1998-06-223817SENATE355501998-06-22The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Committees355535553555Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Ferguson)—by leave—agreed to:That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of the Senate today, from 12.30 pm till 1.00 pm to take evidence for its inquiry into the provisions of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 .Bills3555r4713555Message received from the House of Representatives returning the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 agreeing to amendments Nos 1 to 4 and 6 to 30, disagreeing to amendment No. 5 made by the Senate, and requesting the reconsideration of the bill in respect of the amendment disagreed to.Ordered that the message be considered in committee of the whole forthwith.House of Representatives message—Schedule of the amendment made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed:(5) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 2), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Liability for debts or liabilities of a related body corporate48 After Division 6 of Part 5.7BInsert:Division 6A—Liability of a company for the debts or liabilities of a related body corporate588YA Liability of a company for the debts or liabilities of a related body corporate(1) On the application of the liquidator or a creditor of a company that is being wound up in insolvency, or on the application of the Commission, the Court may, if it is satisfied that it is just, order that a company that is or has been a related body corporate must pay to the liquidator the whole or part of the amount of a debt or liability of the first-mentioned company that is an admissible claim in the winding up.(2) In deciding whether it is just to make an order under subsection (1), the matters to which the Court must have regard include: (a) the extent to which the related body corporate took part in the management of the company; and (b) the conduct of the related body corporate towards the creditors of the company generally and to the creditor to which the debt or liability relates; and (c) the extent to which the circumstances that gave rise to the winding up of the company are attributable to the actions of the related body corporate; and (d) the extent to which the insolvent company has, at any time, engaged in one or more transactions which have resulted in the value of the insolvent company's assets being reduced; and (e) any other relevant matters.(3) An order under this section may be subject to conditions.(4) An order must not be made under this section if the only ground for making the order is that creditors of the company have relied on the fact that another company is or has been a related body corporate of the company.49 Section 1317HDRepeal the section, substitute:1317HD Recovery of profits, and compensation for loss, resulting from contravention(1) Where a person contravenes a civil penalty provision in relation to a corporation, the corporation, a creditor or the Commission may recover from the person, as a debt due to the corporation: (a) if that or another person has made a profit because of the act or omission constituting the contravention—an amount equal to the amount of that profit; and (b) if the corporation has suffered loss or damage as a result of that act or omission—an amount equal to the amount of that loss or damage; whether or not: (c) the first-mentioned person has been convicted of an offence in relation to the contravention; or (d) a civil penalty order has been made against the first-mentioned person in relation to the contravention.(2) Proceedings under this section may be begun only within 6 years after the contravention.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the committee does not insist upon the amendment to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.12:33:003556Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This message on the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 relates to the Patrick amendment which was inserted into the Corporations Law. It is a provision that would allow creditors of a company, including employees, to apply to the court for an order to recover for a parent company moneys that may have been stripped from that company in order to avoid paying that creditor—in this case obviously being the workers. The most notorious example of that has been where the Patrick group of companies systematically and wilfully stripped the labour hire companies in the group in order to avoid the obligations that companies owed to their respective work forces.We in the ALP believe in the principle that this amendment embodies. We also have committed ourselves to the passage of the Wallis related legislation. It is our belief that insisting upon this amendment in this bill would only give the government the opportunity to misrepresent and to malign the Australian Labor Party regarding its position on the Wallis legislation. We will not give the government that type of opportunity. We, therefore, will not be insisting upon the Patrick amendment at this point in time.The ALP believes that the change embodied in this amendment cannot be done in isolation. This is why we are reviewing the Patrick case in the light of the need to make substantive changes to the industrial relations law. We have also introduced a private member's bill, the employee security bill, into the House to give workers greater ability to recover their entitlements when they have been unilaterally sacked by companies that then seek to deny paying them their legitimate entitlements through nothing short of a financial sham. Given the government's wholehearted and full endorsement of the action Patrick took to sack their work force, the opposition will use this bill to highlight the government's anti-worker, pro-sacking agenda.12:35:003556Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Before I speak to the substance of this motion on the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 I wish to put a question to the parliamentary secretary. Parliamentary Secretary, in Northam on Friday Senator Ross Lightfoot informed the gathering that he would much rather work with the One Nation Party than with the Democrats. I would like to know if that is your opinion too.12:35:003556Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I do not think that is relevant to this debate, Madam Chairman, and I hope it is an entirely hypothetical question.12:36:003556Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—It is relevant to the debate. I record that Senator Ian Campbell has avoided the question. I, therefore, categorise him with those who would link themselves to race rather than reason and who are afraid to come out and say that they reject utterly the notion of preferring One Nation to the Democrats in terms of dealings in this place.12:36:003556Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Murray can put on my response what he would like, but if he listened to my response he could not possibly put that interpretation upon it. I did suggest to Senator Murray that we are at the moment dealing with the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 . I am not aware that the party that he referred to have a view about the bill or whether they would be capable of having a view about the bill, quite frankly. I certainly have not seen any pronouncements in relation to this bill.The only economic pronouncement I have seen by that particular party, the One Nation Party, in relation to economics was that the way they would solve the economic dilemmas of Australia was basically to let us all use our photocopiers to print money. Their views on the economy are that you can fix Australia's economy by printing money or giving people two per cent loans. Our way of giving people two per cent loans is to work on inflation and work on the economy and get interest rates down to competitive levels. So I have very little in common with people who would put forward those sorts of things.Senator Murray, I did say that I hope your question was entirely hypothetical. If you think carefully about what I said, you will know exactly what I meant.12:37:003557Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer for his full response. He has, in fact, picked up the relevance of my question. Senator Lightfoot inferred that, whatever bill is before this place, he would prefer to be working with One Nation. I merely want to know whether the parliamentary secretary would prefer to work with One Nation with respect to this bill, as Senator Lightfoot would.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—You stopped the Native Title Amendment Bill from getting through and that is why One Nation is where it is!RF4COOKSenator Cook—Why don't you put them last! Why don't you have some guts and put them last?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook. Order! Senator Lightfoot. We are debating the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 . Senator Murray has the call.Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—This amendment is a material amendment to the Corporations Law and deals with issues were a company to restructure its affairs through its subsidiary to avoid its liabilities to either creditors or employees.I appreciate, Senator Cook, your remarks concerning your continued support for the principle of the amendment. I would advise you that, accordingly, I will again move that amendment to the Company Law Review Bill 1997 which is due for debate later this week. Therefore, I will accept the intention that is here before us: that, in terms of numbers, this amendment will now not go through. I advise the Senate that, although I will not be insisting on a division, the Australian Democrats would have insisted on this amendment because we think it is critical.I would ask the parliamentary secretary to consider the terms of any future rejection which the government may be considering if this same amendment, now to be put to the Company Law Review Bill, is passed. I consider that some of the reasons that have been provided are both inadequate and possibly misleading. I do not mean intentionally misleading; I mean possibly misleading in terms of a number of matters referred to in the reasons.The matters refer to the possibility of the amendment proving a problem in that the terms and the nature of the provision give little guidance to parties and their advisers as to permitted and non-permitted conduct. Specifically the first area with which I would take issue is that the Law Reform Commission—which principally drafted that amendment way back in 1988, except for two changes made by me and by Senator Cook—deliberately wanted the courts to be the arbiter of these issues because it was not intended to be prescriptive or difficult in relation to how companies structure themselves but merely to guide how they should behave. If they do not go insolvent as a result of manipulating or deliberately structuring their affairs in such a way that they do go insolvent, then they have little to fear. I remind the government that the way in which that amendment was structured was the specific consequence of a view and a recommendation by the Law Reform Commission in 1988.The second area with which I take issue relates to conglomerates. Once again, conglomerates have nothing to fear unless either they or their subsidiaries are likely to go insolvent. Fortunately in Australia that very seldom happens. I do not mean it will not ever happen, but it very seldom happens, and I do not think that is a weighty enough reason to reject the amendment. Frankly, if it did happen to some of their subsidiaries—as is the case with Patrick at present or in the Cobar instance—then it is the court which would determine whether there had been any malpractice which would result in those matters then coming to the consideration of the court.The third area relates to the issue of Minco. For the record, I remind the Senate that not only did a number of parties, including me, take issue with the Patrick arrangements and how they were restructuring their subsidiaries—and, indeed, there are the Cobar and Woodlawn examples—but also the government was advised by press release on 3 May of the exact nature of the amendment which was proposed to be moved. I am aware, as is the parliamentary secretary, that if the government finds it necessary it is able to move very rapidly indeed with Minco. Somebody put the view to me—and I cannot recall who it was—that arrangements with Minco could take up to 18 months to resolve. That might be true, but, with this very bill before us, for instance, the package of 39 pages of amendments was realised far quicker than that following the Wallis recommendations and following the government's views as to how to do things. Since this is only one page of amendment, certainly it is within the ability and the very strong lobbying power of the parliamentary secretary, to which I have at times been victim, to get on his bike and get the appropriate authority and support from the necessary states. So, once again, I regard that as an inadequate approach.My view, Parliamentary Secretary—as you know, I have expressed it to you privately—for the record is that the government take a different approach. I am open to view that approach, providing the consequence of what you do is to outlaw activity which immorally and unjustly strips assets from subsidiaries so that creditors or employees do not receive their entitlements. Knowing your personal morality, I know you would not approve of that. I know you do not regard it as something which is desirable that people artificially or immorally avoid their obligations. I would ask you to take note of my remarks in any consideration of any future amendments in this regard.12:45:003558Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am just standing to indicate that the Greens (WA) feel there is nothing that has significantly changed between now and when the vote was taken to change our view in relation to the amendments. The majority of the Senate has passed amendments to this bill and it is quite fair and reasonable for the Senate to amend legislation by representing the community. If the government do not accept this they obviously have a problem with democracy. Therefore I will be voting in the same way that the Greens (WA) did on the previous occasion.Question resolved in the affirmative.Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills3558r4243558Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:47:003558Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am speaking in continuation on the Managed Investments Bill 1997 , Madam Acting Deputy President, and I will pick up from where I left off, with your permission. My fourth test is competition. Australia has 22 statutory trustee companies. There are an estimated 500 scheme managers operating some 2,000 schemes in Australia. It is expected the bill will result in market rationalisation. IFSA, described by Chanticleer in the Australian Financial Review on 19 March 1998 as representing the big fund managers, believes that there will be `fewer schemes, fewer trusts, fewer managers'. This certainly means fewer competitors.Given the apparent diversity of the industry at present, rationalisation does not yet repre sent the danger of an unacceptable level of industry concentration. Nevertheless, that danger, so real in much of Australian business life, may well become greater under the bill. Rationalisation does not necessarily mean better competition. Economist Dr Dwyer is of the opinion that the bill runs the risk of forcing prudent Australian investors to invest offshore in better protected funds in the better regulated markets. This would advantage foreign competitors.Will the bill significantly affect the ability of Australian funds to market their products overseas? Under existing law we have no access to American markets but the United States funds do have access to our markets. As a large capital importer, our government obviously believes that it has to put up with this lack of reciprocity, which also extends to other industries such as agriculture and manufacturing. The Australian Securities Commission currently approves schemes from Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, New Zealand, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man to operate in Australia. Australian schemes are known by the ASC to operate in New Zealand but access to other countries, if any, would be negotiated directly between the fund and the foreign regulator. The ASC states:. . . does not expect that the passage of the Managed Investments Bill will alter the existing or potential access of Australian funds to foreign jurisdictions, or the access of foreign funds to Australia.So there we have it: one side says it will be bad while the other side says it does not really know but it is not going to change things much. Will the bill significantly affect the willingness of foreigners to invest in Australian funds? Will they see investor protection reduced by the bill? With regard to international competitiveness, Dr Dwyer again is of the opinion that we are on dangerous ground with the bill. He says:Here we are in Australia signing treaties, such as the World Trade Organisation, committing ourselves to free trade and financial services, while potentially implementing a regulatory regime that the Americans will be extremely fast to point out is substandard and below theirs . . . once you suffer from a lack of confidence in your regulatory arrangements, then you are in trouble.The area of choice is one in which the case is clear. It seems obvious that informed, self-sufficient and innovative risk takers should be able to opt for alternative products. It is ironic that a coalition government which makes much of the philosophy of choice wishes to move from one mandatory trustee single choice system to another mandatory single responsible entity, single choice system.Both the present mandatory system and the bill's mandatory system can be rightly criticised for interfering with the freedom of investors collectively to determine their own prudential requirements. That is regarded as the price one pays for having secure investment systems which enjoy international and domestic approval. But limiting freedom should not mean no freedom or choice at all and it should certainly not mean no consultation with investors, who surely have the right to make the choice. There is no provision in this bill to oblige fund managers or the government to ask the investors in the funds their opinion.Single responsible entities are already a feature of Australian financial life through banks, life insurance companies and superannuation funds, for instance, although each has different fiduciary regulatory constraints. The government has determined that all new future collective management schemes be single responsible entities. The Australian Democrats do not propose to oppose that intention although, as is evident, we are fearful that it may expose some classes of investor to greater risk.The government has also determined that all existing investment schemes will be single responsible entities subject to a transitional period of two years. The Australian Democrats do oppose that intention unless the investors in those funds themselves want to change. We believe that investors in existing schemes should have a say in whether they move to an single responsible entity environment or not.There are also fund managers who oppose single responsible entities, as in the submission to the committee from Fidelity Invest ments, an American subsidiary, which finds trustees to be a cheaper and better option than having to go in-house with all the compliance and custodial duties. A number of smaller and medium sized Australian fund managers hold the same view and presented evidence at the hearings. Indeed, this bill is characterised by its opponents as being designed for, and strongly favouring, the big end of town.The Australian Democrats believe that the existing system can and should run parallel to the single responsible entity system, if investors in existing funds wish that it do so. This means that in existing funds, where investors so choose, the use of a trustee will continue.The bill provides for a two-year transitional period for existing schemes. The transitional arrangements allow either the existing management company or trustee to become the responsible entity. The government intends investors will move from one mandatory scheme to another mandatory scheme. For us, there is an amazing presumption here—that the government can simply alter the security enjoyed by an investor without consulting them, or without requiring the funds themselves to consult them. It has not been established that the investors in each existing scheme want to change. Whether there is a majority or a minority in each existing scheme is unknown. Investors were largely unrepresented at the hearing that the committee held. Small investors in particular were not represented. I have seen, for example, that an organisation such as the Australian Consumers Association, which supports this bill, has not even asked the question of its own members.The bill permits the ASC to appoint a custodian, or the fund manager may voluntarily appoint one. There is, however, no provision for investors to make the appointment. There will undoubtedly be investors who prefer the approach taken in the bill. There will also undoubtedly be investors who are more comfortable with the existing system. In a democracy, both should have a choice. Our quarrel with this bill is not that the government should take a view but that the government has failed to allow investors to take a view. There are major problems with this bill. In our view, it does not provide choice and it does lessen security. That view is shared by a number of very senior and very capable persons in the community and it is opposed by other senior and capable persons. The Australian Democrats will be moving amendments to this bill in the committee stage to address the problems I have outlined.12:55:003560Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Managed Investments Bill 1997 is a curious bill in many respects. It is especially curious as it positively works against some of the government's favourite catchcries, particularly its favoured stance of promoting domestic and international competitiveness and flexibility in contractual arrangements. It is absolutely the opposite of the theme that the government was trying to push during the last sitting fortnight in relation to choice in superannuation funds—whether that choice was real or not.This bill will leave investors with no choice between different structures. This bill will rob investors of the choice of having the protection of a trustee. This bill will diminish investors' rights of redress against negligent directors. The bill will leave Australia with an investor protection regime that is one of the weakest and least proactive regimes in the world. The bill will leave Australia with a regime that will favour large fund managers over small fund managers and that will make it very difficult for small funds to even enter the market.The Managed Investments Bill 1997 , along with the related Company Law Review Bill 1997 , will bring about significant changes to the way in which business operates. The Managed Investments Bill 1997 radically changes the structure of managed investment schemes in Australia. It alters the schemes from being two-tiered schemes, which include a funds manager and a trustee in a supervisory and watchdog capacity, to single-tier schemes comprising a single responsible entity. The Managed Investments Bill 1997 relates to non-superannuation collective investment schemes. I will come back to the government's inconsistent dealing with super annuation investment schemes and non-superannuation investment schemes later.This bill raises serious questions on a number of fronts. First of all, on the investor front, this bill undermines the protection that investors currently enjoy and limits the choices available. On the competition front, in absolute contrast to the usual song sung by the government the bill actually undermines competition, especially for smaller funds, as a result of the costs involved in the new scheme.On the international front, this bill undermines the pursuit of international best practice—another favourite tune that the government normally prefers to whistle. On a democratic front, this bill undermines the parliamentary process by leaving the details of this new scheme to be determined by the Australian Securities Commission at its leisure—outside the scrutiny and view of citizens and their representatives in parliament.Investors are the losers in this bill. This bill not only weakens the protection for investors but removes any choice for investors as to the level of protection they would prefer. It is a bizarre situation that the government has been blowing the horn of flexibility in contractual arrangements in the area of workplace relations and superannuation investment yet is proposing to limit the freedom to contract in the important area of investor protection and consumer choice in managed investment funds. I wonder who is pushing this line?While it seems rational that professional or informed investors should have the option to invest in a scheme without the prudential protections of a trustee, it is hard to think why the government wants to prohibit two-tiered investment schemes. The bill forces investors to accept a lower level of protection whether they like it or not. What is wrong with the so called mum and dad investors actually being able to have custodians or trustees to make sure the whiz-kids and screen jockeys don't blow the life savings of small investors?In the lower house, Mr Rocher, the honourable member for Curtin, quoted from the Australian Law Reform Commission's summary to its report, Collective investments: other people's money. I think the quotations are worth putting on record in the Senate as well. The ALRC noted:Many investors decide to invest in these schemes—collective investment schemes—because they do not want the worry and responsibility of day to day management of their money.The ALC also noted:They rely on the law, rather than on their own expertise, to give them appropriate protection.Considering such comments, clearly the issue of consumer investor protection is a crucial one. The Greens (WA) are not convinced—indeed, far from it—that this bill provides anything close to adequate investor protection. The idea which a `single responsible entity' is built on is that there is legal confusion as to who is answerable to investors. This is itself a questionable argument in light of joinder rules. It has been argued that the confusion is not such a calamity in reality. Nevertheless, the axing of the independent trustee is not a logical response to this problem. Clarification of