committee has also made a number of other recommendations it believes will benefit oral health care in Australia and improve access to dental health services for the disadvantaged in the Australian community. These recommendations include, firstly, that the Commonwealth, in consultation with the states and territories and other key stakeholders in the public and private dental sectors, support the development of programs to improve the promotion of oral health throughout Australia; secondly, that the Commonwealth government support the introduction of a vocational training program for new dental graduates, especially to assist in the delivery of oral health services to people in rural or remote areas; thirdly, that the use of dental auxiliaries such as therapists and hygienists be expanded, particularly to cater for the needs of specific disadvantaged groups and that, to this end, the states and territories be encouraged to review legislation restricting the employment of such auxiliaries; fourthly, that support be given to a national oral health training strategy for health workers and carers, specifically including those working in the fields of aged care and Aboriginal health; and, finally, that the Commonwealth allocate resources for a national oral health survey, to be conducted as a priority, to establish data on the oral health status and oral health needs of the Australian community.In concluding, I would like to thank the secretariat of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, particularly its secretary, Mr Elton Humphery, for organising, planning and preparing the report. The committee sat for some two days—one day in Melbourne and one day in Canberra—and received submissions from almost 140 groups and individuals, and heard evidence from some 25 witnesses. I was particularly impressed by the evidence of Dr Martin Dooland, Chief Executive of the Dental Health Services of Victoria, whose submission and lengthy discussion with the committee was of great value in finalising these recommendations.Finally, I wish to make a brief comment on the two-page minority report added to the report by government senators. That minority report goes to three issues. Firstly, there is a bit of product differentiation between the majority report of the opposition and the minority report of government senators—and, in that context, readily understandable. They make comment on legal obligations of the Commonwealth and the history of the Commonwealth dental health program. To the extent that their comments are on matters of fact or history, there is nothing wrong with that, and if it had been suggested to the committee that they be incorporated in the text of the report, I would have been readily amenable to that suggestion. I commend the report to the Senate.10:37:003321Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I hope that this report on the dental health program will be acted on by the government but, looking at the small minority report which has been added to it, I suspect that they are going to turn a blind eye to the suffering of people in this country who simply cannot afford to access adequate dental care. What no-one could argue against was the success of the Commonwealth dental health program. Indeed, what no-one could refute is the evidence of the disastrous consequences now that it has been removed.It was proven without a shadow of a doubt during the hearings that there were significant benefits to people—and not just health benefits but also social benefits—from having their oral health looked after. I think it is rather a strange situation we have in this country with Medicare that we concentrate on a whole raft of other health issues but one of the key issues, an issue that determines whether we can even eat an adequate diet, is put over into another basket and we have this ongoing battle between the states and the Commonwealth as to who is going to look after that particular key health issue, dental health.Since the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program by this government, we have seen waiting lists blow out in some states to the point where they have simply been closed. In New South Wales it is up to five years in some areas, so what is the point of having a waiting list? In Victoria the list numbers have increased from 100,000 to 143,000 in just 12 months. If you go through the states, the story simply gets worse and worse. In Tasmania, for example, which, according to evidence given to the committee, is the state with the worst dental health problems, less than 50 per cent of people who received care under the Commonwealth dental care health program are now being treated by the Tasmanian dental health service. We can only wonder what is happening to the others. For example, what is happening to those unemployed people wishing to go for a job interview with very obvious dental problems? What is happening to older Australians who are forced to limit their diet and limit social activity because of obvious dental health problems? What was also shown is that it is not only better in health terms to act to prevent ongoing problems and treat problems as early as possible but also it is actually a lower cost in the end if we look after people in need.The Commonwealth government has strong social and practical responsibilities. As has already been said, we do have a constitutional responsibility at federal level for people's dental health. I think we have to face up to the fact that in this country the states have nowhere else to go for funding for health. The same problem comes back when we look at how we are going to fund our public hospitals. It is all very well to have this ongoing, `You did this, you said that, you took money out in 1993. No, you took it out in 1995.' The bottom line is that in 1998 our public hospitals are in desperate need of funding, as is our public dental health service, and we know it is the Commonwealth government that has a surplus of $2.7 billion. It is fairly easy to see that the Commonwealth does not want the responsibility for either hospitals or dental health. It wants to pass that back to the states but hang on to the money. I think that is an incredibly irresponsible position for this Commonwealth government to take.I understand we are not going to have any government senators speaking on this. I would have liked to have heard from them as to what they think we should say to constituents who write to us, to people who approach us as we travel in our electorates, our home states, and complain about this ongoing problem of lack of access to dental services. What do we say to pensioners, to single parents and, as we have heard particularly in rural areas, to people generally who are on low incomes who simply cannot either afford to travel the distances required for the time required or afford the treatment at the end of the day? I call on the government to seriously consider this report and to change their approach to the general funding of health services in this country.Debate (on motion by Senator Conroy) adjourned.Bills3323r465Billsr466Billsr467Billsr481Billsr479Billsr475Billsr473Billsr469Billsr471Billsr477Billsr462Bills3323s1613323Debate resumed from 13 May and 14 May on motions by Senator Newman and Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.10:42:003323Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This is a package of 12 bills which seek to enact the government's response to the Wallis report. The Wallis report was, of course, a major inquiry conducted under the auspices of Mr Stan Wallis into the financial and banking system in Australia. It resulted in a series of quite far-reaching recommendations which change the supervisory and regulatory structure of the Australian banking and financial system.I have to say that we were advised today that some 39 pages of government amendments to its own legislation were going to be moved. I am not sure how many amendments that constitutes, because at this stage one of the Treasurer's advisers is speaking to my own adviser about the meaning of those amendments. The opposition is disposed—with the reservations and qualifications I will place on the record shortly—to support this legislation. But we do not know the character of such far-reaching amendments at this point and, until we are across the detail, I cannot therefore unreservedly say to this chamber that we will support those amendments.I know the government has been pushing this legislation up the Notice Paper in order to dispose of it. It is important legislation; that is acknowledged on all sides. Certainly it is legislation anticipated and awaited by the financial community. It is a pity that such important and far-reaching legislation should be dealt with in a rush, and it is certainly not our desire to act precipitately at the last moment by simply glibly glossing over the amendments. We will give the amendments a thorough examination. The remarks made in the other place by the shadow Treasurer, Gareth Evans, in support of this bill and remarks I make now in support of this pack age of 12 bills are qualified, and heavily so, by the fact that at this point we do not yet know what the extent and implications are of the amendments the government proposes in such a huge number to its own legislation so late in the piece, at the eleventh hour.Having put that qualification firmly on the record, let me just say a few things about this legislation. It is probably appropriate to start with the most outstanding feature of the world financial regulation over the last several months, the Asian currency crisis. I think all commentators agree that what started that crisis was a lack of proper financial regulation and transparency in Asian markets. In those circumstances, given an asset and property boom beginning in Thailand, investors fled the markets, not being certain about the protection that was afforded their investment. That is a very colourful way of making this particular and fundamental point.Australia does have, and has had historically since the Great Depression, an effective financial regulatory system. That is one of the things that has made this nation a safe investment haven and that protects us even now from the contagion that has affected our Asian neighbours. It is a matter of some pride to this nation that, over so many years, we have been able to maintain such a structure. Such a structure is not a static thing; it does not sit unchanged forever because the circumstances in which it lives change themselves. It is very important that the structure be dynamic and that governments be across the needs of financial institution regulation to ensure that we always have an up-to-date and modern structure. The Wallis report examined what changes should be made. We broadly support the findings of that report. We support this legislation as a next step in making relevant the particular financial institutional supervisory and regulatory structure for Australia and ensuring that it is and does work effectively.What we have seen in the marketplace, over the last decade or more, is the gradual and now increasingly speedy commercial convergence of the roles of banks, insurance companies, general insurance companies, superannuation funds, credit unions and banking societies. Previously, all of those answered to different market segments. We have seen a conversion of their tasks and of their roles so that they all now do similar or the same things. To therefore move with the times, a regulatory structure needs to be modified to manage the particular elements of that market interface.The comments I want to make in this speech very briefly will be about not so much the operation of the structure proposed, as my colleague in the other place, Gareth Evans, has spent a fair bit of time analysing the importance of that structure; however, I will say a few words about it. I do want to comment in some detail on the recommendations and the responses to the merger of banks in Australia and other major financial institutions and the Australian Labor Party's response to those observations and to consumer protection issues. We are concerned to see that, whatever the regulatory structure that goes into place, the basic public, who are the consumers of this system, are properly protected and that their deposits and their access to and use of the system is regulated in an appropriate way.These 12 bills completely reorganise the financial system in Australia. The key aspects of the current structure in terms of regulating the Australian financial system are the Reserve Bank of Australia, which of course regulates banks; the Australian Securities Commission, the ASC, which regulates companies in this nation; the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, the ISC, which regulates insurance and superannuation entities; and the Australian Payments System Council, which regulates key elements of the payments related to the banking system. This legislation introduces two new regulatory bodies to take over the myriad of functions performed by the entities I have just mentioned: the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the ASIC, and the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, the APRA. In that context I will make an observation, as did my colleague Gareth Evans, that we welcome the appointment of the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Graeme Thompson, as chief executive officer of APRA. A third entity, the Payment Systems Board, will be established within the Reserve Bank of Australia and will have statutory responsibility for supervising the payment system.The ASIC is to be based on the old ASC. It will be the pre-eminent consumer protection and market integrity regulator. In addition to the corporate regulatory functions that it has inherited, the ASIC will initially take on the consumer and market integrity functions for the insurance and superannuation sectors and some aspects of banking and the payment system. Eventually, this regime will extend across the whole financial sector. The APRA, by contrast, will be responsible for prudential regulation, in essence managing the financial health of all deposit taking institutions, banks, building societies, credit unions, superannuation funds, insurance companies, et cetera. The single licensing and regulation approach that is involved here is expected to result in better and more consistent outcomes. The model is of a single prudential regulator and a single market regulator, when it is finally and fully implemented.The model is expected to overcome a couple of fairly obvious weaknesses with the current arrangements. One problem is the split between the Commonwealth and state and territory regulatory rules, with the Commonwealth up until now being pretty much confined to banks and insurance entities but with state and territory rules applying to building societies and credit unions, with differing restrictions and differing cost recovery arrangements impacting on the competition potential between these various institutions. Another problem was the fragmented consumer protection regime, where similar products were being overseen by different regulators with often different rules applying.Against all that background of proposed change, I say very clearly that the opposition supports the general approach of the Wallis inquiry in its conclusions and accordingly in this legislation, bearing in mind the caveat I have placed, which seems so far as we have been able to tell in the time available to implement without any particular major problems the intended acceptance by the government of those major Wallis recommendations. We do recognise the benefits that should flow from new arrangements when they are fully implemented.There are a number of issues raised in the proposed arrangements governing staffing of those new institutions. Those issues were sort to be canvassed in the Senate inquiry. They are questions which arise especially about the transfer of staff to APRA, and other issues may also arise in relation to staffing in respect of transfers to the ASIC. We are concerned to ensure that employees in this system get a fair deal in the context of the institutional arrangements to be made.One of the key issues in the design of any prudential regulatory regime is the question of depositor protection. Given its central importance for the savings of ordinary Australians, we have been concerned to look closely at what is proposed here to ensure that there is no backing away from the kinds of commitments that depositors need to their interests by the appropriate regulatory regime. There has for a long time been a general assumption by a great many people in the community that bank deposits are specifically guaranteed to the last dollar by the Reserve Bank. That is, and always has been, an incorrect assumption. At best, there is an implicit guarantee arising from the operation of sections contained in division 2 of part 2 of the Banking Act and section 86 of the Reserve Bank Act, but that implicit guarantee has never been legislatively explicit, and certainly there has never been anything in the legislation that provides an absolute guarantee.What there have been are provisions enabling the ready intervention by the Reserve Bank in the affairs of banks that have been in difficulty in this respect, with arrangements to ensure that they trade out of those difficulties to the extent possible and that, in the event of winding up, the depositors get preference over all other creditors. That has worked in the past to the extent that the system really has not been put under any real strain of having the final payments to be made. Nonetheless, it was part of the Wallis inquiry's concern to ensure that, particularly in the context of a broader set of regulatory arrangements encompassing other deposit taking institutions as well as the banks, the limitations on the existing depositor protection arrangements be well understood in the community.What did the Wallis report recommend? It recommended that the system be overhauled, in effect, to do several things. First of all, it sought to maintain unequivocally the existing preference for bank depositors and to extend that to all other approved deposit taking institutions. Secondly—and they seem to have done this in a way that does not cause us any particular difficulty—they have sought to remove some of the language that perhaps creates a misleading impression that there is an absolute guarantee of a payout in the event of a bank or institutional collapse.I want to say a few words about bank mergers. One of the issues that squarely arises under this legislation is the whole question of the policy applicable to bank mergers and other major financial institution mergers. The Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Bill 1998 , one of the packages before us, proposes to standardise the rules applicable to significant shareholders in prudentially regulated financial institutions. The bill will subject all such institutions to a 15 per cent shareholding limit by any one person and that person's associates or such higher percentage that the Treasurer may determine as being in the national interest. So you have this residual executive discretion to determine what kinds of concentrations will be permissible.The operation of the current law is being standardised and streamlined across institutions which will certainly assist major financial services groups in terms of their own administration. The law has been strengthened too in some respects so the Treasurer can declare a person to have practical control of an institution regardless of the actual shareholding and require the person to relinquish that shareholding. All of these provisions in the legislative structure before us are considered by us on their face to be reasonable, and they are not opposed. However, that is the legislation. What matters is the way all this works in executive practice.I make clear that support for this new legislative regime should not signal Labor's support for any change to our basic approach to mergers of the major institutions. We have always adopted a policy which would preclude the merger of any of the four banks: the ANZ, the National Australia Bank, Westpac and the Commonwealth. Moreover, in the past we have taken a strong view that the two major life offices—the AMP and National Mutual—should be regarded as of equivalent stature. It is not a four pillars policy but really a six pillars policy that we have had. We have taken the view and continue to take the view that such mergers are, on the face of it, not in the national interest and we are concerned about the implications of their occurring. Certainly, so far as the major banks are concerned, Australia already has one of the most concentrated banking sector systems in the world. In our judgment further mergers between the major banks would lead to even greater concentration without overwhelmingly obvious compensating advantages.The decision of the government announced at the time of its response to Wallis to scrap the six pillars policy does create the prospect of a gargantuan new institution that would not only itself have a lot of market clout but also put a great deal of pressure on further acquisitions and mergers between the other players. The six pillars policy, as it is known, which has now been abandoned by the government, probably needs to be rethought to the extent that you are no longer talking simply about six pillars but perhaps nine or even more than that as a result of other mergers, acquisitions and regroupings that have been occurring.With the Citigroup tie-up with the Travellers group in the United States, we now have a situation which has flowthrough implications for Australia of there being other major players emerging in the Australian financial sector in addition to the ones I have mentioned—the Colonial State Bank, which is the product of a merger between Colonial Mutual and the old State Bank of New South Wales; Suncorp-Metway in Queensland and St George, which has now absorbed the new Advance Bank. All of these are pretty significant players in the scheme of things. None of the non-bank institutions have quite the same order of magnitude of market capitalisation as the more familiar four banks, but nonetheless they are all very major players.I simply want to say that, so far as all these players are concerned, without adopting an approach of absolute prohibition in terms of our own policy approach, we will certainly look with a very circumspect eye at any proposal for further concentration of any of the institutions I have mentioned—and we will do it because of our anxiety about the anti-competition implications of that. Certainly, so far as the four big banks are concerned, our position is maintained as one of very real concern about the downside risks of any further banking concentration.The Treasurer, Mr Costello, at the time of his announcement that the government had a kind of watching brief on this issue, made it clear that the government's position would be governed by its satisfaction on the question of how much competition was around, particularly in the small business sector. Developments occurring just in the fairly recent past with Westpac and now the Commonwealth Bank breaking some of the high interest rate barriers to small business loan access seem to have given a new lease of life to speculation about the imminence of government approval for mergers.No doubt there is not going to be anything very exciting happening before the election, because this government is all too conscious of the very strong feeling in the community about job losses and service losses that seem inevitably and often irrevocably associated with bank merger activity of this kind. But I want to make it clear that the opposition is not persuaded by any of these developments that any fundamental conditions have changed, and its view would be one of resistance to any of the big four operating in this way.One of the big problems in all of this—quite apart from what banks have been doing anyway individually to reduce their cost pressures—is the way in which mergers in the past have had a devastating effect on the availability of employment and services, and it is particularly notable in rural and regional Australia. In the past three years, the major banks have closed more than 100 rural branches, and there are more than 600 communities across Australia that no longer have access to a financial institution. It really is the last straw when the last bank leaves town. (Time expired)11:02:003327Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This package of bills is an attempt to implement the Wallis report. The Wallis report was supposed to look at the impacts of deregulation within financial markets in Australia. It was supposed to be an assessment of the changes that had occurred in the last decade and a half. If the Wallis report had actually looked into the real impacts, maybe we would have had a different report—but it did not do that at all.The Wallis report failed to look at the links between financial deregulation and the internationalisation of the economy. It failed to look at the links between financial deregulation and other areas of concern, such as: the reduction in financial services available to rural and regional areas; the deregulation of the labour market and the downward pressure on wages and conditions; the acceleration of the adoption of labour-shedding technology adding to unemployment; pressure which financial markets have exerted on governments to reduce the size of the public sector and privatise publicly owned assets, such as the National Transmission Network we have just been discussing in the chamber.All of these things have been mentioned by Labor. But neither Labor nor the government has been prepared to look at these in context, collectively as an issue, as they were occurring.The Wallis report gave the thumbs up to further deregulation; it has given the all clear. The report basically assumed—and, of course, did we expect any differently—that deregulation was good and gave it the go ahead without a systematic and thorough inquiry, without an investigation on the wider impacts of deregulation, without even a true assessment of the impacts on the most disadvantaged consumers. Quite frankly, we should have been doing that in the 1980s before we leapt into it—but we did not.This is typical of the government's general attitude, of its blind `trust us' ideological approach. It is typical of the whole approach that is associated with competition policy that says, `The market equals public interest equals the market.' We have never looked at a true assessment of the social impacts of competition policy. I know I am repeating myself, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears.This package of bills implementing the Wallis recommendations gives effect to major changes to the structures of the regulatory bodies themselves. Two super regulators are established: the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, APRA; and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC. The government is changing the regulation of financial services markets at the same time as it is altering the regulatory bodies themselves. ATSIC is to be based on the old Australian Securities Commission and, effectively, is a blend of the ASC and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, the ISC. It will take on the crucial job of ensuring both consumer protection and market integrity in relation to financial services.These two bodies are being created during a time of such enormous regulatory upheaval that it is impossible to know how things will operate in practice. It is hard to know where things may need to be tightened up or what loopholes exist. It is hard to know whether the consumer protection role that ASIC plays will be strong enough. Will ASIC be an effective and pro-active consumer advocate?With ASIC being the industry-specific regulator, it is a direct lobby target; the industry knows exactly who to put pressure on to weaken regulations that are inconvenient. The industry knows that ASIC will be a captive audience. ASIC does not have responsibility for other sectors, so it cannot gain political support. Will ASIC be able to withstand the pressure to be applied by the big institutions? Will ASIC act in a similar way to the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—an institution with much wider consumer protection focus, but not with as much as the Greens would like to see? Will the Australian Securities Commission staff embrace their new dual role of regulation and consumer protection with equal energy, or will they favour the aspect they already know and are comfortable with?In the new regulatory world of the financial sector there are many unknowns that government is exceptionally blase about. Indeed we already have a good example of how things slip through the cracks when the government is trying to push through too much at once. The ALP has rightly pointed out the slip-up in relation to Australian Public Service staff. `Whoops,' the government said, `we didn't mean to leave out guarantees that the APS staff would maintain their wages and entitlements.' But that is exactly what it did.There is no guarantee in this legislation that APS staff transferring from the Insurance and Superannuation Commission and ASIC will retain their wage levels and current entitlements. Will we hear, `Whoops, we forgot to make sure customers have proper protections'? Or maybe: `Whoops, we forgot to provide them with real remedies'? Or how about: `Whoops, we forgot to keep an eye on how financial institutions were treating disadvantaged customers'? Or perhaps: `Whoops, we didn't mean for the banks to be taken over by foreign investors'?The ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, was to retain its powers under the Trade Practices Act and under the price surveillance legislation—at least for the time being—but this was not a perfect arrangement. It was difficult to know how it would work in practice. It did provide a certain level of stability in this time of immense upheaval. With the ACCC in the picture, there was at least more assurance that the culture of consumer protection would underpin ASIC's administration of the Trade Practices Act.But the Government thought it would throw one more spanner in the works. It thought that another unknown variable in this equation would add that bit more excitement. The government seems to love pursuing measures on a wing and a prayer in the name of deregulation. So we come to the most recent amendment by the government—the amendment to axe the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission from any consumer responsibility in financial services. It has heaped all the responsibility onto ASIC at a time when the staff will still be finding their feet. It has done this behind the backs of the consumer lobby. The consumer lobby thought the government understood that this move at this time was not in the interests of consumers. The consumer lobby cannot understand why the government has announced this substantial amendment at the last minute, except to try to stymie the opposition to this move that it knew it would receive. The lobby was furious that it was not consulted before the announcement.The timing and lack of consultation indicates to me that the government does know that the removal of the ACCC is a potential hazard to consumers. Maybe they are just those little consumers that the banks and institutions do not want to worry about. The government has given us nearly 40 pages of amendments and expects the Senate to give them the tick. Why should we give these amendments the tick when they were officially tabled only two days ago on 26 May 1998? How could we possibly be able to go through thoroughly every aspect of 40 pages of amendments in two days during a sitting week? These are all concerning issues—and this is only at a first glance.It is impossible to overeremphasise the importance of consumer protection in the financial system. This is especially so at a time of such major change. This package of reforms—and I use the term `reforms' not in the real sense; reform is supposed to be a change for the better—is a potential minefield for consumers and needs careful scrutiny. For instance, bank fees and charges will hit consumers harder than ever. Those who would really bear the brunt of a hike in fees and charges would be low-income, low-wealth consumers or those who are not able to use or are not comfortable with the use of automatic teller machines and EFTPOS. The government would love its ever-reliable and noble friend, competition, to be the guiding force in setting fees and charges. I remind honourable senators that yesterday in the Senate we actually legislated for at least one sector of industry to have to use electronic transfers. Heaven knows what we are going to be doing for consumers in the future!I bet the Treasurer was licking his lips and rubbing his hands together when the Wallis report recommended that financial institutions be free to set fees and charges at will. Fees and charges have skyrocketed, especially those related to in-the-bank services. Over the last few years, the banks have been on a one-way path to steamroll people out of the branches. In the name of efficiency, they are pushing everyone to go down the path of electronic and phone banking.The banks are encouraging the use of automatic teller machines and EFTPOS facilities in supermarkets by charging excess fees for people to step into the banks, so real choice goes out of the window unless you want to be slapped with exorbitant fees and charges. This is the market, I guess, but choice goes out of the window for those who are concerned about the use of technology. Choice goes out of the window for those who find it difficult to use flexitellers. Choice certainly goes out of the window if your bank has been closed.While the total number of services in the financial sector may have increased and the choice for speculative investment may have increased—these are at the big end of town—the choice for individual consumers has gone out the window, especially for those people for whom it is no longer profitable to provide the range of services. Think about what happened the last time you rang your bank and asked it for a copy of a bank statement. My bank says `$7 a page'.Fees and charges are used as incentives—probably better described as penalties—to avoid the use of bank facilities. The free rein given to banks to set fees and charges indicates the government's perspective on the banks' customer service obligations. It indicates that the government thinks that the banks have no customer service obligations except of course those that are forced on them by the invisible hand. The fact that these are issues brought up constantly on talkback radio does not seem to have caught the government's attention. These are issues that affect everybody on a daily basis.The Greens (WA) believe that financial institutions do have certain community obliga tions. We think that the banks should provide a reasonable range of access for all Australians. This applies both in a geographical sense—so that rural and regional customers have sufficient access—and in terms of the range of types of transactions offered. Obviously this would mean distribution points would have reference to community needs—that is a strange topic today, isn't it?—rather than bottom line considerations alone.Obligations of access also apply to the range of products offered. There should be an obligation to offer at least the bones of a basic banking product with a certain reasonable level of fee-free transactions. As a result of the Price Surveillance Authority's report on the subject in 1995, the banks now offer some sort of basic banking product. The availability of such products is crucial for low income and low wealth customers. It remains to be seen whether these products continue after the Wallis so-called `reforms' go through. There would be little, in fact no, incentive for profit seeking financial institutions to offer a reasonable level of fee-free transactions.The Greens (WA) believe that the government has a legitimate and necessary role to play here. Rather than taking a step back from banks—of course, when they are prepared to regulate to remove people's choices they are not not involved in the regulation, they are not involved in maintaining consumer guarantees—the government should take a step forward and provide incentives and pressures to ensure a reasonable range of access. A greater role for government is certainly supported by the community. It is the people on the ground who feel the commercial pressure of banks daily. A recent survey by the Australian Consumers Association found that 80 per cent of bank customers feel that the federal government should have a regulatory regime for bank fees.The Wallis report recommended that the prohibition on mergers between the largest banks and life offices be scraped. Again the government received this advice with glee and promptly announced their decision to axe the six pillars policy. Australia already has one of the most concentrated banking sectors on the planet. The merger of these large banks and life offices would be disastrous. The kind of market power that a megabank could unleash on consumers and competitors alike would not be in the national interests. Aside from pure market power, there would be intense pressure for the other institutions to merge. It would be the end of small players.The government may argue that we have the ACCC to look out for us and that they will keep an eye on the issue. That may be so, but on an issue of such national importance it is appropriate that the government draw a very clear line in the sand. We support the ALP's amendment in the second reading debate that makes the Senate's view on further concentration of ownership in the financial sector crystal clear. We would also like to see the government support such a clear prohibition on the concentration of ownership.The Greens (WA) also support subsection (b) of the ALP's amendment to the second reading motion which indicates opposition to the further increase of foreign ownership. Again the Wallis report provided ammunition for the government to adopt a relatively ambivalent position in relation to direct foreign investment. The government has certainly not committed itself to restrictions on direct foreign ownership levels. All Mr Costello is saying is that he will not lay down the red carpet for foreign investors—certainly, though he is not constructing any fortress to ensure maximum levels of foreign ownership.The Greens (WA) believe that ownership of key national assets such as banks and insurance companies should remain squarely in domestic hands and there should be overt limits on foreign ownership. Foreign control would close off options for future developments of the financial sector in ways that may be against Australia's long-term national interest. Of course, if the Multilateral Agreement on Investment ever makes its way past the OECD negotiating table, these kinds of discussions may be immaterial. The government could not in the end set maximum limits on foreign ownership and keep them. The government could not subject foreign investors to rigorous performance requirements to ensure Australia actually receives the benefits touted by advocates of foreign investment. Before anyone says that that is scaremongering, that is in the words of the agreement we are being asked to sign.As I have mentioned, this entire package has been based on a deficient report. We had to wait a decade and a half before this inquiry even began, and then it was a minimalist report that had inbuilt assumptions and biases. We are in the process of huge change that will have a significant effect on Australia and we are doing it all with our eyes closed—on a wing and a prayer; a hope. We are moving in a direction without a clear view of how deregulation has affected Australia's economy or society. We are jumping on the bandwagon, dancing to the tune of global economic trends. Maybe the members of the government have forgotten the advice they received as children: `If Jimmy jumps over a cliff, would you do that too?'11:20:003330Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Before I give my speech on the second reading of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 and the other bills, I would like to declare a potential conflict of interest. I am a trustee of a trust which has shares in a bank.Over the last two decades the big Australian banks, particularly the National Australia Bank, have been successful in becoming significant international financial players. At the same time governments and business have encouraged Australians to cheer at the international achievements of Australian companies in the same way as we enjoy the success of our sporting champions. But the current reform of the financial sector throws up questions which are at the heart of deregulation and globalisation—who gains and who loses? On the one hand, how do we support our companies so that they can increase overseas exports to balance our demand for overseas goods and services? On the other hand, can industry maintain social benefits, such as providing jobs at decent pay, when the pressures remain to rationalise in the quest for ever greater efficiency.Central to the current debate, how do we ensure that industry provides the services that Australians need and can reasonably expect? The Australian Democrats accept the need for ongoing reform in the financial sector but we do not accept that these changes and reforms can be made without properly addressing the needs and rights of the financial institutions' customers, for no other industry affects so critically the day to day lives and the lifetime prosperity of Australians as does the finance industry.We do understand that banks are not social welfare institutions. Indeed no-one who watched the Four Corners program last year which was titled `Banks Behaving Badly' could possibly be under any such illusion. Finance sector companies are in privileged and powerful positions. The profitability of the banking industry is reflected in the huge annual profits regularly reported and the dramatic rises in their stock market prices over recent years. Our national banks are clustered at the top of the profits league.The government speaks of mutual obligation in relation to the unemployed. Surely it is reasonable that the government, which regulates companies operating in this market, require that they honour their obligations to act according to certain rules of behaviour and to provide certain standards of service. This includes providing basic transaction accounts with reasonable fees and reasonable interest rates and having someone to speak to, not just a metallic voice.The idea of mutual obligation certainly has not been obvious in the massive closures of regional bank branches. We should bring two tests to the financial sector reforms we are currently debating. Firstly, will financial institutions customers be offered good services and products, and hopefully better services and products? Secondly, will those customers be protected by effective and inexpensive dispute resolution mechanisms when they consider that they have not been treated fairly? Of course the economic rationalists will tell us that all will be okay when we have a competitive market and government can vacate the field. But both the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Wallis inquiry have acknowledged that there is insufficient competition in the finance industry. They have also acknowledged that regulation needs to be retained at least at some level.While the Australian Democrats do support initiatives to make the finance industry more competitive, this is definitely not the time for governments to step back from protecting the interests of Australians. The big four Australian banks control some two-thirds of banking business, which makes our market one of the most concentrated in the OECD. While nominal interest rates on housing loans have reduced to historically low levels, this is to a large degree a result of low inflation rates. Real rates remain historically high.The Australian Democrats welcome the long overdue recent reductions in personal loan rates but the fact that they could be made when there were no obvious reductions in the price of money to the banks is evidence that the market is not operating at optimal levels and there are still areas where the banks are earning monopoly profits or cream profits—monopoly rents would be the technical terms. Profits are certainly high by international standards. However, small business loan rates remain outrageous. While official money rates are five to six per cent, secured small business rates reach up to 12 per cent and unsecured rates up to 16 per cent. In a healthy economy, finance should be a servant to business in its role of providing jobs and prosperity. Here, as internationally, the contrary is sometimes true and productive industry can be the plaything of the finance industry.The Australian Democrats have major concerns with the hands-off approach suggested by the Treasurer's statement last year that there would be only informal monitoring of financial institutions fees and charges. These customer expenses have risen dramatically over recent years while transaction account interest rates are now negligible.We are encouraged that the Treasurer has stated that at least for now he opposes the merger of the big four banks. So are most Australians. A recent Australian Consumers Association survey found that 77 per cent agreed that customers will be worse off if bank mergers continued. Further mergers would lead to a completely unacceptable level of market concentration. Regrettably, recent reports in the Australian Financial Review suggest that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission may be softening on such mergers. The Australian Democrats are mindful of the entry of AMP and National Mutual, married or not, into banking and consider it highly desirable that their entries increase the number of large competitors rather than lead to further mergers. Mergers do cost jobs. The financial sector union has estimated another round of mergers could cause job losses of upward of 40,000 people. The country just cannot afford that.Much of the legislation before us is about reorganising the institutions for regulation so that there is consistency across organisations providing similar services as the roles of the different parts of the financial industry merge and blur. The Australian Democrats do not have major problems with the model which Wallis legislation puts forward for the newest institutions and which in large part the government has now adopted. In general, depositor protection appears to have been enhanced. The extension of depositor priority over assets to building societies and credit unions is very welcome.There are, however, certain risks in transferring the consumer protection role from the ACCC to the new Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC. The ACCC has developed expertise in this area. It is hoped that this expertise can be shared with the ASIC in its new role. The ASIC on the other hand is less tested in this role and this may require a major change of culture to succeed. We hope it can build on the success of the ASC's work on providing `Good Advice' for financial advisers.We do have major problems with the introduction of legislative amendments at the last minute in regard to the carve out of consumer protection measures from the Trade Practices Act and transferring them to the Corporations Law. It seems to us at best unnecessary. At worst, it could lead to a major weakening of consumer protection. The rationale presumably is to reduce uncertainty as to which regulator is responsible but this will not clear the field for a single regulator as the states and territories will still retain jurisdiction in this area under their fair trading laws. Indeed some 90 per cent of dispute resolution is under those state laws not Commonwealth law.Institution arrangements between the ACCC and ASIC could be developed without the need for major surgery to the Trade Practices Act. Just remember what Wallis had to say on this. Rather than withdrawing the ACCC's jurisdiction, the Wallis committee said that maintaining its jurisdiction would remove the risk of a regulatory gap emerging. Instead, the ACCC and the ASIC could enter into an operating agreement. If necessary the Treasurer would then clarify the ACCC's role by directive under section 29 of the Trade Practices Act.Senator Campbell's speech on the second reading would give the impression that the government is following Wallis, but this is not the case. We are giving these amendments close scrutiny but we are very concerned that the amendments from the government have been introduced without any reasonable period of public exposure or consultation. Already we are finding that new provisions do not fully mirror all the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act and by moving that the Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 was to be debated cognately with these other bills and by introducing a last minute 39 pages of amendments, I must say that those of us with limited resources were put under some pressure.We will watch closely the implementation of Wallis reforms. We will keep a fine weather eye to the performance of the new regulators, particularly the new ASIC. It is essential that ASIC has adequate resources to do its job. The government is well aware that it is also going to impose additional responsibilities on ASIC with regard to the Managed Investments Bill 1997 . We are aware that the government has put aside greater money for them, but we are concerned that it may be too little. We welcome the extra resources in the recent budget, but remain sceptical as to whether these will be adequate to meet the new tasks facing the regulators. We have seen documents which suggest that some state ministers share our concern.The current Australian Securities Commission has experienced a huge attrition of its work force over the years. The ASIC will now have a massively expanded role in the finance sector and we think it will need to significantly beef up its numbers.In passing, I note that when the national corporate law arrangements were settled in the late 1980s, it was agreed that the states would be compensated for the loss of business licensing fees. Fees are collected on the notional basis of funding regulation, but are instead returned to the states for general budgeting. In 1998-99, $135 million of these fees will be redirected to the states. This anomaly is one that should definitely be reviewed in an overhaul of Australia's tax system by the government.The major overall concern I have with this package relates to dispute resolution. Other than passing the job to the ASIC, the bills hardly address this at all. The Australian Democrats support improved disclosure requirements, but where this may be considered a reasonable protection for stock market investors, it is definitely not reasonable to expect that all depositors will be able to make reasonable decisions on the basis solely of disclosure. The introduction by ASIC of a single gateway for consumer dispute resolution schemes, as far as it goes, is welcome in that it will assist aggrieved customers into the appropriate industry based scheme.Apart from these measures, we are being asked either to accept that current consumer protection schemes are adequate, or to take on trust that the ASIC will fill the gaps and fix the problems. I suggest to the government that the amount of concern being expressed by customers of the major banks indicates that this is a large area for problems and not a small one. A major problem is that these schemes currently do not at all provide for small business, including farmers. It is unreasonable to oblige a small business to take action through the courts in what would be a David and Goliath contest, with grossly uneven abilities to muster legal counsel and to pay legal bills.The Australian Small Business Association consider that up to 70 per cent of small business people have experienced problems with their banks. If there are 970,000 small businesses in this country, those of you who are mathematicians would know that that means there are nearly 700,000 small businesses that say they have problems with their banks. It is an area that government has to attend to.The Wallis report provided figures on the use of alternative dispute resolution schemes. An astounding 80,000 inquiries were made in the 1995-96 financial year to the banking, life insurance and general insurance schemes alone. In this light, I suggest to you that the action of this government in slashing funding to consumer advisory organisations is not only inexcusable and irresponsible but politically damaging to your interests. Clearly, there is a huge need for dispute resolution schemes, and government must take responsibility for ensuring these schemes work. Government must also be able and willing to take action itself when the schemes do not provide satisfaction.The Chief Executive of the ASIC, or ASC currently, Alan Cameron, has indicated already that ASIC will not be involved in day-to-day individual complaints. It remains to be seen how aggressive and successful ASIC will be in ensuring the workings of dispute resolution schemes and in pursuing cases which these schemes do not redress. The ASIC will need to provide a credible threat of enforcement action in the event of the alternative dispute resolution failing. There are question marks over the ASIC's regional spread as well as its investigative powers.To address some of these problems, the Australian Democrats will be moving an amendment to ensure that the ASIC takes responsibility for accrediting dispute resolution schemes and industry codes of conduct. The amendment will require all financial institutions to participate in an accredited scheme and to adopt the code of conduct. We will also be moving to ensure that there is consumer representation on the financial sector advisory council and the payment systems board, as well as an ASIC commissioner with consumer representation background.A further gaping hole in the post-Wallis arrangements is in the area of safeguarding customer privacy. As we all know, the government has backflipped on the issue of introducing comprehensive privacy legislation to cover the operations of the private sector. In its absence, the government should be moving at least to outlaw the unauthorised passing of customer details to other companies or subsidiaries.In conclusion, the banks have been the winners out of past deregulation, enjoying huge profits. Consumers, on the other hand, have suffered high real interest rates, inefficient telephone banking services, increasing fees and charges and closed branches. I do not know of consumers who will tell you that banking deregulation, in that sense, has delivered to them a better service.There are numerous cases of banks using their massive weight and muscle to ride roughshod over consumer complaints. There has been inadequate intervention by government to protect consumers. No wonder there is a massive community ground swell of discontent against banks. Sooner or later, I expect that discontent to express itself politically.There will be some improvements to the finance industry as a result of these bills, especially for company efficiency. But, so far, the incomplete implementation of the Wallis recommendations represents a very major missed opportunity to ensure the finance industry returns the favour, by providing the consumer better products and services which consumers themselves value and by restoring a reputation which appears now to be long lost.11:36:003334Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I move:At the end of the motion, add, "but the Senate is opposed: (a) to any further concentration of financial market power that would occur through the merger or takeover of any of Australia's major banks or insurance companies; and (b) to any increase in foreign ownership of Australia's major trading banks".Sound financial system management and regulation are absolutely essential to any country's economic and social wellbeing. Since the Campbell committee inquiry reported in 1981, the Australian financial system has undergone great change. The Labor government deregulated the financial sector in 1984-85, floated the dollar, let foreign banks enter the market, deregulated interest and exchange rates and implemented all number of reforms to create a dynamic financial system in Australia.Unfortunately, the fledgling procedures brought on a bout of excesses that resulted in the stock market crash of 1987, resulting in many in the market getting their fingers burnt and a consequent reintroduction of conservative lending practices which restricted our capacity to grow. As late as 1993, our banks were still seen as being non-responsive, more interested in the big customers and not willing to take risks. The banks adopted a conservative lending approach which meant that small businesses were effectively unable to grow.In terms of security, our prudential supervision is not of the highest order. It is the ALP's hope that this supervision does not diminish with the creation of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. We need a dynamic and secure banking system.Deregulation of the banking and finance sector opened up endless possibilities for banks and for their customers. The results should have been pleasing for bank employees and shareholders as banks became well placed to finance growth in investment and services. Through this deregulation the impact of the introduction of the non-banking home mortgage providers such as RAMS and Aussie Home Loans was fundamental in driving down the cost of home loans, not the drop in interest rates. Banks were forced to drop their mortgage rates to compete for market share. The introduction of this competition proved a positive outcome for first home buyers. Unfortunately, in many other areas this was not the case, particularly in regard to the introduction of fees for basic banking transactions.Our financial system is regulated. The question is: how can we reorganise to the extent necessary the current regulatory arrangements to better deliver the objectives of a sound and efficient financial system whilst protecting the rights of consumers? The Wallis or financial system inquiry was established to evaluate the results of the financial deregulation that had occurred so far and to recommend a further regulatory structure for Australia's financial system. The Wallis inquiry commended the results of the deregulation of the finance sector that began under the previous Labor government. A number of acts are to be amended to give effect to its recommendations. They range from the Banking Act 1959 to the Australian Securities Commission Act 1989 and the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997.In a nutshell, these bills will establish the Australian Securities Investment Commission which will absorb the Australian Securities Commission and its responsibility for corporate regulation, plus take on the additional functions of consumer protection and market integrity for the whole financial system. ASIC is based on the ASC. The bills will establish a single licence regime for banks and other non-bank deposit taking institutions to be overseen by a single Commonwealth agency, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, with responsibility for prudential regulation of the whole financial sector. APRA will take over the prudential functions of the Reserve Bank of Australia.The bills will establish a payments system board within the RBA with responsibility for the massive daily transfer of funds between institutions. They will abolish the requirement for banks to deposit one per cent of their eligible liabilities with the RBA—called non-callable deposits. APRA will be funded by fees levied on institutions under its supervision. The bills will divide the powers of the Insurance and Superannuation Commission—which is to be abolished—between ASIC and APRA. They will leave the way open for state regulated institutions like credit unions and building societies to be covered by the scheme if and when the states agree.The Australian Labor Party has been broadly supportive of the government's financial services regulatory changes. They bring about a number of changes that should impact positively on the Australian financial sector. However, the ALP does have a number of concerns. These include the diminishing of consumer protection as a result of reducing the jurisdictional power of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to regulate the financial services industry. There are also questions over the transfer of staff to APRA.What we have seen as a result of these changes is a huge increase in bank profits, especially among the four pillars—the Commonwealth, ANZ, Westpac and the NAB. From 1993 to 1994, bank profitability increased by 81 per cent, and from 1994 to 1995 by 23 per cent. It is safe to say that the banks took great advantage of the freed-up market.Not all went as planned and, under the Howard government, the situation for banking customers has worsened. The amount of money banks are making out of small investors is criminal. In January 1997, banks were reported as earning `billions of dollars through a raft of new fees and charges'. There were more than 200 of them, ranging from account keeping fees to charges for overuse of ATMs, new high cheque clearing fees, hikes in charges for duplicate statements, ETFPOS and over-the-counter transactions and so on. One in every $3 earned by the banks was now earned in fees and charges.In February this year, the Financial Review reported that the banks had made $6.3 billion in fees and charges in the past 12 months. Regular customers—small investors with a savings account or two and maybe some money stashed away for a rainy day—are the ones who are forced to bear the brunt of the clamouring of banks for greater profits.This has become even more evident under the current government. Fees and charges have not reduced with competition; in fact they are remarkably similar right across the four banks. The other day I was talking to an older friend of mine who said she is sick and tired of the fees that she is hit with every month. She is not very well-off and therefore does not have a great sum of money in