the roles was what was clearly required. Indeed, Standard and Poor's, the international rating agency, has noted that the current structure provides greater investment protection as the trustee and the custodian are clearly independent. They also recognise that an independent custodian is the minimum standard adopted by foreign financial centres.The bill provides significant scope for the responsible entity to engage in fraud and abuse their position. The safeguard under the bill is that the manager must have the support of either the majority of independent directors or a compliance committee. But the bill specifically stops the trustee from filling either of these positions. Pierpont, writing in the Australian Financial Review, elucidates the problem with this so-called `safeguard' through the example of Trustee Executor and Agency, which collapsed in 1983. In that case all of the directors were independent but had no idea about the rorting and speculation that the managing director was engaging in with the company's money. Moreover, the government is yet to outline the qualifications required for members of the compliance committee or how often they are to scrutinise the fund.Under this bill, there is not a stringent set of obligations on prospective fund managers and on day-to-day operations. Additionally, the constitution of a scheme may be modified or replaced with a new constitution by the responsible entity as long as it considers the change will not adversely affect the members' rights. This weak regime is in stark contrast to the highly regulated superannuation industry. Even though there is stringent regulation in the superannuation industry, it seems that there is still room for improvement. Thinking of cases such as EC Consolidated Capital and Sentinel, where `rogue fund managers' managed to decimate the life savings of investors, it seems that superannuation regulation has not gone far enough, especially when it might be compulsory.How can the government possibly consider that the guidelines in the Managed Investments Bill are even close to adequate? Why is the government wanting to resile from commitments to more stringent corporate governance regimes? The Managed Investments Bill is handing over the means to pursue fraud on a golden platter. I can imagine a future Alan Bond or Christopher Skase in the making if this legislation is enacted and then someone will say, `We didn't know.' A similar prediction has been made by the investment managers Maple, Brown, Abbott Ltd in their submission to the committee reviewing this bill. They noted:Unhappily, we predict that if the bill stays in the present form there will one day be substantial losses to investors which external custody may have avoided.Let us look at the issue of redress. The bill leaves aggrieved investors to rely entirely on the Australian Securities Commission to take legal action on their behalf. They will no longer have a trustee legally charged with the duty of protecting their interests and supervising the fund manager to protect against fraud and unauthorised dealings. It diminishes the likelihood of private actions by investors, as most cannot afford the time or money to commence an action in the Supreme Court.The Australian Securities Commission has had no guarantee that its funding will be increased to account for its new role—and perhaps these questions can be answered in the committee stage—and would be required to take an action at public expense to enforce private rights and interests. Mr Cameron of the Australian Securities Commission forewarned the committee by telling them that the ASC did not necessarily see itself being involved in handling complaints by investors against fund managers. So who is going to do it? Or is the answer `nobody'?Adequate access to mechanisms for redress after the event is an important issue. However, perhaps in this instance it is more important to have preventive measures than remedial ones. It is all a bit too late to recover your life savings when the fund assets have been stripped and divested overseas. The ASC has no standing to pursue a claim for anticipated fraud. However, where a trustee holds the asset it may simply decline to draw the cheque until it is satisfied that everything is above board.Let us look at some international comparisons. The coalition, as an enthusiast on global competitiveness and world's best practice, has taken a strange and inconsistent line to put Australia wildly out of step with the rest of the world. In 1995, KPMG conducted a survey of 43 developed countries where public offer investment funds were marketed. In all but the British Virgin Islands and the Netherlands Antilles custodians were mandated. After pursuing that road, now even the British Virgin Islands are making independent custodians or trustees mandatory for managed funds. What does that say about Australia?At a time when the government is continually calling for investment and claiming to be implementing measures to attract investment, this bill seems to work against such aims. It is questionable whether the UK, US or European pension funds will be able to invest in SRE schemes. The bill may also encourage Australian investors to move their money offshore in order to receive higher protection. How does this subvert the parliamentary process?The bill contains little substance on how the legislation will operate in practice. Mr Cameron of the ASC describes the legislation as `outcomes based', which is a nice way of saying that a hell of a lot of meat in the legislation cannot be scrutinised before the bill is passed. That seems to be a growing theme with this government at the moment. Important elements of investor protection have been left to the Australian Securities Commission to determine—for example, how separation of trust property is to be achieved. Neither draft regulations or ASC policy guidelines exist in relation to this bill.This makes it difficult to know how the law will operate. This bill makes rights unduly dependent on ill-defined administrative powers and usurps the parliamentary process. Moreover, the government has lumped the ASC with the onus of monitoring and regulating funds. This huge increase in responsibility has not had a commensurate increase in funding. Indeed, the ASC has this extra burden in the face of a huge slash in its compliance and regulation budget.Why is this scheme anti-competitive? The Managed Investments Bill positively operates in an inequitable manner that disadvantages small fund managers. The effect is the creation of an anti-competitive environment; something I think the government would be horrified by, at least in practice.The bill operates to the advantage of large fund managers for two reasons. Firstly, the increased compliance cost under the new arrangements will be proportionately higher for small fund managers. Large institutions may already have the accounting and legal resources to provide safeguards for investors, but small funds would have to set them up from scratch. On top of that, they would have to hire expensive outside directors and compliance committee members. Secondly, small fund managers have a high level of credibility with investors where there is an independent trustee.Consequently, with lower confidence levels coupled with increased costs, it would be very difficult for a small fund to enter or survive in the current market. These arrangements severely drag on the profitability and flexibili ty of small fund managers. As some of the small fund managers have noted in their submissions to the committee of review of the Managed Investments Bill, the solution seems obvious; let the fund managers who wish to retain trustees keep them, with the proviso that the fund manager is responsible. That would clear up the buck passing worries, while making it commercially viable for smaller fund managers to have a presence in the market.At a time when the crisis in Asia's financial markets is being blamed on cronyism and the lack of investment transparency, why would the government think it prudent to weaken investor protection in a manner out of step with international practice and put many aspects of investment regulation in the unguided ASC regulations?I listened to the remaining contribution of Senator Murray and he mentioned that amendments will be put to this bill. The Greens would like to see changes to this bill as well and would like to see the government responding in a responsible way to the legitimate concerns of not only the wider community—those who know about what they are doing—but also those people who are working on a day-to-day basis with this kind of fund management and who are issuing the strongest possible warning signs that the government is going in the wrong direction in this particular bill.13:10:003563Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I rise to speak briefly on the Managed Investments Bill. I have enjoyed being a part of the discussions in the committee stage of this bill. We have been swamped by information, material, newspaper comment and representations. It is clearly a bill about which there is much interest in the community, although possibly it is limited to the financial parts of the community. Certainly, the financial journalists have been writing at length on it.Like the previous speakers, Senator Margetts and Senator Murray, one of the major concerns that the Labor Party has on this bill is the question of investor protection and whether or not investors—small investors in particular—will be better off under the single responsible entity regime or better of by maintaining some form of trustee or custodian.The Labor Party has looked at this bill, which commenced under our previous government when it was referred to as collective investment reform. We made a number of recommendations that were put into a bill which never made it into the parliament. The government picked up the ball and has moved pretty much with the same bill, although with a couple of important differences.What has been the history of collective investments, or managed investments as they are now called? When you look at what happened to AustWide and Estate Mortgage and the difficulties encountered under the existing regime, you can understand the calls over many years about the need for greater reform. Many investors lost substantial amounts. There was argument about who was responsible and whether it was the fund manager or the trustee. Those are the sorts of issues that this bill is attempting to address.Through the committee process we have also been made aware of the shenanigans that can go on even if you have a single responsible entity. I would like to quote one example, without naming any names or the institution involved. It was given in evidence to us in a confidential sense, so I need to restrict that, unfortunately. It is to do with one of the major banks.Senator Sherry interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No, it is confidential, Senator Sherry. One of the major banks had an unsuccessful share issue that was underwritten by many investment bankers in Australia. About the time that this underwriting was coming to a close, it was clear to the market that there would be a significant shortfall, that the shares were overpriced, and that the market was not going to take up the underwriting.At the time, not only the trustees but other interest groups noticed that something unusual was happening. Without any previous strategies being announced, a number of the managed funds decided to direct their funds to start buying this particular bank's shares in large numbers and out of sequence and context.It is too easy in those circumstances for people not to realise. It is too easy for members' funds to be put into these sorts of investments with these sorts of problems. The outcome of the intervention of the trustees in this case was that the shares in the particular bank were not bought; they were held off. So the price of the shares fell dramatically the day after the close of the underwriting and it was announced that there was a large shortfall. By waiting until after the underwriting closed, and if the decision had then been made to pursue the bank's shares, they would have been purchased at a much cheaper price than they could have been a few days before.This is the sort of problem which I have concerns about. I am concerned that, by moving without question towards a single responsible entity, the bill as it stands does not have enough investor protection. There are significant investor protections. There are attempts to address these sorts of issues but, if you have a situation where Chinese walls are set up within companies and the fund manager also has pressures from above in relation to investments, you can see that investors will be much worse off. There are other examples regarding properties being bought and sold and revalued at different rates than they otherwise would have been from an independent commercial valuer which can be rushed through the system. We were assured by those who were supporting this bill that that would not happen; that it could not happen. I would like to be 100 per cent comfortable that that would be the case. I am probably not at this stage.I am looking forward to the parliamentary secretary's contribution to these issues during the committee stage and the debate that will surround Senator Murray's amendments and some of our own amendments, but I would have to say at this stage that I am not completely convinced that those sorts of examples which were brought to the committee's attention can be addressed adequately in the investor protection rules that we are going to be debating. Like Senator Margetts, I am a bit perplexed that, on the one hand, we have a situation where the government is demanding choice of fund for superannuation investors. As the chamber has already heard on the choice of fund legislation, it is not a real choice; it is a choice for employers rather than employees. But it is at least a choice of sorts. So we have the government, on the one hand, trumpeting that they are about the `democratic right to choose' choice of superannuation fund but, on the other hand, introducing a piece of legislation that specifically mandates against choice.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Choice when it suits them.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is exactly right, Senator Sherry; choice when it suits them. This should take away a large degree of the high moral ground that the government claim they have, though any reading of the choice of fund bill shows they do not. They claim that they have a mandate. I understand that they are reintroducing the choice of fund bill for superannuation into the House of Representatives and into the Senate. In the same week they are introducing a bill that says, `You can't have the choice of a custodian or a trustee if you want to pay for one.' A lot has been made in our own report about this issue. One of the opening sentences in the committee's report in relation to this bill states:More recently, the need for reform has been supported by the final report of the financial system inquiry released on 9 April.That was very compelling evidence and, as you can see, by leading up the committee's report the committee felt very strongly that that was something that needed to be pointed out. Yet, unfortunately, we have seen a number of members of that committee go public. They have written to the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and pointed out that their recommendation was based on the original Labor bill that, in actual fact, is a bit different.I would like to quote from Mrs Nicholls, who is one of the members of the committee that initially supported the original bill before the government's bill had come to complete fruition. She states:I support the concerns expressed that the bill in its current form—that is, the form that we have before us today—removes sound prudential requirements. I also support the view that the bill inappropriately limits investor choice. I believe investors should be free to choose and pay for the extra protection afforded by an independent trustee.These are very strong words from somebody who has been championed by one side of the debate, saying this very important, eminent group of people strongly support the bill. The committee was swayed by that, and it is disappointing to see before the end of the debate such a substantial change. Perhaps it was not a change; perhaps not enough information was made available before people started quoting out of context the committee's support for different sections of the bill.This is a letter to Mr Costello, the Treasurer. I am sure Senator Campbell has seen it and has possibly had some discussions about it. Perhaps in his speech we may be able to hear a little of his discussions—the toned down version—with any of the members of the committee. Professor Ian Harper, who was one of the main people involved with the report and who is to be the chair of APRA—one of the two key bodies that will be administering the financial sector after 1 July—is another person who has written to the government expressing his concern. If the head of APRA is concerned about the bill, that is reason enough for this chamber to have a good hard think about where it is going with this bill and not just glibly brush it off. It is not the trustees, it is not one of the two sets of vested interests that have been so heavily involved in this debate; these are the government's hand-picked members of their committee. More importantly, the head of one of the regulatory authorities is expressing concern about sound prudential requirements being removed.Notwithstanding the debate which has raged on both sides, where we have seen substantial amounts of time and effort go into this bill, there are genuine concerns which through the course of the debate I am hoping we get a chance to air. I think Senator Murray is moving a string of amendments about which we will have a chance to hear the government's position, to hear more from the government than we have heard previously, to hear responses to Mrs Nicholls, Professor Carmichael and Professor Harper. Because these are opinions of people that the government weighs very heavily.We have a whole set of legislation—legislation which I think the Senate may have been dealing with just before this—which was recommended by these individuals; their views carried the day on a whole string of reforms to the financial sector. It just perplexes me as to why, when they write to the government and say, `Look, we're a little concerned that you're going in this direction on this particular financial reform,' all of a sudden their views are to be ignored. So I hope that the government and Senator Campbell are in a position to enlighten us on these things.The other issue that has been taken up strongly by the Labor Party—and I know that Senator Campbell at various stages has made a number of interjections during debates on this issue—is the resourcing of the ASC. Again, we are looking with some interest for Senator Campbell's reassurances on this. I have to say that, following the budget—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Is it in the legislation?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—No. Following the budget—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—L-a-w.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Very good, ten out of ten.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Never, ever.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—He can spell `law'. He cannot spell `never ever', but he can spell `law'.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Order! Senator Conroy, get on with your speech and do not respond to interjections from either side. That would be helpful.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you. The ASC resources that were delivered in the federal budget are not sufficient—they are not sufficient as they stand at the moment. I know that Senator Campbell will have a bit to say on that, so I am looking forward to that.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You won't put a figure on it then?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—A 10 per cent increase; there you are; 10 per cent more.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Can we put that in your budget figures before the election?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Why don't you who are in charge of the area put up some money?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Order! Senator Conroy, address your comments through the chair, and refrain from responding to interjections.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It would be nice if they were not coming.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Just refrain and continue, Senator Conroy.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The issue of the resourcing of the ASC is critical. It would be interesting to know the views of Professor Harper, Professor Carmichael and Mrs Nicholls on whether or not there is sufficient funding for the ASC. Professor Harper, in particular, is heading up one of these two financial regulators. He will have a very keen interest in the level of support that the government is prepared to put into these regulators.The Labor Party is disappointed—and we stress this in the report—about the level of funding in the ASC. I would like to make the point that this is not to be seen as a criticism of the ASC. The ASC is underfunded now; it has been underfunded in the past. I am not trying to apportion partisan blame on this. We have seen what has happened through the 1980s and 1990s. Things are a lot cleaner now than they used to be. But there are still a lot of shonky operators, and there is still a great need for the ASC to maintain its activities in a number of areas.At estimates I have raised the question of the checking of prospectuses and company reports. This is an area where the ASC, because of funding constraints, has decided to reallocate its priorities and cut an entire program of auditing of company reports. It has taken that decision—and this is the ASC speaking—`on the basis that we believe it can be better done in a different way.' It is disappointing to see the ASC doing that. It is disappointing to see the ASC walking away from creating the corporate culture. But these are the sorts of responses it has to make when it keeps getting more and more responsibility and less and less funds.So, as I have said, this is not an attack on the ASC. The ASC is heavily worked but, unfortunately, underfunded. That is a criticism that could probably apply fairly across the governments of both parties in the last few years. We have a situation where there is not less corporate fraud than there was before the last election or in the 12 months before the last election; there is more corporate fraud. There is more need for regulators to chase up what has been going on in the corporate sector. We have seen the Crown Casino under the constant attention of the ASC—that is right, Senator Murray, this is one of my favourite topics. We have seen a whole range of companies that have got away with some fairly shonky practices.I would like to finish up by talking about one of the strongest arguments that seems to have been put forward by one of the trustees, and that is this: there are few countries around the world with just the single responsible entity in this particular area. We have seen Australia, if you like, take the leading edge with this particular debate; we are moving to single responsible entities before others. The government is saying, `Well, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world has done; it doesn't matter that no-one else in the world has been prepared to take this jump that we are taking'.But to the contrary, the government keeps putting forward as one of its strongest arguments for tax reform that, `We've got to have a GST because everyone else has got a GST.' Well, everyone else also has custodians and trustees—but that does not seem to be a convenient argument at the moment. Many other countries have death duties; but Australia is not saying that, on the basis of our being one of the few countries in the world without death duties, we should reintroduce death duties. This just seems selective to me. At one point it suits the government to say, `We've got to have all these reforms, we've got to be moving in this direction because the rest of the world has it and we are lagging behind.' Then all of a sudden, when it conveniently suits the government, we are going in the other direction.Those are the sorts of issues on which I am looking forward to hearing a response from the government. I am looking forward to the committee stage with this legislation. We are not looking to unduly slow down the processes of the Senate with what will be a very busy agenda in the next couple of weeks. But we certainly will be raising these questions in the committee stage. We will be looking forward to the answers, and we hope that some of those answers come through and allow themselves to clarify.We also have a number of amendments that perhaps do not go as far as Senator Murray's amendments. But it will be interesting to listen to the debate on those issues. I will finish there and just reiterate that we are looking forward to the committee stage.13:29:003567Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I acknowledge what Senator Conroy has just said; I think it is a very important point that the government should consider very carefully. As Senator Conroy has said, Australia should be at the leading edge of measures to protect investors. We seem to be at that leading edge all right. But the question we have to ask ourselves of these measures that are currently before us is whether we, as a parliament, are being asked to pass laws which reduce and in some cases deny investors the right to protect themselves, which make illegal forms of business organisations which were not only formerly legal, but compulsory measures to protect investors.I think it is even more disconcerting for the chamber to reflect on the fact that the Managed Investments Bill 1997 may be described as `creating new engines of fraud'. That is my opinion, but, before I am accused of not understanding the intricate, complex and sophisticated financial matters that relate to this question, I would like to say that that is the expressed opinion of Mr Trevor Sykes, a pre-eminent Australian financial journalist, who has written two histories of Australian financial crashes entitled Two Centuries of Panic and The Bold Riders, the latter dealing with the excesses of the 1980s. I realise that the 1980s are ancient history to some people, and I realise that it is even more ancient history to point out that in the United Kingdom, unit trusts were first regulated under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1939.But the prevention of fraud