the bank. She said she was considering withdrawing her money from the bank and putting it in a shoe box under her bed, which reminded me of the comments made by Malcolm Fraser prior to the 1983 election. Perhaps the then Prime Minister had more foresight about the challenges that the poor in our community would face, not so much by the election of a Labor government but by the greed and avarice of the banking community, when he made the statement to Australians prior to that election that they should take their money out of the banks and put it under the bed. She is penalised for being a small investor and for being a branch user instead of an ATM or EFTPOS user. She is now considered a cost intensive customer, whereas a few short years ago she was regarded as a normal and valued customer.As I have mentioned earlier, it is a concern of the ALP that consumer protection will be diminished as a result of reducing the jurisdictional power of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to regulate the financial services industry. We hope that ASIC will play as good a role in maintaining consumer protection as the ACCC has—taking on banks when they engaged in false and misleading advertising; and the education role it has played in respect to credit card usage has been innovative and effective. There also needs to be monitoring of fee increases and the extension of charges, much like that recommended under the Prices Surveillance Authority report in 1995. It is the more disadvantaged in our society who will suffer the most.I will now look at the impact on rural and regional Australia. In the 1980s time and again we saw footage of banks going in to farmers' homes and repossessing all of their possessions. Improvement in the economy and broader thinking on the part of banks have made this regular occurrence almost a thing of the past. But over the last few years we have seen a new attack on our rural and regional communities. Bank branch closures in these areas have had a significant detrimental effect on our non-metropolitan communities, because once the bank goes from a country town you can bet that it will not be long before other businesses start shutting up shop. Unemployment increases and a general sense of hopelessness and despair permeates the community. This could well be a forerunner to the experiences of rural and regional Australia that may occur with the full privatisation of Telstra and sale of the national transmission network.Not only have bank customers copped the blunt end of the stick. Australia's four pillars of banking have shed around 25 per cent of local staff since 1990, according to the Finance Sector Union. Bank employees have had to suffer a great deal. Bank branch closures and downsizing of the sector have meant that the number of bank employees has been markedly reduced. However, this has not been solely as a result of the moves to open up banking in this country. There has been a revolution in banking. The push of the banks toward electronic banking and commerce, which includes the new concept of on-line banking services where all of your banking can be done from your PC, has meant an attrition of workers in the banking sector.The Finance Sector Union has done its best to ensure that job losses are not excessive and has made many protests against these savage cuts. The union says that it believes that another 10,000 jobs will be lost in the banking sector this year alone. But it does not stop there. Even this week a Sydney Morning Herald article on the new AMP bank states that all banking will be done over the telephone, through ATMs or by EFTPOS, or via the Internet. There will be no bank branches. This will cut out more customers and employees. While the ethos touted is one of accessibility, what it really means is that people will cease to be employed in the banking sector. The personal face of banking will be lost forever, as will thousands more Australian jobs and the opportunity for real and valued jobs for young Australians.With the creation of the two new regulatory bodies, ASIC and APRA, the opposition is concerned to ensure that employees get a fair deal in the context of these institutional reforms. How many personnel will change over? How many will lose their jobs? This is something that we, as an opposition, will be closely monitoring. Small business has a major role to play in our economy. In 1993 the McKinsey report found that the more a small or medium-sized company exported, the less likely it was to receive finance from one of our major banks. It also found that big banks were ill equipped to assess the risks involved in an export venture. Between 1973 and 1993, firms exporting to South-East Asia grew from 17 per cent to 28 per cent. However, 90 per cent of manufacturing firms did not export to any significant extent although, according to McKinsey, many had the potential to do so.However, many of our small to medium businesses were held back by the attitudes of our big banks. Lending to small business seemed to get lost somewhere between personal lending and corporate lending. The Reserve Bank in the end had to get involved in negotiations to encourage lending to business, which led to the establishment of a small business advisory panel. The former Labor Government believed that this was a major issue also, particularly the accessibility and availability of finance for small business expansion.Women entering into small businesses have experienced discrimination by banks in the past. However, banks do seem to be getting the message that women in small business usually prepare more thorough business plans, are more cautious in organising their finances, and have a better success rate than men.In 1994, Ralph Willis, the then Treasurer, confidently stated that the issues of small business were beginning to be addressed. Specific lending products were tailored for small business, staff were retrained and approval procedures were revised and restructured to develop stronger links between the banks and small business. Banks also sought to educate small business operators on finance issues so outcomes would be better for all involved. In conclusion, the last 17 years have seen massive change in our finance sector. In the words of Paul Keating:If there is one word which sums up the whole spirit of the debate about deregulation, the Campbell Committee inquiry, the whole process of opening up the financial system, it is the word `maturity'.We now have a more mature financial sector in this country. Against all of this background of proposed change, the opposition supports the general approach adopted in the Wallis inquiry. Yet there are some important points to remember. As my colleague Gareth Evans has said in the other house:The truth of the matter is that, unless governments accompany the kind of legislative structures which are here set out and which we have indicated support for with an appropriate commitment to genuinely getting out there and protecting the interests of not only the institutions but also their depositors and all of those who are customers and participants in this financial situation, the legislation will not do the job that it needs to do.Along with the legislation to put everything into place, there must be a commitment on the part of the government to look after those in our society who have suffered at the hands of our banks over the last decade and, in particular, our friends and relatives who are less able to cope for themselves against the banks, which have been nothing but mean-spirited to those people. Our banks must stop putting their shareholders' interests in front of the interests of their customers.11:54:003337Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I wish to address the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 and eleven related bills which are before us. The collection of bills is a response to the Wallis inquiry and creates a new regulatory environment for the financial services sector. A number of my colleagues have already made comments on these bills and have raised some vital issues. I will not repeat their speeches, but I do endorse the comments made by Senator Andrew Murray on behalf of the Democrats. Instead, I would like to focus on the continuing attacks on the Trade Practices Act and consumer protection laws in Australia.The current attack on the financial services sector is the latest measure. The Trade Practices Act is an economy wide framework legislation, with objectives to set minimum standards of business conduct for all sectors of the economy. The economy wide application of the TPA sets out clear guidelines as to what society believes to be unacceptable behaviour in all instances. I endorse the comments of the ACCC when it states that uniform application is necessary on both efficiency and equity grounds. This has been recognised a number of times, in particular by the Swanson committee in its report on the operation of the Trade Practices Act. The committee stated:We believe it to be extremely important that the Trade Practices Act should start from a position of universal application to all business activity, whether public sector or private sector. Only in this way will the law be fair, and avoid giving a privileged position to those not bound to adhere to its standards.We know that following that committee report there was an agreement by all the states and the territories to implement uniform and economy wide consumer protection laws as a means of ensuring that all businesses across the economy were subject to the same standards. The Democrats believe this was a great development for Australian consumer protection laws. We acknowledge that it took considerable research and discussion and consultation to achieve that consensus on economy wide application.This proposal will effectively shield the financial sector from the consumer protection provisions available in the Trade Practices Act and from the scrutiny of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This bill proposes to remove the consumer protection role of the ACCC and give it to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.The consumer protection provisions set out in the Trade Practices Act and in the institution of the ACCC are key elements in Australia's consumer protection laws. In Australia we now have a significant body of laws which gives consumers avenues of redress and which gives the broader community a degree of accountability and security in their dealings with business. We should not be watering down these protections without very good reason.This is a significant issue because the proposal has consequences for all other areas where consumers rely on the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Special treatment of the finance sector should not be the basis of reforming away those existing consumer protection laws for, say, food regulation and safety. The same concerns can apply to communications regulations and a range of other government proposals.The irony of these proposals is the significant budget cuts by this government to consumer organisations—organisations that would have been in a position to respond and advocate on behalf of consumers. The Democrats believe that a prerequisite to good decision making involves consultation with key stakeholders. Savage budget cuts to these organisations have nobbled their ability to contribute to the community debate—and they are key stakeholders.Consumers are particularly concerned about the operations of the financial services sectors and their consumer protection. This is not an unjustified concern; it is a very real concern. It is one that the Democrats acknowledge because it has happened before. I acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, who said that, on behalf of his party, he was concerned about any watering down or erosion of consumer protection legislation. But it has happened before. Last year we observed the erosion of product safety standards in the Trade Practices Act when the government and the opposition refused to maintain the effectiveness of these provisions in mutual recognition legislation with New Zealand. That was despite Democrat opposition and amendments.We have seen savage cuts to consumer advocates and now we are seeing attempts to remove the scrutiny of the ACCC. These are concerns. The Democrats would gladly hear a clear-cut statement from the government as to its views on consumer protection and, in particular, consumer protection legislation in this nation. Avoiding this issue—and making further attempts to water down consumer protections—is not appropriate and further alienates consumers. As our legal system becomes less accessible and the diversity of services increases, there is a very real need for accountability. Consumer protection laws are about ensuring that consumers have a chance. Their voices are already quiet enough; they should not be lost altogether.12:00:003339Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—in reply—At the outset, I thank all honourable senators who have contributed to this debate. I will seek to address the main points that have been raised by each of our colleagues, Mr Acting Deputy President, in their second reading debate contributions.The measures contained in this ever growing number of bills as we reach the second reading debate—I think it was 12 at the last count—are, of course, a major part of the government's reform agenda, and we do again thank the senators who have generally supported the main thrust of the proposals for the implementation of the recommendations of the financial system inquiry which was chaired by Stan Wallis. It shows that, in some major policy areas, the major parties can agree, and it certainly makes it a lot easier to get things through the parliament when that takes place.There are some matters that have been raised relatively newly today, both by Senator Murray and Senator Cook, and some amendments—which we have only just seen—which have been proposed by, in particular, the Democrats. We do not say that it is bad that we have only just seen them; sometimes that is a normal happening around this place. But we think that, in the best interests of the handling of these bills, it would be worthwhile adjourning the debate at the end of the second reading vote, moving on to consideration of the next item on the Notice Paper, and then coming back to the committee stages at the earliest opportunity. This would allow discussions to take place outside the chamber to look at the effect of some of the amendments and to see if there is any room for compromise or discussion. So that is how the government will be proceeding.Going to the specific points raised by my honourable colleagues, Senator Cook reasserted the opposition's support for the thrust of the Wallis recommendations and the thrust and main body of the thousands of pages of law contained in these 12 pieces of legislation. He raised, quite properly, the late notice of some of the amendments that have been provided to honourable senators only in recent days. In Corporations Law and financial reform legislation, we seek to give the financial community and members and senators in this place the maximum time to debate these pieces of legislation and to look at the laws and how they impact because they do have such a large impact on the economy of Australia.The late notification of the consumer protection provisions was caused by the fact that we had to distribute those particular provisions to the Ministerial Council for Corporations, as they seek to amend the Corporations Law. Under the corporations agreement that applies to the Corporations Law, the Ministerial Council—which comprises myself as chair and the attorneys-general from each state—is required to vote formally prior to introduction of any amendments to the Corporations Law. That process necessarily does take some time, and that was only completed formally on Tuesday. We did, however, supply to all honourable senators, including the Leader of the Opposition, a notification of the description of the detail of those measures and provided the amendments to all interested senators as soon as the Ministerial Council votes had been received. We do not blame the Ministerial Council; we do not even blame the procedures. It is just a matter of procedure, and it is a quite proper procedure in a federation to ensure that all of the jurisdictions have a chance to look at these matters.Senator Margetts has raised the question—which Senator Stott Despoja also raised—as to whether ASIC and APRA will be as good as, for example, the ACCC in consumer regulation. The decision the government has taken, based on the recommendation of the Wallis committee, to bring the consumer protection regime and the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act into the ASIC legislation—and, indeed, into the Corporations Law legislation when it comes to handling legislation under the corporate law economic reform program—was to ensure that the financial sector was regulated by one regulator so that all financial products were regulated in a similar way. Contrary to what Senator Stott Despoja would proclaim, we have not in any way watered down the consumer protection provisions. What we have done is to export the provisions lock, stock and barrel out of the Trade Practices Act and brought them into the relevant legislation—in this case, the ASIC legislation.ASIC has had its resources—in terms of financial resources and, ultimately, human resources—boosted significantly to ensure that it has the capability to fulfil its role in terms of its extra responsibilities under this legislation and the next legislation we are looking at—the Managed Investments Bill 1997 . There has been a significant boost to the resources of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which I know has been a very legitimate concern of Democrat senators and, indeed, of all senators. I reject the criticism. I believe that ASIC, having the responsibilities for consumer protection provisions, will actually be a more effective regulator because it will be looking at the whole range of financial products available to the consumers of Australia.I take this opportunity to say that the government regards a sound consumer protection regime, ensuring we have a well-resourced national regulator, as an absolutely integral part of building up Australia's economy. We want to ensure that we have the world's best practice in terms of financial and corporate legislation and we want to have the world's best corporate and financial sector regulator. We do not want to skimp on this. We want to ensure, for the benefit of all Australians, that we have a high quality regulatory regime and a high quality financial system. Unless there is confidence in our financial system, in our corporate law system and the disclosure regimes, and in all of those marketplaces, people will not invest and they will not save, as you, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, know better than most here. People need to know that, when they put money into superannuation, insurance, a managed investment, a bank, a building society or a credit union, they are doing so in a well-regulated manner, both from a consumer protection point of view and a prudential regulation point of view. That is what we are seeking to build.We believe, contrary to those who criticise removal of the consumer protection provisions from the trade practices law and putting them into the corporations and securities and financial sector laws, that this is in fact a move towards better regulation and better consumer protection. That is why it has been done; it is as simple as that. That is why we are doing it. There is no hidden conspiracy to reduce consumer protection. We think consumer protection is good. We think it is in the interests of the economy and in the interests of the financial sector.We will address in the committee stage the points that have been raised by Senator Andrew Murray in relation to dispute resolution. I just draw the attention of Senator Murray and other senators to the government's policy proposals—contained in an excellent policy document called `Financial markets and investment products', which was issued under the excellent corporate law economic reform program—and specifically to proposal paper No. 6 at page 103. Copies are available from my office, if anyone is interested. It goes into setting up a dispute resolution mechanism for the whole financial system, for all financial markets and investment products, and seeks to rationalise the plethora of dispute resolution mechanisms available at the moment. I commend that particularly to Senator Cook, who I know has an interest in this area, and to Senator Murray. We will certainly give them copies of that prior to moving into the committee stage. The government does believe that dispute resolution mechanisms are important, but we do believe that the proposals which we will be bringing to this parliament in the second half of this year will address that issue in a better and more comprehensive fashion.My namesake, Senator George Campbell, made some points about Senator Cook's second reading amendment in relation to foreign control of banks and mergers of banks. The Treasurer has made a statement on this at about the time that the Wallis recommendations came down. To save time, at the end of my remarks I will seek leave to incorporate the press release of the Treasurer, press release No. 28 of 9 April 1997. Specifically, it refers to the government's policy here, and I will quote a short piece from it:The Government has further decided that mergers among the four major banks will not be permitted at this time. This will be reviewed when the Government is satisfied that competition from new and established participants in the financial industry, particularly in respect of small business lending, has increased sufficiently to allow such mergers to be considered. The Government has decided to remove the former Government's blanket prohibition on a foreign takeover of any of the major banks.It concludes:. . . any large-scale transfer of Australian ownership of the financial system to foreign hands would be contrary to the national interest.I repeat that: the government's position is that any large-scale transfer of Australian ownership of the financial system to foreign hands would be contrary to the national interest.Under Labor, the share of the banking sector owned by foreigners increased, and they have now built up a significant market share. I do not have the evidence at hand, but my understanding is that the increase in foreign ownership during the 13 years of Labor was the biggest increase in foreign ownership of the Australian banking system in the history of Australia. Senator Cook will come back and correct me if I am wrong on this, I am sure, very shortly.RF4COOKSenator Cook—We deregulated the banking system.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am talking about ownership of Australian banks by foreigners. It is probably an intellectual or academic debate we can have sitting in a plane one day, Senator Cook. If I am wrong you can come and correct me. Of course, as Senator Cook points out, it was Labor's very deliberate policy—and it was a good policy, because it did increase competition, particularly at the top end of town, by introducing foreign banks. I make those points to Senator George Campbell.I think it is a debate that should be had. There is a very important debate going on about the level of foreign interests in, and the mergers of, banks, particularly, as I read the papers, between the head of the National Australia Bank and the Treasurer about whether mergers should be allowed. Certainly there are arguments for and against those sorts of mergers. Some people could put the argument that competition would be enhanced in Australia. Foreign ownership and control of banks is a two-way street. Australian banks and financial institutions have been very successful at forging big market niches in Europe, Great Britain, North America and even Asia, might I say. I commend these bills to my colleagues in the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate the press release of the Treasurer of 9 April 1997.Leave granted.The document read as follows—RELEASE OF THE REPORT OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM INQUIRY AND INITIAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSE ON MERGERS POLICYI am releasing today the Final Report of the Financial System Inquiry.The Report is a major review of the Australian financial system covering a stocktake of financial de-regulation, an analysis of the forces driving change and recommendations on the key issues in regulatory reform. This accords with the terms of reference set for the Inquiry.On behalf of the Government I would like to thank the chairman, Mr Stan Wallis, and the Inquiry members, Mr Bill Beerworth, Professor Jeffrey Carmichael, Professor Ian Harper and Mrs Linda Nicholls, for their hard work in delivering a quality report on time.The Government commissioned the Inquiry because of the significant and rapid changes occurring in the Australian financial system which are affecting all Australians, both businesses and individuals. The Government recognises the importance of ensuring that the regulatory regime is capable of adapting to the changes occurring in such areas as technology, globalisation and consumer needs and—is one that can best carry Australia into the 21st Century. The Inquiry's Report has clearly documented the extent of change occurring in the financial sector and the challenges this is posing to the regulatory structure. The Report has demonstrated both the need for and importance of such a review.. The Report notes that an effective financial system delivers many advantages to users. The most direct and transparent benefit is the reduction of costs to consumers. But a more efficient financial system has benefits for the wider economy, as it releases resources for more efficient uses and enhances Australia's competitiveness.. The Report notes that even a 10 per cent improvement in efficiency in the financial sector would translate into cost savings for the economy in excess of $4 billion per annum.The Inquiry has made a large number of recommendations to improve the regulatory framework. The Government will give careful consideration toe these recommendations over coming months as it assesses the steps required to ensure that Australia has an efficient, competitive and stable financial system. I expect to make a comprehensive statement on financial sector reform later in the year.The Final Report, the Inquiry's preceding Discussion Paper, and the large number of submissions made by interested parties provide a very valuable and detailed body of knowledge about the issues facing the financial system.As a consequence, in considering the Report's recommendations the Government will not be duplicating the formal consultative processes which went into the preparation of the inquiry's Report.Mergers Policy in the Financial SystemWhile the Government will provide a comprehensive statement on financial market reform after it has fully considered the Report, market speculation in the area of mergers requires an immediate response from the Government.When the Inquiry was established, I said that I would review the policies that applied to mergers in the finance sector in the light of the Inquiry's findings. The Government has taken note of the Inquiry's recommendations and its findings on the state of competition in the financial sector.The Government has decided to end the so-called "six pillars" policy, which has involved a blanket ban on any mergers among the major banks and the largest life insurance companies.The Treasurer will retain powers to reject mergers under relevant banking and insurance laws. In exercising these powers, I will take into account, but not be limited by, assessments by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in relation to competition considerations, and the advice of the relevant prudential regulators on prudential considerations.The Government has further decided that mergers among the four major banks will not be permitted at this time. This will be reviewed when the Government is satisfied that competition from new and established participants in the financial industry, particularly in respect of small business lending, has increased sufficiently to allow such mergers to be considered.The Government has decided to remove the former Government's blanket prohibition on a foreign takeover of any of the major banks. Any proposed foreign takeover or acquisition will need to be assessed, like any other proposed foreign takeover or acquisition, on a case by case basis on its merits in accordance with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975.In making these assessments, however, the Government will apply the principle (as concluded by their Inquiry) that any large scale transfer of Australian ownership of the financial system to foreign hands would be contrary to the national interest.Canberra. ACT9 April 1997Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, agreed to.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.Bills3342r4243342Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:16:003342Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This is the Managed Investments Bill 1997 . Labor will not be opposing this bill but will be moving a number of amendments which we believe will strengthen the investor protection elements of the bill. I understand that the Australian Democrats may also be moving some amendments, which Labor will consider when they are debated.The Managed Investments Bill 1997 introduces changes to the regulation of the collective investments market. Labor has an excellent track record of introducing successful market regulations which are designed to protect investor savings. In the area of superannuation, Labor's Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 oversights the prudential regulation and protection of superannuation investments and has had great success to date, although the government's proposed new choice regime, when they reintroduce it, could substantially weaken investor protection. So it is with a strong commitment that we closely examine this bill for any areas which weaken investor protection in the field of managed investments.When this bill was debated in another place, Labor expressed concerns about several issues and agreed that the bill should be examined by the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities. Those concerns were related to ensuring that investor protection was not weakened under the government's bill in that it did not require a mandated, independent custodian, and that the Australian Securities Commission received adequate funding to fulfil the role the government had given it in the bill. Labor was also concerned that the ASC was yet to release policy documents outlining how it would apply the powers it had at its disposal under the bill, particularly what levels of capital adequacy it would apply, and how and when it would decide whether to enforce the use of an independent custodian.As many investors and industry players would know, reform of the regulations governing non-superannuation collective investments has been a long time coming, particularly for those investors who suffered a loss in their hard-earned savings because of the collapse of certain collective investment schemes back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. So the fundamental question which all participants in this debate need to consider is: does this bill better protect investors? Labor believes that, in principle, the bill does better protect investors because it takes the important step of forcing collective investment schemes to become single responsible entities, SREs, which are wholly responsible to investors in the event of a scheme failure. It was the Labor government which sought to introduce the SRE concept to the non-superan nuation collective investments industry through a draft Collective Investments Bill in December 1995. Now, as then, we consider the SRE concept to be a sensible and logical extension of the highly successful superannuation regulatory regime established by Labor, which should lead to greater protection and greater benefits for investors.However, the government's regulatory model, as proposed in this bill, differs from Labor's in a fundamental area—that of custodial separation of assets and the protection of investors' assets. Under the government's model, an SRE will not be compelled to engage an independent custodian in which the scheme property will vest, although the ASC will have the power to enter into a legally enforceable undertaking with an SRE to ensure that an independent custodian is engaged. Because of that difference, Labor supported the referral of the bill to the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities, which reported on April Fool's Day in 1998.In the report, Labor members and senators did not oppose the passage of the bill, subject to the caveat that the committee had a very short time frame in which to examine the bill. As such, not all of the issues raised in submissions and evidence before the committee were given the appropriate treatment by the committee's report, as paragraph 1.14 of the committee's report states. That the committee report reflects the lack of time it had to consider this bill is a shame and borders on contempt of parliament.This bill represents a major change to the regulation of the Australian managed investments industry and the parliament should have an appropriate amount of time to consider those issues. Senator Campbell has been very keen to get this bill through the parliament, and the opposition agreed to expedite it as best it could. The opposition agreed to allow the bill to pass through the other place before being examined by the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities and we also agreed to a short reporting time frame for the committee. When it became clear, from the large number of submissions received, that further time was needed, the opposition agreed to a short reporting extension, in the interests of assisting the government to get the legislation through while ensuring the parliament had sufficient time to examine the issues. However, it was disappointing that the government expressed such loud opposition to the parliament having that extra time. I feel that the committee's report reflects the lack of time it had to conduct its investigations.This bill has generated a lot of public debate about the regulation of collective investments. I note with interest a report in the Australian Financial Review of 31 March this year that Senator Lightfoot is intensely opposed to the government's proposed changes to the regulation of collective investments. I also understand that Senator Lightfoot wrote to the Treasurer on 6 May 1998 expressing further concern about the government's model. I will be interested to hear from Senator Lightfoot during the debate on this bill, particularly why he considers that the bill reduces investor protection and how he will vote on some of the amendments presented during debate.I also understand that a Mr Sweeney of the Trust Company of Australia, which just happened to make a significant donation to the Liberal Party before the 1996 election, is also opposed to the bill. According to a report in the Australian on 19 March 1998, Mr Sweeney has written to no less than the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Treasurer and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) arguing that Senator Campbell, who has responsibility for this bill as parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer, is biased against the trustee industry. Mr Sweeney also made other very public comments about the bill and its impact on investors.I do not wish to comment on Senator Campbell's alleged bias, although I understand that his behaviour in the recent committee hearings into the bill, where he appeared to be openly supportive of one particular lobby in this debate, may have given some justification for that impression. But the issues of alleged bias or who may or may not be opposed to the government's model should not be confused with why we are here today debating this bill: that is, to ensure that investors in collective investments are adequately protected.On the face of it, Labor believes that the government's managed investments model places onerous responsibilities on the single responsible entity to meet stringent compliance regulations prior to being registered and licensed as an SRE and during its operation as a single responsible entity. The SRE is able to be prosecuted under civil action by any scheme member who suffers a loss or damage because of conduct contravening those duties and responsibilities. To become a single responsible entity, the entity must apply to the Australian Securities Commission, the ASC, for a special licence and, if the managed investment scheme has more than 20 investors, seek ASC registration as an SRE.An SRE has to lodge a compliance plan with the Australian Securities Commission, stating how it proposes to fulfil its custody of asset responsibilities which are to ensure that managed investment schemes property is clearly identified and that the property is held separately from the property of the SRE or of another managed investment scheme. The SRE has to satisfy compliance regulations by either having a board of directors with at least half of the directors being independent or establishing a compliance committee with at least half of its membership being independent. It must hold all scheme assets in trust for scheme members, thus imposing trust law obligations on the single responsible entity. It has to enter into legally binding undertakings with the Australian Security Commission if it is directed, for example, to agree to have a separate custodian.It is also required to assist the Australian Securities Commission to carry out surveillance checks on whether the scheme is complying with its compliance plan and the law. In the area of the Australian Securities Commission and its powers, the bill also confers a significant vetting and compliance role on the ASC, which will have a number of powers. It will be able to refuse to issue a licence or to register the managed investment scheme if it considers that the arrangements in the compliance plan are inadequate. It can require appropriate capital adequacy amounts depending on the circumstances of each fund, and there is no mandated amount. It can revoke an SRE's licence without hearing in certain circumstances. The ASC can also examine, investigate and gather information concerning the operations of a single responsible entity to ensure compliance with the scheme's constitution, compliance plan and applicable laws. It can accept enforceable undertakings from an SRE in relation to any matter concerning a registered scheme, and it can apply to the courts for any order against the SRE that the court thinks is appropriate.The bill specifies a two-year transitional period beginning 1 July this year for current managed investment schemes to move to an SRE scheme. Any entity may apply to become a single responsible entity. The opposition had a number of concerns about the government's model, which we had hoped would be addressed in the public hearings into the bill. Labor has already stated its support for the SRE concept, believing that it will boost consumer protection by clarifying which entity is legally liable for the investors funds.Like the government's model, Labor's draft collective investments bill 1995 enlarged the Australian Security Commission's role to enable it to vet applications for the SRE and ensure that all compliance requirements could be met and would be met. However, our model also required a statutory, separate, independent custodian which we determined at the draft bill stage would provide added consumer protection. The government's model differs from Labor in that it does not require a mandated independent custodian. This places an increased importance on the capacity of the Australian Securities Commission to undertake a vetting and ongoing compliance role which, while being a departure from Labor's model, does not necessarily mean a lessening of consumer protection. However, the capacity of the ASC to fulfil the vetting and ongoing monitoring role has been severely restricted by the 1996-97 budget cuts which have impacted particularly heavily on the Australian Security Commission's compliance section.In the Joint Corporations and Securities Committee hearings, Labor members of the committee specifically pursued assurances from the Australian Securities Commission that they would have the resources to meet their obligations under the bill. The committee report quotes evidence from Ms Jillian Segal, statutory member of the Australian Securities Commission, that the ASC has informed the government of what resources it believes it needs to meet its obligations under the legislation. Ms Segal said that, if the resources were inadequate, the ASC `will not be backward in coming forward' in letting the government know.In the 1998 budget the government has allocated $7.1 million additional funding to the ASC over three years for administration of the Managed Investments Bill 1997 regime. However, that funding ceases at the end of the transitional period. Does that mean the Australian Securities Commission or the ASIC, as it may become, will no longer be funded to regulate managed investments? That is a question I would hope the parliamentary secretary will answer. I would also hope that because to date the Australian Securities Commission has not been backward in coming forward it believes the funding will be sufficient. Labor will have some questions to ask in Senate estimates about what the Australian Securities Commission thinks of the level of funding currently provided by the government.Finally, the committee report mentioned that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Senator Campbell, has given verbal assurances that the Australian Securities Commission will receive adequate funding to fulfil its role. I will be seeking those assurances again from the parliamentary secretary during the debate on this bill. I doubt that the bill will pass through the parliament until the government has given those assurances. Labor also notes the committee's intention to notify the parliament of any deficiency in the resources available to the Australian Securities Commission to carry out its role as part of its normal monitoring role—the role of the ASC.The committee report drew attention to a review the government intends to conduct at the end of the two-year transitional period, as outlined in the bill's explanatory memorandum. While that is a noble sentiment and has become usual practice in evaluating many public policy proposals, Labor would like to see that review enshrined in the legislation and will be moving an amendment to do just that. In particular, we believe the review should specifically concentrate on the issue of the ASC's capacity to fulfil its monitoring and ongoing compliance role under the government's bill.The ASC has recently released some draft policy papers which discuss seven high priority policy subjects which the ASC has identified as needing further clarification. The Australian Securities Commission has invited comments from the public which will be reviewed and then the ASC will issue formal policy statements on these high priority subjects. These are to be actively reviewed during the course of 1998 to ensure that they are working properly, and we welcome that. The seven policy areas the ASC is releasing position papers on are: the licensing of the responsible entity; financial resource suitability of SREs; contents of the compliance plan; appropriate arrangements for holding scheme property; contents of the constitution of the managed fund; transitional arrangements; and exemptions and modifications.On the issue of financial resource suitability of an operator of a managed investment scheme, this policy paper outlines what, if any, financial conditions should be imposed as a prerequisite to an entity's eligibility to operate a managed investment scheme. Some parties in this debate made much of the small section in the financial systems inquiry, otherwise known as the Wallis report, about the need to bring the regulation of managed investments into line with the regulation of superannuation. Hence the introduction of the SRE concept of managed investments.On the issue of capital adequacy, statutory provisions requiring a certain level of capital adequacy have merit. To that end, Labor is proposing to support Democrat amendments on capital adequacy provisions.I would like to discuss the issue of investor choice, which has been the subject of much public debate recently and is also raised by amendments proposed by Senator Murray of the Australian Democrats. Labor believes that investors in newly established SRE schemes will be able to choose whether to invest in a managed investment scheme based on a range of reasons, including the custodial arrangements of that scheme.Managed investment schemes will be able to market their scheme based on the way they hold scheme assets if they so choose. Provided the information pertaining to the holding of scheme assets is clearly disclosed—and Labor will be moving an amendment to require that—then investors can make a choice. However, existing scheme members, under the government's bill, will not have the choice to vote for an independent custodian. Their only choice under the government's bill will be to either wind up the scheme or vote to determine which entity—the trustee or the funds manager—will become the SRE.Labor proposes to introduce an amendment which will give investors who proceed to the vote of members to determine not only which entity should become the SRE but also the custodial arrangements which scheme members demand. That is a choice which existing scheme members should have. New scheme investors can `vote with their wallets' by investing in schemes which meet their custodial requirements.The issues raised by this bill very much make an on-balance judgment about where we stand, given the arguments put by both sides of the debate. The opposition's position is one of support for the essential concept of the single responsible entity, provided adequate resourcing and transparency exists in the regulation of the government's model.12:35:003346Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—There are two key tests that I will apply to the Managed Investments Bill 1997 . The first is whether the bill provides the average investor a reasonable level of informed choice. I put to the government and to the opposition that, if we are going to change the regulation of managed investment schemes, it behoves us to allow investors a chance to choose how their savings can best be managed. This bill mandates a switch for investors from one kind of protection to another. That excludes the matter of people choosing how to disburse their own moneys, and I think that is a fundamental mistake. The bill does not provide adequate choice.The second test is whether the bill provides investors with levels of security for their savings that they could reasonably expect. The bill does not succeed in maintaining the reasonable security enjoyed at present. In fact, it takes the extraordinary step, in our view, of reducing the current levels of safety for the 2.5 million Australians who have invested in managed investment schemes.If you bring these two tests together, our belief is that it is fundamental that this bill should give Australians choice in relation to how their savings will be kept securely. The Australian Democrats regret that the government and the opposition agreed with each other in relation to this bill in the report of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities. We do not therefore expect that the Senate will reject the bill, and our goal in addressing the Managed Investments Bill is therefore to strengthen an otherwise flawed bill as much as possible.However, we do welcome the remarks made by Senator Cook for the Labor Party in indicating that the Labor Party has had further thoughts on the bill, and we will in fact be moving amendments and be taking a position which will improve the security of investors with regard to this bill. The Australian Democrats will be moving amendments to deliver better choice and security, we believe, for the many Australians who have entrusted their savings to managed investment schemes.The majority report tells us that approximately $85 billion is invested in managed investment schemes at present and the amount continues to grow by around $20 billion a year. By any measure, that represents very large sums of money and very rapid growth. Because of the financial scale effected, it is obvious therefore that the Managed Investments Bill 1997 will touch the lives of all Australians in its impact and not only the lives of millions of direct and indirect investors. It is legislation which must be examined with the utmost care since it materially affects the capital needs of Australia. The government needs to be very cautious of introducing change which may put at risk the financial security and the capital needs of Australia.The bill has had a long gestation period, and much has been written on the proposed new single responsible entity system over the years. The legislative process was started by the Labor government with the Collective Investments Bill and has been adopted, with significant changes, by the coalition with the current bill. Managed investments have been the subject of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission and the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee via the 1993 report Collective investments: other people's money and, more recently, from the 1997 report of the Wallis financial system inquiry. Undoubtedly there is momentum for reform.Nevertheless, it is still an issue which polarises the main protagonists. The Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities has delivered its report on its inquiry into the bill. The passions generated by so much money were apparent in the shower of documentation received, and by the 54 submissions made despite the short notice of the inquiry. All senators—particularly the leading players—have been subject to very heavy lobbying and pleas on behalf of investors and on behalf of the various funds and institutions involved.I will pose the question as to whether a case has been made for moving to the approach underlying the bill. My first test is financial. Managed investment schemes are currently required to have both a manager and trustee. It is a prudential system, designed with checks and balances to minimise loss. This system has served Australia for decades, and incidentally serves the OECD countries well. Trustees have been mandatory in the system since 1955 in Victoria and 1961 for the Commonwealth, so we are looking at 40 years' worth of mandatory trustee activity.How well does the present system operate? I am in agreement with government that you need to keep looking at legislation and systems but the fact is that, though you need to reform, change and adjust, the present system is very effective. We were told by the majority report that there is $85 billion invested in managed investment schemes, growing by $20 billion a year. That would seem exceptionally successful. Returns to investors do not seem to be lower than acceptable levels. On financial grounds, in the evidence before the committee the case has not been made that the present system fails Australia; a case has been made for reform.My next test relates to investment losses and protection.Have there been investment disasters? Do a lot of people lose money under this system? No system can be perfect or foolproof. It is true that over the decades there have been a few failures, the most notable of recent times being the Aust-Wide and the Estate Mortgage funds collapse. Even in hearings held by the committee in camera, little else emerged. It is not an industry subject to unusual levels of fraud. In fact, it appears on the whole to be well managed, protected, and self-regulated, with the Australian Securities Commission as a competent back-up regulator.The bill does not provide the same level of security to investors in existing schemes as they presently enjoy. Indeed, the trustee witnesses made the case that trustees had acted in the case of fund failures to recover more funds for investors than would be feasible under the proposed bill. The Labor Party has quite rightly picked on the issue of capital adequacy as a material consideration in this matter. Trustee witnesses to the committee were of the view that the bill would put investors at greater risk than before since the system was changing from a tripartite one of trustee, fund manager and regulator—we often talk about it as moving from a bipartite to a single entity but in fact it is tripartite—to a bipartite one, which is fund manager and regulator.Fund managers were either equivocal or believed the new system would improve investor protection. The regulator, the ASC, could not be definite on the matter. In a chilling prediction, Victorian Attorney-General Jan Wade wrote in her submission to the committee:There can be no doubt that under the proposed regime there will be greater likelihood of loss to investors and less likelihood that they will recover their losses.The ASC does not replace trustees. It remains a regulator, and one which will always be limited by resources. It cannot be sued by disappointed investors. Instead of both fund managers and trustees being capable of being sued by investors, only fund managers will remain. Liability now rests with one party only, not two. Whichever way you look at it, that is a lessening of investors' ability to recover their money in the event of failure, negligence, or fraud. You should be able to maximise your protection against risk.I will turn to costs. There are assertions that the Managed Investments Bill will result in increased costs; there are also assertions that costs will fall. The assertion that costs would be lower under the new system is advanced by the Investment and Financial Services Association, which estimates an efficiency dividend annually of about $30 million for the entire industry. If there are cost savings, there is no certainty that they will be passed on. KPMG, for the Trustee Corporations Association of Australia, estimated the transitional costs consequent to the new bill to be between $56 million and $66 million. It is possible that costs could fall for the very big funds under the bill. For smaller funds costs will undoubtedly rise. In that respect this is a measure prejudiced against the small business operator in this industry.Debate interrupted.Business33483348Motion (by Senator Parer) agreed to:That after consideration of government business order of the day No. 11 consideration in committee of the whole of message No. 561 from the House of Representatives (Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 ), government business order of the day No. 18 (Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 ) be called on to enable second reading speeches to be made till not later than 2.00 p.m. today. Bills3349r491Billsr4903349Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Senator Ellison:That these bills be now read a second time.12:46:003349Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—On behalf of the opposition I indicate that we agree with the bills. The shadow minister, Mr Tanner, put our view as to why we support these bills on record in the House of Representatives. I commend the bills to the Senate.12:46:003349Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I thank Senator Schacht for his contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills3349r4843349Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Alston:That this bill be now read a second time.12:48:003349Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition has indicated that we support this bill. As a former science minister who dealt with these bodies, I wish to take a couple of minutes to make two brief points. First, over the period of any government there is always an argument from the science community about the best forms of advice on science issues both from within the government and from outside the government. In that sense we do not see the proposal from the government as controversial. It is a structure we believe has some merit. In another two or three years time the government of the day may revisit these structures because there will be discussion and argument from within the science, engineering and technology communities about the best form of advice to the government.The major point that the non-government sector would make about advice coming to the government is that at times the issues they wish to raise with these bodies are controversial for the government and there should always be a transparent process so that even if they are controversial and uncomfortable for the government those issues can be considered by the appropriate advisory bodies on the merits of the non-government members. That is an important issue. As an example, we have a decision to be soon debated in this place about the funding for a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or some other site. There is an enormous debate in the science community about whether an expenditure of $300 million or $400 million on a nuclear reactor is the best way to spend our science money. I am agnostic about that.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I am not!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I am agnostic about the money; my colleague Senator Forshaw is not agnostic about where it should be built. That is a different issue. But as a science issue, whether we need to have a nuclear reactor as part of our science infrastructure—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—I am happy to go into it—it is a lot of money.