is of great interest to some 2.5 million investors in unit trusts—many of whom are independent retirees. The test to be applied to this bill is whether or not it helps prevent fraud or facilitates it. It is the opinion of many witnesses from the Corporations and Securities Commission as well as Mr Sykes and other reputable journalists that this bill will leave investors less protected—that, in fact, is my opinion, but it is not original. I am therefore disappointed that the majority report of the committee has not reflected the weight of evidence presented to it in that regard.In the brief time available to me, I will point out some points of deficiency in the bill. The bill reduces investor protection and investor choice. The Managed Investments Bill proposes radical changes to the laws that have, for the past 45 years, protected investors in unit trusts, share trusts, property trusts and other forms of collective investment from misleading, maladministration and self-dealing by the promoters and managers of such schemes. The Corporations Law currently requires all such schemes to have an independent trustee—that is, a public corporation approved by the Australian Securities Commission to act as trustee—or, in limited cases, a related party trustee to hold the assets of the scheme in safe custody and to monitor the management, investments and operation of the scheme to ensure compliance with the Corporations Law, the general law and the trust deed which established the scheme.The stated aim of this bill is to create a new single responsible entity structure that is intended to strengthen the protections for investors whilst increasing efficiency and reducing the cost of operating collective investment schemes. The bill also aims to harmonise the regulation of collective investment schemes with that of public offer super annuation schemes operated under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1994, the SIS. That has been alluded to during previous speeches in the second reading debate. I believe the bill fails to achieve these stated objectives in material respects and that a number of substantive amendments are required so that the proposed responsible entity structure will not seriously weaken investor protection and will not deny Australian investors the right to contract for the extra protection of their savings.The bill does not create a system like either the SIS or the Corporations Law. The bill does not give the same protection as required for superannuation funds. Investors will have neither the rights of beneficiaries of existing unit trusts nor the rights of company shareholders. Most superannuation funds have independent trustees. It is only public offer superannuation funds—currently a very small proportion of total super funds—which do not, and they are closely regulated and required to have either minimum capital or an independent custodian. In the case of corporations, directors are elected directly by and are liable directly to investors. As Alan Cameron, the current chair of the ASC said to the joint parliamentary committee, `managed funds are quite different'.It should be noted, however, that in relation to corporations there are now proposals to further water down the liability of directors and shareholders. These proposals were recently announced by the Treasurer (Mr Costello), and, in relation to them, Chanticleer commented in the Australian Financial Review of 18 March, as follows:By comparison with the past, the new order will also make life a paradise for company directors. The risk of directors being sued by regulators and shareholders has been severely curtailed, with directors' liability now limited to cases involving evidence of criminality or gross and wilful negligence.Will the bill improve investor protection? Let me quote again from the evidence of Mr Alan Cameron the chairman of the ASC to the joint parliamentary committee. He stated:Whether [the Bill] ultimately brings about an improvement in investor protection, or the same level, or a reduction, will depend . . . on a whole lot of measures that I am not quite sure how you will actually construct, but, more importantly, upon what actually happens—what people do in response to all of these provisions.The committee heard no evidence that can assure the parliament that fewer investors will lose money under the proposed regime. Indeed, in her submission to the committee, the Victorian Attorney-General Wade stated: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.Mrs Wade is a former Commissioner for Corporate Affairs in Victoria, the predecessor to the ASC with responsibility for this area of regulation. Mr Alan Cameron also stated:I do not see this legislation as fundamentally transferring the obligation to monitor investment and so on to the individual investors. . . . I see this as a whole collection of remedies which, taken together and working effectively, should look after the interests of investors at least as well as, if not better than, they are presently looked after.He said further:The intention of the Bill . . . is to be preventative: to ensure as far as one can that these problems do not arise in the first place. It is a matter of judgment as to whether this, on the whole, produces this result.That is very tentative. This is a faint assurance for the parliament that the bill will not diminish investor protection. Honourable senators will recall the failure of the ASC to act in the NRMA demutualisation case to protect members from a misleading and deceptive prospectus. We all recall that, when the profit results shortly after the prospectus differed by many millions of dollars from the prospectus forecast, the ASC did nothing. At the time I asked questions concerning this, and I must say I certainly was not very satisfied with the answers. I am still awaiting answers to questions that I put forward at the committee dealing with the Treasury estimates in respect of this area as well.At the end of the day, the ASC can only act after the event at best and may be subject to attempts at improper influence at worst. Unless the Senate can be assured that the bill is clearly and demonstrably better than the current arrangements, the legislation should be rejected as costly, unnecessary and achieving no material improvement. Again, I quote Attorney-General Wade. She says:I have argued . . . that the changes to the regulation . . . adopted in the bill are both deficient and unnecessary. I am not confident that the structure proposed will enhance investor protection.Who can doubt that investor security is of paramount importance? As Mr Kell from the Australian Consumer Association said in evidence to the joint committee:[Investors] think security is important, that is a very important issue for consumers. . . . They do not have any particular concern, in our experience, as to how that security is delivered at the end of the day as long as it is there. . . . They do not have the financial sophistication or interest to go any steps beyond that level of knowledge.I entirely agree that it is very difficult for ordinary investors to fully understand how their security is delivered, but this is precisely what they will need to do if the trustee role is abolished. Under current law, investors who invest in managed funds write their cheques to trustee companies and they have the comfort of knowing that there is a creditworthy and responsible independent party supervising their fund and ensuring safe custody of its assets. Why should they be made to worry about the details of security? By contrast, under this bill they will be completely reliant upon financial planners and others to advise them on the relative risks and security issues associated with different classes of managed funds, depending upon the array of flexible ASC policies that will be put into place.That raises a further issue: the extraordinarily wide delegation of legislative power in this bill to the ASC to modify the bill by regulation, in effect. We do not know really what we are voting for. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances should be appalled by the sloppiness of the drafting style which has been put before the Senate here. How can a self-respecting legislative body pass a law abdicating parliamentary rights and duties to frame legislation? The bill is full of vague waffle words which are undefined and will end up meaning whatever the ASC wants them to mean. If that is the case, this is not law. This does not define rights and duties; this is confusion of concepts and confusion of legislative and executive roles.The next point is that the bill should be amended to strengthen accountability to investors. The bill should make the directors and officers of a responsible entity directly liable to investors if they fail to ensure the proper operation of the scheme. Under current law, both scheme managers and independent trustees are directly liable to investors if they breach their duty of care or trust. Directors and officers of responsible entities of public offer superannuation schemes are directly accountable to investors under the SIS Act. This outcome is not, however, achieved under this bill, despite it being a fundamental rationale of the bill that the protections currently provided to investors will not be weakened but strengthened.Under the bill, only the responsible entity or the ASC—but not the investor who suffers loss—may sue the directors and officers of the responsible entity for compensation if loss is suffered due to failure to exercise proper care and diligence in meeting all requirements of the law, the scheme constitution and the compliance plan. This outcome diminishes the effectiveness of investor protection compared to the current law.Empowering the responsible entity to sue its own directors and officers, as the bill does, provides little comfort to investors, as the wrongdoers are in a position to influence or determine the responsible entity's decision whether to take action.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—They will suit themselves; of course they will.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Yes, Senator Margetts. The bill leaves aggrieved investors to rely entirely on the ASC to take legal action on their behalf. This outcome is undesirable from a public policy point of view and disadvantages the investors. It diminishes the likelihood of private enforcement action by investors and requires the ASC to take action at public expense to enforce private rights and interests.Next, the bill should be amended to preserve investor choice to engage an independent trustee. Now, at the very minimum, parliament should not deny people the right to take what steps they think necessary to protect their money from sophisticated white-collar crime, especially when Internet money transfers are opening up new opportunities for sophisticated crime. People have a right to contract for the protection of their money as they think best. The bill should be amended so as to permit investors in both existing schemes and new schemes to choose either to retain an independent trustee or to register under the single responsible entity structure created by the bill. The bill should require a resolution of the investors in existing schemes as a precondition to conversion to the new law.The bill affects a very large number of Australian investors. As many as 2.5 million Australians now hold investments, directly or indirectly, in non-superannuation collective investment schemes. A large number of investors and fund managers wish to continue to invest in and operate schemes with an independent trustee assuming fiduciary responsibility to them for the proper administration of the scheme. The merits of the new, untried, single responsible entity arrangements created under the bill are not so powerful as to deny investors and fund managers wishing to do so the option of operating managed funds with an independent trustee structure. Such a structure is not only permitted but mandated in most major overseas jurisdictions. The reasons put forward for abandoning that structure in Australia and, what is more, prohibiting such a structure are neither supported by the evidence nor compelling, as clearly demonstrated by the evidence submitted to the joint committee.Next, the bill trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties—and I note the Scrutiny of Bills Committee did not invite the minister to address some fundamental issues on people's rights. The bill denies the beneficial owners of some $85 billion of assets in collective investments the right to continue to have those assets held for them on the same terms and conditions, and with the same level of protection that they currently enjoy. It is clearly retrospective in that the bill seeks to overturn established contractual and equitable rights and obligations without the consent of those affected.Retrospective abrogation of legal contractual rights has always been repugnant to this parliament, as it is in other countries which adhere to this rule of law. I would like to see some detailed legal advice on the constitutional aspects of this bill in relation to heads of legislative power and limits on legislative power. The constitution of the United States of America, for example, expressly forbids any state from passing laws which impair the obligation of contracts and generally forbids ex post facto laws. The Commonwealth parliament is being asked to pass a bill which no American state would regard as a proper exercise of legislative power.I will be very interested to hear discussion during the committee stage. I have been looking at and considering Senator Murray's proposal, Senator Conroy's proposal and Senator Margetts's proposal, but I do urge the Senate not to be rushed into passing a bill which may come back to haunt its promoters and, by implication, ourselves.13:49:003571Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I would like to start where Senator Harradine concluded, in terms of rushing this legislation. Before I do so I would thank all honourable senators who have contributed to the second reading debate, particularly Senator Murray and Senator Conroy who have taken a very close interest in this debate over many months. I would also recognise the cooperation that we have had from the Australian Labor Party and former Senator Gareth Evans, now the shadow Treasurer, and the advisers in his and Senator Cook's office in coming to a sensible understanding of how the arrangements will work.In response to the allegation of rushing the legislation through that has been made by others, I developed a time line of the law reform process in this case—and I will seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard at the conclusion of my speech—which outlines the reform process and which shows it beginning in 1989 with the Estate Mortgage collapse. Many of the people who were investors in Estate Mortgage relied on the existence of a trustee to save them from losing money. Those investors, regardless of the money recovered from the trustees, lost millions upon millions of dollars. Former Attorney-General Duffy referred it to CASAC and ALRC for report.While ALRC and CASAC were reporting into that, Australia was to witness the Aust-Wide collapse. This was yet another investment scheme where the investors, the mums and dads, had relied on the trustee being in place to secure their assets. Those who defend the existing two-tiered system would say that with the trustee in place that makes it safe. But millions upon millions of small investors' money was lost. Some of the funds were recovered seven years down the track. The schedule, which I will incorporate, shows that even though the collapse took place at the beginning of the 1990s, after ASC action against the trustees, some of the funds were recovered from the trustee, its insurers and its lawyers in September 1997. Certainly the investors would have been pleased to recover some, but I reiterate, at the risk of boring honourable senators, that millions upon millions of dollars of investors's money was lost.That is the reason why the previous government, in the early 1990s, asked CASAC and the Law Reform Commission to look into this. That is why CASAC, the Law Reform Commission and, later, the Wallis committee, recommended a single line of responsibility for those people who get the investment dollars from the investors—that they be responsible to those investors for the investment, for complying with the investment scheme and for the custody of those assets. It was not for them to be able to say, `Sorry, the trustee is supposed to do that and if the trustee fails, bad luck' but for that single entity to be responsible for those funds.In June 1998 the legislation is finally being debated in the parliament. There has been integrated and full consultation throughout the proposal, starting off with the release of draft legislation by Attorney-General Lavarch in December 1995, followed by consultations with me and the Treasurer throughout 1996 and 1997. There was then the release of draft legislation, reference to the committee and further consultation and discussion over a period. This process will conclude, if this legislation gets through after a two-year transition period, some 11 or 12 years after the Estate Mortgage collapse.I want to conclude this debate prior to question time, and I will try to cover the key elements raised by honourable senators. All of the investor representatives who appeared before the committee, and who have publicly commented on this legislation, have supported it almost without reservation. The Australian Shareholders Association and the Australian Consumer Association have been very vocal supporters of this legislation. If you read Peter Kell's evidence to the committee and if you look at subsequent press releases and letters written by the Australian Consumers Association—certainly not always supporters of what this government does in the financial area—you will see that they are vigorous supporters, on behalf of the shareholders and the consumers, of this legislation being passed. They believe, as the government does, that this legislation will enhance investor protection. That is why we have spent this time developing the law. That is why we have put in place the law and the structure of the single responsible entity. We have done so to protect investors. There is no other reason for it.Senator Conroy raised the point about funding for the ASC. He has committed the opposition to a further increase in funding to the ASC, which Mr Evans will have to now put into his costings for the election campaign. He has said that we keep giving the ASC—soon to be called the ASIC—more and more responsibilities but less and less funding. The reality is that we have given the ASC more and more funding and more and more responsibility. In my contribution to the Wallis debate on the last sitting day, I went into some detail as to what that funding was, and I will not repeat it in this debate.To say that this scheme does not offer investors choice is baloney. This scheme—the single responsible entity scheme—will offer investors far more choice than they have ever had before. At the moment, they have to have a two-tiered scheme. Under this, they can have a scheme that has an independent custodian. They can have a scheme that has internal arrangements for custody. I predict that, under this scheme, the trustee organisations themselves will act as the custodian in many schemes in Australia for many years to come.Senator Margetts, who comes from the state of Western Australia, said that this legislation was designed by the big end of town for the big end of town. I think Senator Murray may have made this point as well. The reality is that the small funds—with one or two exceptions that I know well—in Western Australia all want this legislation. I believe that Precedent Financial Services in Western Australia will have written to Senator Margetts saying, `We need this legislation.' In relation to the investor protection regime and the custody regime, the ASC has already published a detailed policy statement. They have been consulting with the trustee industry and the managed funds industry over the past six to eight weeks, and any honourable senator who wanted this could have received it from my office. I understand that I had offered full copies of this to every senator in this place.In response to some points raised by Senator Conroy, I understand from reading the Age article from, I think, last week that Professor Carmichael, who had written a letter to the Treasurer in relation to this legislation, made it quite clear that, having read the Australian Securities Commission's policy guidelines on this legislation, he had withdrawn his opposition. I have not spoken to Professor Carmichael about this but, according to the Age article, he was comfortable with the bill and he did not see it as being inconsistent with Wallis.This morning's Financial Review makes the point that the other person who wrote a letter, Ms Linda Nicholls, was indeed a member of the board of Perpetual Trustees. The Chairman of Perpetual Trustees has made it very clear that this bill, if it passes, will reduce the income to Perpetual Trustees. For Ms Nicholls to oppose the bill is not that confusing when you see that her shareholders may reduce the income to that company if the trustee's role is reduced.The government believes that this proposal will increase investor protection. We have been discussing a couple of amendments with the Australian Labor Party. I indicate that we regard them as acceptable to the government, and we have been working on a set of words in this regard. I think with those amendments to the bill, which has a start up date of 1 July, will see a new and much brighter era for managed investments in Australia. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of the bill in the Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.Miscellaneous357310000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that I have received, through the Governor-General, from the Administrator of the Northern Territory, the certificate of the choice by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory of Patricia Margaret Crossin to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Bob Collins. I table the documents.Miscellaneous3573Senator Crossin made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.Questions Without Notice357335733573Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Justice. Is the minister aware that, during the Queensland election campaign, the One Nation Party promised to restore the right of gun owners to own and to use semiautomatic weapons and to introduce lifetime unlimited gun licences? Is the minister also aware of comments by the Queensland President of the National Party, Mr David Russell, that a coalition minority government in that state would amend firearm laws to make them—in his words—`more practical and workable'? Given that any minority coalition government would be dependent on One Nation votes, doesn't this mean that these firearm laws will be significantly weakened? Does the minister agree with Mr Russell's assessment that the Prime Minister `rammed through the gun laws without thinking and had got involved in something he had no understanding of'?3573Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Bolkus for the question and the opportunity it provides to reiterate the government's commitment to the national gun policy—a policy that was developed with the very strong initiative and leadership of the Prime Minister and a policy endorsed by the Commonwealth government, by the Commonwealth opposition, by the Democrats and, I think, by every senator in this place—and, equally, to advise the Senate that at the recent Australasian Police Ministers Council all ministers present, saving and except for Mr Whelan from New South Wales—making one of his now more regular attendances than in the past—voted to reaffirm their commitment to this policy and to look at a means of strengthening it.Turning to the specifics of Senator Bolkus's question, I am not familiar with every word that is uttered by One Nation, but I certainly am familiar with the general thrust of what Senator Bolkus says as being a policy of One Nation's. The Commonwealth government's response to that has been made perfectly clear by the Prime Minister. We stand behind the national gun policy and we will use every means available to us to see that the gun policy remains intact and is supported by the states. That is very clear from the action only recently taken by this government to amend the customs regulations to prohibit the importation of category C pump action semiautomatic weapons without the approval of the Commonwealth to ensure that those weapons would not be proliferating in Australia into the hands of people who were not licensed according to the national gun agreement and policy.As to the comments allegedly made by Mr Russell of the National Party as to what would or would not happen if a minority coalition government were installed as opposed to a Labor government in Queensland, we will have to wait and see who takes government in Queensland, but Australians can be sure of this: whoever forms a govern ment in Queensland will be certain of the Commonwealth government's position—that is, we fought hard to get a national gun policy; we have consistently supported it and only recently amended the customs regulations to further back it up; and we will stand firm for that policy against any state that seeks to walk away from it.3574Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, will the Prime Minister allow a Queensland government to significantly weaken the national firearms agreement in the way proposed by One Nation and the Queensland National Party president? Can you, Minister, guarantee that the Prime Minister will not buckle on guns in order to appease the One Nation Party?3574Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—That question from Senator Bolkus is almost a gift to repeat the earlier answer. Senator Bolkus and almost every Australian who is vaguely interested in the national gun laws know the Prime Minister's commitment to these laws. They know that the Prime Minister is not prepared to see any watering down of these bills. In fact, it was largely at the Prime Minister's instigation that the Commonwealth's position was strengthened by amending the customs regulations recently.These gun laws are very much the creation of this Prime Minister. It was his leadership and determination that saw them come into being. His leadership and determination has not waned one millimetre.35743574Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer's attention would have been drawn to recent newspaper reports highlighting the increasingly negative impact of the current taxation system on middle and low income earners. I ask: does the government plan to address the huge inequities and inefficiencies in our taxation system? In particular, will the minister outline the level and nature of support for fundamental reform of Australia's unfair tax system?3574Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Crane, for that question. Senator Crane has a reputation in this chamber for always focussing on the main issues, and again his question on tax reform demonstrates that point. Yes, I have seen a number of newspaper reports highlighting problems with our current tax system. In fact, the front page of the Herald Sun today graphically illustrates how workers will be paying more and more in income tax unless something is done very soon to radically overhaul our tax system.The headline in the Herald Sun is: `The great tax grab', and the report goes on to say that workers face a huge tax grab. More than 2.4 million workers face being stranded on the top tax rate unless the system is radically overhauled, according to the Herald Sun. The report goes on to say:New analysis of the tax system shows almost one in three workers will have been forced on to the top rate early in the new millennium.The article also says:Figures prepared for the Herald Sun by the Australian Taxpayers Association reveal that by 2003-4 more than 2.4 million workers will be paying 47 cents in the dollar, or 48.5 cents including the Medicare levy.This and many other articles and studies have shown how our current tax system is hurting the average working Australian. Let me make it very clear: the government is strongly committed to fixing our unfair, outdated and inefficient tax system.