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—All I am saying is that it is appropriate that the advice government gets comes from bodies that have the resources to make a decision to investigate such issues without having to get the approval of the government. That is an argument the science community raises and it is a relevant argument. The balance always has to be kept.In this case the operation of what is now called the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council has been a major advantage for government. It goes back to when it was first established in the early 1990s by then Prime Minister Hawke. That body brings a focus at the top level of government—prime ministerial and senior ministers meeting with representatives of the science, engineering and innovation community to debate issues of interest.Finally, on the public sector side, I hope these bodies will deal with some of the issues to do with the way this government has reduced funding for science and research by reducing, for example, the 150 per cent tax deduction for R&D to 125 per cent. Those are the sorts of issues that have to be in the forum of these advisory bodies without fear or favour. We support the bill.12:52:003350Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will also be supporting the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998 . I will just follow up some of the remarks made by Senator Schacht in relation to the way science has been treated by this government, not just in funding cuts for research and development—the concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent—but the demotion, if you like, of science on the political agenda. I think that it is not only important, as Senator Schacht says, to have appropriate bodies to analyse decisions such as whether or not we, say, commit an incredible amount of money to a new nuclear reactor but also to ensure that there is elevation of the debate about science issues generally in political circles and in the parliament, and that we ensure that the chief scientist's role is maintained and respected. Just on that note, I believe the chief scientist was not consulted in the decision to allocate money for a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.The Australian Democrats will support the bill but seek to make a few comments. The bill will repeal the council and provide transitional provisions for the council to wind up. The council was established to provide information and advice to government. This has been achieved, we believe with considerable success. The Democrats would now like to pay tribute—indeed, we believe the entire parliament should pay tribute—to all those involved in ASTEC from its start in 1978. It has been a significant contribution because it provided a broad perspective of science, engineering and technology matters. It also provided a long-term perspective and consultation with the wider community, again an important part when debating scientific issues politically. Perhaps it is something we do not see often enough; that is, engagement by the parliament and by legislators with scientists and the general community when discussing science issues, particularly in some of those areas that may seem a little futuristic but that we should be confronting now, such as progress in the areas of genetic modifications of, say, foods, and gene technology.Last December the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced the restructuring of the council and a retitling. The new body will be called the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, and it will be the government's principal source of science, engineering and technology advice, together with some aspects of education and training. Interestingly, the Prime Minister repeated the government's commitment to innovation as a key economic driver of competitiveness in the future, and this was one of the bases on which the council was retitled.The science and research community hear these words over and over again, yet the rhetoric from government is not matched by commitment, certainly in terms of funding. This year's science budget shows that expenditure on science and technology has stayed the same since 1996-97 and the government's stated policy reliance on innovation—as also set out in its `Investing for Growth' document—was not reflected in the budget. Perhaps the most telling statement on the government's commitment to innovation, or perhaps a lack of commitment to innovation, was the dramatic funding cuts we saw in the 1996-97 budget, a staggering 10.7 per cent decrease in Commonwealth funding in real terms. This cut has not been restored in subsequent budgets. However, the Democrats welcome the new body as an important and essential place for science, technology and engineering in the decisions of governments. We also believe that there is considerable benefit to be gained from having a Prime Minister taking an active role in this body and having available to him a key, expert advisory body. The Democrats welcome these developments to refine the science, engineering and technology advice that is received by our government. However, we will be watching closely and we will be very interested to see how effective this new body will be. The successes of ASTEC will be a standard for that assessment.12:56:003351Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—In view of the comments made earlier by my colleague Senator Schacht and Senator Stott Despoja I thought I should just make a couple of comments on the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998 . Senator Stott Despoja would know that it emerged during evidence taken by the inquiry into whether we should have a new reactor and whether it should be located at Lucas Heights or somewhere else, that there was a supposed site selection process undertaken within the relevant department which led to the cabinet decision.One of the unfortunate aspects of this whole saga is that the government made an announcement that it would build a new reactor at Lucas Heights, and did so without any sort of public inquiry or any sort of open process of looking at alternative sites. Senator Schacht raised the issue of whether or not it is in our interest to be committing such a huge amount of money to nuclear research rather than other areas of medical and scientific research. Unfortunately, the government has already made this decision in secrecy. It has not engaged the scientific, medical and engineering communities and their expertise in assisting to examine examining this important issue.I just hope that, with the new structures that will be encompassed within this bill, this government will start to enact in practice what it states in principle—that is, that it is interested in taking independent advice from people within the scientific community. It certainly has not been done to date in respect of the issue of the Lucas Heights reactor.12:58:003351Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I would like to thank the honourable senators for their contributions and support for the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills3351r4003351Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.13:00:003351Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—As has already been indicated, the opposition agrees with this legislation. I do not know that there is anything more constructive we can add to the debate.13:00:003351Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank the opposition for its cooperation and its contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills3351r3833351Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.13:02:003351Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think the comments I made in respect of the previous bill are appropriate for this one also.13:02:003351Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I wish native title could be so easy. I thank the opposition for its contribution and its cooperation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Bills3352s1593352Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:03:003352Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—There are two aspects to this bill. Firstly, it abolishes the two compulsory export promotion levies that have been imposed on the Australian prawn industry—namely, the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge. The second aspect of the bill deals with the establishment of a prohibition on the taking of black marlin and blue marlin within the Australian fishing zone.With respect to the abolition of the prawn levy and the prawn export charge, the opposition supports the bill. I note that the minister in his second reading speech stated:The previous Government imposed the levies in 1995, through the Prawn Boat Levy Act 1995, the Prawn Export Charge Act 1995 and the Prawn Export Promotion Act 1995.That is true, but it needs also to be put on the record—in case there may be some misinterpretation of the true situation—that, when the Labor government introduced the compulsory levies and charges on the industry, it was clearly predicated on there being widespread industry support at that time for doing so and for those funds to be used by the Australian Prawn Promotion Association. Apparently since that time a significant proportion of the industry, as shown in a survey, has determined that it is not satisfied any longer with the compulsory levies and charges and, as a result, they will be abolished.I also note that, whilst this legislation removes that imposition from the industry—and the funds previously were being used for promotion of the industry—there is other legislation to come before this parliament in due course. That other legislation, which the primary industries committee has been looking at this morning, also takes away some $3.6 million in funding for the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. So there is another side to the story other than what is just reflected in this legislation, which of course is, as I said, to do away with levies which currently are imposed upon the industry.The second issue is self-explanatory. That is that, under the bill, there will be a prohibition on commercial fishing operators from taking black marlin and blue marlin within the Australian fishing zone. There are exemptions noted, particularly for recreational fishers, charter fishing operators and holders of scientific permits.We also note that the Democrats have circulated an amendment which would provide for an assessment after 12 months of the numbers of blue marlin and black marlin. I understand that the government is supporting that. Just as we support the rest of the bill, we also will support that amendment.I understand that my colleague Senator Murphy wishes to make a few comments; he may want to declare an interest in the fishing industry. My interest is that I cannot catch fish but I do not mind a fish meal occasionally.13:07:003352Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I do have a few brief comments to make about this legislation. But, before doing so, I would say that there are some interesting things that could be uncovered with respect to the levy for the Prawn Promotion Association.The government has taken a very important decision, and it is one that I very much support—and it is this prohibition of catch of blue and black marlin. It is just a shame that it was not extended to some of the other billfish species. Whilst our commercial fishing industry is very important to this country, what has suffered and not been recognised in any way, shape or form is the recreational fishing industry.I say `recreational fishing industry' in this country. It is worth about $5 billion per annum. That only accounts for things such as tackle and equipment; it does not take account of money spent on fuel and accommodation, et cetera. So it is a huge and growing industry.In the case of many fish species, in the fullness of time, it will be proven that those species have a much higher value in so far as recreational and charter boat fishing is concerned—particularly in some parts of our country. I know that in Queensland it is important, and it is a growing industry in my own state. I can say that in most states there is a growing, if you like, commercial recreational fishing industry, one in which charter boat operators take people out fishing. Of course, the whole process is growing at an exponential rate.I think this is a very important step. But, with responsibility for both the enforcement and the administration of this prohibition being given to AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, what concerns me is that, when we go to the budget and look at what has happened to AFMA's funding, it has been cut.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Slashed.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Its funding has been slashed significantly. So I somewhat doubt the government's commitment to the process of taking legislative action to ensure the protection of our fish species whilst then proceeding to cut the budget of the authority with the responsibility for administering these amendments to the legislation. Of course, that also is a problem in other areas; it is a problem with another bill to come before this Senate in connection with fisheries research funding.There are major problems in other fisheries areas, in other fish species. One which is of particular importance to us is southern bluefin tuna. We cannot afford to have reductions in research funding. Most people would acknowledge that many species of fish being commercially fished are heavily overfished. There is little scientific data that provides information to determine and develop sustainable levels of fishing. It is fundamentally important for any government not only to maintain research and management funding but also to increase it.So I say to the government: congratulations for at least taking a step in the right direction. But I would urge the government to reconsider its position with AFMA funding, and also with research funding in the fishing area.13:11:003353Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I wish to speak briefly to the section of this bill dealing with alterations to the taking of blue and black marlin. As has been noted by previous speakers, an amendment has been circulated in my name and I will speak briefly to it in the committee stage. But I understand all senators have been made aware of it and they are comfortable enough with it.Basically, the issue here for the Democrats is to try to ensure that as much information as possible about marlin stocks is available. It is certainly an issue of particular significance to Queensland, which has a large proportion of the marlin stocks and certainly a significant recreational fishing industry attached to the fishing of that species—and in the north of the state in particular. So we are really just aiming at trying to ensure that there is more information available.As Senator Murphy indicated, there is a great need to do as much research as possible into the impact of all forms of activity in our marine environment with the long-term impact it is having on fishing stocks and also how the broader ecosystem issues such as bycatches, et cetera, would affect a number of species. It is important that as much information as possible is available. The information that I have been able to find in relation to this issue—with some assistance from the minister's office and also through the Parliamentary Library—indicates that, whilst there is some material around, certainly the Democrats feel that there should be a more complete assessment of the actual extent of marlin stocks and numbers, and also the impact of various activities on those stocks. So that is what is driving my interest and that of the Democrats in this aspect of the legislation.When we are asked as a parliamentary chamber to change and restrict the taking of certain species of fish in various ways, we obviously need to know that we are acting with information that is as complete as possible as to those changes, and also in assessing down the track whether or not those changes were necessary and, if they were, whether or not they were sufficient and, if they were not, what more needs to be done. It is for that reason we are looking at trying to insert a little more necessity in this bill enabling that sort of detailed analysis to be provided.13:14:003354Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I will be brief. I rise to support the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. There has been a general discussion around the theme of fish conservation, and this bill deals with important environmental and conservation measures in respect to marlin fishing. It is on that theme I will make a couple of brief comments.As Senator Murphy has said, and as Senator Forshaw also has said, it is of great concern to Labor that the moneys allocated for fisheries management and research in this country have been cut—and cut substantially. And we will deal with the cut to the fisheries research area in another piece of legislation.Fishing is often referred to as `farming in the dark'. I think that is quite apt, because one of the great difficulties we have is knowing the true extent and detail of the resource which is, in a sense, being farmed or fished. Unfortunately, the history of the management of fisheries right around the world—the overfishing of resources, the failure to conserve particular stocks of fish, and the failure to conserve at a sustainable level world fishing stocks—is a very, very sorry one. Australia is fortunate in one regard; that is, we are one of the few countries in the world that does have at least a half-decent chance of getting it right.In the context of fisheries funding for management and research, I also note that this government has refused to fund Recfish, the national recreational fishing body in this country; that there was also a significant cut in the last budget.One has to ask of course: what has happened to the National Party? The National Party were the doormat of the coalition. If this were a piece of legislation dealing with the management and conservation of something associated with pig meat, cattle, wool or wheat, the National Party would be fighting hard; it would be protesting very loudly. But when it comes to fishing, the National Party, the doormat of the coalition, it has disap peared. Its members are obviously off deep-sea diving somewhere.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—They have squibbed it.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—They have squibbed it, that is right. I think it is a particularly sad and sorry saga when the poor old National Party has squibbed it on this very important issue.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Squidded it.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Squidded it, as Senator Conroy has interjected. The total dominance of the Liberal Party with their economic rational approach in the fishing area, I think, is of deep regret. We should be increasing resources available to fisheries management and research in this country.I will conclude my remarks by once again saying: where is the National Party on this very fundamentally important rural and regional issue? It is significant to jobs in rural and regional areas. Once again, the National Party is found wanting—the doormat of the coalition—under the doormat.13:18:003354Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank opposition senators for their contributions, and I note in particular Senator Murphy's comments. As a very keen recreational fisherman myself, I sympathise with them, and I would hope what seem to me to be the decreasing stocks of whiting in South Australia are restored rapidly.In relation to funding, which was the point I think picked up by several opposition senators, my advice is that the funding cut to the research body was a one-off in 1997-98 for particular reasons, and that a reasonable proportion of that was not simply a cut but was diverted to a fisheries adjustment program. In any event in this year's budget, the 1998-99 budget, funding for that research body has been fully restored and the budget for the management body has been maintained.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—No, that is not right.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—I stand to be corrected, but that is the advice I have received. No doubt you can pursue these matters in estimates, but I think we should stick with the facts and accept the bona fides of the government in this area. So I thank the opposition for its support of this bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.3355The bill.13:19:003355Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 19), at the end of item 1, add:15B Report on assessment of marlin stocks(1) Not later than 12 months after the commencement of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1998 , the Minister must cause an assessment to be undertaken in the AFZ of the estimated numbers of blue marlin (Makaira mazara ) and black marlin (Makaira indica ) and the impact on the species of such fishing as is permitted under section 15A.(2) The Minister must cause a report of an assessment under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after the assessment is completed and, in any case, not later than 2 years after the commencement of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1998 .This amendment, whilst circulated not terribly long ago, I believe all senators are aware of. I would like the leave of the Senate to make a slight amendment to the form of the amendment as circulated.Leave granted.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Where the `word' assessment occurs twice, I would change it to `analysis'. I just want to make sure that that is clear: I am changing the word `assessment' to `analysis' which appears once in each of the amendment's subparagraphs. I have done that following consultation with the minister and his staff, as I understand it might cause a potential problem to have the word `assessment' in there. I would appreciate if, for future reference, the minister could just outline on the record why that is a problem.As I outlined in my speech during the second reading debate, the rationale behind this is just to try to get a bit more information provided about the actual situation. The amendment seeks to cause an analysis to be undertaken in relation to the estimated numbers of blue and black marlin, and the impact on the species of such fishing as will remain permitted under section 15A—which is particularly, I would assume, recreational fishing. Certainly, as I indicated previously, we could do with more information not only about existing stocks but also about the ongoing impact of such activities that remain permitted.13:22:003355Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I support the Democrats's amendment. In doing so, I would say that most of the research regarding billfish species has been done by recreational fishing and by recreational fishermen. I would pick up a point that Senator Sherry made: the fact that this government cut the funding for Recfish Australia. Recfish Australia is the national recreational fishing body that the government appointed to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation—and which it subsequently scratched—and then took away its funding so that it had no capacity to do anything. Recfish Australia, through its many affiliated bodies, has instituted a lot of fisheries research that provides very valuable information in terms of fish stocks.Of course, the minister said earlier that funding for AFMA—which was the point I made earlier—had not been cut. Minister, I draw your attention to page 74 of the portfolio budget statements of 1998-99, table 5, within subprogram 1.7, where it says that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority expenditure for Fisheries Administration Act 1991 has been reduced by 17.2 per cent. Also, research and assessment of fisheries resources research has been reduced by 17.2 per cent.So I would suggest that the government takes a very serious look at what it is doing in this regard. It is all well and good to take decisions and come along with legislation that proposes to provide some protective measures. But, at the end of the day, you have to provide the funds to the bodies that then have to implement those protective measures. That is what you are not doing.Likewise, Minister, I note that you have said that you are a very keen recreational fisherman. I would suggest and hope that you will then take part in lobbying for funding for Recfish Australia.13:24:003356Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Can I just comment on the Democrat amendment and indicate our support for that amendment in its revised form. I thank Senator Bartlett for his cooperation and, as requested, put on the record the reasons why the word `analysis' rather than the word `assessment' is preferred.Stock assessment in fisheries management refers to highly detailed studies that attempted to look at the total catch and stock numbers for a species. Stock assessments require a huge amount of research. As you may know, black marlin and blue marlin swim throughout the Pacific, and it would be prohibitively expensive to conduct such an assessment—presumably because you would have to chase them all over the Pacific.I am informed and advised that Senator Parer—Senator Faulkner interjecting—JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—You ought to talk about chasing them—is happy to commission a further analysis of the species, as proposed, which will provide the parliament with more information about these very important species.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.3356Bill (on motion by Senator Minchin) read a third time.Bills3356r3063356Consideration resumed from 9 April of House of Representatives message.House of Representatives message—Message read.Schedule of the purported amendments made by the Senate disagreed to by the House of Representatives(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of Fund .(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), after the definition of quarter , insert: Reserve means the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve established under section 11.(3) Part 3, clauses 11 to 13, page 7 (lines 2 to 20), omit the Part, substitute:Part 3—The Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve11 Establishment of Reserve (1) There is established a Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve. (2) The purpose of the Reserve is to provide funding for the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Program. (3) The Reserve is a component of the Reserved Money Fund. (4) If interest is received by the Commonwealth from the investment of money from the Reserve, an amount equal to the interest must be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.12 Transfers to Reserve There is to be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts equal to the amounts of levy received by the Commonwealth.Schedule of the amendments made by the House of Representatives:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of Fund .(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), after the definition of quarter , insert: Reserve means the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve established under section 11.(3) Part 3, clauses 11 to 13, page 7 (lines 2 to 20), omit the Part, substitute:Part 3—The Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve11 Establishment of Reserve(1) There is established a Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Reserve. (2) The purpose of the Reserve is to provide funding for the Strategic Ballast Water Research and Development Program.(3) The Reserve is a component of the Reserved Money Fund.(4) If interest is received by the Commonwealth from the investment of money from the Reserve, an amount equal to the interest must be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.12 Transfers to ReserveThere is to be transferred to the Reserve from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts equal to the amounts of levy received by the Commonwealth.Motion (by Senator Minchin) proposed:That the committee agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives.13:26:003357Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Labor is supporting the amendments. They are of a very minor technical nature. But they are very important, nevertheless, in that they do ensure that the correct name of the ballast water research and development fund is, in fact, a reserve. I understand that is to meet the requirements of section 20 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act.We have been discussing, in the area of fisheries, the very important issue of ensuring our marine environment. Ballast water is a major environmental problem around the world. There was a debate on this issue in the Senate on a previous occasion. But very simply I would say that there are 154 million tonnes of ballast water coming into Australian waters each year. It does pose a significant environmental threat that has been recognised worldwide. We have had the introduction of exotic pests into Australian waters, including those of my own home state. Daria, seaweed from Japan, has become a major problem. There is the starfish problem we have in Tasmanian waters. There also are a number of other unwanted pests that have come into Australian waters around other parts of Australia which do represent a major environmental problem.This legislation, Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997, is important in establishing a proper research and development fund via a levy. It was a Labor initiative. When in government we did have a ballast water research committee. Initially the approach was to give the industry some time, two years, to attempt a voluntary contribution for ballast water research and development. That had a number of shortcomings. Fortunately the more responsible companies operating shipping lines did supply sufficient and significant funding, but an irresponsible few did not contribute to the levels that were required.So, in the interests of fairness and to ensure a sufficient levy and that all who contribute to the problem of ballast water do make a fair and equitable contribution, a levy approach has been adopted. The government is to be congratulated for that approach.Question resolved in the affirmative.Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills33573357Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Vanstone:That this bill be now read a second time.13:30:003357Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition will be supporting this important Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 . After all, of course, the bill proposes a range of amendments of mainly a technical or administrative nature for electoral administration and operational procedures in the conduct of elections and referendums. I note also that the majority of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters have not been addressed in the legislation that is before the chamber today.The government also has before the Senate a second piece of legislation on this matter, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . It addresses a range of other recommendations, and other matters, of the joint standing committee. In some cases, of course, they are far more controversial than the ones we are dealing with in the legislation before us now. In relation to the second bill, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 , I made it clear yesterday that it is the view of the opposition that the government is being unreasonable in bringing that bill before the Senate in such short time frame, given that it has just been introduced.I believe that many of the provisions in the bill require a great deal of detailed consideration. That is why the opposition is keen to see the bill referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for consideration. Also, we do not support the government's proposal that the bill not be subject to standing order 111, that it be exempted from that standing order. Nevertheless, that is a matter that is in the hands of the Senate.On behalf of the opposition, I will flag some amendments that the opposition may consider moving in the committee stage. As I have said, the opposition supports the substance of the bill, and I think I have made that position very clear. However, we may be utilising the committee stage of the bill to move amendments to close the apparent loophole in the Electoral Act that, in relation to the Greenfields Foundation, the Liberal Party has so expertly exploited over recent times.The Liberal Party has been sidestepping the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act. It is stock-in-trade for the Liberal Party. We are pretty used to that—the Liberal Party does so for the most partisan or base of party political considerations. We believe that this may well be a very useful vehicle and a very good opportunity for us to address this issue. On behalf of the Labor Party, I have, for quite a long time now, made our position on this serious situation very clear. I consider this to be a massive and indefensible rort and I have made that view known in the Senate on more than one occasion.I want to be generous in my remarks—I am noted for it in speeches like this—so let me be generous and acknowledge that the government has shown a willingness to negotiate on this particular matter.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—Of course.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I thought you would be happy with that. The government has had certain amendments drawn up to address recommendation 10 of the Australian Electoral Commissions's funding and disclosure report: election 1996, regarding associated entities. I am not sure, even at this point, whether it is the government's intention to pursue their own draft amendments in the committee stage on this bill. I am sorry that I am not clear on that matter. I can see that Senator Minchin is nodding so that means it is the government's intention to do that. I appreciate that information. That will be helpful in progressing down the track of closing this apparent loophole in the act.The AEC's funding and disclosure report identifies that there are some areas of dispute in the wording of the act's definition of associated entities and that these should not be allowed to become sources of confusion or loopholes. To date, the Australian Electoral Commission has relied upon the cooperation of organisations in engaging in discussions as to their status as associated entities. However, there are some cases where the AEC has been unable to determine whether an entity should disclose as an associated entity—in other words, whether an organisation should use those provisions of the act to disclose as an associated entity.There is currently nothing that prevents an organisation from simply claiming that they do not meet the definition of an associated entity, and there is currently nothing that would prevent them from refusing to supply any justification for that particular stance. What I have been saying now for quite some time is that this is precisely what the Greenfields Foundation has done. They have deliberately exploited an apparent loophole in the definition of associated entity by basically writing back to the AEC informing the AEC that they do not consider themselves to be an associated entity. Of course, they do not supply adequate information to justify that stance. In fact, there is an enormous amount of evidence that I been able to present to the Senate in a number of contributions that shows how strong those particular links are.Given the connections of the Greenfields Foundation to the Liberal Party and to the Free Enterprise Foundation, we say it is essential that the Australian Electoral Com mission investigate the Greenfields Foundation to ascertain whether or not they qualify as an associated entity. At the moment it is a matter for the AEC, of course, and apparently they do not feel that there is enough evidence to warrant such an investigation. I recall that during the most recent round of estimates hearings the AEC claimed—let me use their words:We had no authority in the act to go behind a separate foundation on the basis of any suspicion that we may have.They are not my words. That is evidence presented by an officer of the Australian Electoral Commission to a Senate estimates committee hearing.They have conceded that they may be able to pursue the Greenfields Foundation after a regular compliance audit of the federal Liberal Party. However, there is a very great weakness in that also because that might just take a couple of years to come around. So I do welcome the amendments that have been drawn up by the AEC to broaden and strengthen the investigative powers they have in dealing with and determining whether or not an organisation is an associated entity. I also welcome the fact that the minister at the table has indicated that he is proposing in the committee stages of this bill to progress those amendments.At first blush, it would seem that those amendments are sufficient for the purposes of broadening the investigative powers of the AEC in pursuing suspected associated entities. For that reason I believe, given the drafts that have been kindly made available to the opposition, that they would receive support from the opposition and that they are worthy of support from the Senate committee.The problem is that they still do not prevent the Liberal Party of Australia from using a vehicle like the Greenfields Foundation, or the Greenfields Foundation as it now exists, in effectively deliberately rorting the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act. They do not close the apparent loophole. That is the problem with them: not that they are not good amendments as far as they go, from what I have seen; they just do not go far enough.Our concern in the Labor Party—and I hope it is a concern that will be shared by Senator Murray, who has been taking a close interest in these issues, and by other minor party and Independent senators in the chamber—is that the Greenfields Foundation will still try to claim that they are not an associated entity, despite the obvious and transparent strong links they have to the Liberal Party and the Free Enterprise Foundation; that they will try to get around the current definition of associated entity—namely, an organisation that `operates wholly or mainly for the benefit of one or more registered political parties'. That is the current definition. They try and get around that definition by saying that the foundation will also be making significant contributions to unspecified charities, or some other rouse that the Liberal Party would be capable of using.We will be proposing amendments that tighten the definition of associated entity by altering the definition to read that it `operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties'. Hopefully, that will go further down the track of closing that apparent loophole that has been exploited by the Liberal Party through the loan from the Greenfields Foundation.We also need to amend the act to change the disclosure periods so that in the event that the Greenfields loan is forgiven, thus becoming a gift, its donors must still be disclosed even if the gift is outside the same disclosure period as the original donations. We want to try and make sure that the act is as watertight as it can be as far as this money laundering exercise is concerned. We would like to see the act amended to prevent loans being received from anyone other than a financial institution, unless certain disclosure provisions are met, such as detailing the terms and conditions of the loan. This effectively would have the impact of preventing an organisation such as the Greenfields Foundation giving a loan to the Liberal Party with very favourable conditions that may actually make it a gift or, indeed, a loan that is forgiven at a later date—a loan that need never be repaid.These are just some of the concerns of opposition. We have indicated that we are happy to continue to negotiate on what I consider are very important matters. I understand that Senator Minchin is desperately keen to see this legislation dealt with as quickly as possible so he can try to ram the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 through the Senate. One almost believes that there must be an ulterior motive for this alacrity on his part. Perhaps there is even a suggestion that there might soon be an election.As far as the Labor Party is concerned, as Senator Conroy would be aware, the integrity of the act and these processes has always been of the utmost importance to the Australian Labor Party. We intend to fight tooth and nail to ensure that there are adequate, thorough and proper disclosure provisions to prevent this extraordinary abuse, manipulation and deliberate flouting of the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act that has been the Liberal Party's deliberate intent through this vehicle of the Greenfields Foundation.I suppose you have to say that the Liberal Party has a lot of experience in exploiting apparent loopholes in the Electoral Act. I would have to say to Senator Minchin that he has a lot of form in this regard. I am sure that senators would recall that, up until 1995, it was the Free Enterprise Foundation that was the vehicle used to launder funds through donations of massive sums to the coalition without ever disclosing or revealing where those funds originally came from.Of course, the then Labor government, desperately trying to keep up with these rorts that were being perpetrated by the Liberal Party—the latest attempt to sleaze and sneak around the disclosure provisions of the act—the then Labor government amended the Electoral Act to close that loophole by determining that associated entities had to disclose their source of funds. That resulted in a crackdown on disclosures in 1995. The Free Enterprise Foundation was required to disclose any new donations it received. Now you have a mechanism whereby the Greenfields Foundation provides a loan. We do not know what the terms and conditions of the loan are, but it provides a loan to the Liberal Party—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—They are sweet.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Murray may know more than I. They do not smell very sweet to me, I have to say, Senator Murray. This stinks. This really stinks. I am sure that, if you thought about it, Senator Murray, you would agree. Unfortunately, I probably do not have a great deal of time. It is one of those occasions when you would like a second reading speech not to be 20 minutes, but an hour and 20 minutes, so we would have an opportunity to explain to the Senate in great detail about how this manipulation has taken place. I will use the committee stage of this bill to provide the Senate, in the public interest, with a very detailed exposition and explanation of how badly the Liberal Party of Australia has deliberately manipulated the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. (Time expired)13:50:003360Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 is the first of two pieces of legislation which the government has brought forward as a result of the report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election and as a result of the government's response to that report.Senator Minchin is a former esteemed member of that committee. Senator Faulkner is a current esteemed member of that committee, and I am just a modest ordinary member. That means that all three of us have some intimate knowledge of what is before us. The bill before us is by and large a technical bill. That being so, overall it will get the support of the Australian Democrats, but we do intend to move a number of amendments to it, not the raft of amendments that we would like to move to the act as a whole arising out of our recommendations to the report, but certainly those which are immediate and relevant to this bill. The second bill is more controversial, covering as it does matters of donations and matters of rights of prisoners to vote, on both of which we have a great number of concerns.The amendments we propose to this bill have already been circulated and relate to the question of how to vote, which has always been a vexed question for the Australian Democrats, and indeed for all participants in elections. You might recall the case of Evans v. Crichton-Browne, which was relevant in that area. There are amendments which relate to the loss of privacy intentions in this bill and to what we would loosely describe as Langer amendments.One issue which was raised, at some length, by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) is an issue that is dear to our hearts. I can assure Senator Faulkner that we will follow his proposed amendment very carefully, because it is proper and important that full disclosure of the source of donations is made so that we can ensure that our political parties are not subject to improper influence or the attempted purchase of favours in return for very large sums being concealed.We did make a recommendation in our minority report which probably went a little further. We recommended that political parties which received donations from trusts or foundations must be obliged to return or forfeit the money donated unless the following were disclosed: a declaration of beneficial and ultimate control of the trust estate, including by trustees; a declaration of the identities of the beneficiaries of the trust estate including, in the case of individuals, their countries of residence, and, in the case of beneficiaries which are not individuals, their countries of incorporation or registration, as the case may be; details of any relationships with other entities; the percentage distribution of income within the trust; and any changes during the donations year in relation to the information provided above.But the issue that Senator Faulkner draws attention to is loans—loans which may be, as I describe them, somewhat more than commercial loans, namely, sweet loans; loans which may have preferential terms such as that they never need to be repaid or may have extraordinary interest rates below the rate of proper commercial return or, indeed, not existing at all. It is definitely an area which needs to be tidied up. People who participate in our political system need to be congratulated; we need to encourage people to donate money voluntarily to political parties. But they need to do so on an above board basis, on a clear, open and transparent basis, so that the community as a whole, and all political parties, can be satisfied as to both motives and source.Three areas are going to be dealt with by us in relation to this bill—how-to-votes, privacy and what I would refer to as the Langer amendments. The Australian Democrats are not supporters of optional preferential voting. The introduction of sections 272, 329(3) and 329A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act were intended to protect people who made an inadvertent error in casting their vote. Unfortunately, the beneficial effect of these sections is now being undermined by the deleterious effects of special pleadings. As an increasing number of citizens wilfully defy the law by encouraging voters to use a form of optional preferential voting using those sections in the Electoral Act, the AEC has felt itself obliged to launch injunctions and/or prosecutions during an election period. That is a matter to be regretted.At the 1996 federal election, 48,979 exhausted votes for the House of Representatives were saved from informality by section 270. This was despite the Albert Langer campaign, which was an offence under the Electoral Act, advocating the use of section 329A as a means of achieving a form of optional preferential voting. Although the exhausted votes cast in such a manner represent only 0.4 per cent of the total number of votes—I should point out that that number of votes would easily get a couple of members of parliament returned—the cost to the Electoral Commission in pursuing citizens who break the law by advocating the practice of exhausting one's votes is an unnecessary burden. I, for one, do not like the thought of the Electoral Commission having to pursue citizens anyway, on that basis.We do not support the advocacy of informal voting. We, therefore, have supported the government's recommendation to close off that area of the law being used as a loophole. However, we think the government has not gone far enough, in that the practice is still possible in voting for the Senate. We have proposed some amendments to make the Senate practices consistent with those for the House of Representatives.The other issue which I will touch on briefly is privacy. Recommendation 52 of the majority report seeks to provide gender, age and salutation details to members of parliament and registered political parties. The Australian Democrats believe that the provision of elector information, such as the gender and age details of constituents, intrudes unnecessarily into the privacy of constituents, given that this information is not necessary for official purposes and would serve no public interest benefit. I am aware, of course, as a member of the committee, that there are some states which allow this. Nevertheless, we do not support it.It is not the Australian Electoral Commission's or the public's role to provide this level of campaigning detail to sitting members of parliament or to their political parties, and the majority report's recommendation would have the effect of providing public resources to boost incumbency. In addition, the information which this recommendation seeks contravenes the right to privacy by citizens. The Privacy Commissioner has not supported the provision of gender, age and salutation details to members of parliament, and neither do we.Accordingly, the Australian Democrats, when the matter is before the Senate, will oppose any intention to intrude into the privacy protections presently provided by the act. I hope that we would get the non-government senators to support us in that matter. We think that the recommendation encroaches on the independence of the AEC by requiring it to collect and pass on to parliamentary incumbents, using public resources, valuable campaigning details and material. We do not think that the public interest is served by the provision of this information. No survey has been made of a representative sample of electors, as far as I am aware, to establish whether they themselves would be willing to have these details provided to parliamentarians. The lack of such a survey is a problem. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Questions Without Notice336233623362West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I ask: is the minister aware that prior to 1 May the 4,000 jobless in Cessnock had access to a highly successful and well-regarded employment service with 10 staff in Cessnock? Can the minister explain why it is that since 1 May these 4,000 unemployed now have to wait in line to have their case dealt with by one of five staff in that service or pay a $7 bus fare to Maitland in order to get assistance to find a new job? Where is the benefit of the government's new job network promise to the people of Cessnock and where is the second employment service provider that was promised to Cessnock? Why is it that there are six employment services in Maitland—a marginal seat—and only one in Cessnock—a safe Labor seat?3362Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—In answer to Senator West's question, in the Hunter and on the north coast we have 16 job network providers for job matching, that is, for people who are looking for work; we have seven for job search training, which is the next layer of assistance; and we have eight for intensive assistance. I will remind the Senate that intensive assistance relates to those people who are disadvantaged, such as the long-term unemployed and people such as migrants and indigenous people. In the Hunter and on north coast we have eight such job providers. We have five new apprenticeship centres just for that area.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Answer the question!9X5Senator ELLISON—This relates squarely to the question. We are talking about improved opportunities for job seekers; improved facilities under this new scheme which we have brought in. In New South Wales we have 491 sites, compared with 100 CES sites that were previously there.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—How many was that?9X5Senator ELLISON—In answer to Senator Kemp's question, that is 491 new sites compared with 100 old ones. I would say to Senator West that what we have provided the people of New South Wales with—and particularly those of regional New South Wales—is more facilities, more opportunities and more assistance for those people who are long-term unemployed and disadvantaged.3363West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. First of all, I wonder if the minister is aware of size of the Hunter and the north coast. I am talking about 4,000 people in Cessnock who have five employment service staff to take care of their needs, otherwise they have to face a $7 bus fare to Maitland. Given that this is the third day in a row I have asked questions about specific employment service facilities for people in rural New South Wales, will the minister please undertake to draw Minister Kemp's attention as a matter of urgency to the dissatisfaction of the people in rural New South Wales with the employment services being offered to them under the government's new Jobs Network?3363Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The only dissatisfaction was with Labor's previous performance when it was in government. The only dissatisfaction was with the high levels of unemployment when youth unemployment peaked at over 30 per cent. What they were dissatisfied with were the high rates of unemployment which we saw under the previous Labor government and which peaked at about 11 per cent, as I recall—a far cry from the 7.9 per cent that we have at the moment. I remind the opposition to look at what it did when it was in government for 13 years, or more appropriately, what it did not do.33633363Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an article in this morning's Daily Telegraph entitled, `Police deny role in Skase bungle', which reported that the former Labor Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, said that at no time was he made aware of the passport renewal application and its subsequent granting. Is this comment consistent with the former Senator Evans's personal explanation to the parliament just two days ago? 3363Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question. Yes, my attention was drawn to the Daily Telegraph article today entitled, `Police deny role in Skase bungle.' My attention was drawn to the statements of former Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch. What the former Attorney-General is doing is clearly distancing himself from Labor's massive bungle on Skase. He is making it quite clear that he was not consulted. He has cut the rope on Senator Bolkus; he has cut the rope on Gareth Evans and said, `I was not a part of this bungle.' Mr Lavarch has directly contradicted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.In a personal explanation in the other House on Tuesday Gareth Evans said he recollected talking to Lavarch about Skase's passport. He said:. . . I do have a general recollection of discussing the issue with the Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, with whom I discussed many aspects of Skase affair, and getting advice from him. . . Mr Lavarch says that this is not the case; the issue was not raised with him.Labor's explanation is like something from the Goon Show with former Senator Evans saying, `I recall talking to you' and Michael Lavarch saying, `I didn't talk to anyone about this.' It is a bit like pass the parcel. It is a bungle and no-one wants to take responsibility for it. The responsibility clearly rests with the former Minister for Foreign Affairs.I have checked with my department and they have no record of Michael Lavarch advising Mr Evans about issuing Skase with a passport. So this is a new twist on Labor's old theme of `not responsible'. Senators will remember Carmen Lawrence who got out of her bungles by saying that she could not recall things that did happen. Mr Evans has another way of doing it; he recalls things that did not happen and, in any event, tries to get himself out of it.The point is that Michael Lavarch did not offer advice. Gareth Evans is simply trying to blame other people for his own bungling. His behaviour is a disgrace. The former foreign minister must come clean and give a full and proper explanation of how Skase got a brand new 10-year passport.First of all he said, `The law made me do it. I had no choice', and poor old Senator Bolkus was supporting him in this—`The law made me do it. I had no choice.' Now we know that is not correct. We know that is just not true. Now Mr Evans must explain why he did not get legal advice before renewing the passport. He must explain why the passport was issued so quickly when there was no rush. This man was too sick to travel, but we rushed a passport through and he already had a valid passport.Former Senator Evans could have ensured that he and his department considered every option, especially when the issue of arrest warrants was imminent. They could have ensured that. He must explain why Skase was given a brand spanking new passport until 1999.Yesterday, Senator Bolkus interjected that we should get some good legal advice. It is, of course, now apparent that Labor in power never got legal advice about the reissue of the passport, so Senator Bolkus should not be telling us to get advice. When they were in power they never got the advice.Senator Bolkus interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus says, `Ignorance of the law is no excuse.' What we want to know is: what is his excuse? What excuse does he offer?Mr Evans must now tell the Australian people why, with all his self-claimed skill, with all his self-claimed intelligence and with all the resources of his department, the sanctimonious then senator gave Mr Skase a 10-year valid Australian passport.33643364McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I ask the minister how he responds to the criticisms of the new Job Network by Perth South Metropolitan Youth Link Chief Executive, Sam Gowegati, who has described the new system as an `inefficient, confusing fiasco'? Why is it that Perth pool shop owner Stephen Bell had to try for a week to find an employment agency to help him fill a vacancy? Why is it that Shane Francis of Kwinana had to travel to Mirrabooka for an interview at a job agency to apply for a job in Midland whereas, under the old CES system, he could have applied for that job near his home in Kwinana?3364Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—As I understand it, Employment National has provision for job seekers in Rockingham which, as Senator McKiernan would know, is adjacent to or just nearby Kwinana. I would have to check those facts.But, in relation to the question about Job Network in Western Australia, I think it is worthwhile remembering that previously there were 29 CES sites; under the new arrangement there are now 142. We have gone from 29 to 142 sites. I do not think that is too bad. As Senator McKiernan would know, Western Australia is a state of two million square kilometres—a very big state indeed. What would be of great benefit is having a greater number of sites.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—What about Karratha?9X5Senator ELLISON—I heard somebody say, `What about Karratha?' I can tell you that there is a fee-for-service arrangement for Karratha because Karratha is one of the few areas we did not get a tender for. I think it was Senator Chris Evans who said that. I can say to Senator Chris Evans that there are special arrangements in hand for Karratha and they are being attended to. I think Senator Eggleston has been working on this. He is a senator from the north-west who has been of great assistance to the government in this regard. I would say that Jobs Network is working very well in Western Australia. We have gone from 29 sites to 142.With respect to that other aspect that Senator McKiernan raised—travel to Mirrabooka—I would have to check on that.3364McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for saying he will check on the situation where a person travelled from Kwinana to Mirrabooka to get a job in Midland. Minister, you missed the point I made in the first part of the question when I asked about Sam Gowegati who has claimed the new system is an `efficient, confusing fiasco'. I assume you are accepting those criticisms. Do you agree with Mr Peter Storey, the Managing Director of Employment National, that Employment National should not be copping the blame for everything the Commonwealth Employment Service does not do any more? Isn't it the government that should be copping the blame for that system rather than Employment National?3365Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—One thing I note from Senator McKiernan's question is that he cites a comment by someone that this is confusing, but he does not say why. We do not hear why. It would be of great assistance to know why he thinks it is. I say to you, Senator McKiernan, that when we introduce a reform of great magnitude which offers the unemployed of Australia great opportunities, we have a task to get the message across. I would have thought you would have been keen to tell us why this person thought it was confusing. I put to you, Senator McKiernan, that I would have to check on that as well.We have had an overwhelming response that the Jobs Network system is working, and that it is working very well. I say to you that, if you look at the Herald Sun, you will see that the headlines are: `Rush to Salvos new job service'. That is what the Salvation Army is saying about its provision of a service to those people. If I were Senator McKiernan, I would look at that. (Time expired)33653365MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask if Senator Hill is aware of the new found enthusiasm of the Labor leader in Queensland to legislate in favour of the Wik legislation the moment he gets into office? While there are great advantages for Queensland in this, is this is a new age of responsibility for the Labor Party? Can we expect Senator Faulkner to move a recision motion to resubmit the Wik legislation or is it just the usual Janus-faced approach, dripping with sincerity, of Labor Party policy?Opposition senators interjecting—BH4HILLSenator Hill—I understand you want Senator Minchin to answer the question. Senator Minchin can answer the question.3365Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I thank Senator Hill for referring the question from Senator MacGibbon to me. I do not normally pay much attention to what state Labor leaders say.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease shouting.JX4Senator MINCHIN—But I must say that in this case I was fascinated to hear what Queensland Labor leader, Peter Beattie, had to say about the government's 10-point plan to fix Paul Keating's Native Title Act. Instead of what we normally get from the federal Labor Party, a great diatribe about how terrible our legislation is, Mr Beattie deliberately chose to say that he will work with the proposed legislation—in the unlikely event that he should be elected at the Queensland election.You have got to remember this: Mr Beattie had a choice. He could have joined with Mr Beazley and the federal Labor Party and gone into a mindless rant about how terrible our legislation was, but he did not do that. He deliberately chose to say that, if he was elected, he would work with the federal government's legislation should it be passed following a double dissolution.There is a very important point to remember here: if Mr Beattie is elected—and that is very unlikely, I hope—he is not bound to implement the 10-point plan. Our legislation is enabling legislation; it enables the states to engage in certain things and approve certain future acts. He is not bound to do so, but he has said today that he will. He has completely abandoned the federal Labor Party's position on this issue. He has completely abandoned where the Labor Party stands. He knows the federal Labor Party's approach is completely unrealistic, unworkable and untenable in the state of Queensland and, facing his election, he has abandoned your position.Of course we know that Mr Beazley privately thinks that too. We know from your leaked Labor minutes that he has issued an edict to all federal Labor members that if they dare to venture north of the New South Wales border they have got to talk to Mr Wayne Swan about what they can say about native title. I spent a couple of weeks with Wayne Swan in the United States once and I know exactly what Mr Swan actually thinks about the federal Labor Party's hopeless position on native title and how completely untenable—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why don't you talk to Malcolm Fraser about One Nation preferences?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of intervention is far too high and shouting across the chamber is disorderly.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Mr Beazley knows as well as Mr Beattie that the federal Labor position on the Native Title Act is untenable in Queensland. Frankly, Mr Beattie, as a Labor leader facing an election, has given the federal Labor leader a complete slap in the face on this important legislation. He has said that Mr Beazley's position is a complete lead balloon in the state of Queensland and, frankly, it just completely destroys the federal Labor Party's—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What does Malcolm Fraser say?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, shouting across the chamber is totally disorderly and I will not tolerate it.