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my left will stop interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—We are the only party prepared to take the necessary steps to overhaul our current tax system in this century and prepare it for the next. We are the only party prepared to seriously address the problems facing low and middle income earners.In relation to Senator Crane's question, I was pleased to read a recent quote by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Gary Evans. This is what he said. This goes a bit to the nub of Senator Crane's question. He said:We can all agree that tax reform is a good thing.I think we were pleased to hear that endorsement from the shadow Treasurer. We wait with great interest and eagerness to see just what the Labor Party has in mind on tax reform. That is becoming increasingly vague. He went on to say, somewhat surprisingly:If we didn't—ie. if we weren't in favour of tax reform—we would not have done so much of it ourselves in office.I think the truth of the matter is that the Labor Party's idea of tax reform was more tax. Labor's tax reform in its last term meant putting up the following taxes. Let me list them. They increased the wholesale sales tax. They increased petrol excises.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, stop shouting!WW4Senator KEMP—The Labor government increased the Medicare levy. The Labor government increased the company tax rate. They increased the fringe benefits tax, and they increased departure tax. Of course, above all they failed to deliver the l-a-w tax cuts. Labor had 13 years to make the tax system fairer, but they really fiddled and, while they fiddled, Rome burned and the tax system got worse and worse. (Time expired)35753575Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that the constitutional provision for just terms compensation for Commonwealth acquisition of property rights applies equally to native title as it does to every right of every Australian? Has the government received any advice as to the amount of compensation payable should any federal government move to abolish the common law principle of native title property rights? Has the government received any advice as to the amount of compensation payable should a Queensland state government move to abolish native title? Who would be liable to pay this compensation? Would the Commonwealth provide financial assistance to Queensland for this purpose?3575Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I presume this question is motivated by the quite extraordinary proposition from One Nation that native title be completely extinguished—a proposition which the coalition fundamentally and completely rejects as improper, unfair, unworkable and untenable.The government's advice is that native title should be regarded as a property right which, certainly at the federal level, would trigger the provisions in the constitution which require that any acquisition of property requires the Commonwealth to pay just terms compensation. That requirement is extended to the states by virtue of the operation of the Native Title Act, and this is as it should be.Native title is and must be treated as a property right requiring full compensation for any acquisition of that property right. We have maintained those provisions in our amendments to the Native Title Act. Under our Native Title Amendment Bill, compensation on just terms is required for any non-discriminatory acquisition of native title. Certainly, with respect to Senator Chris Evans's question, the legal advice to the government is to that effect and we completely accept it.The proposition that you can simply extinguish native title arbitrarily across the board could involve very significant compensation claims and, potentially, payments. One of the many reasons the coalition rejected the proposition that we should extinguish native title on pastoral leases following the Wik decision was that compensation could be quite significant. No-one is quite sure what appropriate just terms compensation is for the loss of native title and merely in the case of pastoral leases, which cover 40 per cent of Australia, that could be quite significant. If you were to, as the One Nation party suggests, extend extinguishment to the whole nation, involving the acquisition of what the Native Title Act treats—and, we accept, properly treats—as potentially the equivalent of freehold on vacant crown land, the compensation payments for the acquisition could be immense. Therefore, that proposition should be, and is, rejected out of hand by the coalition.35753575Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—My question is directed to Senator Alston. The minister's attention would have been drawn to a propo sal by the Labor Party to quarantine Telstra's dividend into a special fund. Does this accord with the government's policy and what impact would alternative proposals have on Telstra should they be implemented? Would the minister inform the Senate how likely it is that under Labor the flow of dividends would continue to be available?3576Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Senator Boswell asked a very important question which arises out of a revelation on Channel 9 at the weekend by Cheryl Kernot—remember Cheryl, the one who was much more concerned about what Labor might do to Telstra in government? She was much more concerned about what Labor might do to Telstra in government because they privatised everything else that moved when they were in government. She revealed that they are going to set aside a portion of the Telstra dividend for things like education, regional development and high tech. Now this is a very cruel hoax; this is simply a pea and thimble trick because the fact is there is no new money involved. Some $996 million in dividends was paid last year and all of that money goes to a whole raft of things like education, welfare, high tech and regional development, so there is not a cracker here for people in the bush.What Mr Beazley is really confirming is that they are not prepared to spend any new money on people in regional and remote areas. What they are prepared to do is hoodwink them and try to pretend that somehow the money that is already being spent there is going to be looking a bit better because it has something marked alongside it calling it a special fund. I almost said it had been ringbarked. That managed to get Senator Schacht a run in the Financial Review the other day to the point where someone said Senator Schacht had been ringbarking up the wrong tree for years.But it is much more serious than that because what Senator Schacht is proposing—and the Hansard makes this clear—is that they want the power of direction to force Telstra to upgrade the digital data capability to 64 kilobits. In other words, he wants to force Telstra to spend billions and billions of dollars—which it does not have. In one fell swoop not only would you be frightening the living daylights out of the up to two million people who bought shares in the company, but you would also be removing any capacity to pay dividends. There would not be any dividends left after Senator Schacht had his go. What is tragic about this is that Labor is doing it for all the wrong reasons. They hate Telstra now, with a passion, to the point where they want to punish them for having the temerity to be supportive of privatisation.What Senator Schacht told the estimates committee was effectively that Telstra senior management ought to resign because they were compromised by their support for privatisation. That is what this is about. He wants to cripple and kneecap Telstra by forcing them to spend billions and billions of dollars on something that is not in the slightest an economic or commercial proposition. It is not something that has been requested in rural and remote areas and it is not something that Mr Beazley is prepared to spend one red cent on and yet Senator Schacht, in one stroke, would remove any capacity to pay dividends.The dividend last year was less than $1 billion. Senator Schacht is prepared to wipe many billions of dollars off the value of Telstra and remove any capacity to pay dividends. This is a hoax of the highest order. We are the party that has been prepared to spend real money, new money—$250 million for the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund. Who opposed that tooth and nail, all the way? It has been a resounding success because it has delivered services in rural and remote areas that they would not otherwise have got.You opposed it. What about the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust? You opposed that too. That was new money that came from our policy in relation to Telstra. There will not be a cracker left to spend on the bush. There will not be much left of Telstra either, and it is all because of this vicious, nasty attack led by people like Kim Il Carr who just cannot stand the prospect of a good Australian company doing well. (Time expired)10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I ask you to withdraw that reference to Senator Carr and refer to him by his correct name.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I will delete his nickname and substitute his correct name.3577Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. What does the government intend to do about putting infrastructure into regional and rural Australia from the Telstra dividend?3577Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—As Senator Boswell very much appreciates, the fact is that the RTIF has delivered unheard of benefits to rural areas and that is—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—He's never heard of it, Richard.LD4Senator ALSTON—You don't think so? That is interesting. You do not think it has been any good so, presumably, you will not be trying to emulate it. That is fine; you will leave the territory to us. We appreciate that very much. Senator Boswell is quite right. There is a capacity for a social dividend to be paid out of the proceeds of Telstra. We are very conscious of the needs of people in rural and remote areas to get decent telephone services. They are sick and tired of being bypassed by you and treated like dirt. You are never interested in upgrading quality of service or extending roll-outs. We were the ones who gave an ISDN capability to 95 per cent of the population. They are very real benefits. Senator Boswell is right: there are a number of ways we can go further in assisting those people—and we will. I am delighted to hear that you could not give a damn about them.35773577Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the minister aware of comments in the West Australian newspaper last Tuesday which were critical of the government's position on native title, on guns and on the diesel fuel rebate? Does the minister agree that the Howard government:. . . mucked around for two years before we came out with a 10-point plan— and that this was a significant factor in the Queensland result? Does the minister also agree that Western Australian parliamentary representatives advance constituents' rights more strongly than those from other states, presumably including the party leadership in this place?3577Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I suppose, Madam President, we will get the full story in the supplementary.