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Mr Beattie's statements over the last 24 hours supporting the federal government's 10-point plan completely destroy the credibility of Mr Beazley's attacks on our bill. He has completely undermined the federal Labor Party's position. Federal Labor knows that its position is unacceptable to the people of Queensland and, of course, Mr Beattie has said he can work with it.We all know what Bob Carr thinks of this legislation. The Premier of New South Wales has made it quite clear that he basically supports the 10-point plan, and I think you could bet your bottom dollar that if there was an election in Western Australia in the imminent future, Dr Gallop, the Labor leader in Western Australia, would abandon the federal Labor Party's position just as fast as Mr Beattie has.The left of the Labor Party have lumbered the Labor Party with a position that is completely unacceptable to rural and regional Australia, and, of course, that has now been abandoned by Mr Beattie. The federal Labor position absolutely reeks of double standards. The Labor Party says it wants a tougher registration test, but you voted in here to water it down. You say you want certainty, but you voted to subject the Native Title Act to the Racial Discrimination Act and opposed a sunset clause. You say you want fairness and equity, but you voted to discriminate against farmers on their own land. Federal Labor's position would be a complete disaster for the people of Queensland and Mr Beattie knows it. (Time expired)33663366Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer. Can the minister confirm that the Prime Minister's 1997 greenhouse statement included a mandatory requirement that by 2010 an additional two per cent of electricity will be resourced from renewable energy sources, and that there was no limitation to grid-based applications? Is it true that a meeting on was held Thursday 14 May, this year, between senior advisers from Senator Parer's and Senator Hill's offices and key industry groups in the industry greenhouse network? Is it also the case that this meeting agreed on the proposal from the industry groups to water down the Prime Minister's commitment to apply only to grid-based applications, effectively benefiting users in remote areas, such as mining companies? Is the Prime Minister aware that these two ministers have weakened his greenhouse commitments in this way, and if he does not know yet, when do the ministers plan to tell him?3366Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—There is a discussion paper which is out and my suggestion to you, Senator, is to go and read it. As I understand it, the discussion paper reflects the commitment by the Prime Minister in regard to the two per cent renewables. I have nothing further to add to that. I was not present at the meeting.3367Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. Minister, perhaps you could take on notice the first part of the question. But can you confirm that the membership of the industry greenhouse network includes most major mining companies in Australia and peak bodies such as the Queensland Mining Council, which represents the Queensland coal industry, and operating mines such as Jellinbah? Can the minister also confirm that this decision will save mining companies significant amounts in their operating expenditure and will continue mining companies' total reliance on fuel such as diesel rather than encouraging a move to renewable energy? Minister, isn't this decision to weaken the Prime Minister's commitments another example of Minister Parer doing a special deal to further his temporarily quarantined interests in the mining and fossil fuel industries and another example of Minister Parer's blatant conflicts of interest?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Parer, there are matters within that supplementary question that are relevant to your department; but others are not.3367Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The words of a past senior minister in the Labor Party who said the Labor Party had no understanding of the mining industry come forward so clearly in this particular instance. As regards the coal industry—and I am thinking right around the whole of Australia—to my knowledge there is not one coal mine in the whole of Australia that is not connected to the grid network. They are all connected to the grid network. You might have learned something from that, Senator. Of course, the whole thrust of the two per cent renewables—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—All mines?KI4Senator PARER—All coal mines are connected to the grid network. You are running some sort of interesting line that somehow they are not. Certainly, if you are looking at the gold mining industry, and as Senator Cook will know because he comes from that area, there are some that are not. Certainly they generate power using diesel. And, of course, there are some mines in the Northern Territory, but they are certainly not coal mines.(Time expired)33673367Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, you were ordered by the Senate, upon my motion, to table certain documents by last Monday relating to the waterfront dispute. Minister, do you recall that on Monday you gave an equivocal response? Minister, are you aware that the Democrats thought it was reasonable to agree to an informal extension to today, in line with a request from the office of the government leader that the government needed more time in order to table the documents? With regard to the extension, I am surprised that there is still no sign of these documents today. I therefore ask you, minister: when will you table these documents, as you have been ordered to do so by a motion of the Senate, and will you do so?3367Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am not aware that I gave an equivocal response last Monday. I am aware of what Senator Murray said by way of misunderstanding in the first instance and subsequent clarification. I will be in a position after question time to say something further on the matter.3367Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I am advised that, if a minister of the crown does not provide such documents as requested, the only recourse left to the Senate would be to have you not heard in your capacity as a minister in the chamber. My question is as follows, Minister: do you accept that the only recourse, if you do not provide the documents, is for the Senate to seek support for an order that you be not heard in your capacity as a minister for the rest of the session until and unless you table these documents or until you satisfy the Senate with your reasons for not doing so?3367Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I want to know whether there would be a reduction in pay, Madam President. I find that a very intimidating suggestion. I can imagine that a lot of others might get some temporary satisfaction from such an outcome, but I will not take that as a direct threat, of course. I will take it simply as light-hearted banter. I am sure that in a time of need I will have sufficient friends to enable me to continue to treat your questions in the manner that they deserve. All I can say to you is that I am sure there are endless possibilities. I hope you have a lot of fun exploring them. Whatever you would like to do by way of prejudging any answer that might be given will obviously be, no doubt, a subject of further discussion in the Democrat party room. I know that you do not often get your way there but I am sure that on this occasion there will be more than enough people coming to my aid. I therefore look forward to being able to answer very many more questions and take very many more bills through this chamber.33683368Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. Does the minister stand by the documents he tabled in the Senate in late March, namely the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister outlining actions he proposed to take in relation to his conflict of interests and his amended statement of pecuniary interest? Is the minister aware that these documents tabled in parliament are contradicted by the minister's former fellow shareholder in Queensland Coal Mines Management, Mr Robert Adams? Is it not the case that Mr Adams has revealed a dividend stream from QCMM to the minister totalling at least $1.3 million over four years, including during the time the minister had portfolio responsibility for resources matters? Is it not also the case that Mr Adams has revealed the use of a tax manipulation device, namely QCMM making non-taxable loans to shareholders in lieu of paying income in the form of taxable dividends, while the minister was chairman of directors?3368Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I completely stand by the letter that was tabled in this place and that has become public knowledge. The details are there in the letter for everyone to see. I have no comment to make. They are exactly correct.3368Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister to explain the contradictions between documents that he tabled in the Senate in March of this year, including the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister which outlined the actions that he as minister proposed to take in relation to his conflict of interest, and his amended statement of pecuniary interest—documents that stand in his name—and what has been revealed by a former fellow shareholder in Queensland Coal Mines Management, Mr Robert Adams.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Parer, you should only deal with matters that relate to your portfolio.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. This question goes to the fact that Senator Parer has tabled documents in the Senate which include a letter that he wrote to the Prime Minister in relation to issues the opposition had raised—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Those documents, which he tabled in the Senate, went to the issue of conflict of interest and an amended statement of pecuniary interest.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—What is the point of order?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—My point of order to you, Madam President—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right will cease interjecting. It is important that I hear what is being said.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Thank you, Madam President. The point of order is this: that is of direct relevance to all of this minister's responsibility as resources minister. I would submit to you, Madam President, that there is nothing in the question or supplementary question that has been asked of this Minister for Resources that could possibly be ruled out of order. It goes to the conduct of his ministerial responsibilities and a contradiction of what Mr Adams is saying.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—My original ruling was that the minister should answer those matters that relate to his portfolio. If you are suggesting that they all do, it will be a matter for the minister to deal with the question as he sees fit.3369Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—One of the things this minister knows—he has tried this over and over again—and that the Leader of the Opposition knows is that at no stage in the administration of my portfolio has there ever been a conflict of interest, nor the potential for a conflict of interest.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What about what Adams is saying?KI4Senator PARER—Senator Faulkner might listen, but he won't, will he? He has predetermined his ideas. There was no suggestion at any time that the family trust that I was part of did not get dividends. Of course it got dividends. Senator Faulkner is really thick. The point was made. In the whole time that I have been a minister in this government I have never ever been a nominated beneficiary.33693369Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services. Minister, your government has consistently said there are no problems in child care. In Queensland there certainly are. Over the past month I have visited a number of private child-care centres on the Sunshine Coast, in Brisbane and in Cairns, which are, with occupancy rates between 40 and 70 per cent, now on the point of no longer being viable. With so many owners now telling me—some in tears—that they are desperate to cut their losses and get out of child care altogether, Minister, what do I tell them? Minister, what do I tell these small businesses which are struggling as a direct result of your policies?3369Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Woodley for the question. If I were Senator Woodley, I would tell them to write to Senator Crowley because what is occurring now is a legacy Labor left behind. Under the previous government, private child-care centres were established in locations with no direction or support from government to indicate areas of greatest need. There was haphazard growth all over the country. Too many centres now exist in certain areas and have created an oversupply, while other areas have a great need—an undersupply. This poorly planned access to child care has created uncertainty in the child-care industry and the very things that you have just pointed out, Senator Woodley. My answer to you, Senator Woodley, is to write to Senator Crowley.3369Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, the problem is that two years ago all of those centres were viable, so something has happened—and it is your policy. The coalition strongly opposed the introduction of accreditation for child-care centres. You opposed it at every opportunity. Are you aware that backyard, unregulated child care in Queensland—a type of care that needs no accreditation—has grown at the rate of 92 per cent over the last couple of years? Minister, aren't the government's child-care policies, which have put formal child care out of the reach of many families while encouraging the use of informal care, really just a backdoor way of getting rid of high quality accredited child care altogether?3369Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer is no.33693369Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is also to the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the statement by Ms Robyn Monro Miller, the Chairperson of the National Out of School Hours Services Association, on Monday of this week, that, Australia wide, 66 outside school hours services have closed this year, each leaving 20 to 30 children aged between five and 12 without supervision? That is a total of 1,500 children. Is the minister aware that most of these centres have closed since the changes to funding, including the diverting of management subsidies into means tested child-care assistance—these changes having taken effect on 27 April? When will the government admit that its savage cuts to child care have had, and will continue to have, a devastating effect on Australian families?3369Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Collins for the question. Once again we have the manipulation of figures and, in fact, the truth. Senator Collins ought to go and see the film Primary Colors , in which she might see Governor Jack Stanton in that film saying that he was going to do something unusual for a politician—he was going to tell the truth. I suggest that Senator Collins go and see that so that she could then know how to tell the truth.The National Out of School Hours Services Association recently stated that 66 out of school hours services have closed, which is what Senator Collins has just said. However, overall, those places have increased under the Howard government. There were 48,785 places in June 1995 under Labor.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Ha! Ha!VW4Senator HERRON—I will repeat that as Senator Crowley was cackling. There were 48,785 places in June 1995 under Labor, and 78,970 in June 1997 under this government. I would like Senator Collins to go back to the figures. The reforms actually assist low and middle income families. Funding to services is equivalent to the previous operational subsidy and continues until the end of June. There is $20 million in restructuring and transitional assistance, including training for all services, a help line for advice and individual assistance in the form of service visits. New financial support of $4.4 million per year has been provided to rural and remote and isolated services to ensure continuity of supply in these regions.Since the 1996 budget announcement to withdraw operational subsidy from community based long day care centres, 43 have closed as at 30 April 1998. However, there has been a net increase of 310 centres over the same period. So there has actually been an increase over the same period. The main causes of closures are ongoing financial and utilisation difficulties and the complete lack of planning measures by the former government. This government has introduced a new planning system to direct supply to areas of greatest need.3370Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Since the minister is talking about the full picture and truth, perhaps the minister could tell us whether he knows what alternative arrangements have been made for the care of those 1,500 children whose centres have closed, or doesn't the minister care?3370Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have already stated the increase in the number of places that are available. As at 30 April 1998, 43 community based long day care centres which have received operational subsidy have closed since 1 July 1996. As at 30 April 1998, 50 new community based long day care centres had opened since 1 July 1996. They have opened for those 1,500—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Senator Knowles is trying to straighten him out.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Knowles has been very helpful in providing additional information for Senator Collins's benefit.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—She's fibbing!VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Knowles has pointed out that under the previous government the number was 12 and under us it has gone up to 20, so that is hardly a decrease. I suggest that Senator Collins go and do one of those numeracy programs that Senator Allison was talking about the other day so that she can know how to add up.33703370Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. You would be aware that Senator Harradine was next in line to ask a question. I think he will be here a little later, and I ask that his question then be put, if that is okay. If it is not going to be taken, I would be happy to take a question instead of his the next time around.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! That is not a point of order.5F4Senator CALVERT—Minister, you would be aware of a feature article in today's Australian entitled `The Full Monty', which details the proliferation of sex related programming on radio and television. Is the government concerned about this issue? What action is the government taking to ensure that the appropriate community standards are maintained?3371Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Not only the government but indeed I think the entire community is concerned about the proliferation of what seem to be increasingly prurient programs on both radio and television. In the article to which Senator Calvert refers, which is headed `The Full Monty', you could be forgiven for thinking that television and radio programmers have taken a dose of Viagra. As Amanda Meade reports, `Anything goes on the airwaves these days.' That is absolutely correct, and I have to say that I was shocked to read the extent to which some of these programs have descended. There has been concern in recent times about Playboy's Really Naked Truth No. 1 , which essentially showed nude women and men's reaction to them and justified it on the basis that the subject matter of the program was nudity, which I would have thought was, if anything, a tautology. It was simply an excuse to portray nudity for nudity's sake. As a result of those concerns, I have taken up the matter up with FACTS and I am told that the code will be amended to deal more strictly with the issue of nudity.When it comes to radio, this article makes it a matter of particular community concern to find that we can now have programs which have callers revealing their sexual exploits in lurid detail and guests stripping in the studio while the presenter gives a running commentary, giving away erotic messages and promoting brothels. Indeed, the presenter said that she was thrilled that she has finally being given the freedom to go all the way. She is very proud of the live broadcast she did from a brothel. She said, `We narrated it like it was a sports event. We knew we were really pushing the boundaries that time, but everyone wants to know what really goes on inside a brothel.' I do not think they do. There may well be some people who have a passing interest in titillation, but to suggest that somehow this is what people expect on radio at any hour of the day or night I think is completely misunderstanding the rules that are in place.The self-regulation code of practice that is imposed by FARB is meant to contain this sort of behaviour because it reads:A licensee shall not broadcast language which would offend to a substantial degree the contemporary standards of decency held by the audience of the station.This particular radio station takes a view that there are no rules except to `keep the expletives down'. If that is the attitude, I would certainly expect the ABA to take action under its program standards, which require it, where it is satisfied that there is convincing evidence that a code of practice is not operating to provide appropriate community safeguards, to then determine a standard in relation to that matter. I think that article does raise a number of concerns.In the area of television, with the change from AO to M and MA it is explicitly stated in the act—the FACTS code of practice faithfully reflects this—that there should be no reduction in standards as a result of that changeover. But it would seem to me from a couple of these programs, particularly one called Sex/Life on Channel 10, that there are some who are taking the opportunity in that transition to substantially reduce the quality of these programs.I am writing to the ABA pointing out the government's strong expectation that the television and radio codes should comply with parliament's expectation, stressing the need for the ABA to be vigilant. I am also writing to FACTS and FARB expressing the government's concern. I make it clear that we will not tolerate broadcasters pushing the envelope of the codes or not complying with them. I do not think anyone in this country wants to see an electronic version of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is unedifying and debasing, and we will take action to take ensure that it does not occur. (Time expired)33713371Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Does the minister agree with the Premier of Victoria, Mr Kennett, that a state parliamentary inquiry into the ABC is required to investigate the so-called Sydney-centric bias in the management of the ABC? Will the minister be giving evidence before the inquiry? Will he explain that the reason for the reduced ABC services in Victoria is the minister's own $55 million a year cuts to the ABC budget? Is the inquiry all Mr Kennett's own work, or did the minister conspire with Mr Kennett to instigate an inquiry because he did not have the courage to conduct it himself?3372Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—If one puts aside the vituperation and the hatred embodied in that question, the answer is that it is Mr Kennett's own initiative. If Senator Carr spent a bit more time on reading the newspapers and less on branch stacking then he would see that there has been, in particular, an upper house backbencher who has been pursuing issues of the ABC's balance not only in terms of Victoria and New South Wales but also in ensuring proper coverage to regional areas. That committee will be reporting back in March of next year. I imagine that it will travel and take evidence very extensively.Senator Carr might be interested to know that even the MEAA expressed some support for the proposition, particularly given the ABC's decision to transfer the Between the Lines book program and another major arts program to Sydney for no apparent reason other than that they have a presenter there whom they prefer to front the program.This is not an initiative of the federal government but we certainly understand why Mr Kennett would take such action. Indeed, my colleague Senator Kemp earned a living out of pursuing this issue some years ago and I think he did it very effectively. The ABC does have a charter obligation to provide proper national coverage.I know the likes of Senator Carr do not really have much time to follow what goes on on ABC radio and television; they are more interested in the union machinations. Let me assure him that we regard that charter obligation seriously. We do think the ABC should try to ensure that not only does it cater for the tastes of people all around Australia but that, as much as possible, programs derive from different parts of Australia. I doubt very much that they will be wanting to interview Senator Carr because his quality of bile is well known but I imagine that there will be quite a number of people who will be prepared to go before the committee and we will certainly be very interested in looking at the outcome.3372Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, instead of trying to intimidate and bully the ABC, should not you and Mr Kennett actually be addressing the fact that it is the federal government and its policies that have led to the crippling effects on the ABC's capacity to deliver broadly based programming in Victoria?3372Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am grateful for the free kick. The fact is that the ABC took a 10 per cent cut in revenue, as many businesses do. It got well in excess of 12 months notice. There has not been any discernible reduction in the range and quality of programs, to my knowledge. The fact is that the decision to relocate services from Melbourne does not appear to have been taken in response to budget cuts. Indeed, as I understand it, the budget for the particular program in question is quite a generous one. I can assure you that we will be making it plain to all and sundry that we expect the ABC to take proper account of its charter obligations and to make sure that it does meet the standards that the parliament expects of it and that it should not be intimidated by the likes of you.33723372McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Will the minister outline this government's achievements in its first term to improve accountability and transparency in government, including electoral accountability. Are these standards adopted or even shared by other political parties?3372Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—That is an important question. The coalition is proud of its record in this regard. Never again will the Labor Party be able to deceive the Australian people by saying that the budget would be in surplus instead of what we found—a $10.3 billion hole. We have put in place a number of measures to improve accountability. We introduced the charter of budget honesty, which requires up-to-date forward estimates of budgetary outlays and revenues at the beginning of each election campaign. We introduced the mid-year economic fiscal outlook to keep people regularly informed. We established the National Commission of Audit to assess the nation's finances. Electorally, we have acted on the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to improve the integrity of the electoral roll so that Australia's electoral system is immune from abuse and improper behaviour.Our attitude to these matters is contrasted starkly to that of the Labor Party. What are we now hearing about the Labor Party in terms of its internal affairs? Illegal activity, we understand. Former Senator Richardson tells us in this week's Bulletin of alleged illegal activity in relation to branch stacking. He even tells how it is done in the Labor Party. He says:Usually a willing soldier will be found who is prepared to allow their residence to be used to enrol four or five preselection voters who don't live there. That is a clear breach of the Electoral Act. It involves swearing false delcarations and is a criminal offence.Can we see Senator Ray racing this stuff off to the police? If there is a rumour about the Liberal Party he is up to the Federal Police in a flash, but it is very different when it is the Labor Party.There is more information on what has been happening in the Labor Party. We saw it in Victoria on the Channel 9 program and we are now seeing what is happening in Queensland. Former Senator Richardson reminds us of those in the Labor Party from Wollongong who have been charged with that type of rort. He tells us also about what is happening in Townsville, in Queensland, where charges have now been laid—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many interjections.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy!BH4Senator HILL—Former Senator Richardson tells us about those in the Labor Party who are being charged for this type of matter: Queensland members of the Australian Labor Party. But there is so much more evidence of what is happening within the Labor Party at the moment.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You are out of order.BH4Senator HILL—No, the contrast, Senator Cook, is which party is fair to govern. Which party has got its house in order.What about the former ALP Victorian state treasurer, Mr Sheehan? He said that a Victorian seat could be bought in the Labor Party for as little as $5,000. That is what happens. A federal seat, he said, for a little bit more.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in the chamber is totally out of order. I would ask senators to exercise some self-discipline and to observe the standing orders.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you are warned.BH4Senator HILL—We understand Senator Conroy's concern, given what the Right has been doing in Victoria. In Victoria over the weekend one ALP delegate, a Ms Dianne Anderson, said:The community is not stupid. They know we are corrupt. If we in the Labor Party won't deal with corruption, they won't vote for us.That was one of your people.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You're a liar, a hypocrite and out of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, I ask you to withdraw that.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Madam President. This has got nothing whatsoever to do with the minister's portfolio. You know that he is out of order. Will you bring him to order and sit him down, because he is debating the question? What happens in the Labor Party has nothing to do with Senator Hill. You should draw him to order and sit him down. He is a disgrace.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I ask you to withdraw that. It is also unparliamentary.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I withdraw that he is a disgrace, but you should sit him down, Madam President.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On the point of order, Madam President: the question asked the minister to outline the government's achievements to improve accountability—RF4COOKSenator Cook—He is not answering that question and you know it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Just listen, clown.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, you will not address a senator in that fashion. I would ask you to rephrase your statement.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I withdraw, Madam President. The question went on to include electoral accountability and asked whether these standards were shared or adopted by other political parties. In other words, it is squarely raising a matter of intense public interest in what the choice is going to be at the next election and whether this lot on the other side have even the slightest notion of integrity when it comes to the electoral process.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The minister is dealing with the question as he sees fit and may continue to do so.BH4Senator HILL—The issue is about fitness to govern. (Time expired)3374McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister further outline the platform that the government was elected on in regard to transparency and accountability?3374Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The issue is about fitness to govern, and the issue in Victoria is the right wing's rorting of the party. We understand why Senator Conroy is embarrassed. As ALP delegate Ms Dianne Anderson said:The community is not stupid. They know we are corrupt. If we won't deal with corruption, they won't vote for us.It is happening in Victoria, it is happening in Queensland. Former senator Richardson says that worse is still to come. Not only is this opposition an opposition with no policies and, therefore, not an alternative government; it is demonstrating by its own internal behaviour that it is unfit to govern and does not deserve election.33743374Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Was the minister just inviting the Senate to give consideration to which major political party in Australia has got its house in order? Is the minister aware of a statement that has just been issued by the Right Hon. Malcolm Fraser which states:The Liberal and the National parties have done Australia a great disservice.He talks about the issue of placing One Nation last in the Queensland election on party how to vote tickets. He says this—and I ask the minister to comment on it:In Queensland the decision that has been made is a decision of the party machines. I ask all Liberal and National party voters to think deeply about this issue and to ignore the injunctions of their parties and place One Nation last.I ask Minister Hill whether he supports former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Does he support Malcolm Fraser's call? (Time expired)3374Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—What is the Labor Party doing in Queensland on this issue with optional preferential voting? What the Labor Party is saying to the voters in Queensland is, `Don't give your preference.' Why is it saying that? Because it does not want One Nation's preferences to go in the other direction. In other words, by default, it is in effect taking One Nation votes.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The level of noise makes it hard for me to hear. It is impossible for any senator at the end of the room to hear what is being said. Senators ought to have some regard for the fact that senators here are entitled to hear.BH4Senator HILL—It demonstrates again the double standards of the ALP.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You are prepared to help out the fascists in this regard. You don't care how extreme you go.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr!BH4Senator HILL—The ALP wants to take advantage of voters not giving preferences. In other words, it wants to get the advantage of One Nation votes. What hypocrisy! To that background, what right does the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate have to ask me the question that he asked?Australians are not gullible. They know what happened in the by-election in Lindsay. What happened in relation to the no further immigration party? A sleazy deal by the Labor Party to take votes, to take preferences—the same values you would say, Senator Schacht, as the One Nation Party. So why did you do that deal in Lindsay to take votes from voters who hold the same set of values? The Labor Party will use whatever technique is necessary to win a vote, and it will do it to the background of these high moral standards.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You certainly didn't have any.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I have already asked you to cease interjecting.BH4Senator HILL—I have just been demonstrating for the last five minutes that what we are seeing in Australia is that the Labor Party, internally, is so corrupt that now even former Senator Richardson is referring to its illegal behaviour in his article in the Bulletin , and telling us, furthermore, that more and worse is to come, that the branch stacking is now extending—Senator Bolkus interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—He says it, Senator Bolkus, that branch stacking is now extending beyond the major cities into the regions, and more is to be announced.Senator Schacht interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—This is one of your people, Senator Schacht, one of the Labor factional heavies, who is bringing to the attention of the Australian people the corruption within the Labor Party.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. A question was directly asked of Senator Hill in relation to a statement that has been made by former Prime Minister— Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Just a moment, Senator Faulkner. Senators on my right will allow me to hear the point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—My point of order is this: a question was directly asked of Senator Hill about a statement that has been issued by former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, which implores Liberal and National Party voters to put One Nation candidates last on their ballot paper in the Queensland election. I asked Senator Hill what his view of Malcolm Fraser's statement was. I asked Senator Hill whether he would endorse Malcolm Fraser's call. I ask you, Madam President, to direct Senator Hill to answer the question I have asked, and not to continue an answer to a question previously asked in question time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill would be aware of the question. There are questions within it. I have no power to direct him as to how he answers those precise questions; I do have power to direct him with respect to the relevance of his answer to the questions. He is talking on the topic that has been raised within the questions. He may or may not precisely answer the things that you have asked, and I cannot direct him to deal with them as you would want him to do. Senator Hill, I just remind you of the question that you are dealing with.BH4Senator HILL—Thank you, Madam President. What I was seeking to do was to demonstrate the bad faith of the Labor Party in using devious tactics to mislead the people of Queensland, to their advantage, to take the benefit of One Nation votes, consistent with the same sort of deal that they did in the seat of Lindsay in relation to the `no further immigration' vote. It is exactly the same principle. In those circumstances, and in circumstances where former Senator Richardson says the Labor Party is internally corrupt, what right has Senator Faulkner to ask that question of us? We will match our values against those of the ALP any day and, as things stand, there is only one side that is fit to govern in this country at the moment, and that is the Liberal and National parties.Queensland voters will vote for a continuation of the good government that they have been experiencing under Mr Borbidge and Mrs Sheldon; they will not be misled by Senator Faulkner; they will vote for a continuation of the prosperity that Mr Borbidge has been prepared to give them, and that will be in their best interests. (Time expired)3376Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will Senator Hill endorse Malcolm Fraser's call to ignore the injunction of the Liberal and National parties and place One Nation last? Will Senator Hill endorse Malcolm Fraser's call that says:When individuals cast their vote it is their personal decision, individuals cannot hide behind the backs of their parties, they are responsible for their own vote.Will he support Malcolm Fraser's appeal to all Australians to put decency and principle before the most base political expediency? Will he endorse Malcolm Fraser's call to ignore the injunction of the Liberal and National parties and place One Nation last? Will he show leadership that Mr Howard is not willing to show and call on Australian members of the Liberal and National parties to put One Nation last?3376Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—What I will do is remind the people of Queensland that Mr Beattie was, for nearly seven years, the branch secretary of the ALP in that state; the state in which corruption is now being demonstrated within the ALP. To that background, I will say to the people of Queensland that they have received good government, but, furthermore, only one side in Queensland is fit to govern—and it is certainly not the side led by Mr Beattie. They have an opportunity to continue good government in Queensland, by voting for Borbidge and Sheldon. That is what my advice would be to the people of Queensland.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Questions Without Notice3376337615:04:003376Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—On 14 May, Senator George Campbell asked me a question in relation to funding for training on the waterfront and associated questions. I seek leave to table that answer and incorporate it in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator George Campbell asked Senator Ellison:Question:(1) Has the federal government provided any funding for the training of any alternative stevedoring work force on the waterfront, either directly, such as per-head subsidies, or in any other way? If so, how much has been provided to date, when was the funding provided, who sought the funding and where was the training to be provided? Finally, was the training provider or providers fully accredited to provide such training?(2) Has the federal government provided any training funding, either directly or indirectly, to or through the following companies: any Patrick Stevedores company, any Jamison company, P&C Stevedores, Barton Australia Pty Ltd. Fynwest Pty Ltd. International Port Services Training Group Pty Ltd or Container Terminal Management Services Ltd.?Answer:Preliminary interrogation of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) payment systems reveals that:(1) No training funding (grants, incentives or subsidies) has been provided for any alternative stevedoring work force.(2) Of the companies referred to, the interrogation shows that:- an amount of $3,000 was paid to Patrick—the Australian Stevedores, Fremantle in the form of an Entry Level Training employer incentives for two trainees who commenced their employment in July 1997; and- a contract for $29,930 was entered between DEETYA and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in February 1997 to deliver Workplace English Language and Literacy training to workers at Patrick—the Australian Stevedores. 337715:05:003377Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Yesterday, Senator Murphy asked me a question without notice about the retirement assistance for farmers scheme which forms part of the Agriculture Advancing Australia package. I said I would refer the senator's question to the responsible minister who happens to be Senator Newman. Senator Newman has provided me with the following information, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Yesterday, Senator Murphy asked me a question without notice about the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme (RAFS), which forms part of the `Agriculture—Advancing Australia' package. I said that I would refer the Senator's question to the Minister for Social Security and Senator Newman has provided me with the following information.RAFS will allow low income farmers, living in hardship because their farm is being asked to support more than one generation, to pass the farm business onto the younger generation and get immediate access to the age pension. It is unfortunate that the article referred to by Senator Murphy focused on perceived difficulties with RAFS rather than promoting its benefits.Taxation issues are but one factor to be taken into consideration by older farmers in deciding whether to transfer the farm. In terms of the overall effectiveness of RAFS they need be taken in context:. many of the RAFS target group will have owned their farms prior to the introduction of Capital Gains Tax and, therefore, will not incur any liability on transfer of the farm;. the tax liability on the transfer of livestock can be deferred if the farm is operated through a partnership (some 80% of farms involve partnerships);. as less than 2% of farms are run in company structures, and most of those are outside the RAFS target group, very few would incur a tax liability on transfer of the farm from a company.Although the tax implications are less widespread than the article would suggest, Centrelink is advising farmers and the younger generation to fully investigate all the implications of a farm transfer, including taxation issues, before acting.Farmers who do not want to access, or do not qualify for, RAFS may still be able to access the age pension through existing social security provi sions such as the asset hardship provisions, Pensions Loan Scheme, foregone wages, and granny flat provisions.337715:06:003377Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—On Thursday, 14 May, Senator Barney Cooney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism a supplementary question without notice regarding approaches by the tourism industry in relation to initiatives announced in the budget on Tuesday, 12 May. I have received advice from the minister and seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Reply:"Yes, the Minister for Tourism has received representation from the Tourism Industry on this matter.He takes all representations seriously and has facilitated a meeting between tourism industry representatives and the Minister for Immigration."Miscellaneous337733773377The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Yesterday there was some discussion and points of order relating to my interpretation of standing order 74(5). I confirmed the ruling that I gave at the beginning of the debate but, at the request of Senator Abetz, I said that I would prepare a statement relating to that matter. I incorporate in Hansard the statement that I would make confirming that ruling.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Yesterday after Question Time several points of order were raised about the procedure under standing order 74(5) whereby a senator may ask for an explanation of the failure to answer a question placed on notice and unanswered for more than 30 days.Under paragraph (b) of this provision, if a minister provides an explanation of the failure to answer a question, the senator may move a motion that the Senate take note of the explanation. Paragraph (c) provides that, if the minister does not provide an explanation, the senator may move a motion with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.It is clear from the wording of paragraph (c), and many precedents, that, in the absence of an explanation, the senator may move any relevant motion. Usually this motion takes the form of an order for production of the answers, but on one occasion a motion of censure was moved.It is also clear from the precedents that a statement by a minister that an answer is being prepared, or that the matter is under consideration, is not regarded as an explanation for the purposes of the standing order.When I referred to a particular precedent of such a statement by a minister not being regarded as an explanation, Senator Abetz asked me to consider whether this one instance should constitute a precedent for the interpretation of the standing order.There have been four previous occasions on which motions of censure or to order the production of the answers have been moved after a minister made a statement of the kind to which I referred: 25 May 1989, 21 February 1991, 14 March 1991, 11 May 1995.I am advised that on at least the first two of those occasions the Chair was advised that the motion was in order and the Chair accepted that advice by allowing the motion to be moved.Also the Senate, by passing the motions, accepted that they were in order.I therefore confirm the rulings that I made.337815:08:003378Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Pursuant to the order of the Senate moved by Senator O'Brien yesterday, I table answers to questions on notice Nos 1118 and 1129.Miscellaneous337815:08:003378Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I seek leave to make a statement in respect of the order for the production of documents on waterfront reform moved by Senator Murray.Leave granted.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The Senate's order of 13 May seeks a wide range of documentation, all of which may be relevant to current proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Maritime Union of Australia and others against Patrick Stevedores No. 1 Pty Ltd and others. There are 29 respondents to those proceedings including the Commonwealth and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Don't try this in Estimates.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You will be lucky to get anymore than this in Estimates, I can assure you. There are also other related proceedings instituted by the MUA currently before the Federal Court. In addition there are proceedings currently before the Federal Court instituted by the ACCC against the MUA. The matters at issue in the above proceedings, including matters raised by the defences filed by the Commonwealth and the minister are very broad, including the government's waterfront reform policies, actions taken by the government to promote those policies and the conduct of the MUA and other parties in relation to waterfront matters. Moreover, according to the MUA, an alleged conspiracy between the respondents has not yet been concluded, thus the matters at issue may still expand.The process of discovering documents relevant to the MUA's conspiracy claim is still under way and is being conducted under the auspices of the Federal Court. Having regard to the breadth of the issues before the court, that process necessitates exhaustive examination of tens of thousands of pages of documents both for relevance and for possible claims of legal professional privilege and public interest immunity.The Federal Court is today considering an application by the Commonwealth to extend the time for the Commonwealth to complete its discovery. Production of any documents to senators in respect of the order of 13 May is likely to contaminate the discovery process and prejudice all parties' legal rights. Further, documents disclosed in the discovery process are subject to confidentiality in that they can only be used for the purpose of the court proceedings. If the same documents were to be produced to the Senate, there would be no similar restriction on the use to which they could be put.The government is not prepared to prejudice the rights of parties in the proper conduct of the Federal Court proceedings, in particular its discovery process, by producing to the Senate documents which may be relevant to the proceedings.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It's a cover up—and you know it!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It is not only the Commonwealth rights which are involved here but also the rights of other parties to the court proceedings. It is fundamental to the proper administration of justice that court proceedings be conducted in the courts, not in the parliament.The sub judice convention recognises this fundamental principle. The practice in this parliament has been that matters that are before a court in civil proceedings are not referred to from the time they are set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court. The government's legal advice is that the proceedings instituted by the MUA have been brought before the court, so that the sub judice convention applies. In the circumstances it is not proper or appropriate for the government to produce any further documentation at this time. When litigation is complete, the government will reconsider the Senate's order in accordance with the usual criteria which apply.15:11:003379Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—It is proper that the Senate consider the issues that the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations has outlined for us but I am inclined to be a little sceptical, in that, by my count, this is the fourth time on industrial relations that the minister has refused to supply documents on the order of the Senate. That makes the minister a habitual offender. A first timer, as you know, always gets very good treatment, but a habitual offender gets a different approach.I would like to put a suggestion to the Senate in view of the serious matters put forward by the minister and the claim of convention with regard to practices concerning the court and the matters at hand. I would request, with those who supported the motion with me, that we ascertain from the Clerk of the Senate appropriate advice on this matter so that we can deal with it objectively and properly and not react to the matter immediately. Obviously our approach would be that, if the minister were found to be uncooperative, the Senate should be uncooperative in return but, if the minister has good grounds for withholding information, we would have regard to them. My request to the other parties that supported my motion is that they would give me leave to request from the Clerk of the Senate appropriate advice.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You do not need leave to ask the Clerk of the Senate for advice, but he would not be likely to be giving it at the present time. We need time to consider the statement made by the minister, and the Clerk would give advice to you, other senators or to me, as he does on appropriate occasions.15:13:003379Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—by leave—What the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has said has no doubt been said sincerely, but he would not have looked at the documents. This is advice that he has got from either the department or people in his office. We are being denied an oversight of these documents not by a minister but by someone in the system, and we are unable to test whether there is any truth in what that person has said.A blanket statement has been made by the minister taking objection about documents which he has not seen and this Senate is being denied access to these documents not by him but by some unknown person within the system. Certainly, if we are going to work as a Senate should and if we are going to work as a parliament should, there must be some check upon this system.To simply say there is a court case and that therefore all documents that might possibly be related to that court case are privileged is clearly wrong. We are being presented here today with a statement which denies our ability to operate as a parliament should and we are being denied that not even by a minister. He, and I say this with great respect, is simply presenting what somebody else has worked out so that we are left lamenting. It is simply an arrogance that we should not tolerate as a parliament.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is a matter on which I would also want advice. I think that the minister has to take responsibility for what he says in this chamber, in any event.Miscellaneous3380338015:15:003380Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), to a question without notice asked by Senator Faulkner today, relating to the forthcoming Queensland election.At last a conservative leader has had the guts to stand up and put some principle down in relation to the issue of One Nation and Pauline Hanson. Certainly the current Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has never been willing to stand up. He has never been willing to go as far as some members of his own parliamentary party. Even the Treasurer, Mr Costello, and a number of others have made it clear in their own constituencies that they are willing to see One Nation put last. But Mr Howard has never had the intestinal fortitude to do so. At last the Right Hon. Malcolm Fraser has come out and made a statement on behalf of all thinking conservatives in this country. He has categorically appealed to all conservatives—all Liberal Party and National Party voters—to make a personal decision in the absence of leadership from the parliamentary leader, Mr Howard, to do the right thing for the standing, cohesion and international reputation of our nation and put Hanson last on the ballot paper.This is what Mr Fraser said:I ask Liberal and National Party voters to think deeply about this issue and to ignore the injunctions of their parties and place One Nation last. . . I appeal to you all to put decency and principle before the most base political expediency.That is what Mr Howard has offered—`the most base political expediency'. And what do we see in this chamber? We see incredible weakness from Senator Hill—he is unwilling to show the courage and the intestinal fortitude to make a statement of principle along the same lines; unwilling to keep his so-called `Wet, Liberal Left' credentials intact on this matter. Is he willing to stand up within government, within parliament, within the public arena to these sorts of extremes and this sort of extremism? No, he is not. He is only willing in the most lilly-livered and yellow-bellied way to endorse what Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, has done. His credentials as a Wet are finished as from today.He comes into the chamber and says, `I am making these statements because the Labor Party' according to the Liberal Party `is in internal disputation.' And he talks about integrity of process. This from a government which has lost seven ministers and from which three parliamentary secretaries have been forced to resign. At least five people, who have more courage and character than Senator Hill to stand up to the Prime Minister on these sorts of issues, now sit on the crossbenches in the House of Representatives. That is the extraordinary situation we have at the moment in this country. And Senator Hill can do nothing when a conservative leader comes out and goes past the current leadership and appeals directly to the Liberal Party constituency by saying, `In the interests of national unity, the political process, good government and the international standing of our nation, put Pauline Hanson and One Nation last.' What can Senator Hill do? Nothing. All Senator Hill can do is criticise things that are occurring in the Labor Party.Senator Ferguson interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I find it extraordinary that we can have interjections from Senator Ferguson, who spends all his time trying to knock Senator Hill off in the South Australian division of the Liberal Party. When he is not trying to knock Senator Hill off he is working full time to knock Senator Vanstone off in the South Australian division of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is in uproar all over this nation, not only because of internal division but because of the lack of leadership and guts on the part of John Howard, the elected leader of the conserva tives in this nation. Even Malcolm Fraser has had the decency and the principle to stand up and say what needs to be done in the interests of all Australians. What a pathetic performance today in the Senate—Senator Hill and other members of the Liberal Party and National Party cannot join him and act in the interests of the unity of our nation.15:20:003381Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—That diatribe comes from a member of a party which in Queensland at the present time is seeking the support of the One Nation Party to make sure that Labor candidates are elected in place of coalition candidates. That is what that is all about. The Labor Party and Mr Beattie in Queensland are actively seeking the support of One Nation to make sure that coalition candidates are defeated. And I do not hear any comment from anyone because they know that that is true.That diatribe comes also from a member of a party whose leader, Mr Beazley, gave preferences in the last federal election to a member of the anti-immigration party in preference to a Liberal candidate. Where is the comment now? Where is the outrage? Where is Senator Faulkner now? Are you going to condemn Mr Beazley for giving his preferences to the anti-immigration party? There is a deathly silence from the Labor Party now.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Nonsense! Rubbish!YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—You know, Senator Cook, because it happened in Western Australia in the seat of Brand. Those preferences were given by your leader, Kim Beazley.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Rubbish!YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—You say `rubbish'; you say that is not true. Could I table them? You will allow me to incorporate in Hansard Mr Beazley's how to vote card which shows Beazley No. 1, some person called Rebe who is AFI, which stands for Australians against Further Immigration, as No. 6 and the Liberal candidate Mr Hearne as No. 8? If you say I am making that up, Senator Cook, let me table this; let me in corporate it. Can I go on to the electorate of Lindsay where the excellent Liberal candidate Miss Jackie Kelly had to recontest. Where did the Labor Party, this principled party that we heard so much about just then, put their preferences? Did they put the anti-immigration party last? Did they do that? On what they are accusing us of not doing, how did they go? They gave their preferences firstly to Mr Townsend from the anti-immigration party, the Australians against Further Immigration, well in front of the Liberal candidate.Where is the outrage now? It just shows this hypocrisy. This diatribe previously and what is to follow me next are from members of a party in which they can buy their seats in the parliament for $5,000, according to Graham Richardson. I would not say that but Graham Richardson, the Leader of the Right in New South Wales, has indicated this. I do know that in my own area of Townsville there are currently two Labor Party people—one, an elected Labor Party councillor and another an endorsed Labor Party candidate—before the court on charges of fraudulently executing claim forms in the election. There are two people charged on 54 and 36 complaints respectively on these particular things. I do not say they are guilty but they have been charged.Mr Beattie, as Senator Hill pointed out, was in charge of the Labor Party in Queensland and was the general secretary when all of this was going on. People have been signed up when they did not even know. People who live at a particular address did not even they were members of the Labor Party because someone was forging their signatures on an electoral claim form. Senator Faulkner has the gall to get up and accuse other parties of this sort of thing. This sort of fraudulent behaviour where the Labor Party puts the Australians against Further Immigration candidates in front of Liberal candidates just shows the hypocrisy and the depths to which the Australian Labor Party have sunk.15:25:003381Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—In reply to a question from Senator Faulkner we have had two responses from the other side. It is interesting to note in respect of both of them that not once has either Senator Hill or Senator Macdonald or any other spokesman on the side of the government tried to defend their current leader, because his position is defenceless, it is amoral and it is one that they cannot be proud of. There is one thing that cannot be said about this Prime Minister by any Australian, and that is that we are proud of him, because we are not proud of what this Prime Minister stands for. Today, Senator Hill had an opportunity to take the high road or the low road. Unfortunately, and I must say it is both politically and personally depressing and disappointing for me, Senator Hill took the low road. He had two very clear and very easy options—Senator Faulkner interjecting—Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator West)—Order! I would appreciate some quiet so I can hear Senator Bolkus.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Hill had the choice between the high road and the low road. He could have condemned racism, he could have taken the position that his former leader Fraser has taken but, no, he did not do so. It is interesting to note that in his defence of his position and his response he did not defend the position of the Prime Minister—and that should be placed on the record. It is a very easy choice for any respectable political party to take. If you go to bed with dogs, you finish up with fleas. That is exactly what has happened with this Prime Minister. He has had 25 years in this place and on every occasion where he has been put to the barrier in terms of race he has failed. From his initial opposition to the Racial Discrimination Act to his abysmal and I think amoral abuse of Aboriginals during the term of this government, this Prime Minister has had form on race—and this form cannot be defended and is not defended.Former Prime Minister Fraser is a person who in 1975 I thought I would never find myself defending. Last year I spoke to him at a private function and said to him that I appreciated the position he was taking on issues such as race, immigration and Aboriginal affairs. I can now say that publicly with respect to his statement issued today. It is a very clear and succinct statement. Malcolm Fraser made it very clear that on 19 June last year he wrote to the Federal President of the Liberal Party warning him of his views and intended actions if the party gave preferences to One Nation over other currently existing political parties—and so he should because Malcolm Fraser represents the views of respectable liberals. He represents the views of people living in Melbourne, the business community and the community sector, and that view is that you cannot go to bed with One Nation. A respectable party like the Liberal Party should not do that. They have sacrificed a lot.Malcolm Fraser says of racism: it is not an ancient evil; it is a present evil. He says that where major political parties compromise their principles with a racist political party, experience more often than not has shown that the influence of the racist party has grown and, in far too many cases, become dominant. What a warning—in far too many cases it becomes dominant. It is one case too many for the Queensland Nationals. If you look at their vote in the current polls, you can see they have been decimated because of the bushfire this Prime Minister and this Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin, have lit in Queensland. They have wanted to ride the Wik debate and it has come back and bitten them on the bottom. Their poll standing in Queensland at the moment reflects that.Malcolm Fraser called on Liberals across the country to dump the position imposed on them by their party machine. There was a challenge here today for Senator Hill. He has come back into the chamber and I say to him that, both politically and personally, I find it quite depressing today. I am quite disappointed in him because he has not taken a position rebutting One Nation and putting them where they should be on the ballot slip.When one looks at history and the statement today, one sees that John Howard is the most reactionary and discriminatory Prime Minister this nation has had in 25 years. The fact that Malcolm Fraser, a Liberal Prime Minister of almost 25 years ago, and some before him, took a very strong position against discrimination but this Prime Minister does not, consigns this Prime Minister to the scrap heap of morality. I seek leave to incorporate Malcolm Fraser's statement in Hansard.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to table Malcolm Fraser's statement.Leave not granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—What a disgrace. All of them have a choice be between the high road and the low road, and they do not even want to know what the high road is.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—We would give leave for that, if we were given leave to table Mr Beazley's how-to-vote card.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Macdonald, you have not sought leave.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—I did before, and it was refused.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No. I did not put the question: is leave granted?YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—I asked, and everyone said, No.15:31:003383Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—It is not a very pretty sight when you hit a raw nerve in the Labor Party and we have certainly hit one today. We had the very unsightly measure of Senator Ray walking around to tap Senator Evans on the shoulder saying, `We will not take note of childcare. We will not take note of employment issues, because these guys have actually had a shot at us today. It has hit a raw nerve and we want to get back.'When you start to talk about leadership, perhaps Senator Faulkner should have been leading from the front, instead of letting Senator Ray decide the tactics for today. You talked about defending the statement of the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, but today we are far more interested in a few statements made by former Senator Graham Richardson. Graham Richardson, the Labor Party's former head kicker, key player and strategist, has had a lot to say about the Labor Party in the last week or two. They are things that we all suspected were the case, but in fact now we have former Senator Richardson—the `whatever it takes man'—telling us just exactly what it does take to have some influence in the Labor Party. It makes interesting reading.All senators on this side who have had the opportunity to read this can come to only one conclusion, and that is that it is no wonder that we do not see Senator Conroy and Senator Carr in here too often together unless they have to. If we read through Senator Richardson's article about branch stackers days being numbered, they must be thinking that their days are numbered, too. If you were to believe half of the things in this article, their days ought to be numbered because of the sorts of activities that have been taking place within the Labor Party.Then we talk about the issuing of preferences. How about the Lindsay by-election? Who did the Labor Party direct their preferences to? None other than the Australians Against Further Immigration and the Australian Shooters Party prior to giving their preferences to the Liberal Party.It is hypocrisy for these people to suggest that other people have directed preferences in a way that they do not think is appropriate. They ought to look at their own past record in the by-election and in the election in Brand, which I am sure my colleague Senator Abetz will have something to say about in a minute.Of all the issues important to Australia that the Labor Party could have brought up in taking note of question time today, they brought up an issue because a raw nerve was hit when Senator Hill answered the question put forward by Senator Faulkner. Because that raw nerve has been hit, all the other matters which they consider are of great importance to Australia are thrown aside because of that one answer. They say that they have to get up and defend themselves.Certainly the comments made by the former Senator Richardson in this article—what he said about his own colleagues and the way they treat the Australian public and people within their own party in the selection of candidates—will reflect on them when we get to the next election. Also, it will reflect on them in the coming Queensland state election when so many members of their party have been found out for doing these sorts of things.I would not want to read in detail the sorts of things that have happened, but one only has to look closely at the text of the article. My colleague, Senator Ian Macdonald, is very interested in what has happened in Townsville. It must amaze Senator Macdonald and the members of the Labor Party in that area to see the things that have happened in the local branch of the Labor Party in Townsville that have led to charges being laid. Candidates have been forced to withdraw and the party in that area has been totally rocked by those allegations. I am quite sure, as my colleague Senator Macdonald is sure, that that will be reflected in the ballot box in the Queensland elections which take place on 13 June. They deserve everything they get from the electors in Queensland if they are the sort of people left to control and run the Labor Party in Queensland. (Time expired)15:36:003384Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Australian history as it is recorded will show that at various times Australian society has been divided. Some of those divisions seem quite stupid today. The sectarian divisions between Catholics and Protestants we regard these days as just laughable nonsense. Also, what might be called class divisions have disappeared out of the fabric of Australian society.If there is one thing that has marked our history from the time of recorded history in Australia through to today, that has been poisonous to Australian society, it is the use of racism. Racism in itself can be one of the most hurtful things and it can wreck a society. It is something that has wracked us in our history. But, for some reason, from the early 1970s to the 1990s it was a thing in retreat; racism in this country was basically in retreat. As both major political parties abandoned the White Australia policy, as both major political parties embraced multiculturalism, we saw Australian society evolving and those past crass, horrible references to people on racist grounds disappeared. I would like to see that continue.I make the point that I was immigration minister shortly after the rather abrasive remarks made by the then opposition leader about immigration in 1988. I defy those opposite to find where I exacerbated that problem. I sought to find a solution to that problem. I sought to take those issues off the front page, not politically exploit them. I cannot say everyone did that, but that was my attitude. The people paying the price in 1988 for the racist debate were the kids in the school ground. It was not the politicians; it was the kids on the ground who were getting racial taunts in the schoolyard.We now have a unique opportunity to again reject racism. Both major political parties in this country generally reject racism. The real point, though, is how best to deal with an emerging political force in which racism tends to be the central plank. Most of the spokesmen for that party speak in a code that is understood to have racist undertones. I say that the way to deal with it as professional political parties is to expunge them from the political system as well as we can. The one thing that will give them respectability, the one thing that will give them an organisational base, is if we allow them into a parliament in this country. They have one representative federally who formed that party, having got here.But I think the point is that, if we do not want this to be a continuing steamroller that appeals to the baser instincts in society, mature political parties should seek to exclude them. There is nothing wrong in principle in trying to exclude people whose views are diametrically opposite to your own. What we have had from Senator Hill today is, `Well, this system in Queensland is optional preferential.' Let me at least put this on public record: in Queensland the Labor Party is numbering its ticket right out and putting One Nation last in every seat that they are contesting. We intend to do the same in the federal election in every House of Representatives seat, and we will do the same in the Senate. If every major political party does that, One Nation will find it impossible to be represented in the House of Representatives and difficult, but not impossible, to be represented in the Senate. That is the challenge, the responsibility, that major mature political parties have got to face in this particular country. We can do something. We can, I would hope, put aside petty rivalries, agree on this particular subject and reject racism. There is no use saying, `Oh, look, the real enemy in Queensland is the Labor Party. We will put One Nation ahead of the Labor Party.' But that is exactly what the coalition have done in Queensland. The great irony is that our position in principle may well mean that, in those three or four National Party seats in which One Nation is apparently polling well, it will be our preferences that put the local National Party members back in office, and they may well in the end put the Borbidge government back in office. (Time expired)15:41:003385Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—The Labor Party clearly do not come to this debate with clean hands, let alone with a history that allows them to pontificate in this manner. If we have a look at the former leaders, we can start with somebody like Arthur Calwell. About three years ago, Senator Barney Cooney was in this chamber saying what a good fellow he was and what a fine job he did. Arthur Calwell is the one who said that no red-blooded Australian wants to see a chocolate coloured Australia in the 1980s. Arthur Calwell said Japanese women should not be allowed to pollute our shores—and so he went on. Then there was Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. This quote is from the Cameron diaries. Mr Cameron said:Barnard and I wanted to send aircraft to bring babies and orphan children from Saigon to Australia in April 1975. He cancelled the flight and declared he did not want any Vietnamese Balts coming into Australia.The Labor Party still deify Gough Whitlam. They have never required him to apologise for those outrageous comments. Their very last Prime Minister, Mr Keating—a man they still praise—made some comments in his maiden speech. He said:It is time we considered the enormous cost of bringing migrants to this country. After all, the best migrant is the infant Australian.It is the history of commentary by Labor leaders like Arthur Calwell, Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating that has given sustenance to the likes of Graeme Campbell and Australians Against Further Immigration. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the now Leader of the Opposition decided at the last federal election to put Australians Against Further Immigration ahead of the Liberal Party on his own ballot paper in the seat of Brand. Undoubtedly he personally numbered the ballot papers for Brand and put the Australians Against Further Immigration candidate in front of the Liberal candidate. This is the integrity with which the Labor Party enters this debate.The real piece de resistance in all this is: what did they do in the seat of Kalgoorlie that is held by Mr Graeme Campbell who has given anti-Zionist speeches in this parliament and has close links with the League of Rights? What did they do at the last election? He was the number two choice in the seat of Kalgoorlie. We on this side of the chamber have to listen to the humbug from Senator Faulkner and others about how we somehow have not been dealing with this matter with the degree of moral rectitude that we should.I suggest to the Australian Labor Party, if you want to attack us—fine—but get your own house in order first. Of course, the seat of Lindsay has been mentioned. In a desperate bid to re-win that seat, the Labor Party was willing to put Australians Against Further Immigration in front of the Liberal Party candidate. And the list goes on. So when the Australian Labor Party tries to tell us what to do, let them explain to the Australian people whether they have, at the federal executive level, dissociated themselves publicly from the heinous comments of Arthur Calwell, from the heinous comments of Gough Whitlam, and the heinous comments of Paul Keating. If they have not done so, they have no right to enter into this debate.Like a few other people in this country, I happen to be a migrant. I find it pretty offensive when you have got a party that wants to be against further immigration and you have anti-zionist people like Mr Campbell in Kalgoorlie being chosen as the No. 2 person by the Labor Party. Let us get real in this debate. Let the Labor Party explain their history over many decades which dates back well before Arthur Calwell. But let us deal with this issue in a manner which exposes the Labor Party's absolute hypocrisy. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous338610000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, I table a document entitled Travelling allowance payments to senators during 1997-98 . The document contains details of senators' travelling allowance payments from 1 July 1997 until 15 September 1997, when the administration of travelling allowance was transferred to the Department of Finance and Administration, and details of IPU overseas travel expenditure paid by the Department of the Senate during July to December 1997.Miscellaneous33863386Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I table a statement and a document entitled Parliamentarians' travel paid by the Department of Finance and Administration, July to December 1997 . I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—INFORMATION ON PARLIAMENTARIANS' TRAVEL COSTS: JULY TO DECEMBER 1997The tabling of this information on the travel costs of Senators and Members for the period July to December 1997 meets the Government's commitment to table in Parliament the costs of air and car transport, and related travelling allowance payments, for all Senators and Members, including Ministers and Opposition Office Holders.The simultaneous tabling by the President and the Speaker of details of travelling allowance and overseas travel payments made by their departments means that, for the first time, full information on parliamentary travel costs will be in the public domain.A very large amount of complex information on expenditure on the political system is being released in this way and the bulk and complexity of the information means that it may easily be misinterpreted.In interpreting the information, it is particularly important to note that it is based on payments made during the period and not to travel undertaken. Payments for future travel and adjustments for travel in previous periods are significant complications in any comparison. It is also important to note that the time taken to secure refunds from airlines following changes in travel bookings is normally outside the control of Senators and Members.The tabling of information on travel costs must be seen in the context of other recent reforms to parliamentary entitlements. Since September 1997, the Government has centralised administration of travel entitlements in a single organisation—the Department of Finance and Administration—and signed a single service provision contract with Jetset Travel, permitting effective checking and monitoring of travel expenditure. Additionally, the Remuneration Tribunal, at the Government's request, has recently prescribed new travelling allowance arrangements which significantly increase the control of and accountability for that entitlement.The public release of travel cost information on a six-monthly basis has the potential to contribute significantly to accountability for the use of public monies. It need not follow, however, that the present format or level of detail of the information released is the best means of achieving the accountability objective. The outcomes of this tabling exercise will therefore be reviewed and the scope for refining the process or the type of information to be released will be considered in the light of that review.The Department of Finance and Administration took extensive measures to ensure that the information to be released is as robust and appropriately annotated as practicable. In addition to the large amount of information being tabled, supporting information on some types of cost is also available. Due to the large volume of the supporting information, and because it is unlikely to be of general interest, it has not been tabled but is available for release, in part or in whole, upon written request to the Special Minister of State.Senators, Members, and their staff are to be thanked for their co-operation in the process of preparing the travel information for tabling.The Department of Finance & administration should also be commended on its very professional job in the preparation of this detailed information.Bills3386r48233863386Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Patterson, I present a corrigendum to the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 which was tabled this morning.Ordered that the document be printed.Committees338733873387Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 be extended to 22 June 1998, and the report on the provisions of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 be extended to 23 June 1998.33873387Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Woodley)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the commercial utilisation of native wildlife and on the effects of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport be extended to 23 June 1998.Miscellaneous33873387338715:49:003387Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Tierney, I present additional information received by the Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee relating to the additional estimates supplementary hearings for 1997-98.Committees33873387338715:50:003387Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I present the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Papua New Guinea Update . I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—PAPUA NEW GUINEA UPDATEBILATERAL RELATIONSRecommendation 14: the Australian Government recognise the significance of Papua New Guinea in its foreign policy priorities and acknowledge through the maintenance of the AusAID and Defence Cooperation Programs the unique challenges that Papua New Guinea faces in building its administrative capacity, in developing its infrastructure, particularly in health, education, and employment generation, in improving law and order and in resolving the Bougainville crisis peacefullyRESPONSEOur relations with Papua New Guinea are a key concern of the Government. A united, stable and prosperous Papua New Guinea is a primary Australian foreign policy objective, not least because we share a common border.In addition our substantial trade and investment ties with Papua New Guinea coupled with the presence of upwards of 10,000 Australians in Papua New Guinea underlines the importance of Papua New Guinea to Australia.Through the Treaty of Development Cooperation, Australia has made a strong commitment to assist Papua New Guinea in the challenge of nation building. In 1996-97 Papua New Guinea will receive about $319.5 million in development assistance. It remains by far the largest recipient of Australian development assistance. The aid program aims to help Papua New Guinea achieve self-reliance through broad-based and sustainable development. Its approach is to help Papua New Guinean organisations build their planning and administrative capacity and to extend the provision of basic services to rural areas, especially to women and children. Priority areas within the program are health, education, transport and communications, law and justice, renewable resources and the private sector.In relation to the Bougainville crisis, restoration of essential services on the island is seen by all parties as a key to the peace process. Total Australian assistance committed for Bougainville reconstruction since 1991 now exceeds $28 million. About $11 million has already been spent; $15 million is already programmed for rehabilitation of schools and health facilities which are under construction. Australian assistance includes $4 million towards an International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies relief package.A new program currently being developed aims to support the peace process by strengthening the capacity of the Bougainville Transitional Government and local Councils of Elders in service delivery and conflict resolution in Bougainville. AusAID has funded a number of non-governmental organisations which are directly involved in conflict resolution and peace building among Bougainvillean communities.The Defence Cooperation (DC) Program seeks to improve the management, leadership and basic military skills of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF), with the aim of creating a more professional and well-disciplined force. DC, through the presence of an ADF engineering unit and Mendi, also contributes to nation building. Australia recognises that the most effective way to improve the skills base of the PNGDF is through training. The DC program is therefore focused on the provision of training, and the sponsorship of ADF personnel in advisory positions within the PNGDF. The DC programme is currently being reviewed by Australia and Papua New Guinea, but training is expected to remain a top priority for both countries.The Sandline mercenary crisis had the unwelcome short term effect of forcing bilateral relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea to a low point. But it demonstrated also the substantial influence we can have when we vigorously and consistently pursue issues of fundamental importance to us. It had the benefit also of forcing Australia to re-examine closely this important bilateral relationship. The Government has taken the opportunity to re-establish relations on a more mature, forward-looking basis.The Government has worked hard in recent months to reinvigorate the relationship. Mr Downer conducted a very successful visit to Papua New Guinea in late August, discussing a range of key issues with Prime Minister Skate, Foreign Minister Genia and other Papua New Guinea leaders. He emphasised our determination to work with Papua New Guinea on issues such as assisting Papua New Guinea to meet its economic reform and development priorities, better use of the Defence Cooperation programme to improve the effectiveness of the PNGDF, and peace and reconstruction on Bougainville. In addition, a strong Australian Government delegation led by Mr Downer attended the 1997 Australia-Papua New Guinea Ministerial Forum held in October. The delegation included four ministers and two junior members of the executive. One of the ministers, Senator Parer, extended his stay in Papua New Guinea beyond the Forum to visit Australian mining interests in the country. Other high level contact, including both telephone conversations and meetings between Mr Howard and Mr Skate have underlined Australia's determination to work closely with Papua New Guinea on matters of interest to us both.The Australian Government responded quickly to Papua New Guinea's request for assistance to combat the effects of the drought. An AusAID sponsored rapid assessment team undertook a survey of the worst affected areas of the country on the basis of which it advised the Papua New Guinea Government of the type of response required. The RAAF has been delivering relief supplies to the worst affected areas inaccessible by road and Australian funds have been channelled through NGOs for assistance in the areas of water supply, agricultural recovery, health supplementary feeding, and monitoring. The Australian Government has assured Papua New Guinea that it will do whatever is necessary to support Papua New Guinea's own efforts to alleviate the impact of the drought.A further example of the Government's efforts to work in partnership with Papua New Guinea is our facilitation of the Bougainville peace talks involving the Papua New Guinea Government and the Bougainvillean parties.DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIONRecommendation 1 the Australian Government and/or the legal profession provide assistance in the areas of legal information and research;Recommendation 10 AusAID, in consultation with the Government of Papua New Guinea, develop a follow-up to the customs projectRecommendation 11 AusAID examine the levels of support provided to non-government organisations and community groups in Papua New Guinea, with particular reference to facilitating access to funding by local organisations and increasing cooperation between government and non-government organisationsRecommendation 12 AusAID consider ways in which greater flexibility can be built into the design, delivery and modification of assistance programsRESPONSEThe overall objective of Papua New Guinea-Australia development cooperation in the law and justice sector is to improve access to legal and judicial services and increase the responsiveness of the justice system to community needs. Projects are currently under development to strengthen the Attorney-General's Department, National Judicial Staff Service, Ombudsman's Commission and the proposed Human Rights Commission.Specific assistance in the area of legal information will be provided through a project to increase access to the laws of Papua New Guinea by assisting publication of the laws and a range of information on the legal system. In summary, the project would provide assistance for the production of:the current statutory and case law in an accessible form, and establish systems to support regular updating and distribution;informed and comprehensive analyses of key areas of Papua New Guinea law in an appropriate and cost effective way; andstraightforward texts that explain the major laws and legal processes which impact upon them.AusAID is conducting an evaluation of the customs project (as part of A broader evaluation of institutional strengthening projects in Papua New Guinea). The evaluation will involve liaison with the Government of Papua New Guinea and the Australian Customs Services and will consider the value of a follow-up project. To date, the Government of Papua New Guinea has not requested further assistance in the customs area. AusAID would give serious consideration to any such request in the future.AusAID has been working to set up a non-governmental organisation support scheme (the Community Development Scheme) under the Papua New Guinea bilateral program. The aim of the scheme is to promote sustainable development at the community level through the provision of appropriate financial and technical support to Papua New Guinean non-government organisations. It is also expected to foster interaction and mutual links between Papua New Guinean and Australian non-government organisations. The scheme design has been submitted to Papua New Guinea Government authorities for approval.Opportunities also exist for non-government organisations to participate in AusAID funded projects such as the Women's and Children's Health Project, the Rural Health Program and the National Forestry and Conservation Action Plan.AusAID is conscious of the need for flexibility to meet the challenges raised by the rapid growth and complex nature of the Papua New Guinea program. AusAID's programs are designed in consultation with the relevant agencies of the Government Papua New Guinea. The programs aims to strengthen the administrative capacities of those agencies and are designed so as not to impose administrative burdens beyond the agencies' capabilities. Regular sector meetings with Papua New Guinean agencies provide opportunities for these kinds of issues to be raised and addressed. AusAID is also developing innovative program delivery mechanisms such as trust accounts and sector investment funding within agreed policy frameworks. These approaches allow for a greater degree of flexibility in the planning and implementation of aid-funded activities. Rather than imposing additional bureaucratic burdens on the Papua New Guinea administration, these mechanisms aim to use existing Government of Papua New Guinea systems and to promote a sense of local program ownership.TRADE AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSRecommendation 3 the efficacy of establishing a free trade agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea, similar to the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, be given further consideration by both governmentsRecommendation 4 Austrade pursue with the Papua New Guinea Department of Mining and Petroleum the feasibility of introducing standardised contracts for new resource development projects. At the time of their individual negotiation, regard should be given to the concerns of local communities, and individual landholdersRecommendation 5 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Austrade, examine the mechanisms through which Australia might provide input to formulation of a code of conduct for business in Papua New Guinea, and work within these forums to achieve action through the appropriate government agencies in Papua New GuineaRESPONSEThe Government shares the view of the Committee on the importance of Australia's economic relationship with Papua New Guinea and the need for Australian business to maintain and enhance their presence in Papua New Guinea.While the current commercial framework, PATCRA, provides non-reciprocal duty free access for almost all Papua New Guinea exports to Australia, the Government is prepared to explore further means to stimulate the trade and economic relationship. Our recent efforts to improve the commercial relationship have focused mainly on Papua New Guinea's implementation of the World Bank and IMF programs, and the market liberalisation and macroeconomic stipulations these contain. For example, this is a centrepiece of the Minister for Trade, Mr Fischer's, Market Development Task Force Strategy and Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement. The possibility of moving towards a more comprehensive free trade agreement, along the lines of CER, may improve as Papua New Guinea moves to a more liberal trade and economic system, but as yet it is not con sidered appropriate to push for a CER-type agreement.The PNG Chamber of Mines and Petroleum, which counts among its membership almost all Australian resource companies active in Papua New Guinea, has been asked by Austrade to refer the basic Indonesian-style standard contract to Chamber members and seek their views. A positive response by Chamber members could form the basis of an Austrade-sponsored joint submission to the Papua New Guinea Department of Mines and Energy as recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.It should be noted that the Minerals Council of Australia has developed the Australian Minerals Industry Code for Environmental Management, which is a voluntary code guiding minerals companies, wherever they operate, towards effective environmental management. The Code obliges signatories to identify stakeholders, including local communities and landowners, and to provide them with information on proposals and operation. A number of Australian resource companies active in Papua New Guinea are signatories to the Code.The Australian Government supports the promotion of honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability in public and private dealings involving Government and business in Papua New Guinea. In this regard, the Australian Government, through AusAID, supports the activities of the newly established chapter of Transparency International (TI) in Papua New Guinea. A possible Code of Conduct for business was raised by the head of the Papua New Guinea chapter of TI, Sir Anthony Siaguru, at the Ethics in Business Forum held in Papua New Guinea in August 1996.At the business level, Austrade will continue to work closely with the Australia/Papua New Guinea Business Council and the Business Council of Papua New Guinea to have such a Code accepted and practised by Council members.DEFENCE COOPERATIONRecommendation 6 the Australian Government maintain dialogue on defence matters with their political and official counterparts in Papua New Guinea at all levels in order to enhance understanding in both countries of mutual and differing strategic interests and to assist the PNGDF in the training and discipline of its force;Recommendation 7 the Australian Government and the Department of Defence continue to encourage the Papua New Guinea Defence Force to adopt guidelines consistent with legal and human rights principles, particularly when deploying PNGDF personnel on civilian tasks; and Recommendation 8 encourage and, where appropriate, provide assistance to, the PNGDF's training programs designed to equip armed forces personnel with the capabilities and skills essential to the effective use of the armed forces in restoring law and order to where civil unrest has occurredRESPONSEOver the past 12 months a dialogue on defence matters has continued between Ministers, and with all levels of the PNGDF and the Papua New Guinea Department of Defence. Key topics of discussion have included the Joint Review of Defence Cooperation and reshaping the defence relationship to better meet the needs of both Papua New Guinea and Australia. Obviously we are concerned that despite this dialogue Papua New Guinea chose to hire mercenaries without consulting Australia or the rest of the region and seriously underestimated our likely response to this development.This crisis has, however, created the opportunity for a fundamental reappraisal of the overall bilateral relationship and the conditions for working with Papua New Guinea to "re-engineer" aspects of it. This review will build on the work already commenced as part of a longer standing review of Defence Cooperation.A key aspect of our longer term strategy will be the introduction of a new three-tiered dialogue structure for formal Australia-Papua New Guinea defence contacts which is aimed at improving communication and the management of the defence relationship. This concept, endorsed at the Ministerial meeting held in Brisbane in November 1996 by the Papua New Guinea and Australian Ministers for Defence, provides for a structure of regular meetings between Defence Ministers, senior ADF and Departmental personnel. It does not preclude ad hoc meetings on an as needs or opportunity basis.In the course of regular dialogue, Defence and other Departments have consistently encouraged the adoption of guidelines by the PNGDF which are consistent with legal and human rights. The Australian Government has made representations to the Papua New Guinea Government through the Australian High Commission in Port Moresby on allegations of human rights violations by the PNGDF which have been confirmed.The need for such guidelines is reinforced at the working level by ADF training provided to PNGDF personnel both in Papua New Guinea and in Australia. The training is based on ADF doctrine and, therefore, promotes and is consistent with international legal and human rights principles. Some of the courses attended by PNGDF students also have specific training modules on human rights. In addition, through exchange posting to ADF units, PNGDF personnel are exposed to on-the-job training that reinforces these principles.Part of the training conducted in Papua New Guinea aims to develop basic military skills and discipline that will assist the PNGDF in the performance of their duties under the Constitution. This includes their role in assisting the police in the maintenance of law and order. For example, the ADF is conducting training for PNGDF junior non-commissioned officers prior to their deployment on election duties. The training aims to provide basic skills for control of those under their command and therefore improve levels of discipline and the PNGDF's capacity to perform their law and order duties during the election period. We will be considering the implications of recent events in our review of the defence relationship.In September, Defence Minister McLachlan and his Papua New Guinea counterpart, Mao Zeming, agreed to a new framework for defence cooperation activities between Australia and Papua New Guinea. A key focus in the new defence partnership will be training assistance, in particular training which aims to develop leadership and discipline within the PNGDF.BOUGAINVILLERecommendation 9 the Australian Government encourage the Government of Papua New Guinea to consider inviting international observers from either the International Committee of the Red Cross or the International Commission of Jurists to be stationed on BougainvilleRESPONSEOrganisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Commission of Jurists could play a useful role in any Bougainville peace process, though at this stage it is too early to define what that role would be. The Australian Government supports the Bougainville Peace Strategy as developed by the Papua New Guinea Government. This strategy focuses on the central importance of the Bougainville Transitional Government (BTG) and the strengthening of the role and function of traditional sources of authority (Councils of Elders). The participation of international organisations in this process is envisaged by the strategy once talks have taken place to establish the ground rules for their involvement. We see the current period as a window of opportunity to further the peace process, and reach the kind of agreement where international organisations could make a valuable contribution. Within this context, some form of agreement must be established among the people of Bougainville before external monitoring can take place. PARLIAMENTARY RELATIONSRecommendation 2 the Australian Parliament assist the Parliament of Papua New Guinea in the development of its committee systemRESPONSEArrangements currently exist to facilitate regular liaison between Australian and Papua New Guinea parliamentary committees, and the Australian and Papua New Guinea Parliamentary Group is another means of developing contacts between the parliaments of both countries. The Government notes the advice of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, that the matter of assistance to the Papua New Guinea Parliament in the development of its committee system is one for the Australian Parliament to decide.EDUCATION LINKSRecommendation 13 the Australian Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs encourage the development of more courses in Melanesian studies in Australian universities and the inclusion of Papua New Guinea studies in Australian school curricula and fund a position in Australia-Papua New Guinea studies at the University of Papua New GuineaRESPONSEDecisions regarding the structure and content of university courses are matters over which the Commonwealth has no direct control or influence. The Commonwealth provides operating funds for universities in the form of a block grant and does not earmark operating funds for particular faculties or disciplines. There is no mechanism within current funding arrangements for directing support towards institutions which teach any particular field of study.In recent years Commonwealth, State and Territory government have collaborated to develop curriculum framework documents in eight agreed learning areas, including studies of society and environment. The documents are being used in some form in all State and Territory education systems. The studies of society and environment framework documents aim to expand students' knowledge and understanding of their own society, other societies, local and global environments and relationships between environments and societies so that they become informed, responsible and active citizens.In relation to the recommendation that the Commonwealth Government fund a position in Australia-Papua New Guinea studies at the University of Papua New Guinea, unfortunately operating grants are paid to Australian higher education institutions and the Higher Education Funding Act does not allow for funding of positions at overseas universities. 15:51:003392Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I note the government response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade as far as Papua New Guinea is concerned. I have a particular interest in that area, being a member of the parliamentary friendship group with PNG. As some of my colleagues would remember, we had a visit recently from a delegation from PNG. I recall, not long after I came to this place, being a member of a delegation that visited Papua New Guinea. The leader of that delegation was a Labor member who is no longer with us. I think that was one of the first times I had been outside of Australia.As I said, we had a visit recently by a delegation from PNG led by the Speaker, Mr John Pundari. While he was here, both he and the delegation expressed to members of our friendship group the sincere gratitude of the Papua New Guinea people for the efforts that Australia made, particularly during the horrific drought that Papua New Guinea has experienced in recent times.I note that in this report quite a few recommendations were made to the government, and that the government has responded. One of the major recommendations made by the committee was:That the Australian government recognises the significance of Papua New Guinea in its foreign policy priorities and acknowledges through the maintenance of AusAID and defence cooperation programs the unique challenges that Papua New Guinea faces in building its administrative capacity, in developing its infrastructure, particularly in health, education and employment generation, in improving law and order and in resolving the Bougainville crisis peacefully.Those matters should be of great concern to all Australians because, as you would know, Madam Deputy President, Papua New Guinea is right on our front doorstep. It is only five kilometres from Australia, at its shortest point. We are reminded constantly in our committees, particularly our rural committees, of the problems that may arise with quarantine matters coming in from PNG. So I note with interest the response from the government. It notes that in 1996-97 PNG will receive something like $320 million in development assistance and that it remains the largest recipient of Australian development assistance. Those aid programs are there to help PNG achieve self-reliance through broad-based and sustained development.I recall the delegation that I was a member of back in 1988. Warwick Smith was the deputy leader. I remember we made recommendations to the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Gareth Evans. One of the major recommendations we made related to the fact that at that time the assistance to PNG was given in a lump sum paid into a bank account in Sydney. It seemed to us that a lot of that money was siphoned off by politicians in PNG and returned to their villages for their own political benefit. It was abundantly clear to us as we moved around PNG that other countries were targeting their aid to PNG in such a way that they were giving great effect to their sponsorships. It was not unusual to see hospitals being sponsored by the Japanese government.We were constantly asked in our travels what Australia was doing. All we could say was, `We have put $300 million into a bank account in Sydney for you to look after yourselves.' One of the recommendations we made when we returned from PNG was that we should be targeting a lot more of our aid to areas that we could see needed it, such as law and order. I recall also—and Senator Carr may be interested in this—that we recommended that members of our Public Service who had expertise in looking after employment projects and the like should give PNG some assistance because at that time—and it still happens, unfortunately—there were fringe dwellers around most of the major towns, people who were unemployed and who could not return to their own villages. It was a breeding ground for the rascals.Of course, we all know the havoc, the deaths and the vandalism that those people have caused in PNG and are still causing and the effect they have had on law and order. I guess that is one of the major concerns that we as an Australian parliament would have—that law and order in PNG is still a major problem. We should be doing all we can to help them.So it was against that background that I was fortunate enough to be a member of the delegation, along with Senator Bourne, Ian Sinclair and Senator Loosley, that returned to PNG in 1990 in an effort to assist in the Bougainville peace process. While we were not totally successful, we came back and made some recommendations to the government of the day that certainly helped with that process. I think we identified areas of need and concern.At that time, in 1990, one of the major concerns was health and housing because of the havoc that had been wreaked on the infrastructure in Bougainville. Their hospital had been burned down. The hospital they had there at the time, where they were treating members of the PNG air force, members of the militia and the local residents, was nothing short of horrific. But, with the aid of the International Red Cross and well-meaning non-government organisations from Australia, they were getting very good assistance and managed a lot of self-help. We have moved on since then and the peace process in Bougainville has proceeded with quite a deal of assistance from Australia.One of the other recommendations I note also is that in the political process we continue our parliamentary relations. I alluded earlier to the visit here of a parliamentary group from PNG led by their Speaker. The government, in its response to that recommendation, has said that the arrangements that exist between our parliamentary friendship groups are a way of developing and continuing contacts between the parliaments of both countries. The Speaker and the President have even gone as far as to suggest that the parliament here should decide on giving them some assistance to upgrade their committee system.I understand that from time to time members of their parliament and those who assist in the parliament, clerks and whatever, come here to see how we do it. One of the major problems has been that not enough of we politicians visit PNG to impart our knowledge to them. After all is said and done, they are still basically a very young democracy. They gained independence back in 1975, so they are only 23 years old. They certainly do need the friendship and guidance of our people.I note the responses that the government has made to this very good report. I hope that these responses are acted upon. There are areas, particularly as far as education is concerned, where I think Australia can play a big role. But I think our major role is in friendship with that country through our political process to help ensure that law and order is maintained and improved, because that seems to me to be one of the major problems that they have. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents33933393339310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the AuditorGeneral Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 45 of 1997-98—Performance Audit—Planning for rural health .16:01:003393Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on this Auditor-General's report, which is report No. 45 of 1997-98, Performance audit—planning for rural health . The supply of health services in rural areas is one of the priorities of this government and there has been a problem that has developed over the last few years. The delivery of proper and appropriate rural services is vital. Along with a number of other priorities that the government has for regional Australia, the maintenance of rural health and hospitals, rural ancillary health services, rural doctors and encouragement for doctors to go to the bush and make a career, are very important issues.It is an area that always comes up for discussion in terms of the standard of living that people have in regional areas. The government has addressed it. There is a lot more to do in terms of the supply of rural GPs, and there are a number of programs that are in place. We have introduced the John Flynn scholarships, which provide an opportunity for people to go out into the bush to study and to maintain and develop a career there. We have encouraged wonderful programs like the rural term program at the University of Newcastle, where young doctors, as part of their medical training, go out to see the pleasures of regional areas in cities of New South Wales—my state—such as Tamworth, Wagga and Dubbo. It provides an opportunity for those people involved in medical training to see first-hand the advantages of living in rural and regional areas and to see the very high standard of health support that is provided by large major hospitals and, of course, by regional hospitals as well.I do commend a number of the university courses in providing this sort of service. The University of Newcastle, which is very much part of the area that I service in the Hunter, not only takes students on academic prowess but also takes students who come from regional areas and Aboriginal populations as well. It provides the sort of background which enables people to take the challenge, when they may not necessarily come from regional areas, to go out and serve and develop their career in regional New South Wales and beyond.The great difficulty these days is that, unless students come from the bush, the temptation is to not understand why they should go there. There are a number of reasons for that. One, of course, is that perhaps the educational opportunities provided at country high schools is not as substantial as at city high schools. Many partners of potential rural GPs do not wish to `up-sticks' and leave the more comfortable confines of metropolitan areas. Many potential rural GPs do not wish to leave their family and the metropolitan areas that they find comfortable. But the issue is one that we are very concerned about and that we have substantially addressed and will continue to do so.We have, as I said, supported specific university scholarship programs, and they will continue. The John Flynn scholarships have been very successful. They have been applied for by a great number of people—I think probably over 100 recipients have received the John Flynn scholarship. The government is absolutely committed to encouraging these sorts of initiatives to provide the sort of assistance that rural health requires and rural GPs have come to expect.The Auditor-General's report looks at the planning for rural health. It acknowledges that there are some problems there, but it also acknowledges that the government has attempted to revive and improve the services that are provided in regional and rural areas.16:06:003394West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate. I think this is a timely report that the National Audit Office has brought down. Rural health is a very important issue. We need to remember that more than a quarter of Australia's population actually live outside of the capital cities. It would appear that it was quite hard for the ANAO to actually determine precisely the amounts of money that is spent on health in those rural areas and also some of the outcomes, because they are not quantified adequately.I can tell you some of the issues that are raging in rural health at present. This one is not restricted to rural health but it is impacting on rural areas. It is the concern that the Commonwealth government has not negotiated the latest round of agreements with the states. Five of the states and territories have refused to sign the Commonwealth-state health agreements, and those states that are refusing to sign include only one Labor state. That state is not leading the scream against the federal government; it is the conservative governments, it is Mr Court in Western Australia and Mr Kennett in Victoria, who are leading the protest against this Commonwealth government and its general failure to recognise the importance of health, and particularly rural health issues.What happens is that the bigger hospitals are being given funding. They have a larger budget. The states can make small percentage cuts across the board in budgets but, when you have a small institution, a small cut to your already small budget has a much more severe effect. We are seeing that everywhere—not just in New South Wales but across Australia. This federal government, this coalition government, this Liberal-National Party government, is failing to actually understand the repercussions of its policies here in Canberra on the delivery of services to the bush.The delivery of rural health services in New South Wales, and I would suggest everywhere, is affected by things such as the fact that the Commonwealth have failed to put in adequate resources, though they have done all sorts of fast work with shifting the costs. Because they have failed to do that, and they have failed also with their aged care policy, we are seeing more older people staying longer in the public hospital system in rural Australia. That is placing a major burden upon the hospital system and not upon the aged care system, where this government should be actually funding better than they are doing, instead of making people pay, instead of assessing people's homes as an asset. I have got people whose house is worth $30,000 but, because that is above the $22,300 limit, they are being assessed as having to pay additional accommodation charges. That is the sort of thing that is impacting very seriously on rural health in Australia, and this government has not done anything about it. They should be condemned for it.Another issue that is being impacted upon by a decision of this coalition government, the Liberal-National government in Australia, is their abolition of and failure to continue with the dental health program. That is having a monumental effect. Labor introduced that five years ago now and put it on triennial funding. The funding was up, but we had every intention of continuing this program because it had done what it was aimed to do: to help reduce waiting lists for people who have dental health needs. What have we seen? We saw this massively cruel, mean-spirited government cut the Commonwealth component of that because they said it had reached the objective; the waiting lists had been reduced. What have we seen in this two years since they have cut the funding? The waiting lists are back up to what they were, particularly in rural areas, because people in rural areas do not have access to the dental hospitals as people do in the cities.The waiting lists are back up to what they were. People are waiting years to get dental care. People who are acute, urgent cases because they have got toothache or because they have got a filling that has fallen out and a tooth that is rotten are still having to wait weeks under this program. The federal government have abrogated their responsibility as far as dental health goes, particularly in rural areas. They have just not been there where they are needed. That indicates their continued lack of concern and lack of care about people living in rural areas and their health needs.Having had a quick view of the ANAO report, I find some of the key findings very interesting. The report says that there is evidence of a clear policy commitment to addressing the health needs of rural and remote Australians by the Department of Health and Family Services. There might be a clear policy commitment, but that commitment is not being met with dollars and cents. You can have all the policies under the sun but, unless you put in the commitment of dollars and cents and adequately train staff, it means nothing. The report goes on to say:However, neither the Department of Health and Family Services 1997-98 corporate plan or its 1996-97 annual report make specific reference to a health objective for rural and remote Australians. Further, rural health does not appear amongst DHFS's key priorities within its range of programs.That is a very telling statement. The department does not have rural health appearing amongst its key priorities, yet 27 per cent of the population are affected by this. Over a quarter of the population do not rate a priority in this government's Department of Health and Family Services. I think that that is something they ought to be criticised most strongly for. It is indicative of this government's lack of concern and derogation of their responsibility to people in rural areas of Australia. The report also commented on the lack of consultation, which was certainly raised by stakeholders at the national rural public health conference in Adelaide in October of last year. The report also makes a comment that there is apparently little or no consultation or involvement with local government.The audit office found that DHFS's reporting on its rural health program meets the requirements of the annual reporting guidelines but then goes on to say:Notwithstanding such reporting, and largely because of the relatively small size of rural health expenditure in the DHFS budget, there is little or no aggregate information available to parliament and stakeholders on: the cost to the Commonwealth of its participation in the national rural health scheme; contributions to the national rural health scheme by participating governments and the level of resources, costs and budget impacts of rural health programs; program outputs and achievements by the various levels of government; and the aggregate performance of the program in progressing agreed proposals. As the national health agency, the Department of Health and Family Services does not take steps to obtain, collate or report on aggregate national expenditure or program achievements dealing with health in rural and remote communities.I find that fairly serious comment and a fairly serious criticism. It just goes to show that when they are talking about rural health they keep concentrating on the number of doctors that are out in the bush. That is fine. There is a shortage of doctors, which is slowly being reversed. But there is nothing, from my quick scanning here and presumably nothing that has come to the ANAO from the department, talking about the shortage of registered nurses, speech therapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health nurses, mental health workers, social workers, occupational therapists and physiotherapists—the whole range of paramedical professions. Health is not just delivered by doctors; health is delivered by a range of professional specialist people and it is vitally important that this government starts to address the needs of the rural communities by maintaining their adequate access to all of these particular services.I would end by reminding people that rural Australians make up over a quarter of the population of this country but it would appear that this government, through their failure to implement a number of programs, do not care about them. I would remind people of the classic example of what has happened to the rural dental health waiting lists. They have blown out. There are people with acute toothache having to wait weeks.16:17:003396Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I wanted to contribute to this debate by adding just briefly that one of the main problems that I have perceived in my travels, particularly throughout Western Australia, in rural, regional and remote areas is not toothache or dental health but headache. That headache has been caused by those senators opposite, including Senator Mackay, and the way they voted in relation to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] .Throughout Western Australia, there are thousands upon thousands of people whose mental health and wellbeing have been affected by the decisions made in this very place in relation to the Wik legislation. There are, in Perth, hundreds of geologists who are out of work—people involved in the exploration industry—because these people opposite chose to vote based on a cynical, political perception and a factional deal within the Labor Party. Senator Mackay made a deliberate choice, as did Senator Bishop opposite, to destroy the exploration and mining industry in Western Australia. That is the issue affecting rural and regional Australia.The Auditor-General's report that is before us today focuses on the Commonwealth delivering health services to rural Australia. If you want to look at the issue seriously—and if these people want to stop playing games about who really cares about rural and regional Australia—you will look at rural and regional Australia as a whole. If you look at their voting record and their rhetoric, they would say, `Let us just close down mining and exploration activity,' which is the mainstay of Western Australia and Queensland—and I see my good friend and colleague Senator Ian Macdonald has joined us. They would close it all down, close the economy down out there, put everyone on welfare in rural and regional Australia and say, `Let us give them some dental services so they can look after their teeth.' They would sit there without any jobs, without any mining and without any economy—but they would have good teeth. Ripper, Labor Party.Go to Karratha or to Kalgoorlie, Senator Bishop, and say, `Our policy is that you cannot have mines and you cannot have exploration. You are going to have native title from Wyndham to Esperance. You will not have any jobs but you will all have good teeth.' That is the Labor Party's policy. That is what you are going to the electorate on. We will have great welfare. The welfare benefits will be increased but we will not have any economy. The people out there in regional Western Australia that I know understand that very well.I would love Senator Mackay to go up to the front bar of the Palace Hotel and say, `We are going to give you better dental health.' Do you know what they will say? They will say, `Senator Mackay and your Labor cronies—Stephen Smith and Mark Bishop and Peter Cook—we are not interested in your dental health. We are interested in how you voted on Wik. Go back there and put that bill through because we want the mines, we want some exploration and we want some geologists back at work. We want to get some export income going.' That is what the people of Western Australia and, I am sure, the people of Queensland will say.I do note this report of the Auditor-General. The Commonwealth is fair dinkum about improving health to rural and regional Australia, but do you know what else we are fair dinkum about? Getting the economy in rural and regional Australia going again. We want to give them the foundations of a strong economy in their communities—not wreck them—based on economic development. That is when you get doctors, physiotherapists, nurses, speech therapists and occupational therapists. If you want those sorts of people out there you have to have some people there with real jobs. You do not do that by coming in here and getting rolled by the left, like Nick Bolkus and all of those other people who thought it was pretty tricky to vote against the Racial Discrimination Act in 1993 and then came in here and said, `Good idea. Let us apply the Racial Discrimination Act to the NTA.'Senator Bishop, I know, understands what his party has done to Western Australia. I am sure he has trouble living with the way he voted. I am sure that is the case because he must understand what he has done to Western Australia. But the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, also comes from Western Australia. What he has done to Western Australia is a national disgrace. I do not know how he can live with himself. Graeme Campbell up in Kalgoorlie understands it and a lot of the people in the Labor Party and the Labor movement do. Julian Grill in the goldfields understands it. Labor Party figures do understand it but they have been rolled by the left and they are destroying Western Australia. The quicker we can get that Wik legislation through this place the quicker we can get the economy going, build rural communities and rebuild people's health in rural and remote parts of Australia.I do note the report, but I also note the gross hypocrisy of members opposite who say that they care about rural and regional Australia and yet only weeks ago voted down a bill that would have been the best piece of medicine for rural and regional Australia that they could have had this year. It would have been better than a dentist, better than the drill, better than fluoride treatment, better than floss. They could have returned their economy to health and returned the health of rural and regional Australia by putting one piece of legislation through. I implore the Australian Labor Party to get serious about rural and regional Australia. Do not just talk about it. Vote for measures that will help them. The best start would be to vote to support the 10-point plan.16:23:003397Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—I want to take the opportunity on speaking to the Auditor-General's report to talk about rural health in so far as it affects the part of Queensland that I come from, particularly an initiative announced by the Queensland Premier, Mr Borbidge, last week when he indicated that a medical school would be established at James Cook University in Townsville. Madam Acting Deputy President Patterson, with your interest in health and your knowledge of North Queensland, I know you have been to James Cook University a number of times, this is tremendous news for the north. It is a great initiative of the Queensland government in conjunction with the Australian government.What it will mean for rural health is that doctors will be trained out of the capital cities. One of the real problems with rural health in Australia is that it is very difficult to get doctors into rural areas. Madam Acting Deputy President, you would have heard the member for Kennedy, Mr Katter, talking about the town of Alpha. He uses that as a good example of the whole problem. They have not had a doctor in that town, a town of 700 to 800 people, for a decade now. It is quite a remote town, and there is simply no way of getting doctors out of the city. Even though there is an oversupply, an abundance of doctors in the suburbs, you cannot get them into rural areas.The thought is that, if you get doctors training in the rural areas, for example, in a rural regional area like Townsville, they are more likely to stay in that area. The problem seems to be that a lot of country kids go to the medical schools in the cities, they like the life, they marry someone who comes from that area so they stay in the capital cities. That is one of the reasons why you cannot get them out. The thought is that, if you can get these young students training in the non-capital city areas, you have a better chance of keeping them in those areas. I just wanted to highlight that. It is an announcement made by Mr Borbidge last week.It is an announcement that follows a phenomenal amount of work that Peter Lindsay, the member for Herbert, has done for that particular school. Peter Lindsay has worked tirelessly. I was there when he petitioned the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge)—he petitioned anyone he could to make sure the school happened. I am particularly pleased for Mr Lindsay that the Queensland government has decided to join with the Commonwealth government in putting the medical school at JCU. It is a great initiative.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is a great feather in his cap.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—It is a great feather in Peter Lindsay's cap. It is a great feather in the cap of the Borbidge-Sheldon government in Queensland. It will do tremendous things for rural health.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees3398339810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to the committees as follows: Economics Legislation Committee— Substitute members: Senator Crane to replace Senator Ferguson for the consideration of the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 and the provision of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 Senator Heffernan to replace Senator Ferguson, from 11 am, for 5 June 1998 Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Coonan to replace Senator Heffernan, from 9 am till 7 pm, on 4 June 1998 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Lightfoot to replace Senator Sandy Macdonald, from 5 pm, on 10 June till 12 June 1998 Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Substitute members: Senator Eggleston to replace Senator O'Chee for 4 June 1998 Senator Heffernan to replace Senator O'Chee for 5 June 1998.Documents33983398339810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor- General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 46 of 1997-98—Financial Control and Administration Audit: Internal Audit .Bills3399r4863399Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.339916:28:003399Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Madam President, Australia sent its young service men and women overseas on service with the solemn undertaking that, in the event of the war causing their death, their widow or widower would be cared for.Since 1914, that undertaking has been honoured by the payment of a war widow's pension as special compensation for the loss of the family breadwinner. It is neither taxed nor means tested, and until now it has been indexed according only to the consumer price index.This bill links the war widow's pension and the basic war widower's pension to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, whenever this measure exceeds the growth in the consumer price index.This will ensure the basic war widow's pension and the war widower's pension continue at the same level as the service and age pensions, as they have done since 1964.This bill expands on the Government's 1996 election commitment to deliver a pension benchmark of at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. The Government has already delivered on this promise for service and age pensioners. Now 100,000 war widows and war widowers will also share in the improvement in community living standards.The immediate effect of this bill will be an increase of $6.80, bringing the total of war widow's and war widower's pensions to $378.60 per fortnight. Over the next four years, the cost of the new indexation arrangements for war widows is expected to be approximately $164 million.Madam President, this bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to protecting the living standards and financial security of older Australians. I commend this bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) adjourned.Bills3399s233399Debate resumed from 29 November 1995, on motion by Senator Spindler:That this bill be now read a second time.16:29:003399Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995 [1996] is a significant piece of legislation. The Senate committee that inquired into the bill recommended that the bill be renamed the sexuality and transgender status discrimination bill. It is a law for all Australians. I will not speak for my full time on this bill because I wish to leave as much time as possible for other senators to speak on this important piece of legislation and the issues that it deals with. The Democrats' views have been placed on record in this chamber many times from Senator Sid Spindler's original second reading speech on this legislation to the Democrats' active participation in the Senate committee inquiry into the bill and related issues, and the responses to that report are in the Hansard from my colleague Senator Allison and by me earlier this year.As Senator Spindler has retired from this chamber, I am proud to now have carriage of this legislation on behalf of the Australian Democrats. There has been a lot of consultation in the bill's development prior to its introduction a few years ago and ongoing consultation throughout the community. There has also been an extensive Senate committee inquiry into the legislation and the issues that it seeks to address.Back in 1995 when former Senator Sid Spindler first introduced this bill he had this to say:The purpose of this bill is to ensure that people receive equal treatment in areas governed by Commonwealth law and are protected against discrimination on the grounds of their sexuality or their transgender identity.For the purpose of the bill sexuality is defined as heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.So, to emphasise for the record, this bill is about equality of treatment. It represents nothing more than that—a simple concept but a very important one.At the very core of Democrat philosophy, we believe that all Australians should be able to live a life free from discrimination, vilification, violence and harassment no matter who they are. This is not a radical view; I am sure most senators would agree with it. It should be an essential term of the relationship that Australian citizens have between their governments and themselves—that they can expect and, indeed, will receive the dignity that they are entitled to by virtue of their humanity.Sadly, as the Senate inquiry clearly demonstrated, this is not always the case in Australia, as elsewhere. In fact, for many Australians, this equality of treatment—this personal respect—is denied them. For some, it is on the basis of their race; for others it is their disability or their gender—and the parliament in the past has legislated in relation to those areas—and, for those for whom this bill is intended, it is their sexuality. In the same way that this nation proscribes racial, sexual and disability discrimination, so too the Democrats believe it should proscribe discrimination on the grounds of sexuality or transgender status. The reasons for that are simple: who amongst us would wish to be treated the way that some elements in society treat gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people every day of the week? That treatment was made clear by many witnesses before the Senate committee inquiry at their hearings around the country. None of us, I am sure, would wish to receive that sort of treatment and, if we are not willing to receive that treatment ourselves, we should not be prepared or willing to allow it to happen to others.What is frequently not understood or, worse, is ignored is that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Australians experience inordinately high levels of ill treatment simply because of who they are. In the areas of employment, some studies show that over 45 per cent of lesbians and gay men have experienced discrimination in the workplace, including loss of jobs, because of their sexuality. Almost one-third report harassment in their schools and universities. One fifth report inadequate and inappropriate medical treatment, while a staggering 70 per cent have had some experience of being verbally abused, threatened or physically assaulted in a public place. In the Sydney area alone, more than 35 men have been murdered because they were gay or their assailants thought they were gay.For those people who consider that this legislation confers special rights or privileges, I suggest to them, in view of those facts that I have just mentioned, that those experiences—to be subjected to such things—constitute anything but a privilege in our community. It is not about special rights or privilege; it is about equal treatment and equal protection.Many of these facts and the discrimination that people face were borne out in the report of the Senate inquiry, which Senator McKiernan, as chair of the relevant committee, tabled in December last year. I would like, at this stage, to thank Senator McKiernan on behalf of the Australian Democrats for his stewardship of our bill and for the diligent and sensitive way he handled what was and is, clearly, a sensitive political and social issue. I know Sid Spindler is personally particularly grateful for Senator McKiernan's chairing skills, and I think it is appropriate that I place that on the record now.As Senator McKiernan said when he tabled the report, it is currently not unlawful in many states, particularly Tasmania or Western Australia, to exclude people from some types of employment or accommodation on the basis of sexuality or gender status. In some jurisdictions, the way people dress, or the assumption that they might be homosexual, is still sufficient excuse to exclude them from some forms of employment. We are clearly talking about people's rights to earn a living and about basic rights in the way they choose to live their lives.Despite the clear and precise words used by Senator Spindler, and to a large extent supported by the Senate committee's report, it is unfortunate that some people in this place and outside have sought to sensationalise, misrepresent and distort the true meaning and purpose of this legislation and the impact and effect of it. To attempt to further oppress an already oppressed group of people is an unacceptable activity, I believe.Despite some people's impressions in some of the correspondence that I have received on this legislation, I wish to put some things on the record, because I think many people have relied on misinformation about this legislation, whether deliberate or not, and I think many have not read the bill or the Senate report. This bill does not force Christian and other religions to change their beliefs or to employ gay, lesbian or transgender people. As with other equal opportunity laws in Australia, this bill includes certain exemptions, including religious organisations and churches. This bill does not place children at risk. It does not make unlawful acts lawful. It does not require that homosexuality be `taught' or demonstrated in schools in some way. It does not force anyone to accept anyone else's lifestyle or legitimise any specific sexual practices. It does not allow people to cross dress in any way they choose in schools or at work, or to allow biological men to compete in women's sport. It does not do any of those things. It simply provides legal protection against discrimination in a similar way to that currently provided to people in relation to discrimination on the basis of sex, race or disability.In addition, some concern has been expressed over the inclusion of transgendered people in this bill. Again, this is an area where there has been a lot of misinformation or misunderstanding. The status of being transgendered is a medically recognised condition known as gender dysphoria. It is very different from transvestism or what has simply been called `cross dressing'. This bill aims to protect those people who suffer discrimination because they are gender dysphoric.It is true that many states and territories do afford some legal protection currently in Australia. I think the fact that the sky has not fallen in and society has not crumbled and collapsed around us demonstrates that this sort of legislation can be brought in without the massive social harm that some commentators suggest. What currently exists unfortunately is in an ad hoc and fragmented way across the states. For instance, in Western Australia and Tasmania there is absolutely no protection for Australians who experience discrimination or harassment as a result of their sexuality. In other states such protection is piecemeal or inadequate in various ways. The Australian Democrats believe it to be unacceptable that Australian citizens have different human rights depending on which state or territory they live in. This bill seeks to address that.The purpose of the bill is to allow people who have been unfairly discriminated against, on the basis of their sexuality or their transgender status, to achieve a level of justice. In essence, it seeks to protect all Australians, including heterosexual people, if they have been wrongly dismissed or refused employment, accommodation, access to goods and services or have been disadvantaged unfairly while attending or applying to educational institutions. At its core, this bill is about ensuring that all Australians are given a fair go.As my colleague former Senator Sid Spindler said when he introduced this bill into the Senate in 1995:Recognition is long overdue that lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people are sons, daughters, brothers, uncles, aunties and parents. They are members of families, they are members of society and they deserve to be treated as such, not as outcasts.Many people have expressed concern that in some way the bill, when enacted, may in some way abridge their freedom of religious expression. Again it is important to emphasise that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the bill contains specific exemptions for religious organisations who do discriminate but do so in a way that is in agreement with their religious principles and precepts.Some people have suggested that in terms of exemptions the bill does not go far enough. Others suggest the exemptions go too far. Through the extensive consultations in the development of this legislation—consultations that have continued every since it was tabled over two years ago—the Australian Democrats believe that an appropriate balance has been struck. I think it is important to emphasise that it is no longer acceptable and we can no longer afford not to act to address this problem.We do reject the proposition that has been suggested from some quarters that schools should have the right to exclude students on the grounds of their actual or, in some cases, perceived sexuality. This is clearly different from specific activities that people may do that are in breach of rules. These sorts of things apply regardless of sexuality, and that is the purpose and the construct of the exemptions that operate within this bill. The Democrats believe that access to education is also a fundamental human right and we reject the proposition completely that students should be excluded from education solely on the grounds of their sexuality or perceived sexuality.Finally, I wish to repeat a quote from the Roman Catholic Church in a statement issued from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome which was entitled The pastoral care of homosexual persons, because it outlines the fundamental principle that this bill addresses and that, I am sure, all senators would support. The statement included the section that read:It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others, which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.The sexuality discrimination bill implements that principle in law and I hope it will go some way towards moving things further in a more positive direction in relation to word and action on this issue throughout the Australian community.16:42:003402Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—In starting this debate on the Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995 [1996] , I pay tribute to two people—Senator Spindler of course for initiating this bill and Senator McKiernan, who did such an enormous job in chairing the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee that had the responsibility of inquiring into this legislation.On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, can I start by placing on record our proud record in protecting all Australians across all walks of life from discrimination. This has included since 1994 a commitment in our national platform to support legislative and administrative action by all Australian governments to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. This is a commitment which was repeated, strengthened and updated in the platform agreed to by the national conference of the Labor Party in Hobart this year. In reference to that, in particular Labor committed itself to:. . . eliminating discrimination on the grounds of sexuality in Australian society. Labor believes all people are entitled to respect, dignity and equitable access to participation in society, regardless of their sexual preference and is committed to protecting and promoting the human rights of gay men and lesbian women.I have to place on record also the assertion that the Labor Party's commitment to these matters has not been platitudinous. In 1995 the Labor Party proposed and passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Bill. That bill had a general impact on protecting the right to privacy of all Australians in their bedrooms. In doing so, it also had the consequential impact of preventing the arbitrary interference with the right to privacy that was contained in the Tasmanian Criminal Code at that time.The record should also show that in respect of this committee the Labor members were very active in their participation in it and in many of its hearings. I must say it was not just Labor members; Senator Abetz, I think, was there for the duration of most sessions. In respect of that previous Tasmanian legislation, can I also note that consequent to the 1995 legislation the Tasmanian parliament has since repealed the relevant provisions of their legislation. Just as Tasmania has gone down an undoubtedly painful path of reconciliation with its gay and lesbian communities, so too does the Australian community as a whole deserve the opportunity for national leadership on this issue.After Senator Spindler left, this bill was referred to the parliamentary committee. The reason for the legislation was well spelt out in Senator Spindler's second reading speech. He outlined the major reasons for the legislation. Amongst those reasons were the three following ones. Senator Spindler said that he was concerned that people receive equal treatment in areas governed by Commonwealth law and are protected against discrimination on the grounds of their sexuality or their transgender identity. Secondly, he was concerned that no special rights were developed for people of transgender status or non-heterosexuals but that they have rights equal to those available to others. Thirdly, he wanted protection for people going through a gender reassignment process or identifying as transsexuals.Senator Spindler acknowledged the concerns of members of the community about the bill. He made it very clear that this bill did not represent an attack on marriage, did not encourage paedophilia and did not seek to give to the non-heterosexual community rights more extensive than those available to others. The development of the bill was based on the premise that the Commonwealth had power and, in a sense, responsibility pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.The bill was referred to the Senate committee on the first sitting day of March 1997 and the committee's report—almost 300 pages—is one which I recommend to people who have an interest in this particular debate. The committee did have extensive hearings and when one looks at the report one can see the extensive nature of its deliberations. We looked at sources of anti-discrimination legislation, the rationale for the legislation, major areas of complaint, including employ ment, goods and services, harassment, violence and vilification and possible causes of discrimination. We then went on to look at the provisions of state and territory legislation in this area. If people do get a bit anxious and excited about this legislation, it is worth noting that the states have in many respects legislated in this area—not consistently across the nation and not consistently across the states, but there has been legislation by the states and territories that goes to the wide ambit of issues that have been considered by the committee of this Senate and of course by the legislation.There are a number of issues that need to be commented on at this stage. I want to comment briefly on the attitude of some other senators to the bill, in particular some senators from the government side. At best we have seen an abrogation of responsibility by some of them. At worse we have seen a deliberate campaign to mislead the Australian public about the nature of this bill in an attempt to play off the fears and prejudices that this bill seeks to end. I note, for instance, that the minister representing the Attorney-General has not listed herself to speak on the bill. I am also told that when the Attorney was asked, earlier today, what the government's position on this bill was he said, `There is not a position.'This bill has been around since 1995. The Senate committee report on the bill has been around for some five months. The government has had more than enough time to determine what their general position on this bill should be. I could excuse the government if they had said that they had not decided exactly where they would stand on some of the detailed amendments proposed to the bill, but, unfortunately, this is a government that has not had either the intellectual or political honesty to tell Australians where they stand on the broad nature of the bill, let alone the details of it. In a sense they wish to have a bet each way. They are trying to avoid telling whichever side of the fence they decide to fall on the unhappy news. I suspect that they are actually trying to put this decision off until after the election because whatever position they take may turn out to be politically unpopular.The Prime Minister has in recent days made much of being honest with the Australian people about what his government would do if they were to be re-elected. In respect of this legislation they have had the chance to express a position for a couple of years now, but it is quite apparent that they are not going to. I suggest to anyone with an interest in this legislation who might be listening that they ought to ensure that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are contacted and sought after and made to present their position. A good way to do that is to approach the Prime Minister on 02 6277 7700 or fax 02 6277 7744 and the Attorney-General on 02 6277 7300 or fax 02 6273 4102. This issue is important to a lot of people and a lot of people do deserve a government position on this. There are so many issues that this government is running away from as it runs to an election.Another concern is one that was expressed best when it was put forward as a position by Senator Coonan. She took the view that some sort of sexuality discrimination legislation was appropriate; however, she copped out by saying that the state and territory legislation was generally sufficient and that she was unsure what impact this bill would have on the operation of those state and territory laws. We did a lot of work on these issues in the committee. Senator Coonan may have some part of an excuse in that she became a member late in the process, but the evidence was there to be read. I can remember Senator Coonan being at quite a number of meetings. It is a cop out to suggest that, because of unforeseen consequences in state and territory legislation, we should not have federal legislation. It should be placed on the record that she herself acknowledged that two of Australia's jurisdictions do not prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and four do not prohibit discrimination on the grounds of transgender identity. So there is a gap there and it is one that this legislation tries to overcome.More concerning, however, are the attitudes of Senators Abetz and O'Chee. The report tendered by these senators reflects the very misinformation and hysteria which perpetu ates discrimination against these Australians. Unfortunately, Senator Abetz referred to some deeply personal examples of people whose lives had been scarred by their choice as to gender status and the reaction of some within the gay and lesbian communities as a basis for opposing this bill.I have to say to you, Senator Abetz, I thought your comments were both disgraceful and misguided. People such as those to whom Senator Abetz referred would and should equally enjoy the protection of their rights under this bill, as would gay men and lesbian women, as would Australians who choose to lead heterosexual lifestyles. Just as it is generally inappropriate for the heterosexual community to discriminate against gay and lesbian communities, so too is it inappropriate for members of gay and lesbian communities to discriminate against other members of their communities or against members of the heterosexual community. If Senator Abetz, I propose, truly cared for the plight of individuals or those he discussed he would, I believe, support this bill. It is not good enough to use their tragic experiences as a ploy to justify more base motives.I would like to return to those motives because in the minority report of Senator Abetz and Senator O'Chee they sought to, I believe, scare Australians on two fronts. First, they sought to claim that this bill infringed the right of Australians to freedom of religion. Can I say this is simply not true. It is not, nor has it ever been, the intention of anyone in connection with this bill to impinge on the extremely precious right of Australians to practise their religion.The bill contains specific exemptions to ensure this fact and I note that some concerns have been raised with me from those within the Christian school community—not just the Christian school community but also the Islamic community—as to whether this bill would allow them to choose not to employ homosexual, lesbian or transsexual people. These concerns have come to me from people I have been close to and still am close to. The advice that the committee received was that the exemptions contained within the bill are adequate for this purpose. I note that this is consistent with the intention of the drafter of the bill, former Senator Spindler, in a letter dated 18 April 1996 to Mr Gerry Gleeson, the Chairman of the National Catholic Education Commission. At the end of my contribution here, I will seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Could we see it while you are talking?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Yes, sure. In response to those concerns I will place on record the fact that I have invited the Christian school community to advise me of any flaw in the exemption provisions proposed in the bill and I have made the same invitation to the Islamic community. I make the same invitation to any other community that may want to put representations to the opposition with respect to this. I have undertaken to them that, if those provisions are inadequate, we would support amendments necessary to implement the clear intention stated by Senator Spindler, and also stated by me to at least Pastor Wayne McGeer, the Public Affairs Director of the New South Wales Council of Churches. That was by way of correspondence on 22 April.We have no intention of misleading these communities. I indicate that to date I have received no responses from them but I once again stress the fact that if they were to put to us an argument to the effect that what we are doing here does not meet the objectives stated by Senator Spindler—and my objectives—we would implement the clear intention by way of amendment.The other disgraceful campaign that was embarked upon, particularly by Senator O'Chee, was a campaign with respect to transsexuals in sport. Senator O'Chee, some time towards the end of last year indulged in a campaign of scaremongering about transsexuals in sport. He claimed that the Senate committee's report on the Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995 [1996] said it would allow transsexuals to compete in women's sport, thereby gaining an unfair advantage because of their previous physiology.This is wrong; there is no such recommendation contained in the report. First of all it is important to note that there are many sports in which men and women can compete equally. There is obviously no justification for allowing discrimination in those cases. Secondly, in relation to those sports where an individual transsexual may gain an advantage on the basis of his or her original sex, the bill would still allow those sports to prevent that person's engaging in that sport at a competitive level if his or her physiology gave him or her an unfair advantage. It should be placed on the record that no Australian female athlete would be disadvantaged.I say to those who do have a concern in the sporting community that if they can come up with another alternative in terms of approaching this particular issue, we would be prepared to give that serious consideration as well. Our offer does not in any way absolve people like Senator O'Chee from responsibility here. Once again, the claims, the hysteria and the scaremongering are something that this particular debate can do without on a national level and it has to be said this debate to a major extent did without it on a state level when states introduced legislation in this area. Whether one regards gay men, lesbian women, transsexuals and people of transgenders as engaging in a natural expression of the human condition or as a sin, all fair minded people, I believe, would regard discrimination against any person on the basis of their sexuality or gender status as unacceptable.This bill seeks to give expression to that community standard. Where the right to freedom from discrimination impinges on other fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion, then this bill provides that they give way. As I say, that is indicated by the bill and by the architect of the bill as well. The bill does not promote homosexuality or lesbianism, but it does acknowledge that diversity does exist in our society and that that diversity, where it causes no harm to others, should be tolerated and protected from those who seek to inflict harm on our fellow country people. As a result, Labor supports the bill. In doing so, can I say that we do have the honesty to declare our position on a very highly controversial issue.I call on the government, particularly the Attorney-General, who has had carriage of this legislation for quite some time, to come to a position on it. He may have some specific concerns, he may have some amendments. The approach we have taken to this legislation thus far has been to ensure an exhaustive inquiry into it and that legitimate community concerns can and have been met. We are prepared to engage in discussion with the Attorney-General to try to get some agreed position here.Basically, what it comes down to is a question of common decency to our fellow people living in our community. This legislation goes a long way to doing that with respect to one particular group of people and I think the government has a responsibility to put aside the scaremongering and the fear campaigns and try to engage in a constructive discussion on this legislation with a view to getting it through. I now seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—18 April 1996Mr G Gleeson, ACChairmanNational Catholic Education CommissionGPO Box 3046CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601Dear Mr Gleeson,Your letter dated 19 December 1995, addressed to Senator Cheryl Kernot and relating to my Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995, has been handed to me for reply. I apologise for the delay in replying. With regard to your concerns relating to exemptions for churches and religious schools, let me assure you that my Bill has no connection with the Sex Discrimination Act and will in no way affect the continued existence of the exemption under S.38 of that Bill.In addition, there is provision in my Bill allowing for exemption for churches, religious schools and other teaching institutions if compliance with the Bill would conflict with their teachings. Such institutions will not have to seek an exemption, but simple will be able to state their teachings as a response when they are requested to employ a particular person, if such action in the view of the school is contrary to their teachings.I will also take care to ensure that all churches retain their capacity to determine the rules governing their ordination practices.The Bill does not promote homosexuality but simply seeks to ensure that as far as possible all people are treated equally under Commonwealth laws without regard to their sexuality, i.e. heterosexual people as well as those who are gay, lesbian or transgender will receive protection under the Bill.I would be most happy to discuss any aspects of the Bill with the NCEC Executive Secretary, Mr Kevin Vassarotti, should he wish to have further clarification.Yours sincerelySENATOR SID SPINDLERAustralian Democrat Spokesperson on Law and Justice17:00:003406Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—I welcome this opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995 [1996] because, as Senator Bolkus quite rightly indicated, I took a great degree of interest in the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee hearings into this particular matter. It was a matter that exercised my mind to a considerable extent and, in fact, has exercised the minds of many Australians, as witnessed by the letters that have been written to our offices by a lot of concerned Australians. Unfortunately, at the time that the report was presented to the Senate, I was heavily engaged in other activities related to the Native Title Bill and, therefore, I only had the opportunity to make some very brief additional comments, which Senator Bolkus has sought to criticise.When you are engaged in a public hearing dealing with a sensitive issue such as sexuality and you are approached by a considerable number of individuals who do not want to go on the public record but do want to have their point of view put before the Australian people, I think it is appropriate that that be done—and that is exactly what I did in my approximately 1½ pages of additional comments. Can I say at the outset that I was deeply moved that these individuals were willing to take me into their confidence and explain to me the very real traumas and difficulties that they had been through in their lives in relation to their sexuality.The concerns of these people were that they had come into the homosexual or transsexual lifestyle and then had departed from it. They believed that that was a matter of their independent choice in relation to that behaviour. Of course, that is a very important issue in relation to the question of how we, as a society, ought to deal with sexuality. The suggestion has been made by some that sexuality is somehow innate, such as race, hair colour or things of that nature. The writings of Denis Altman and other homosexual writers in support of the homosexual community in fact assert the exact opposite; they talk about the homosexual lifestyle choice and the need to continually advocate it as an appropriate choice of lifestyle.We, as a community, are left in a dilemma as to how this issue ought to be approached—whether it is something that is completely innate or whether it is something behavioural over which people may have some degree of determination. The people who spoke to me off the record clearly were concerned that they had been led into a particular lifestyle by the sort of proselytising that was being suggested by the likes of Denis Altman.The most tragic story was that of a young lady who went through some crises in her life and then at university was introduced to a particular group which led her into a lifestyle which then, further, led her to attend the gender dysphoria unit at Monash University. She told me that when she went there, there was no real discussion with her about her background, about what may possibly have made her feel the way that she did, about what her concerns were or about whether she might be able to deal with these matters in another way. In fact, in virtually no time at all, she was placed on hormone therapy and went through gender reassignment surgery and had a double mastectomy. Today, that woman is married, having had to go through the trauma of having all her body hair removed, having to have a double implant and not knowing whether or not she would be able to have children.When you hear personal stories of that nature, you cannot help but be moved and ask the fundamental question: is it appropriate for us, as a society, to adopt this approach to people in the transgender community who may be having difficulty with their specific orientation? Once you allow that sort of surgery to take place, there is no turning back. That woman who spoke to me is abso lutely devastated that she will never be able to suckle her baby, if she ever has any babies. That sort of horrific surgery is for life; there is no turning back.So, before we embrace this Brave New World approach, I think we have got to think about the lady that I have just been referring to and ask whether this approach of being so accepting of all these things may not have horrid consequences, like those this lady has suffered, in the years to come. It really is a very tragic consequence for this young lady, who I had the privilege of listening to for some considerable period of time explaining the traumas in her life. She could have been saved from the hormone therapy and the gender reassignment surgery, which has now left her physically impaired for the rest of her life, if she had been given some guidance and counselling on this matter.We can get up and be all Brave New World and embrace these things, but we also have to get up and ask ourselves very genuinely, very sincerely: what does happen to the people after they have this transgender reassignment surgery? Sure, it was their individual choice at the time, from which there is no turning back. But should we as a community be encouraging that or should we saying to these people: there are other ways of dealing with these matters. There are many counselling institutions right around the world—in the United States and elsewhere—which have great success rates in assisting people should they be desirous of changing from a particular sexual orientation.I have heard other stories like the one I have repeated to the Senate, and I have heard a lot of stories about people who, having been in the homosexual community, left it and were vilified and warned off talking to other homosexuals for fear of physical reprisals. That once again raises this very difficult issue: if homosexuality is something so innate, no matter how much you talk to somebody, you will not be able to talk them out of it. We really do have some very real issues to deal with in this very sensitive area.The 1½ pages of my additional comments which have come in for criticism by Senator Bolkus were, I think, put in a very appropriate way by faithfully repeating what those people put to me. I concluded those additional comments with these comments:The voice of these people needs to be given an avenue for expression. These additional comments are designed to provide that avenue.The fact that I was able to give expression to the views of these people has somehow caused a degree of ill will from Senator Bolkus. It appears that, whilst he would want to be so very accepting of particular lifestyles, he is not so willing to listen to those people who have been through it and have some very personal and devastating tales to tell.I could deal with Senator Bolkus's other comments about ringing up the offices of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. I find that to be a pretty immature thing to do, quite frankly. I would have thought that a letter writing campaign would be appropriate, but to try to jam people's telephones and faxes by having a campaign of the nature suggested is, quite frankly, immature. However, if all the people who wrote to me on this matter had faxed their letters—literally hundreds of them—to Senator Bolkus, I am sure that Senator Bolkus's fax would have jammed as a result of overwhelming community concern.Senator Bolkus could not help but make the dig that this government was not an honest government and could not be trusted and that we were running away from issues. I would have thought that on some fairly fundamental issues like budget deficits, low inflation, low interest, lower unemployment, tax reform—the list goes on—we have not run away. We have dealt with them appropriately and we will be judged accordingly.It was interesting to listen to the speech by Senator Bartlett in starting this debate because his was a `caring and sharing' speech. But we then have to ask the question: what is the Australian Democrats policy in other areas? Just listen to this little gem from the education spokeswoman for the Australian Democrats, Senator Allison during debate on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill. During that debate, the Australian Democrat spokeswoman said:Apart from a government ideologically bound to private education, who else came forward to support this bill? The Coordinating Committee of Jewish Day Schools said:We would believe that any group in the community who wishes to operate a school and who meet appropriate criteria, should be permitted to do so.This was the general tenor of submissions by the Australian Association of Christian Schools, the Anglican Schools Commission, the Christian parents controlled schools and the Lutheran schools.Senator Allison went on to summarise, addressing her comments to government senators. She said:If you want to go down in history as being part of a government which places the interests of small, fundamentalist and extreme schools at the expense of Australia's public schooling system, then by all means vote for this bill.In other words, what she was saying and what the Democrats were saying was that Jewish day schools are extreme schools and that Christian parent controlled schools, Anglican schools and Lutheran schools are extremist schools.Is that part of the Australian Democrats policy of being `caring and sharing' and adopting and celebrating diversity within in the community? No, because the Jewish day school view of the world is different from her own and because the Christian parents controlled school view is different from her own, they are labelled as extremist, they are labelled as fundamentalist—they are labelled in a derogatory way. If the Australian Democrats came to this debate and adopted the same attitude to every single group within the community there might be some credibility to their commentary on this. No, they pick certain causes. It is quite obvious that the Jewish day schools are not the sorts of organisations and the people involved with them are not the sorts of people who ought be afforded the `caring and sharing' view of the world that Senator Bartlett put to us.As time is running short I should really ask the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party to determine what their actual position is in relation to this bill because we have heard commentary on this bill. We have also heard commentary on the Senate's report on this bill, and the Senate's report on this bill goes a lot further than the proposed bill of former Senator Sid Spindler. Senator Nick Bolkus and other Labor senators signed off on that Senate report.That Senate report recommended that bodies established for religious purposes should not be entitled to exclude a person from the receipt of services which are funded directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from Commonwealth funding on the grounds of the person's sexuality or transgender status. That basically means that the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul and the whole gamut of other religious organisations around this country, who save the taxpayer a lot of money by providing these private services but are assisted by the taxpayers' dollar, will be denied, if they continue to abide by their religious beliefs and principles. That is a very important point because we have an interface now between what is more important: the right to religious belief or somebody's right to express their sexuality.There is a collision course without doubt in relation to the recommendations of the report and the assurances—and might I add, quite appropriate assurances—that Senator Spindler gave in the letter that has now been incorporated in Hansard, because that was Senator Spindler's view of the world at the time. But the Senate committee report has moved considerably further than Senator Sid Spindler's view of the world at that time. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask how the community ought to deal with those situations where people have genuine religious views and beliefs and they then are of service to the community. Would it be that the Jewish day schools, for example, or Islamic schools or Christian schools, would be denied any federal funding if they had certain views in relation to the provision of services to particular groups of people that ran contrary to their religious beliefs? What we are doing, in effect, is saying, `We will elevate somebody's sexuality above a person's religious belief.'Can I deal with another issue and that is the issue of vilification, harassment and assault. That sort of behaviour is completely and utterly unacceptable within this community. It does not matter why people want to vilify you, harass you or assault you, that sort of behaviour is completely and utterly unacceptable. I do not think there is anybody within this chamber, or indeed within the vast majority of the Australian populace, who would assert otherwise. Whilst it is interesting in these debates to hear about people being vilified, harassed and assaulted, there are laws that prohibit that sort of behaviour, that in fact can be enforced. If they are not being enforced, they very clearly ought to be. This debate is not so much about protecting people against those criminal acts because those people, I submit, are already so protected. If not, they can be protected under the current law.What this legislation is really about is what we as a community are going to accept as a normal standard for future generations. I, for one, have great reservations about our society going down the track being suggested by the bill and, above all, by the amendments being proposed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee report.17:20:003409Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Firstly, I would like to commend the Australian Democrats, and in particular former Senator Sid Spindler, for the long travail that they had in bringing this legislation before this parliament against the odds and against the times and against the pressure that there is to prevent the enlightened reforms which come out of this legislation from becoming law. We have just heard a pertinent exposition of that opposition to this legislation going into law. I would like to also join in congratulations to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for the way in which you chaired the committee, which also had a long travail in looking at this law and suggested recommendations which could improve it as we go along.I would like to test Senator Abetz in his wish to find out just where the Democrats and Labor Party stand, as far as this legislation is concerned, by challenging him to join with the rest of this house in bringing a second reading vote before six o'clock so that we can have a determination as to where all parties stand, and then, at the next session, move into the committee stages so that any changes which are required could be brought before the Senate. Of course he is not going to have a bar of that and he does not mean it for a bit when he challenges other parties in this parliament to say where they stand. What we know is that he stands totally against the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexuality in this country which would come through the enactment of this sort of important legislation. He is not going to hear any further argument because he has just left the chamber, which leaves two members of the government only in this place to take part in this important debate.I should also at this stage have the wisdom to declare a pecuniary interest, because as a homosexual man with a partner I may well be advantaged by the passage of this legislation in such things as property law, superannuation and the ordinary coverage in the law of wills and so on. As it stands, like some million other Australians, if we put a rough figure on it, I am disadvantaged and discriminated against by the failure of parliament, and the government in this case, to ensure that anti-discrimination legislation is passed at a national level.The problem for Australia is that the laws are patchy as far as discrimination on the grounds of sexuality are concerned. In my own state of Tasmania, like Western Australia, there are no laws to defend citizens from discrimination on the basis of sexuality. As we debate the matter here today, laws to move in that direction are being debated on the floor of the Tasmanian House of Assembly. The Greens and the Labor Party there will be taking a stronger line than the Liberal Party, but it is hoped that a tripartite agreement can be reached to at least foster a good measure of protection against discrimination on these grounds in the Tasmanian community. The next hurdle to jump is the Legislative Council of Tasmania. It goes without saying that such legislation will not get through there very easily at all. It has taken a decade to get anti-discrimination laws or the criminal code laws which positively discriminate against homosexual men taken off the statute books in Tasmania.If we look internationally, we see how far Australia has fallen behind. This legislation, or its parallel, has been passed in New Zealand, in Canada, in Ireland. It is in the constitution of South Africa. The Blair government has introduced it into the House of Lords. But there is not a chance that Australia is going to catch up with those comparable countries with this government in place because it has set its mind to continue discrimination in this country, to block national laws to prevent discrimination. As such, it is putting Australia at the back of innovative civil rights reform legislation which other countries have passed and which citizens of other countries can now take for granted.Senator Abetz spoke about the `homosexual lifestyle'. I do not quite know what he means by that. Maybe he could have explained what he would mean by `heterosexual lifestyle'. He spoke about people `moving through' this lifestyle, going in at one end and coming out at the other end. It is a studied ignorance, I believe, which takes the debate away from the pertinent fact which we are dealing with, and that is how people identify themselves on the basis of sexuality at any given time. People who are heterosexual should not be discriminated against. People who are homosexual should not be discriminated against. People who are transgender should not be discriminated against. It is up to them to identify themselves and to live according to their own sexuality.We have to find a means of making sure that that expression of their own sense of sexuality is not trammelled by discrimination which can be ugly, destructive, punitive, financially penalising, which confronts many thousands of Australians every day of the year, and which needs to be rectified by the passage of strong laws with teeth in them which, at least in a parliamentary sense, take the lead in turning around that long history of discrimination against people.We have managed at a national level to have discrimination illegalised if it is on the basis of such things as race, gender and so on. So why not on the basis of sexuality? All the arguments of the ilk that Senator Abetz brings forward, all the furphies, all the extraordinary and unusual examples which can and have been used in debates against anti-discrimin ation legislation in the past on those other grounds were not valid then. They are not valid now. What we do know is that because of spurious arguments like those of Senator Abetz and the government, there has been a particular discrimination against law on the basis of sexuality practised in this parliament which continues to be practised. When discrimination is practised in the parliament you cannot expect it to be stamped out in the community.In the short time I have, I want to go to that basis of discrimination because some people do not believe it exists. Or for some people it is a distant thing. For some people it does not matter. If we look at today's Sydney Morning Herald under the heading, `Gay man fights for share of partner's estate', we find the extraordinary situation in 1998 in Australia where a man whose partner of 14 years died in an accident has to be before the courts fighting for recognition of that partnership, that loving arrangement with his partner, which ought to accord him common law rights to the benefits of property, estate, which he is denied. On what grounds? Simply on the grounds of sexuality because there is no law in this country to ensure equality of property rights for people who are not heterosexual.If we look at the issue of superannuation, there is a diabolical situation in this country whereby thousands of people living with same sex partners are denied the right of flow on of superannuation benefits to those partners. It is a multimillion dollar discrimination industry which comes out of the failure of government to act to end that discrimination. It is a standing shame on parliaments that have failed to ensure that, in such matters, same sex couples have exactly the same rights, and are entitled to exactly the same benefits, as heterosexual couples.As far as the wider matter of discrimination within the community is concerned, I can give chapter and verse over the last 40 years, but let me be a little bit recent. I went to the interdominion finals in Hobart just a couple of months ago. There were 12,000 people there. Just before the start of the main event, I copped a five-minute tirade in front of the grandstand and in front of those thousands of people—in an outrageous fashion—from a gentleman in the crowd on the basis of my political beliefs and also sexuality. After the race, as I was leaving with my partner, I was assailed by another bloke who, with all the worst epithets that can be put against people on the basis of sexuality, threatened to punch me and threatened to beat me up, and when I took him on in terms of standing my ground, he wanted to have injury and assault committed `down the back'—as he would have it—while his wife tried to restrain him. Why should citizens have to put up with that? I am okay; I am used to the vicissitudes of public life. But why should youngsters in our community or, for that matter, anybody in our community, on the basis of them going about their daily lives but having a different sexuality, have to put up with that sort of opprobrium or threat, or attacked, as citizens are regularly in this country?In so far as this government blocks legislation to end discrimination, it is complicit. You cannot get away from it. It is the duty of government to act on behalf of citizens. The majority of Australians want this legislation. There is no excuse for a government which not only does not bring forward such legislation but also fails to support it when the Democrats bring it forward. Every day that failure continues, thousands of Australians are assaulted, verbally or physically, because of it.I know that legislation itself is not going to eliminate such discrimination, but it has a powerful effect. I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, the passage of legislation to get rid of the discriminatory component of the criminal code in Tasmania has had a dramatic effect in that state in allowing people to feel pride in who they are as individuals and to feel that they are not second-class citizens under the law. But as far as discrimination is concerned at the national level in this nation of Australia, there are hundreds of thousands of citizens who do not have equality under the law. That is a studied action by the Howard government. And here today we are hearing the government argue against somebody else bringing in that law, which compounds this discriminatory face of the Howard government against a huge number of Australians.I think of the youngsters at school in this country who have to hide their sexuality and who are taught in some cases to be ashamed of it; who are not taught that the gay and lesbian community are a productive, terrific and amazingly creative component of global society—not least Australian society; who are not taught to be proud of who they are; who are not taught of the great innovations in human history which have come not only from all parts of the community but also from the gay and lesbian community; and who are not taught that the gay and lesbian component of society adds wonderful variety, innovation and positivity to the community. It is not a matter of being ashamed of it; it is a matter of being proud of it. It is a matter of individuals being proud of themselves for what they are, and not trammelled by the assault of discrimination which they know faces them every day of their lives.I again say congratulations to those who have brought this legislation forward. Not least, I mention in passing congratulations to the community groups fighting to end this blight in society. We have Rodney Croome from Tasmania listening to this debate in the chamber today. I pay particular tribute to him. I pledge, along with the Democrats, the speaker coming after me and people on this side of the House generally, to pursue this issue; to pursue the government on it and to not let them get away with taking it off the agenda because it is way past time this discrimination was ended. It is way past time this government acted. It is way past time this government caught up with the rest of the world. It is way past time to give our community the innovation of ending discrimination and having in the statute books laws which say that to discriminate against anybody on any grounds, including sexuality, is a crime and an affront, and is something that Australians will not tolerate.17:38:003412McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I want to join with Senator Brown in recognising the presence in the gallery of Rodney Croome and pay tribute to the work he has done over a long number of years in bringing this subject matter to where it is today. There is still a long way to go, and I know that Rodney and the people and the organisations he works with will continue to strive to bring about justice for those many thousands of Australians who are now subjected to many injustices and many discriminations in their world. I also want to thank my colleagues who preceded me who paid tribute to my small role in bringing this matter before the Senate and bringing it to where it is today.I must admit that I was not quite as strong and as forceful on this topic as perhaps Senator Brown, or indeed Mr Croome, is. I would not even now say that I have had a major transformation on the road to Damascus. In my parliamentary life I have had to battle with many of the prejudices that I was brought up with from my youth and my early adulthood, and it does involve some difficulty to try to address them as one engages in an inquiry such as this.As I said in my tabling statement when I presented the report on the bill to the parliament in December of last year, it was an emotional inquiry. There were many widely diverse views put to the committee as we traversed the country taking evidence on the inquiry and the subject matter before the committee. We did not have any major issues that brought about front page headlines in our newspapers, and I think the fact that that did not occur is also a tribute to my government colleagues on the committee, particularly Senator Abetz, who assisted me and assisted the committee as we traversed the country taking evidence.I did at the time of tabling pay tribute to his assistance in the work of the committee, and I do so again here tonight, because he did make a contribution to it. Despite the particular prejudices and the particular baggage that we bring with us to issues such as this, I think he and I and the committee did give people the opportunity to come forward to present their views, to be heard and to have their views in turn put into a very balanced report and presented to the parliament for further examination.Many people have made contact with me since the presentation of the report to parliament about my position on the bill that is currently before the parliament. My short answer to the people who make oral presentations to me in the street, in my electorate office or on the telephone, is that I cannot support the bill in its current form. I have said that the committee in its report made 33 recommendations to amend the bill, and I think then it would probably be in a position where I might be able to support it and to vote for it on the floor of the chamber. Even with that, I make this point: even with the quite elaborate inquiry this bill was subjected to, I do not think it is necessarily at this time a perfect piece of legislation. Even if all the recommendations of the committee were accepted by the movers of the bill, the Australian Democrats, I do not necessarily think it would be.It may very well be a perfect piece of legislation, but there are those in our community whose feelings about it are different from the views that I perhaps am putting forward or that the committee itself put forward in the report. Since presentation of the report, I have received many hundreds of letters—particularly, Mr Acting Deputy President Hogg, from your state of Queensland—which disturbed me, but I will come back to that in a moment.But I believe there are people who do have, from where they come from, genuine concerns about the content of the bill. I am prepared as a member of parliament to listen to those concerns. As it has been appropriate for me to do so, I have invited church representatives and church organisations to come specifically addressing their concerns about the content of the bill and about the recommendations contained in the report and to give me their views on the exemptions that are currently contained in the bill. I have asked that they address those things and come back to me.One of the very disturbing things that I have found in talking to people, particularly church people, is that in the first instance they have not read the bill. In the second instance, they have not read the report. Those people, and I feel for them, have been subjected to a scare campaign that says that this bill, and the report that addresses this bill, are doing things that neither the bill nor the report in fact does. I do not know who is responsible for this fear campaign, this scare campaign, but I do have very great suspicions of who is responsible.As I indicated to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, most of the letters that I have received have come from your state of Queensland. I put it to you and I put it to the Senate that there has been a very deliberate attempt by some to muddy the waters in the debate on this very important piece of anti-discriminatory legislation. That scare campaign does not reflect very well on those who commenced it. Had I got the proof, I would not only make the accusation here in this chamber but I would also do it outside, away from the protection of parliamentary privilege that is upon me as I speak in this place. I do not have the proof, and I am not going to try to abuse the privilege of the parliament by pointing a finger when I am not able to say who it is.However, I will go back to one of the topics my colleague Senator Bolkus raised when he was speaking. That was the matter which was also addressed in the report and in the tabling statement, the matter of sport and how this report impacts upon those who participate, particularly in competitive sport at an international level. I did make the point very clearly and I said it very shortly after the report was presented on 2 December. I think later that week I made a personal explanation on it. I made this comment in the tabling statement:The report makes no recommendations about sport—The evidence did not demonstrate that there was much interest in competitive sport by transgender persons and the Committee considers this issue can be dealt with by the relevant sporting organisations on a case by case basis.One would have thought the matter of sport had occupied the majority of the report instead of a few paragraphs in the report. The reason for that is that my colleague Senator O'Chee of the National Party of Queensland went to the media and beat up this issue, saying that we were recommending in the committee report that transgender persons could be given advantage in competitive sports and that those with the bodies of males who went through an operation and became female could compete in competitive sport and that that was not going to be fair. That was clearly an untruth at the time and it remains an untruth. The report is there for anyone to see. I notice on the speaker's list that Senator O'Chee is next on the list. There is a clear and open challenge to him to come forward and to back up the public statements that he made at that time.I think it is really very unfortunate that the senator should have done what he did at the time. He is and was a member of the committee but he did not participate in the public inquiry stages. He did not participate in the report deliberation. He did exercise his right to join with his government colleagues in presenting a minority report to the chairman. I have no objection to him doing that but I do strenuously object to somebody going out of their way to tell deliberate lies about what is contained in a report.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I know Senator McKiernan has got his particular prejudices and he wants to beat his chest over this but Senator McKiernan knows that it is quite clearly unparliamentary to suggest somebody is lying. In fact, he has not suggested it, he said it. I ask that it be withdrawn.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator McKiernan, on the point of order, I believe that you should withdraw the inference of lying.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I have said that Senator O'Chee did tell lies and he has told lies.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Withdraw it.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—You did tell lies. You went out and lied through your teeth.6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—Mr Acting Deputy President, further to that point of order, this very clearly is in contravention of Senate standing orders and Senator McKiernan must withdraw. 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have already ruled on the point of order and I ask Senator McKiernan to withdraw.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I withdraw.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I distinctly heard Senator O'Chee refer to Senator McKiernan as a grub and I ask that that be withdrawn.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—I am happy to withdraw.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I now return to the matter that disturbs me even more than the previous matter and that is what has been done to a whole number of constituents, a whole number of probably ordinary, very decent people, right throughout Australia on this matter. They have been told incorrect things about what this bill contains and indeed what the report is about.That statement of mine can be tested by reading some of the many hundreds of letters that have come to my office. I will only speak of those that have come to my office but I know all of the colleagues from all of the parties have received letters, telephone calls, faxes and emails on this part. It is very clear that the people who have been so motivated to write do not know what they have been writing about. The scare campaign has been successful and those who have engaged in the scare campaign have to be condemned for initiating that scare campaign.Many of the letters, and indeed there have been many hundreds, are form letters. I do not object to receiving form letters on issues such as this but one would have thought that those people in Queensland who were going to initiate a campaign such as this and write to the chairman of the parliamentary committee would at least have got the name right and at least have tried to spell it right. Apart from the words being the same, one of the common themes throughout all the form letters is that they do not know how to spell my name.This is but a small sample of the form letters that have been received. Form letters, in themselves, are not a major problem to me but there are others. I have talked to individuals in my home state of Western Australia and I have previously made the explanation that I do not have the resources, the staff or the time to respond to people outside of my electorate, which is Western Australia. However, if a constituent in Western Australia does take the matter up with me, they are entitled to and do get a response from me. Sometimes it is a telephone call, sometimes it is a letter and sometimes it is when we meet in the street or at the football games. I get different treatment there than you do at the sporting events that you attend, Senator Brown.I will not use the names or addresses of individuals because I have not checked with them about bringing them into the public arena, but one individual who is opposed to the bill because of a number of things she lists states:Marriage is for pro-creation. Two men or two women cannot produce a child therefore marriage is not an option for them.The bill and the report have something to say about marriage, but it is not something that is reflected by the concerns of that particular lady who wrote to me. Another individual writes:I have not had the opportunity to read the entire Committee report, but have read parties and an accompanying Solicitor's report which summarised both (the proposed Bill and accompanying reports) and stated legal implications and repercussions of its contents; these concerned me greatly.At least that particular individual is honest enough. Another person who writes to me from Queensland poses a series of questions and asks:Are we going to have male senators coming to Parliament, wearing their dresses/makeup/high heel shoes? If this Bill is allowed to pass, this may very well happen. How many voters do you think will vote for them, at the next election?Another question posed by the same individual asks:Are we going to have `transgender toilets' in public places, or am I as a female, expected to share facilities with a male who chooses to think of himself as a female? Can I, as a female, expect to be at the mercy of a male of evil intent, dressing as a female, simply to gain access to places where females are—usually alone—in order to assault, rape, murder? I feel sorry for people like that. I really do. But I feel even more sorry for the people who put them up to making statements like that, who scare people into making statements like that. That is actually frightening and completely and utterly irresponsible. Another letter states the following:I would withdraw my children from school or from any other situation I believed unfit, if the person in charge of them was a homosexual or a man dressed as a woman who insisted on being addressed as `Miss'.Later in the letter it states:I have heard that if this bill is passed ministers of religion will be required by law to officiate at homosexual marriages or face jail . . . What would become of us if our ministers were in jail and homosexuals were at the pulpit?Frightening. The letter further states:Homosexuality is a foul act against God and or nature, depending on your beliefs. I believe you hold the moral future of Australia in your vote. Please protect the majority of decent Australians, protect us from those who seek to destroy the family unit, protect the children.It is despicable that somebody could be made to think like that because of the content of the bill before this chamber. Another letter states:Children are being shown how to put condoms on in school today, keeping the sexual act in front of their eyes of those of whom only a few years ago the government sought to protect. Now we are asked to accept our young being distracted by their education by cross-dressing teachers, transvestites and the like and even other students.I repeat what I said in the early part of my contribution: I am very frightened that people can be frightened to such an extent that they take it upon themselves to write to their political representatives and express the views that they have expressed to me. That is but a small sample.In his speech Senator Abetz drew attention to recommendation No. 8, which states:That a body established for religious purposes may not exclude a person from the receipt of services for which you are funded directly or indirectly in whole or in part from the Commonwealth funding on the grounds of the person's sexuality or gender status.My understanding of that recommendation is that if an organisation—and Senator Abetz mentioned the Salvation Army—is given a certain amount of Commonwealth money, public money, taxpayers' money to deliver a service to the community, they have to deliver that service without discrimination to anybody, particularly on sexual grounds. They should not be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. They should not be allowed, if it is relief for somebody who is unemployed, to discriminate on religious grounds or racial grounds or on the basis of colour or on the basis of sex. Why should they be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality?I am glad from the tone of the letters that we have received that we do not live in a secular society in this country. I am very pleased that that is not the case. In my limited time that I have in this parliament I will fight to ensure that we do not become a secular society, from what I have gleaned from the responses in the letters, some of which I have read into the record this afternoon. I repeat in closing that I am more than prepared to listen to people if they have something constructive to say about this report, about the bill, about what the bill purports to do, about what the bill may or may not do and do it in a realistic and constructive fashion. (Time expired)17:58:003416O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Senator McKiernan made a challenge to me. He challenged me to show where in this report it said that transgender people will be able to compete in sport—for example, a male to female transgender person would be able to compete in sport as a woman. Senator McKiernan has obviously forgotten what the report actually says. For the record, with the indulgence of the Senate, I shall read into Hansard what the report says about sport at paragraph 4.137:In the Sexuality Discrimination Bill 1995 the intention appears to have been to ensure that people could not be excluded from playing sport as a person of a specific gender. A male to female transgender person presumably would wish to play sport as a woman, and a female to male as a man. The current version of the legislation prohibits a transgender person from being discriminated against because of being transgender.Nothing could be clearer than that. I find it disturbing that Senator McKiernan's memory is so poor, or so selective as not to be able to remember what was in a report which was principally authored by him.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Order! The time allotted for the consideration of general business, orders of the day, having expired, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents.Documents34163416Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Forshaw:That the Senate take note of the document.18:01:003416Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I am speaking to document No. 12, the Pig Research and Development Corporation and the Pig Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee Reports for 1996-97. I wish to raise an issue in relation to the pig industry which received some coverage on A Current Affair a couple of months ago now.This report details the operation of the Pig Research Development Corporation. It is a body which receives an amount of Commonwealth funds of around $3½ million—just looking into the report—and it also receives a similar amount of money through levies raised through the industry. The mission of the corporation as detailed in the report is `to invest and manage research and development funds, to improve the performance and sustainability of the Australian pig industry and increase its global competitiveness'. Certainly that is a worthwhile mission which the Democrats support.I simply wish to bring to the attention of the Senate, or recall to the memories of those senators who did see this coverage on A Current Affair a couple of months ago, the conditions at a piggery—the Boen Boe piggery I think it was called, off the top of my head—in New South Wales. At that location, quite graphic footage was shown of the conditions in which the pigs at that establishment had to live—that is, those that did survive; and graphic footage was shown of a number of piglets that did not survive for very long at all.Obviously, if adequate controls are not in place at these types of intensive farming establishments, not only do severe and very important animal welfare issues arise but also potential health and environmental issues come into play. On that particular program shown on A Current Affair, the head of the RSPCA, Dr Hugh Worth, spoke very strongly about the unacceptability of the particular piggery that was shown. Whilst I do not imply in any way that all piggeries are of such a standard, the fact that such a piggery did exist and was able to operate with conditions that clearly were unacceptable is a matter of concern.I understand that the response to the showing of that particular program by A Current Affair is amongst the largest public response they have ever received to any item they have shown; I think it gained somewhere around the fifth highest response to any story they have shown. I think that demonstrates it is an issue that is of concern to many in the community—a great many people in the community. It is not just a fringe issue. Conditions of extreme cruelty and the application of totally unacceptable animal welfare circumstances are things that many, many people in the community do not support and are greatly concerned about.It is for that reason I think it is important that the pork industry, the pig industry, and bodies such as this corporation that provide funds to improve the performance of the Australian pig industry, as detailed in its mission statement, do direct more of their attention to ensuring that these sorts of conditions cease.I have a videotape copy of that particular A Current Affair show in my office, if any senator did miss it and would be interested in seeing it. I think anyone who did see the evidence presented there would not be able to deny the total unacceptability of it. I simply believe it is important that, when such unacceptable conditions are demonstrated and shown to exist, and when such public opposition and abhorrence to such conditions arises, the Senate is made aware or informed of it and also that action is taken at government level, at industry level and through bodies such as this to address them. Clearly it is in the interests of the pig industry and the improving the performance and sustainability of the industry in the long term that public concerns such as these are addressed.I understand that A Current Affair indicated it would be providing more information or showing more material in relation to this issue. As far as I am aware, to date they have not shown any follow-up stories. Whilst I would not say it would be the majority of piggeries that are in that condition, I am sure it is not a single, isolated example either. To ensure that the industry survives and prospers, I again urge the industry and bodies that do utilise taxpayers funds and industry funds to address aspects of the industry that are of concern to the public when they are raised.18:06:003417Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I also wish to take the opportunity to take note of the report of the Pig Research Development Corporation and the Pig Research Development Corporation Selection Committee to say a little bit about the current state of the pig industry. We are acutely aware and worried about the concerns of pig producers regarding pork imports and the difficulties being experienced by many producers as a result of the collapse of domestic pig meat prices in recent months. Of course, this has been canvassed quite extensively in Senate over the last week or 10 days.There is a strongly held view among the industry that the dramatic decline in profitability is largely caused by imports of pork from Canada, but the situation is considerably more complex. A number of significant factors have contributed to recent low pig prices, decreased domestic consumption and reduced and/or negative profitability. These include the residual effects of smallgoods scares; strong competition from low-priced beef, a phenomenon that is experienced worldwide; a global oversupply of pork, in fact pork prices have been lower and fallen further in Canada than they have here; relatively high feed prices as a result of a drought which hopefully is coming to an end as the El Nino phenomenon appears to break down; and of course a fall-off in meat protein consumption, which is certainly the case in the fall-off in the consumption of pork.I understand it is over a kilo per person. About 27 million kilos over the last couple of years have fallen out of the Australian market, which is very considerable. I think that the lack of advertising might have some part to play in that, and perhaps that is because of low prices. Because of them, the effort that has gone into advertising has fallen off. One of the things that the Pork Council of Australia would like is for the government to consider some form of assistance to them, and I know that that is happening at this time. Of course any fall-off in meat protein consumption is something that affects all of us. One of the things that came from the CJD scare in the UK and Europe was that beef consumption fell right across the board, and of course that affects all red meat.The government has been conscious for some time of the intensifying pressures on the industry, including the potential effects of increased pig meat imports, and the government is keen to help ensure the long-term viability of Australia's pig meat industry. It is an enormously important regional player and, although the number of farms has decreased substantially over the last few years, since 1990 the actual production of pork has increased by nearly 40 per cent.One demonstration of this commitment is the establishment by the coalition government of the $10 million national pork industry development package, which is specifically addressed to the challenge that is being faced. This package provides an excellent opportunity for all industry sectors to work together to improve industry competitiveness and develop export market opportunities. It is interesting to note that Australia exports about as much pork and pig meat as it imports. It is a very substantial player. There are a large number of opportunities out there specifically in recent times with Japan, which because of foot and mouth in its major supply market, Taiwan, has started to take Australian pork. There are a number of other developments in connection with the Confederation of Independent States. It is a big, wide world market out there for Australian pork and pig meat. There are a lot of potential avenues for success.The government has also acted on the industry's concerns regarding product labelling, with legislation presently before the parliament. I should also like to say before time runs out that legislation to overhaul our anti-dumping and countervailing system is also before the parliament. The government changes will provide a simpler, fairer and faster process for Australian industry seeking redress against dumped or subsidised imports. This legislation delivered on the government's election commitment to reduce the total investigation period for dumping inquiries to 155 days. Provisional relief can now be provided after 60 days. (Time expired)18:11:003418O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—Senator Sandy Macdonald's comments on the Pig Research and Development Corporation and the Pig Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee Reports for 1996-97 are very sage in this regard. I think that there is a general misunderstanding of what our problems in the pork industry are. I am not trying to underplay those problems at all because they are quite dramatic problems. They are problems that are a real threat to many producers in Queensland, but I think there are a number of factors. I have met with members of the executive of the Pork Council of Australia and reasonable people accept the fact that there are a number of causes for the low price currently being received by pig producers in Australia.One of those factors has undoubtedly been the drought which had existed until a couple of months ago throughout much of New South Wales. Honourable senators flying into Canberra would be aware of how dry it was even in the Southern Highlands let alone in other areas of New South Wales. My colleague from New South Wales Senator Sandy Macdonald assures me that at least where he lives the plains are all waving with grass and the skys are deepest blue. But for much of this year the circumstances in New South Wales have been otherwise.Those of us in Queensland noticed that, as a consequence of the drought, cattle producers in New South Wales who feared that they would not be able to keep their stock on their property any longer were dumping them into the markets. You had only to go, for example, to sales in Goondiwindi or elsewhere in southern Queensland to see very large yardings of cattle which were coming up from New South Wales and of course this depressed the price of beef not just in New South Wales but also in Queensland.You have got to understand that pork, beef, chicken and fish are all, to some extent, substitutes for each other because they are sources of protein. When a family chooses what they are going to have at the table, they usually choose to have some protein, some carbohydrate and some vegetables, so the choice is, `What form of protein are we going to have'.When you have a massive dumping of cattle onto the market and beef prices go down, it naturally depresses the prices of other sources as well. That is why, for example, we had problems in the chicken industry in North Queensland. I had a letter recently that suggested that three out of 10 of the poultry producers on that Atherton Tableland were likely to close down. The poultry industry in a large scale on the Atherton Tableland is a quite recent occurrence—it is only in the last couple of years. But it is indicative of the problem that is being faced by all producers of protein sources in this country.The drought has undoubtedly depressed all the prices for those commodities. As a cattle producer, I know that the prices that we get for cattle are a lot lower. They are going up, but they have been a lot lower because of the drought in New South Wales. It is undoubtedly the fact that that has had a very large part to play in the price of pork.There have been other factors as well. One appears to have been a move away from pork back to beef. I do not know what has caused that but it has certainly been the case. It may be that some consumers consider beef to be a premium product. There are a number of things that need to be done to counteract this. The difficulty that the pork industry has is that 94 per cent of production goes onto the domestic market. Therefore, pork producers are very vulnerable to fluctuations in domestic prices, which are caused by seasonal fluctuations. In the long term we rectify this by opening up other markets to pork producers, and that is what the government is seeking to do with the $10 million assistance to marketing through a committee led by the industry to try to develop new markets for Australian pork to take the dependence away from the domestic market. This is long overdue and will pay dividends in the long term.But in the short term I also believe that it is necessary to put money into a domestic branding campaign so that consumers are aware of Australian pork and are encouraged to buy Australian pork. The long-term benefits of overseas promotion are undoubtedly going to be substantial but it may take six or more months for those benefits to flow through. In the shorter term we can deliver much greater benefits to a much larger proportion of the production of our pork producers if we put some assistance into domestic promotion of Australian pork so that consumers can distinguish between the Australian product and that from overseas. That will shore up the domestic price in the short term and allow the producers to continue until we get the long-term benefits.On top of that we should look at RAS exceptional circumstances to alleviate their immediate financial circumstances. (Time expired)18:16:003419O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In relation to this matter, I noted in the Herald Sun yesterday an interesting article. The Pork Council had said that today was the day on which they had expected a solution for the industry's current problems to be available. Clearly that is not the case.On 7 April when I moved that the Senate support the pork industry and call on this government to do certain things, the Senate, amongst other things, called on the government to immediately review—and I stress the word `immediately'—(i) . . . the level of financial assistance and the nature of the adjustment package being provided to the industry in the light of these very difficult market conditions,(ii) provide for effective labelling arrangements to assist the industry in the effective marketing of its product, and(iii) investigate whether the level of imports is the primary cause of the industry's current difficulties and, if so, take action under the World Trade Organization provisions for emergency protection of an industry.We received a response last Monday. It was a four paragraph letter from the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. I have been advised that the reason Mr Moore responded is that he is the portfolio minister for customs. What did the minister say? He said to the President, Senator Reid:Thank you for your letter of 15 April 1998 concerning a resolution, agreed to by the Senate on 7 April 1998, calling on the Government to review the state of the Australian pork industry.That is a rather brief summary of what the resolution actually said.The Government recognises the very serious difficulties being experienced by the local pork industry as a result of falling pig meat prices. We are also aware of the significant contribution pork producers make to the Australian economy.I am aware that the Pork Council of Australia has prepared an application for exceptional circumstances assistance for the pig industry. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon John Anderson MP has asked that the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC) assess this application as a matter of urgency. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics is undertaking research work that will be critical to RASAC's assessment.Thank you again for bringing this matter to my attention.I understand, therefore, that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy intends to respond at a later time. Unfortunately, the longer he leaves it the worse the matter gets because it seems to me that no-one wants to accept responsibility for this important matter.If you look at Mr Moore's response to the Senate he in effect says that Mr Anderson is looking after it. But Mr Anderson says that he is looking at it but that it is also a matter for Mr Fischer. He said on Countrywide on 26 May, earlier this week:Whether or not a safeguard action is investigated, is up to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade.Mr Fischer says that he is about giving Australian farmers a fair go in world markets. Frankly, that is a joke when it comes to the Australian pork industry. I want to quote from a letter that he wrote to me in response to my letter to him seeking action on the Senate's resolution. He said, of the government's approach, which has been outlined by previous speakers:This in a nutshell is what this Government's approach is about—giving Australian farmers a fair go on world markets because they have shown that when they get a fair go they can compete.But he is really saying that this matter is a matter for Mr Anderson. So we have this merry-go-round—Minister Moore, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Anderson are circulating responsibility. The matter is passing from one to the other. We have reached the state where there are proposals for action, but frankly the industry has announced that time is up for this government to take action. That is not me saying that; that is what the industry says.The government can act and should have acted much more speedily when the Senate carried its resolution on 7 April rather than waiting and having the matter go on the merry-go-round between ministers and then deferring the matter for reports after all the time that has been taken. Urgent action was needed. It has not taken place. Unfortunately, there are pork producers who are going under at the moment. They do not see that the action that has been taken has been speedy enough. I do not think a great deal more can be said about this matter. (Time expired)18:22:003420Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I think the amount of time that is being consumed by the coalition in regard to this matter has been great. I know today there were meetings and I know that tomorrow the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) will be going up to meet the pig producers in Toowoomba. There has been a $10 million allocation given to the pork industry to reconstruct. Many would argue that is a very minimal amount of money. I would be one of those and I would suggest that we do need more.I think, Senator O'Brien, you have carried the banner for this but I do think you have to be a little more open in your criticism. Everyone in this Senate is very concerned about the pork industry and I include you in that. I see in the chamber one of my colleagues who was previously a pork producer and with Senator Crane he has led the argument and the debate in the coalition meetings.I think we have to look at the problems. Pork consumption in Australia this year fell dramatically. I am informed that consumption has fallen considerably. I am not going to confirm that figure because it is a figure given to me. Let me say the consumption of pork, pork products and pig meat has fallen. This has not been caused entirely by imports from Canada. It has been a very hot summer and people do not go into roasts as much. The price of beef has dropped to where it is possible to buy, in Queensland, a kilo of T-bone steak for $3.99—and fillet steak is slightly dearer. People have shifted their alliance from pork into beef.There is another aspect that I think Senator O'Brien has to be honest and open about. This is the concern that we have for other industries. It is true that 8,000 or 9,000 tonnes of pork comes from Canada into Australia. It is also true that 38,000 tonnes of beef goes from Australia to Canada. There was something like $750 million worth of sugar the year before last that went from Australia to Canada. There is something like $2 million worth of dairy products going from Australia to Canada. Overall, Canada buys four or five times more farm products from Australia than it exports into Australia.I say to Senator O'Brien that you have to consider those things. It is no good fixing the pork industry up and dumping the beef industry, the sugar industry and the dairy industry. When you make an approach that is going to settle one industry and get one industry out of trouble, it is no good doing it by dropping another three industries into trouble. Everyone on this side of the parliament is very concerned about the industry. As I said, tomorrow the Prime Minister flies to Toowoomba, for that and other reasons. He is also going there to launch campaigns, but he will be meeting the Queensland pork producers and he will be listening to them.Let's not just say that to consider the pork industry alone is going to get us out of this problem. We are very much concerned. I certainly believe the way out of it is to put money into export abattoirs. There are very few. There is only one in Queensland and, as far as I am aware, there is only one on the north coast of New South Wales. There is a market for export pork but there are no abattoirs where we can get the pork to the standards that are required internationally. If we can overcome that I think we are going a long way to fixing the pork industry. (Time expired)18:27:003421Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Senator O'Brien has now on a number of occasions come into the chamber and spoken specifically about the plight of the pig meat industry in Australia as it currently is today. Senator O'Brien is quite entitled to raise those concerns. He has obviously had the same sorts of representations that the rest of us in this chamber have had, particularly those associated with primary industries and, I may say, on this side of the chamber there are a considerable number of people who are.A number of issues have been raised by Senator O'Brien. He identified the problems existing in the pork industry but, do you know, over the last two months when I have listened to speeches made by Senator O'Brien he has never come up with the solutions; he has just identified the problems. It is very easy to do—everybody can do that—but the solutions are somewhat more difficult. Let me tell you one of the reasons why, Senator O'Brien. It is a high cost industry and you know as well as I do that the cost of feeding pigs and producing the pig meat to sell is very high compared with other meats.Over a period of time, particularly in the last 12 months, the consumption of pig meat in Australia has dropped considerably. In that same time the production of pig meat has increased by 20 per cent. There is some responsibility on an industry to manage its own affairs and, when you rely basically on a domestic market, as my colleagues Senator Sandy Macdonald and Senator Boswell know, you have to make sure that market is not oversupplied. There is no regulation within the industry to ensure that, if there is a greater increase in the production of pig meat than the home market can stand, you must increase your exports. If you are going to continually increase the amount produced you must increase your exports. The pressure that has been brought to bear on the pig meat industry has been brought about partly by a large increase in production and a drop in consumption.It is all very well to say it is the government's fault—which industries are wont to do, particularly when they are looking for some assistance—it is easy to blame the government. If it were a government problem, then the government deserves to fix it but industries also have some responsibility for their own problems. The pig meat industry must of their own volition make sure that they help to fix their own problems. In this case, the problem is caused just as much by overproduction and by a drop in consumption as it is by the importation of Canadian pig meat.If we were to stop the importation of Canadian pig meat tomorrow, it would have little or no effect on the current problems because right now the importation of pig meat has dropped to its lowest level in the past 12 months. If you look at the graph showing the importation of pig meat, you will see it peaked in November—prior to the Christmas period. It has now dropped down to about 2,000 tonnes a month—I cannot remember the exact figures but it is at its lowest level.If we stopped importation immediately, there is probably enough pig meat already held by the large wholesalers of meat that was imported prior to Christmas and that is being released to the market in dribs and drabs, which is their way of manipulating prices. Quite frankly, the way that the market is being run at present is something that the ACCC ought to look into. If we were to stop the importation of pig meat today, which would go against all of the protocols that your government put in place, then it would affect all of the other industries. There is always room for retaliation. As Senator Boswell said, we are currently exporting from Canada $5 worth of primary products for every $1 worth that we import of primary products. We must ensure that we protect those exports because they are very important for the overall trading position of our nation.I say to Senator O'Brien that we do understand the problem and that we have been battling for two months to try to find an adequate, long-term solution. It is going to be very difficult to take the pressure off people in the short term. Having been in the pig industry for 30 years with a 100-sow piggery, I know that the ups and downs of this industry are nothing new. There were many months over that period of time when the cost of production was greater than the return we were getting for what we were producing. But the pig meat industry is one of the most cyclical primary industries that you can ever be in. When the pressure comes, as it has in the last four or five months in the pig industry, some people have always had to get out of the industry. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.3422Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Hogg:That the Senate take note of the document.18:32:003422Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to address some remarks to the 1996-97 annual report of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Australian Industrial Registry. While the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is still operating, there is hope that fairness will inform the workplace. This commission, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, has been with us for almost the whole of the history of Federation. It has done much to keep sanity, peace and reasonableness in the workplace. While the Industrial Relations Commission is there and is operating as it should, there is considerable hope for those people in the workplace who do not have the bargaining power that enables them to contract on equal terms with their employer that they will, nevertheless, get reasonable wages and conditions. The Industrial Relations Commission accords with the proposition that there ought be an umpire that stands above the workplace and that intervenes—to the extent that fairness, justice and equity requires—to ensure that both employer and employee get from their workplace what they properly deserve. I would hope that the Industrial Relations Commission continues on as an effective body for the foreseeable future. It would be a tragedy if this body were either abolished or reduced to a circumstance where it could not properly fulfil its function.I notice in the report that three deputy presidents were appointed to the office of senior deputy president during the period. They included Senior Deputy President Watson, Senior Deputy President Harrison and Senior Deputy President Williams whom I have known for many years—since he was a young person. He is quite an outstanding lawyer, and I wish him all the best. I notice, too, that the report was prepared mainly by President O'Connor who has retired since the report was presented. I wish her all the best for the future. I note that the current president is Geoff Giudice and I wish him all the best for the future.The report indicates that, within their own ranks and amongst their own staff, the commission and the registry carry out the same sorts of things that people would expect to happen in any workplace. For example, I notice that on page 47 it refers to an associates ongoing training program forum used to train up their associates, which is a very good thing because my son Jerome is an associate with the commission.The other point I want to mention in the last few seconds is that some delegations from South Africa have come over to learn the way we do things through the commission. South Africa is a country that is striving mightily to become an ordered society after years of great trauma. It is a great thing that the South Africans come over here to learn how to do things. It would be an awful irony if they were to come over to learn how we do things industrially at the same time as we were reducing the reliance we place on both the commission and the registry.Question resolved in the affirmative.3423Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Forshaw:That the Senate take note of the document.18:38:003423Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—I want to take this opportunity to say something about the current problems faced by the pork industry. There is no doubt that imports of pig meat have had an impact on domestic prices. However, their significance must be placed in context. Import data shows that total pig meat imports in 1997 were equivalent to only five per cent of domestic production, albeit comprising around 27 per cent of the higher value domestic leg ham.Pork imports have been permitted since 1990 under protocols put in place by the former Labor government. The opposition primary industries spokesman, Neil O'Keefe, is running around the bush—ably helped, I am sure, by Senator O'Brien—saying that the government has ambushed the industry on imports. This is simply not true. It is humbug. It is wrong. It is not helpful to the industry and it should be put in context.Changes to quarantine protocols introduced by AQIS in November last year have not resulted in any additional pig meat being imported into Australia up to the end of March. All the pig meat imported to date has come in under protocols put in place by Labor. The coalition supports these protocols and did so at the time they were introduced. But they put the lie to what the opposition has been saying. Imports remained at a low level until they increased significantly in the latter half of 1996 when there was an upsurge in imports. The director of quarantine announced new protocols for the importation of Canadian and Danish pork on 7 November 1997. However, up until the end of March 1998 no product covered by these new protocols had been imported.As imports of pig meat represent only a small proportion of Australian production, and given the range of other factors affecting prices, the government's initial assessment is that it would be very difficult to invoke safeguard action as permitted by the WTO in certain circumstances. This issue is currently being investigated in detail by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.Against this background we need to recognise that the overall volume of our primary produce exports far exceeds the volume imported. In relation to Canada, it is about eight times; in relation to the rest of the world, it is about five times. The trade isolation proposed by Senator O'Brien would guarantee that only one in every five Australian primary producers would survive. Australia has exported to Canada over the last six months four times the amount of meat that we have imported from them. The Canadian High Commissioner, Mr Brian Schumacher, recently quoted that Canada buys about $8 worth of agricultural products from Australia for every $1 Canada sells to Australia. To close our borders to imports of agricultural products certainly would jeopardise our own thriving export trade by inviting retaliatory action. We will face the very real risk of being locked out of traditional export markets if we shun world trade rules.As I think Senator O'Brien mentioned, the Pork Council of Australia has lodged a submission with the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Committee, RASAC, for exceptional circumstances assistance to help it through current adverse circumstances. The minister has asked RASAC to consider the Pork Council's application and it will do so very shortly.One of the areas in which the government has contributed to the Pork Council is, as Senator Boswell mentioned, a $10 million allocation to the national pig industry development program. The program has put a number of proposals to the government and to the council. It is an important project and it has a number of good ideas. It will certainly help in the short term, and in the longer term, exports are everything.Question resolved in the affirmative.3424Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Hogg:That the Senate take note of the document.18:45:003424Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I want to deal with some matters contained in the annual report of the Department of Industrial Relations, specifically sub-program 1.2—Legal and standards, on page 25 of the report. On page 25 there is a section headed `Objectives'. The department's objectives are:To promote the development and maintenance of an effective legislative and institutional framework.To ensure that departmental strategies and operations are founded on a sound legal basis and meet applicable legal requirements.To promote the development of national policy and standards for workers' compensation and OHS.To support Australia's interests in relation to industrial relations and other labour administration matters at the international level.It then goes on and describes legal services groups. The legal matters that the department deals with are set out in some detail in the area of the report that I am talking about.I want to make this point: oftentimes in this chamber when the Senate asks for a legal document, or indeed documents generally, they are refused on the basis that these matters may be sub judice. I want to address that. The idea of sub judice should not be one that covers, as a blanket statement, all documents that are asked for. There should be some examination, not merely of the category of documents but of all documents within a category, to see whether or not they justify the label of a matter which would break the sub judice rule. This report of the Department of Industrial Relations gives some basis for that because it gives quite a defined categorisation of the sorts of things that legal activities should be directed to.The matters that are listed hardly seem to be ones that would justify the taking of the defence of sub judice. One of the categories relates to Australia's interests in relation to industry relations and other labour administrative matters at the international level. That is the sort of thing that not only this parliament but also the public in general ought to know about. I am taking these matters at random. Another objective is to ensure that departmental strategies and operations are founded on a sound legal basis and meet applicable legal requirements. If there was a legal opinion that had something to say about that test, again, that is something that this parliament ought to know about and that the public generally should know about.What I am apprehensive about is that there is a risk that objections by the department to producing documents based on the sub judice rule, or indeed any rule—and it is the department, of course, that passes up the information to the minister—are being taken too readily and without being properly tested. A reading of the Industrial Relations report in the area that I have spoken about illustrates what I am talking about.Question resolved in the affirmative.3425Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Bartlett.That the Senate take note of the document.18:50:003425Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—As a former delegate on a Political Exchange Council delegation, I would like to speak in support of the role that the council plays and the work that is put into it. It is a body that does not cost very much in the way of funding. It gets about $400,000 in terms of federal government funding, plus the assistance and support of a number of organisations by way of sponsorship and `in kind' donations.Since its inauguration in the early 1980s up until the time of this report, it has enabled 329 different Australians to participate in a range of delegations to a wide number of countries. They have had a first-hand opportunity to see in detail the operation of the political systems, the economic systems and other aspects of those countries. They have been able to absorb that knowledge and bring it back to Australia to assist them in being able to make a more valuable contribution to Australian society.From my own experience, it is an extremely valuable program. In September 1995, a couple of years before I came into this place, I was a delegate on a trip to Germany. This gave me an enormous insight into many aspects of Germany and a greater appreciation of the importance of the role that it plays in Europe. I was able to appreciate the links that it has with Australia and the many opportunities that are presented to Australia in the German and broader European context. I am sure that sure the same sorts of insight and opportunities are provided to delegates who have gone to other countries.In speaking to the report, I would like to strongly support the work of the Political Exchange Council. The council is chaired by Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. It also involves a number of other people, including the secretary of the Australian Democrats, Sam Hudson, who has put a great amount of work into her role. Over eight years she has taken her responsibilities very seriously. She has ensured that the Democrat members of delegations are suitable so that they will be able to contribute to the broader society and community and to politics in general in Australia on their return. The fact that she enabled me to go on one of those delegations might indicate a lapse of judgment, but other than that she has had a pretty good record.A number of my Democrat colleagues past and present have also been delegates on various visits overseas, including the current Leader of the Democrats, Senator Lees, and the Deputy Leader of the Democrats, Senator Stott Despoja. The parliamentary leader of the Democrats in South Australia, Mr Mike Elliott, is another one, as is the deputy leader over there for the Democrats, Sandra Kanck. The program has certainly provided a lot of worthwhile opportunity to Democrat members, not just to people who go into parliament but to people who contribute to society in many other areas and at many other levels.The year that this report relates to had six delegations and Democrat representatives were on three of those. Kerri Kellett, who was on the delegation to the UK, Pierre Harcourt, who was on the delegation to the USA, and Alex Bowie, who was on another delegation to Vietnam, had the pleasure of being on the delegation chaired and led by Senator Abetz, which I am sure was a great pleasure for him. In fact I know it was, because he speaks often and highly of Senator Abetz, who was obviously such a great participant in the program and such a noble ambassador for the Liberals that they have enabled him to go on two of these delegations, to Germany in 1991 and then on this other delegation, to Vietnam in 1996. No doubt that is an indication of his importance and the worthwhile contribution that he makes to the Liberals, unless they were hoping he might get lost over there the second time around.In closing I would like to reinforce my support for the existence of the council and encourage the government to continue to provide its support. I also encourage reciprocal governments in other countries to recognise the valuable role that the council plays. Certainly in terms of my experience in Germany it has been of ongoing value to me. I encourage all governments who have contributed to this program to continue to support it.Question resolved in the affirmative.3426Debate adjourned on the following orders of the day during consideration of government documents:Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 1996-97Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee—Report for 1996-97Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 1996-97Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—Eleventh meeting, Darwin, 8 August 1997Sugar Research and Development Corporation and Sugar Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1996-97Question resolved in the affirmative on the following orders of the day without further debate during consideration of government documents:National Museum of Australia—Report for 1996-97Department of Communications and the Arts—Report for 1996-97National Gallery of Australia—Report for 1996-97 Bilateral treaty—Text together with national interest analysis—Agreement between the Government of Australia and the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization in relation to the functioning of the Australian Patent Office as an International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty of June 1970Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 1996-97Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 1996-97National Film and Sound Archive—Report for 1996-97Australian Film Finance Corporation Limited—Report for 1996-97Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation—Report for 1996-97Australian Film Commission—Report for 1996-97Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1996-97Australian Archives and Advisory Council on Australian Archives—Reports for 1996-97Australian Film, Television and Radio School—Report for 1996-97National Occupational Health and Safety Commission—Report for 1996-97Affirmative Action Agency—Report for 1 June 1996 to 31 May 1997Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 1996-97ADI Limited—Report for 1996-97Department of Primary Industries and Energy—Report for 1996-97Australian Safeguards Office and the Chemical Weapons Convention Office—Report for 1996-97Department of Transport and Regional Development—Report for 1996-97Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation—Report for 1996-97Meat Research Corporation—Report for 1996-97Department of Social Security—Report for 1996-97Australian Federal Police—Report for 1996-97, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Report for 1996-97Employment Advocate—Report for the period 2 January to 30 June 1997 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)—Report for 1996-97ANL Limited—Report for 1996-97Australian War Memorial—Report for 1996-97Australian Broadcasting Corporation—Report for 1996-97Australian Heritage Commission—Report for 1996-97Department of Defence—Report for 1996-97Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 1996-97Defence Housing Authority—Report for 1996-97Australian Institute of Marine Science—Report for 1996-97National Competition Council—Report for 1996-97Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research—Report for 1996-97Industrial Relations Court of Australia—Report for 1996-97Privacy Commissioner—Report for 1996-97 on the operation of the Privacy ActPharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority—Report for 1996-97Cotton Research and Development Corporation and Cotton Research and Development Corporation Selection Committee—Reports for 1996-97National Environment Protection Council and NEPC Service Corporation—Reports for 1996-97Nursing Home Standards Review Panels—Reports for 1996-97Anti-Dumping Authority—Report for 1996-97Landcare Australia Limited—Report for 1996-97Australia and the World Bank—Report for 1996-97Australia and the IMF—Report for the period 1 May 1996 to 30 April 1997Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report—Preliminary report on the detention of boat people (HRC report no. 5)Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—Strategic plan July 1998 to December 2000UNESCO General Conference—29th session, Paris, 21 October to 12 November 1997—Report of the Australian DelegationAustralian Science, Technology and Engineering Council—Report—Environmental research ethics: National principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas, May 1998Science and technology budget statement 1998-99 Multilateral treaty—Text together with national interest analysis—Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, done at Oslo on 18 September 1997Committees342734273427Consideration resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Robert Ray:That the Senate endorses the finding contained in paragraph 22 of the 71st report of the Committee of Privileges.Question resolved in the affirmative.3427Debate adjourned on the following orders of the day during consideration of committee reports and government responses:Legal and Constitutional References Committee—Reports entitled: Australian legal aid system—Government responseUranium Mining and Milling—Select Committee—Report entitled: Uranium mining and milling in Australia—Government responseLegal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Report—The operation of the special benefit provisions relating to the newly arrived residents waiting periodEmployment, Education and Training References Committee—Report—A class act: Inquiry into the status of the teaching professionLegal and Constitutional References Committee—Report—Sexuality discrimination Question resolved in the affirmative on the following orders of the day without further debate during consideration of committee reports and government responses:Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report—The Asian currency crisis: Report on a seminar on the Asian currency crisis and its effects on Australia, Canberra, 19 March 1998Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—3rd report entitled: Two international agreements on tuna—Government responsePublic Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1998-99, May 1998 Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report—Contracting out of government services—Second reportRegulations and Ordinances—Standing Committee—Statement—Disallowable instruments and parliamentary proprietyNational Crime Authority—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Third evaluation of the National Crime AuthorityForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Australia and ASEAN: Managing changeTreaties—Joint Standing Committee—13th report—Treaties tabled on 25 November 1997 and 3 March 1998Privileges—Standing Committee—70th report—Questions arising from proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime AuthorityNative Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984Corporations and Securities—Joint Statutory Committee—Reports— Company Law Review Bill 1997 Managed Investments Bill 1997Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Report entitled: Role and function of the Administrative Review Council—Government responsePublic Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee— 358th report—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97: Third quarter 359th report—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97: Fourth quarterCommunity Affairs References Committee—Report entitled: CJD settlement offer—Government responseSuperannuation—Select Committee—28th report—Choice of fundForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Defence Sub-Committee: Visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores defence propertiesPublications—Joint Standing Committee—Report—Future of the parliamentary papers seriesPublic Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee—355th report—Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirements Public Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee—354th report—Annual report 1996-97Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report—Contracting out of government services—First report: Information technologyAdjournment342810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 6.59 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.342818:59:003428Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise tonight to inform the Senate of the progress in Newcastle on the announcement by BHP that it was phasing out the smelting of steel. I would like to clarify something about which there is widespread misunderstanding in the community. In Newcastle BHP is not closing. Steel smelting is closing in Newcastle. Rod and bar and wire products will still be produced in Newcastle from billets that are brought up from South Australia.One and a half million tonnes of processed steel will still go out the main gate of BHP every year, just as it has done in the past. All the downstream industries will still gain the benefits of having steel produced in Newcastle. There is a widespread misunderstanding that it is all finishing. Let me assure everyone listening tonight that it is not.Twelve months ago, the Prime Minister went to Newcastle to speak with community, business and union groups about the closure and the effects on Newcastle. Quite a number of ministers also went there at that time. Last week I went to BHP to receive an update on the plans for the downsizing of BHP. I met with Brad McMahon, who is the BHP human resources manager, and Lance Hockeridge, who is the general manager. When we were all there about a year ago, what was proposed, with the 2,500 workers who were going to lose their positions, was at that stage just theory. What I was able to see in my visit there one year on was how those plans are being brought to fruition. I would like to particularly commend BHP on the way in which they have gone about the whole exercise. It is really a textbook approach to how, when a major industry in a region finishes up, the provider of those industrial services treats its workers.Currently 2,300 people are employed at BHP in Newcastle. Their average age is 42 years and their average length of service is just under 20 years. So, on average, there is a very large group of people whose only work involvement has been at the BHP site in Newcastle, and who now have to move on to a new phase in their life because a great number of them are still in their 30s and 40s. What BHP has put in place is a very impressive transition arrangement and I had the opportunity last week to speak to the transition team. This is a team of people representing all different sections of the steelworks. I had half an hour listening to where they were up to in their training adjustment, and they had the opportunity to question me for about half an hour on how the government was responding to what was happening at BHP.The principles of the transition team are very impressive. They feel people must be treated fairly and feel very well prepared for the future. Their second principle is that the business—BHP steelworks—must run safely and efficiently through the transition period. The thing about a steelworks, particularly an integrated steelworks, is that you just cannot phase it down gradually. You cannot produce 1½ million tonnes and then a million tonnes and then half a million tonnes; you have to run it full belt for it work efficiently, and that is exactly what they plan to do. They will be running at full belt right up to the end of next year, and then it all shuts down at one point in time. They have actually provided special bonuses to the workers to stay on for that full time to the end. The interesting thing about the figures produced by BHP at the moment is that their efficiency rates in production are still going up and the work accident rate is still dropping. They have a highly motivated team there that is determined to work the plant in a proper way right to the end.But by the end of next year, 2,300 people will have to go. They are all receiving help with financial and career planning, personal counselling and retirement planning. They are being provided with the opportunity for small business courses and also training and education assistance. This unique package was developed in a partnership between the employees, the unions and BHP. Their initiatives are quite impressive, particularly in the areas of education and training. I was impressed to see the number that were actually going on to further education and higher education at this point. One hundred and seventy are planning to go to university and 240-odd are going on to do other TAFE training. So there is quite a lot of reskilling going on in this process.BHP, in their personal counselling and case management of the workers, have developed personal action plans with these people. They are given help to explore and investigate career options, to determine their career goals and to develop job search strategies. Of the 2,300 employees, 1,500 of them have had at least one personal action plan discussion with this group and with counsellors. The time that is spent on this by BHP is quite impressive. Over 700 employees have determined their future direction—they know what they are going to do—and over 400 have commenced retraining. BHP is ensuring that workers in the Hunter region are not left in the lurch when the steel smelting actually shuts down at the end of next year.The other thing that BHP is doing in the region that is very impressive is helping to create industry beyond the time when steel smelting ceases. There were reports this week that BHP and Baulderstone Hornibrook are working together to develop Newcastle's Steel River Industrial Park. BHP has already spent several million on this development, and is planning to spend a lot more. This will be Australia's first eco-industrial site. It is designed for value-added, export-focused manufacturing business. What was very timely and one of the triggers for this policy was the Howard government's creation of the manufacturing in bonds scheme. This enables people to set up export oriented industries in places like Newcastle and have relief on things such as customs duty, so it is more attractive to set up an export oriented industry in Australia.The local and state governments have cooperated in this process by guaranteeing a 28-day approval process for industries setting up, and that will be a great attraction for industries coming from overseas. It is expected that this will create up to 2,000 jobs in the Newcastle area. So BHP, being a responsible corporate citizen in the Newcastle region, is trying to leave behind as many jobs as are actually going with the end of steel smelting.The Howard government has come in and assisted this process a great deal. We have established—the Prime Minister announced it last year—a $10 million fund for infrastructure, and already $5 million is committed to two major infrastructure projects: $3 million for electricity infrastructure on Kooragang Island and also an in-principle agreement of $2 million for local shipbuilding. The rest will go to projects which will generate best long-term outcomes for the Hunter. In addition to this fund, the Howard government has spent millions on the Hunter. We have given, with the infrastructure bonds scheme, a $30 million break to the establishment of the $600 million Redbank power station, which will employ in its construction phase up to 1,000 people.The emphasis on these sorts of projects and on a range of other projects, such as business incubators and environmental schemes, is showing that the Howard government is actually coming in and supporting the Hunter, and it has had a great effect on morale in the area. The morale that was low when the announcement was made by BHP in April last year has picked up, not only because of this assistance but also because of the great win of the Knights at the end of last year, which was a huge morale booster to the area, and they will repeat that this year.343019:09:003430Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Next week is Medical Research Week, and tonight I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate the need for research into the diagnosis and treatment of spider bite, and in particular that of the white-tailed spider. I tabled in parliament today a petition from almost 3,000 Australians who are concerned about the lack of research funding for the development of a diagnostic test and treatment for white-tailed spider bites. These particular spiders may not be as well-known as some other venomous Australian spiders such as the red-back or the funnel-web but their bites can cause very severe reactions and in some cases result in death. There is no antivenom available for the white-tailed spider. Indeed, some have suggested it might actually be safer for you to be bitten by a red-back or a funnel-web, as long that you get immediate attention, than it is to be bitten by these spiders.White-tailed spiders are extremely widespread. They are in all states right across the country. They can be found in most Australian homes and gardens. Unlike most species of spider, both the male and female are venomous. Bites from the spiders cause painful blisters that do not heal. Many people report bites that get worse and worse with time as the tissue dies and the site becomes ulcerated. In some cases this has led to gangrene and amputation. The wounds can be extremely painful, and the long-term symptoms have led to depression and reduced quality of life for sufferers.Helen Midgley from South Australia has written to me describing her experiences, and she is happy for me to detail them here tonight. Her experiences after being a bitten on the foot by a spider when gardening make it clear why there is an urgent need to put research funds into finding a successful remedy. Mrs Midgley sought treatment for her spider bite but the initial treatment was unsuccessful. She was prescribed several courses of antibiotics and these had no impact at all. The site became ulcerated, with the skin around the area slowly dying, and this ulcerated area gradually expanded. She then had hyperbaric treatment in an oxygen chamber. This was also unsuccessful, and after ten weeks the ulcerated wound was obviously continuing to grow.She saw a plastic surgeon and had an operation to cut out the entire ulcerated area and then went through the process of having a skin graft. By this time Mrs Midgley was in severe pain 24 hours a day, could not sleep and could not perform simple domestic tasks. The skin graft was unsuccessful too. It be came infected and began to die. A second skin graft was performed which removed more skin around the site. This second graft was successful in preventing further tissue death, but she required an eight-week stay in hospital and was wheelchair bound for quite some time after she returned home. Sixteen months after being bitten, Mrs Midgley is still experiencing pain in her foot, as the nerves damaged by the spider bite were very slow to repair themselves. She says that her wound is still numb and the skin graft itself is still causing some discomfort.This is just one story. There are, unfortunately, many stories from all around Australia that are only too similar to this. In terms of both money and human suffering, these spiders can cause major difficulties. It demonstrates that there is an urgent need for a convenient diagnostic test, one that all doctors can be made aware of, and an effective antivenom to be developed. The Australian Venom Research Unit is investigating the problem of necrotising spider bites such as those of the white-tailed spider. Unfortunately, this promising research is at a near standstill due to a lack of funding. This should be of concern to all of us because, as I said, we come into contact with these spiders daily, certainly weekly, and for us and our children we do not know whether we are going to be the lucky one who has nothing more than a slight bump which we barely notice or whether we are going to be one of those unlucky ones such as Mrs Midgley.There is considerable evidence in the community that people are concerned. If we look at the 1996 Victorian Poisons Information Centre report, they have reported that problems regarding unidentified spider bites were the second most common requests for advice. They were the second most common problem that people had who rang up for information. The withdrawal of Commonwealth funding for this important research occurred shortly after the government decided to privatise the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—something the Democrats strongly opposed. A recent submission by the Australian Venom Research Unit states that the decision to privatise CSL has resulted in, firstly, significantly reduced venom and antivenom funding; secondly, reduced support for Australian venom research and researchers; thirdly, the cessation or disruption of important research projects; fourthly, decreased opportunities for training and education of health and medical professionals in the area of venom research and treatment; and, fifthly, the loss to Australia of many opportunities to achieve international commercial medical research leadership.I am disappointed that the sale of CSL occurred without any look at the long-term consequences in this particular area. Australia had an excellent record of first-rate antivenom research, but unfortunately our global leadership in this area has been severely negatively affected by the privatisation of CSL and the associated withdrawal of Commonwealth funding.The impact of privatisation on research and development in the area of venom and antivenom research appears to have been ignored entirely during that privatisation process. This particular area of research is obviously not an isolated case. If we look right across the whole spectrum of medical research we find there is a cumulative effect of the lack of government support.The survey recently conducted by the Australian Society for Medical Research looked at Australian trained medical researchers currently working outside this country. The study found that 73 per cent of these researchers had completed their highest degree in Australia before leaving. This means that Australia does not benefit from all that we are investing in educating people or in training these medical researchers.The main reason they left was to gain employment opportunities not available in Australia. Seventy-three per cent of those surveyed stated that their salary was better than what they would have received for an equivalent job here. While almost three-quarters of the researchers stated a desire to return if they could find suitable employment, it seems that opportunities in this country are severely lacking. Sixty-six per cent said they would have to remain overseas for some time as they were highly unlikely to find equiva lent jobs and the career prospects were minimal in Australia. This is a sad indictment on the lack of support of this and previous governments for medical research when our best and brightest are forced offshore because they cannot get work here.The government recently said again that it is committed to medical research—and I am getting this out of the budget papers. We hope this commitment actually translates into something concrete by way of direct and specific funding. As a priority I ask that the government considers the urgent need for a treatment for white-tailed spider bite. We need to develop it as a matter of urgency and the funding needs to be allocated for this important research. After all, they are uniquely Australian. They occur nowhere else in the world. We cannot sit back and wait for somebody else to do our work for us. This is an Australian spider and we need an Australia solution.343219:17:003432Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise this evening to follow up on issues that were raised during question time today by Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Family Services. Child care remains a critical issue confronting Australian families. Whilst this government has been in power, no less than $820 million has been cut out of the child-care budget. The implications of these budget cuts are significant. Whilst the government uses these cuts to parade around their tightening fiscal attitudes and to subsequently promote what they claim as a glorious budget surplus, thousands upon thousands of Australian families are now having to change their arrangements and alter their family budgets just to get by.I would like to highlight two main flaws in the response by the minister in this afternoon's question time. The first is the issue in relation to new places for child care. We have heard the minister and other ministers before him in this place talk about the 7,000 places created for long day care in terms of government support. But the point is that, whilst the government can stand up and show an increase in the dollar line on their budget papers in terms of places, we have a remarkable reduction in the actual expenditure on what the anticipated trend growth rate was for those places. What we had was a government that said, `We will maintain child-care funding for places,' but what the government did was to actively cut that in half. In addressing the trend growth for demand in full day care places for children in this country, we have a government that has not addressed the demand; they have, in fact, halved what the requirement is. In real terms, politically and in the practical effect on families, this is a halving of services. It is a halving of the opportunities for Australian families.The second point I would like to raise specifically is the distinction between services. The question put to the minister today related specifically to out of school hours care. The response that came back was dismal in the sense that the minister could not differentiate between the long day care services to which he related his reply and the out of school hours care services to which the question explicitly related. The issue is that the cuts and structural changes to the way this government provides support to families with children in care, be it to the parents or to the services themselves, are doing three major things.Firstly, the viability of those services is being reduced. This is being done through the withdrawal of operational subsidies for both the community long day care and out of school hours care. The withdrawal of this operational subsidy in turn attacks, in many cases, the viability of the centres. Many of these centres operate as a small business does, with cash flow being a critical element in their business plan. The way operational subsidies were applied, they greatly assisted these centres with regard to support and viability in that critical financial sense. The payment of child-care assistance in arrears also affects the viability of these centres in that structural way, once again affecting cash flow and threatening the viability.Anyone who has had any experience with a child-care centre will know that staffing arrangements and the relationship to the number of children in care really determines a week by week margin for that particular centre. Any alteration to those arrangements can mean the difference between that centre getting above the line or falling below it and operating in the red.The other issue with regard to the reduction of the viability of the services goes straight to out of school hours care. The same implications in terms of the viability of running these services are affected by the cutting of the operational subsidy and other structural changes. I know in my home town here in Canberra that many of those out of school hours care services provided at each primary school are now being forced to combine with other schools, placing a requirement of travel on those children between the schools. In relation to one of the services I am most familiar with, they will no longer to be able to provide a vacation care service because of the financial pressures on that service.I think the issue this raises is that of the dry approach by this government in looking at the dollar bottom line and what it is trying to achieve in the support for families and parents in the forms of care. What we need is a system that provides the best service for the children. We need a system that services the needs of the child and the parents. If this means that the child goes to out of school hours care in their own school, it means they do not have to travel between schools, and that is a safety issue as well.If you want to take out the factor about the child's safety, their wellbeing and stability, then you can start looking at the bottom line and you can start forcing efficiencies like primary schools combining their out of schools hours care service and vacation care being removed from each school that provides that service and also being combined. When you take out children as a factor in your policy considerations, you can also proceed with your agenda. One of the specific things that I referred to is the operational subsidy.When you do not factor in the welfare of the child or the needs of the parent, then you can start removing operational subsidies to force fees up. We have seen a rise of approximately $25 to $30 per child where the operational subsidy has been removed from community long day care. The resulting cost increases have been significant enough to change the lifelong careers and prospects for many parents. I know women who have left work or have changed their arrangements in terms of longer or shorter leave or have gone from full-time to part-time work or part-time to full-time work in an intervening period anticipating that they are not going to be able to sustain that period of work for very long because of the increased costs. I know women who are delaying having children because they are too concerned about the financial imposition or the non-accessibility of places that they can afford. These resulting cost increases have also caused many women—and in many cases some men as well—to decide to no longer be a family where two parents work.It is hard to address these issues in isolation. I would like to put these issues in the context of other policies of this government. Industrial relations comes to mind with the continued downward pressure on wages and conditions of working Australians. When you combine that political agenda on families and you look at the context of the prospect of not a significant wage increase in the short-term because of changes to industrial relations—and I know it is more complex than that—when you double that with an imposition such as that which we are seeing in child care instead of seeing families progressing in society under policies that Labor put in place that allowed for scope and wider participation in the work force you start to see a government that is prepared to put the shackles on working women in particular and put the shackles on the opportunities and choices that families have.The other area that I think is worth a specific mention is the disincentives that this government has put in place for working families with more than one child in care. There have been a number of initiatives which basically put people with more than one child in care out of the picture. No longer can they afford to take on that role because of the financial imposition. So we have a social agenda on behalf of this government that forces one parent out of work if they have more than one child in care.There were two specific budget changes which created a greater financial imposition on parents with more than one child in care. It is hypocritical of a government which says that it is committed to small business and to families and even says that it cares about children. The viability of centres, the disincentive for parents to work if they have more than one child in care and the rising costs expose this government that they are not committed to children's welfare. They are prepared to put the dollar before their welfare and the ability of those parents to make active and viable choices about how they care for their children if they choose to work. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I call Senator Watson.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam Deputy President, I am on the list before Senator Watson.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am trying to alternate from side to side. There will still be a minute or so left if Senator Watson does not take his full 10 minutes.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam Deputy President, this is the speaking list that has been allocated. I am not in the same party as Senator Lundy. Senator Ferris is not here.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that the whip has changed Senator Watson to Senator Ferris.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. As I understand it, Senator Watson is to take the place of Senator Ferris.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If we move quickly, there will still be a minute or two left. I do not know how long Senator Watson is going to take.343419:28:003434Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I wish to appraise the background of the coalition's success in its economic management of the economy. As we all know, economIndustry Commission growth is not a smooth or an even process. In fact, growth fluctuates around its long-term trend, and to the eternal fascination of economists also the timing of business cycles is not regular. Indeed, timing is random. Part of the Treasury responsibility is to focus on trying to understand these business cycles, their timing, their causes and their effects so that government can provide policies which can control business cycle activity.Changes in policy instruments do affect the economy, some more dramatically than others. Therefore, it is not surprising that economists do not always agree on the extent to which policy instruments impact on the economy. The job of managing the economy, therefore, is often a controversial one. Governments around the world, including our Australian government, are constantly looking for policy combinations that would deliver strong and sustainable economic growth, low unemployment, low inflation, balanced budgets, balanced international accounts and low volatility of real GDP fluctuations around trend growth.In this regard Australia through its government has been particularly successful. Fiscal policy, monetary policy, wages and incomes policy and industry policies are all tools used by the coalition to achieve these goals. However, simultaneously achieving them all at the same time is often a difficult task. The Australian economy, after a slow start in 1996, picked up significantly in terms of growth in 1997. The pick up was mainly led by stronger domestic demand, with a cyclical upswing in the housing sector and a firmer trend in consumer demand. The labour market improved, with employment and labour force participation rising and unemployment beginning to decline. Not since December 1990 has the unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, been lower. Driven by high levels of housing affordability the dwelling sector continues to contribute to growth. Export quantities displayed good growth through 1997, and strong growth in imports over the same period confirms the strength of domestic demand.The strengthening in domestic activity brought about a strong increase in employment in the last half of 1997, and most of this increase was in full-time employment. With the rise in the demand for labour, unemployment fortunately has begun to fall. Encouraged by improved employment prospects, retail trade strengthened mid-year and motor vehicle sales have been particularly strong. In fact, retail trade rose a seasonally adjusted 0.7 per cent in March, indicating a continuing healthy domestic demand.As has frequently be said in this chamber, interest rates are at a historic low, and housing loan rates are at their lowest for 30 years. Declines in interest rates have benefited the nearly 30 per cent of households with home loans and driven housing affordability to its current extremely high level. This, in turn, has underpinned the gradual expansion in dwelling investment. The Treasurer, Mr Costello, constantly refers to this strong consumer demand. Total building approvals jumped a seasonally adjusted 9.8 per cent in March, with a 4.2 per cent for private sector houses.Consistent with the pick-up in consumer spending and the gradual trend towards lower interest rates is the improvement in business trading conditions since the first half of 1997. In fact, the Yellow Pages survey of small business, the National Australia Bank survey of firms across the whole non-farm economy, the ACCI-Westpac survey of manufacturing, and the Dun and Bradstreet survey of manufacturing, retailing and wholesaling have all reported upward trends in business sentiment.Due to the Asian economic crisis, however, positive sentiment was reduced in the March quarter, showing a negative net result for the first time since December 1995. While the economic meltdown in Asia has tended to cloud investment expectations, we really do need to analyse our trade and the extent of trade and prices country by country. Our most important markets of Japan and Korea have taken strong measures to assist the recovery process—Japan by lowering taxes, by government spending in infrastructure and other areas; Korea, of course, by its own efforts to overcome its difficulties, assisted greatly by the international community.To date, the government's strong management of the economy and its policy of trade diversification have resulted in Australia's exports holding up remarkably well—and, I might say, against the odds. Exports were up $8 billion in the first eight months of this financial year—a 12.1 per cent increase. Diversification of product and markets have prevented the external shock from taking an undue immediate toll on Australia's trade performance.What I would say is that the big risk for Australia is undoubtedly the possibility of a meltdown in China. I have had very interesting discussions on this matter with my colleague Senator O'Chee, who is of Chinese descent. The impact of a decline in property prices in Hong Kong and downward movements in the share market in Hong Kong could move across to depress Mainland China values and I think we could well expect some depreciation of the China currency—the Yuan—which could subsequently have quite a significant impact on Australia-China trade. So I say to listeners that the place to watch is perhaps not so much Indonesia—although that country's problems are essentially economic but leading to social dislocation and inflation of food prices. Australia's focus in the immediate future should certainly be on China.Market diversification has been under way for the past two years, a period over which exports have continued to increase in value, notwithstanding Japan's stagnant economy. Undoubtedly at least part of the diversification in the increase of products in export markets has been driven by contrary movements in the value of the dollar—up against East Asian currencies but down against the US dollar and the major European currencies. It is not surprising in such an environment that the numbers of tourists to Australia are decreasing from places such as Korea but are tending to increase from Europe because of differences in relative exchange rates.Australia, given its integration with Asian markets, is clearly more exposed than many other countries to developments in the region, with the possible exception of New Zealand. The decline in Asian demand has led policy makers elsewhere to take a more relaxed view of their own growth in order to absorb the global demand slack and China's stern intent to maintain the value of the yuan. I think this may be seriously tested following the results of the last day or two, and Asian currencies do fluctuate widely on a daily basis.Most of the expected growth in investment in 1997-98 is certainly in the mining industry. I was privileged to attend a mining industry dinner last night and to hear of some of the remarkable contributions that its members make to the Australian economy. The decline in global commodity prices over recent months is a cause of some concern and may contribute to a waning confidence in this sector. However, the appreciation of the Australian dollar against major currencies is expected to support long-term profitability.The Reserve Bank has an inflation target—an independent target—of between two and three per cent. Inflation expectations remain close to their lowest levels for a generation. Keeping both wage and price aspirations to a realistic level will play a big part in achieving the banks' and the government's targets. Inflation is currently well under control. This is a remarkable achievement given the history of double digit inflation since the 1970s.The government is committed to low inflation because it assists business to make sound investment decisions and underpins the creation of new and lasting jobs. Low and steady inflation gives savers and investors confidence to make long-term decisions and provides clear signals on the best allocation of resources. Low inflation provides the underpinning for the strong, sustained growth required to make lasting inroads into unemp loyment. The low inflation Australia has experienced is not accidental. It is a direct result of the government's policies, which have enabled us to weather the financial instability in a much better shape than other economies in our region.Annual wage growth remains under the Reserve Bank's 4.5 per cent comfort level. Manufacturing settlements are still considered to be high but ultimately what is an acceptable wage gain is governed by productivity growth.If there is one lesson that we should take from Asia, it is that adverse, external events can arise quickly and with significant effects. Sensible economic management means strengthening the position not only to meet known challenges but also to provide for contingencies. (Time expired)19:38:003436Senate adjourned at 7.38 p.m.Documents34363436The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Defence Act—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations Nos 15-17 of 1998.National Health Act—Determination No. ACC.DNCB.98-01.Taxation Determination TD 98/11.Taxation Ruling— TR 97/25 (Addendum). TR 98/6.Answers to Questions on Notice3437The following answers to questions were circulated:3437(Question No. 1096)10963437O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 12 March 1998:With reference to the press release of the former Minister (Mr Sharp) of 28 August 1997:(1) Has the $5 million mentioned been spent to upgrade track in Tasmania; if so, to whom was it paid, when and to what purpose will the money be put; if not: (a) why not; (b) will it ever be paid; and (c) when and for what purpose.(2) What monies have been paid to date to the buyers of Australian National; (b) on what dates were payments made, to whom and for what purpose; and (c) are there more payments to be made to the purchasers of Australian National; if so, to whom, when, how much and for what purpose.3437Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question.(1) I recently approved a program submitted to me by the Tasmanian Minister for Transport for the expenditure of the $5m. To date, none of the money has actually been spent, but $2m is available in the 1997/98 Budget for this purpose and $1m per annum for each of the three years thereafter. The funds are to be spent on four projects (i) sleeper replacement on Tasrail main lines, especially between Hobart, Bridgewater and Boyer—$3.31m (ii) Don River Railway workshop development—$0.735m (iii) Derwent Valley Railway bridge restoration—$0.345m (iv) level crossing upgrading on Tasrail—$0.61m.(2) No Commonwealth capital payments have been made to the buyers of Australian National at this time, and, apart from the above, no such payments are currently intended. The Commonwealth has made regular payments to Great Southern Railway Ltd as reimbursement of concessional travel provided on its trains in accordance with the sale agreement and further payments will be made for this purpose. 3437(Question No. 1121)11213437O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1998:With reference to the answer to Question on Notice No. 186 (Hansard , 9 December 1996. p6995) which provides details of payments made to individual mining companies, including in which the Minister for Resources and Energy, has a substantial holding, under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme:(1) Can the amount of rebate through this scheme received by any companies, partnerships or trusts in which the following Ministers, or their spouses or immediate family, have a direct or indirect interest for the financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97 be provided: (a) the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, (b) the Minister for Trade; and (c) the Minister for Defence.(2) Can the amount rebate paid to the Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining Limited in the 1996-97 financial year be provided.3437Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I have been advised by the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service that the information provided in the Senator's question does not enable the details of rebate that may have been received under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme in the circumstances outlined to be identified.(2) $1,311,606.453437(Question No. 1123)11233437Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:With reference to the East Gippsland, Tasmania and Central Highlands Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs):(1) Which power or precedent enables the Commonwealth to bind future Governments to the payment of compensation if the intentions of logging and mining companies are thwarted by Commonwealth action to protect the environment, as the Tasmanian and Central Highlands RFAs purport to do.(2) How much money has been spent on the preparation of each of the three RFAs signed so far.(3) (a) How much money has been allocated to the implementation of each of the RFAs; (b) of this, how much is from the Natural Heritage Trust, how much is from other existing programs, specifying which programs, and how much is new money; and (c) in total, how much is from the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and how much is from the Department of the Environment.(4) Why is legislation being prepared to give effect to the RFAs if they are already legally binding.(5) Of the native forest woodchips exported since each of the RFAs was signed: (a) what volumes exported by which companies were covered under export licences, specifying the licence numbers; and (b) what volumes exported by which companies were not covered by export licences.(6) If the State Government authorised native forest logging, in an area covered by a RFA, which failed to comply with its own legislation, management plans or codes of conduct: (a) would it contravene the RFA; and (b) what action could the Commonwealth take.3438Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Under both the Tasmanian and Central Highlands RFAs, the Commonwealth will pay compensation to the State if it takes any action during the period of the RFA which is inconsistent with any provision of the RFA and a probable or foreseeable consequence of which is to prevent or substantially limit:(i) the use of land which is not included in the comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reserve system for forestry operations; or(ii) the sale or commercial use of forest products sourced from land which is not included within the CAR reserve system; or(iii) the construction on land which is not included within the CAR reserve system of roads being built or intended to be built where the primary purpose of those roads is for the transportation of forest products sourced from land which is not included in the CAR reserve system.While this provision is contained in a part of the RFA which is expressed to be legally binding, clause 92 provides that if such provisions cannot create legally enforceable rights or obligations, the provisions are to be read as not intending to create legally enforceable rights and obligations.The government is well aware that no government, current or future, can bind the Parliament to appropriate moneys whether for the payment of compensation or otherwise.(2) Provisional estimates of expenditure by the Commonwealth on the preparation of the three RFAs are as follows: Tasmania—$7.7 million; East Gippsland and Central Highlands—$12.2 million.It should be noted that these figures are estimates and are based on a number of assumptions regarding allocation of costs across portfolios. It should also be noted that it is not possible to provide an accurate disaggregation of costs associated with the East Gippsland and Central Highlands RFAs because many expenses were incurred on a State rather than regional basis.(3) (a) East Gippsland—No allocation; Central Highlands—$13.8 million; Tasmania—$110 million.(b) East Gippsland—Not applicable; Central Highlands—$13.8 million from the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package (FISAP); Tasmania—$20 million from the Natural Heritage Trust, $90 million in new appropriations.(c) East Gippsland—Not applicable; Central Highlands—DPIE $13.8 million; Tasmania—Of the $90 million in new appropriations, $71 million is to be provided through DPIE, $16 million through DoE and $3 million through DIST.(4) Only part three of the Tasmanian and Central Highlands RFAs is expressed to be legally binding. The primary reason for the legislation is to give effect to some key provisions which are not expressed to be legally binding in the Tasmanian and Central Highlands RFAs, thereby providing greater certainty about the operation of RFAs.(5) (a) Between the date of signing of the East Gippsland RFA (3 February 1997) and the commencement of the Export Control (Regional Forest Agreement) Regulations (the RFA Regulations), on 14 April 1997, two companies exported native forest woodchips under RFA licences issued for that region under the 1996 Regulations, namely:CompanyLicence No.VolumeHarris—Daishowa (Australia) Pty LtdMEPWOOD 1511(issued 17/2/97)36,170.5 green tonnesMidway Wood Products Pty LtdMEPWOOD 1512(issued 17/2/97)4,481 green tonnes(b) Given that the RFAs themselves provide for the conservation of the environment and heritage values of native forests, the RFA Regulations provide that while an RFA is in force for a region, woodchips and unprocessed wood sourced from native forests in that region are not prescribed goods within the meaning of the Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips) (1996) Regulations (the 1996 Regulations) and the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations. Since 14 April 1997, as a consequence of the operation of the RFA regulations, exporters of such material have not required an export licence. No company-specific data on the volume of forest woodchip exports without licences are therefore available.(6) It is not possible to provide a categorical answer to either parts (a) or (b) of this question without knowing what specific breaches or conduct was envisaged. Action would contravene the RFA if it was not consistent with the RFA.3439(Question No. 1139)11393439O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 15 April 1998:(1) How many families, by State, are in receipt of assistance through the Government's drought exceptional circumstances (DEC) program.(2) (a) How long have these families been in receipt of this assistance; (b) when is support due to terminate; (c) how many families, by State, are in the recovery period; and (d) when did that period commence and when is it due to end.(3) What other assistance has been provided to these families through related programs such as Austudy.(4) (a) How much has been expended through the drought exceptional circumstances program, by State, each financial year from the financial year 1994-95; and (b) can funding be provided by category, this is, family support payments and interest rate subsidies.(5) (a) At what rate is the Government reducing the level of assistance through interest rate subsidies; and (b) when will this form of assistance cease.(6) Can details be provided of the number of farmers in receipt of an interest subsidy of 100 per cent, and farmers receiving less than a 100 per cent subsidy by level of support, for the financial years, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98.(7) Has the Government actually reduced the level of interest subsidies under DEC to farmers as part of its new policy regime.(8) What applications have been received from State Governments, or organisations, for assistance under DEC in the financial years 1996-97, and 1997-98.(9) Has the Minister considered these applications and what was the result of that consideration.3439Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Federal Government assistance is provided in two parts, income support and interest rate subsidies.As at 1 May 1998, there were 2,743 farmers receiving the Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment:State/TerritoryNumber of farmersNSW254QLD2,445VIC44SANil to dateWANil to dateTASNil to dateNTNil to dateTotal2,743The table below provides information on the number of recipients under the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) DEC business support in the form of Interest Rate Subsidies (IRS).State/Territory1994/951995/961996/971997/98 (as at 31/3/98)NSW177720811296329QLD276725711917764VICNil 511Nil to dateSA1211041Nil to dateWANilNilNilNil to dateTAS574426Nil to dateNTNilNilNilNil to dateTotal4722485132411093(2) (a) In November 1997 there were 8,200 farm families in receipt of DRP (now the ECRP). Of these recipients, 2,897 had been in receipt of ECRP for more than 3 years, 2,253 for between 2 and 3 years, 1,439 for between 1 and 2 years and the remaining 1,611 for up to 1 year. The DRP commenced operation in October 1994.Some farmers in Queensland who are currently in receipt of DEC IRS assistance may have been accessing this type of assistance since 1993 due to continuing DEC status, provided that they that they have not exceeded the maximum level of allowable support under the RAS.Some farmers in NSW who are currently in receipt of DEC IRS support may have been accessing this type of assistance since 1994.(b) DEC IRS support is subject to review after twelve months and dependent on the continuation of the Exceptional Circumstances status and the date of the revocation of EC status. Upon revocation of DEC status, farmers in those revoked areas would still be eligible to apply for a further 12 months of DEC IRS, within the 6 months recovery period.ECRP is available to eligible farmers in areas declared as experiencing exceptional circumstances. Upon revocation of EC status, eligible farmers are still entitled to receive ECRP within the 12 months recovery period.Farmers in NSW and Queensland DEC areas which were revoked on 7 July 1997 (except for those areas within Flinders, Aramac and Winton Shires in Queensland which have been re-instated on 8 April 1998) are no longer eligible to apply for DEC IRS as the 6 months recovery period ended on 6 January 1998. Eligible farmers are however still entitled to receive ECRP until 6 July 1998.Farmers in Cobar and Wilcannia (south of the Barrier Highway and south of that portion of the Darling River east of Wilcannia) RLPBs in NSW which were revoked on 31 December 1997 have up to 30 June 1998 to apply for DEC IRS. Eligible farmers are still entitled to receive ECRP until 30 December 1998.(c) As at March 1998, there were 814 farmers in Queensland who were in the recovery period and had received DEC interest rate subsidies. There were an estimated 779 Queensland farmers in receipt of the ECRP who were in their recovery period.As at March 1998, there are 131 farmers in NSW who were in the recovery period and had received DEC interest rate subsidies. There were an estimated 200 NSW farmers in receipt of the ECRP who were in their recovery period. ECRP for approximately 140 NSW farmers who are located in EC areas revoked on 7 July 1997 will cease on 6 July 1998. ECRP payments will cease for 60 farmers on 30 December 1998.No farmers are in a recovery period in the other States.(d) Farmers in NSW and Queensland DEC areas which were revoked on 7 July 1997 (except for those areas within Flinders, Aramac and Winton Shires in Queensland which have been re-instated on 8 April 1998) are no longer eligible to apply for DEC IRS as the 6 months recovery period ended on 6 January 1998. Eligible farmers are however still entitled to receive ECRP until 6 July 1998.Farmers in Cobar, Wilcannia (south of the Barrier Highway and south of that portion of the Darling River east of Wilcannia) RLPBs in NSW which were revoked on 31 December 1997, have up to 30 June 1998 to apply for DEC IRS. However eligible farmers are still entitled to receive ECRP until 30 December 1998.(3) Farmers eligible for ECRP may also receive additional family payment for dependent children, exemption from the assets test for Austudy recipients and a health care card. There is also an Exceptional Circumstances Declared Drought Area Special Incentive where a $3,000 incentive is provided to employers in rural Australia in DEC areas who employ a New Apprentice under the National Rural Skills Traineeship.(4) (a) & (b) The table below provides information on the Commonwealth expenditure for business support payments in the form of DEC interest rate subsidies:State/Territory1994/951995/961996/971997/98 (as at 28/2/98)$m$m$m$mNSW26.64434.80824.9216.764QLD33.35232.06923.7187.775VICNil0.9020.017Nil to dateSA0.6280.6430.311Nil to dateWANilNilNil Nil to dateTAS0.8670.9980.613Nil to dateNTNil Nil Nil Nil to dateTable below provides information on the Commonwealth expenditure for income support in the form of DRP (from 1 December 1997 became ECRP).State/Territory1994/951995/961996/971997/98 (as at 28/2/98)$m$m$m$mNSW37.461.351.621.3QLD43.364.256.231.9VICNil0.20.40.2SA0.83.01.80.7WANilNilNil Nil to dateTAS0.41.21.00.4NTNil Nil Nil Nil to dateTotal81.9129.9111.054.5(5) (a) The Government announced, as part of its Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, that the level of interest subsidies will be phased down on the following scale: 100% in 1998-99, 85% in 1999-2000, 70% in 2000-01 and 50% in 2001-02.(b) The need for business support in exceptional circumstances after 2001-02 will be reviewed in 2001-02.(6) The level of interest rate subsidy by State and financial year for EC (including DEC) is summarised in the following table.State/Territory1994/951995/961996/971997/98 (as at 28/2/98)NSW100 %NilNilNilNil to dateless than 100 % 177720811296317QLD100 %491913 21less than 100 %271825521904609VIC100 %Nil511Nil to dateless than 100 %NilNilNil Nil to dateSA100 %77721Nil to dateless than 100 %4432NilNil to date WA100 %NilNilNilNil to dateless than 100 %NilNil NilNil to dateTAS100 %NilNilNilNil to dateless than 100 %574426Nil to dateNT100 %NilNilNilNil to dateless than 100 %NilNilNilNil to dateTotal472248513241947(7) No. See answer to question 5 (a) above.(8) Applications in 1996-97 were received from Northern Territory. DEC application for the Alice Springs regionApplications in 1997-98 were received from:Victoria. DEC application for East GippslandTasmania. DEC application for Flinders IslandQueensland. Application for reinstatement of DEC for South Burnett Region. Application for reinstatement of DEC for the Mundubbera Shire. Application for reinstatement of DEC for parts of Flinders, Winton and Aramac Shires, and Duaringa and Mundubbera Shires (at the request of Queensland Government assessment of Duaringa and Mundubbera Shires was later deferred until the Autumn 1998 review)New South Wales. DEC application for Monaro A. DEC application for Wentworth RLPB. DEC application for Monaro B(9) Consideration has been given to these applications and the following are the results:Northern Territory. Alice Springs region did not meet the threshold meteorological criterion and did not quality for DEC—announced in July 1997Victoria. East Gippsland for DEC—announced March 1998. Tasmania. Flinders Island for DEC—announced April 1998Queensland. Reinstatement of DEC for the South Burnett Region—announced August 1997. Application for reinstatement of Mundubbera Shire was unsuccessful—announced September 1997.. Reinstatement of DEC for parts of Flinders, Winton and Aramac Shires—announced April 1998. Consideration of Mundubbera and Duaringa Shires—deferred consideration until Autumn Review 1998 (currently in progress)New South Wales. Monaro A (initially submitted as a DEC application, and later considered under EC)—February 1998. Wentworth RLPB did not meet the threshold meteorological criterion and did not quality for DEC—announced December 1997. Monaro B for DEC—announced April 1998In addition to the above DEC applications, there were applications for general EC received and considered. These included north and south Gippsland in Victoria and areas of Western Australia.