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You will.BH4Senator HILL—Thank you, Senator Cook. It will not surprise you to learn that I do not agree with those conclusions. I must say that I am proud of the national leadership the Prime Minister showed on the guns issue. It was good for Australia and the fact he has been prepared to stand his ground since I also applaud. I also believe in relation to native title that the 10-point plan is a fair and reasonable solution to a difficult national issue. It includes a considerable degree of compromise, I acknowledge, but in all the circumstances I think it is fair. It is fair to the Aboriginal people whilst at the same time it will provide greater certainty for investment and growth, and therefore jobs for all Australians. I also agree with the position the government adopted in relation to the diesel fuel rebate.So I am proud of what this government has done in a short period of time. It took on a $10 billion deficit that it inherited from the Labor Party and it has put that behind us. It has put the books into surplus and it has enabled interest rates to be reduced to their lowest levels for decades. That gives Australians the opportunity to invest and to prosper. I am pleased also that unemployment is coming down under this government. Its record in just over two years has placed Australia in a sound position to address the difficulties of the region and I hate to think what the consequences would have been if Labor had been elected at the last election.3577Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given that these comments were made by your colleague Senator Winston Crane, isn't this an obvious attempt to distance himself from the failures of the Howard government, and just another example of the infighting and division within and between coalition parties as you head to an election? Given that you included Senator Winston Crane in discussions on disbursement of the Natural Heritage Trust funds, will Senator Crane now be included in cabinet discussions on native title, on guns and on the diesel fuel rebate?Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many people interjecting.3578Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I can only say that Senator Cook has obviously clearly misunderstood Senator Crane. Senator Crane would not be responsible for an evaluation of that type.35783578Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Why has this government completely defunded the national peak youth representative body, AYPAC? Is it because the government cannot work with young people or is only prepared to meet with them twice a year? Isn't it the case that the funding of $225,000 for the government's new youth policy represents a decline in funding of $140,000 for youth representation? I am wondering whether the minister can tell us how much of this money will go into research into the effect of the government's proposed common youth allowance and the permanent representation of young people in policy development, and how much of it will go into the advertising campaign and selection process described by the minister this morning on Triple J.3578Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Let me say at the outset that in the run-up to the last election we announced that we would have a minister in the cabinet who would be responsible for youth affairs. That is the importance we place on youth in this country. We have instituted a round table of 50 young people who will have direct input into policy making for this government. These 50 young people will come from all over Australia, not just Melbourne and Sydney but the regional areas—the rural areas of Australia. Part of this voices of youth package will provide a direct input—which was not there—for young people to have a say to this government. In fact, what we have done is we have established a youth website on the Internet called The Source. The Source, I am happy to say, is being visited frequently by young people and it even has a page which says, `Have your say.'Opposition senators interjecting—Oh!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!9X5Senator ELLISON—The opposition knocks it, Madam President. That is what they think of youth; they don't want them to have a direct say.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ellison, just a moment. Order!9X5Senator ELLISON—Madam President, it is obvious that the opposition does not want the youth of Australia to have access to the Internet and access to the government of this country. What we have done is set up a variety of mechanisms for the young people of this country to have a say. This round table will provide just that. It will provide a cross-section of the Australian community of youth to have a direct input to this government.Can I just say that there is a variety of great initiatives that this government has brought about for young people. There are the new apprenticeships which we have funded—a target of 200,000 new apprenticeships from May this year to the end of November next year that we have contracted for. Who will be the main beneficiaries of those? Young people in Australia, from 200,000 positions that we have contracted for. What about the success of Green Corps? I think about 3,500 young Australians have participated in Green Corps.What about work for the dole and the mutual obligation that we have brought about with an opportunity for young people who have been unemployed for more than six months to improve their literacy skills—those young people who need to improve their literacy skills so they can get a job? What about the work for the dole situation where we can get young people to experience working in a team, to get that work ethic, to help them get motivated to find a job? That is what we are doing for the young people of Australia, through you, Madam President, to Senator Stott-Despoja, and to the opposition that does not care about young people having access to the government via the Internet. The Internet, I might say, is a valuable tool to make contact with the young people of Australia.This government has a proud record of providing opportunities for employment and training for young people. With this round table it is furthering that and providing a better means of direct communication with the government of this country whereby young people will be able to help formulate policy and to have their say.3579Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister honestly believe that a chat site with Dr Kemp on the Internet is going to replace the permanent representation of young people, the input into youth policy, that AYPAC provided? Is it the case that the minister and this government have effectively silenced the voice of young Australians by providing a twice yearly meeting of a select few? Fifty people—the minister said it himself. Is it any coincidence that it has been announced in the lead-up to the implementation of the government's common youth allowance? Can the minister give us an assurance as to whether or not the government will continue to fund other peak representative bodies in this nation which protect the public interest and keep the government informed, accountable and objectively assessing policies and criticising them where necessary—institutions and bodies like ACROD and ACOSS? (Time expired)3579Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—What this government is all about is funding the means by which young people can communicate with it. To that end we funded $3.6 million for 41 youth officers from the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs so that they could make contact with young people around the country. What is important is that young people have that line of communication with the government. If that includes having a chat with them, then I will have a chat with them any day because that is how you find out what they are thinking. That is how you find out what they want. It is not just a chat site; it is a viable means of modern communication which young people are using. Maybe it is time Senator Stott Despoja had a chat to some young people and found out what they were thinking.35793579West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: can the minister confirm that since Wednesday last week Centrelink has been unable to issue payments to many of those on benefits because of computer failures? Is it true that as at Thursday last week there were over 800 unresolved problems with Centrelink's Newstart common platform? What is the minister going to do to rectify these problems? When can these many clients, who did not receive their correct payments last week, expect to receive them?3579Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It is correct to say that Centrelink introduced a new information technology system early last month. It is also correct to say that it is a very significant improvement on the systems we inherited from the previous government. It is also true to say that it will be year 2000 compliant. I know that Senator West is very interested in information technology being year 2000 compliant. The previous system was not. It was very important, therefore, that a very much more effective and efficient system was introduced.All such systems have their teething problems. I am advised that over the last five or six weeks, out of an allowance population in excess of one million people, around 1,300 customers have received an incorrect payment or have been paid at an incorrect rate. All cases have been identified and corrective action is completed or under way according to the advice I have received. Some people may have had payment delayed for one or two days. Centrelink advises that, of the total problems reported, 364 problems—not the 800 reported by the CPSU—from implementation until 18 June, almost 50 per cent, have been resolved. These are problems in the IT, not individual circumstances. The remainder are being addressed through running software updates twice weekly, running software releases overnight where necessary, and continuous assessing and revising of priorities to ensure that problems with high impact are quickly resolved.The Newstart common platform has resulted in a better service provided to the customer due to the immediate update of the customer's records, considerable processing efficiencies in time saved, provision of a more integrated service, and the vast majority of customers being paid correctly and on time. The few problems which have arisen are being actively addressed and almost resolved. The previous system had become unreliable and inefficient. Factors which were contributing to this were processing taking place by overnight batching, whereas as the new system provides an immediate on-line response, and the previous system not being year 2000 compliant.3580West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Is it true that the computer system for the new youth allowance crashed after 90 minutes when it was being tested last week? Can the minister outline when this chaos is expected to be completed?3580Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The youth allowance is based on the Newstart common platform, so the Newstart common platform had to be introduced before the youth allowance could be implemented. The Newstart common platform has replaced the previous payment system for most benefits and allowances and it includes Newstart and the youth training allowance. Youth allowance will be paid using the Newstart common platform payment system. Most of the processing requirements for youth allowance were already included within the Newstart common platform when it was first released. The extra features of Newstart common platform that are needed to pay youth allowance represent a relatively minor component of the Newstart common platform system. Testing is currently taking place. It is not implemented until 1 July, under the usual arrangements. It was a testing system which had a problem the other day.35803580Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Hill. I refer to recent comments by the new publicist for One Nation, Senator Lightfoot, who stated at a recent debate in Northam that `dealing with the people that Ms Hanson will put into the Senate will be far better than dealing with the Democrats and Greens', and that she, Ms Hanson, represents the type of things that Australians think and believe, which also accords with recently reported comments of the Prime Minister to the effect that One Nation would be no more damaging than the Greens or Democrats. Does this mean that, far from taking a principled stand in relation to One Nation, the Howard government's real agenda is in fact the election of One Nation senators?3580Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—That is a very odd thing to suggest. As for the more substantial invitation to try and compare the qualities of the newly elected One Nation members of parliament in Queensland with the known qualities of our Green and Democrat parliamentarians around the country, in all the circumstances I should avoid that.Those of us who see ourselves as more in the middle of Australian politics representing the mass of the Australian mainstream have a different view on issues from those who tend to represent more extreme views at either end of the spectrum.It does, however, invite the issue that does cause concern, and that is the policies that seem to be advocated by One Nation which would result in severe economic downturns in this country, to say the very least. Policies that are anti-foreign investment fail to appreciate the great benefits that have flowed to Australians from foreign investment. Much of our capital growth has been funded offshore and, without that growth, many jobs and much of our relative affluence simply would not exist.Policies that are simplistic and shallow and suggest that the public can in some way fund banks that would be able to lend money at two per cent, fail to appreciate the unrealistic nature of that, because of course it would have to be funded from taxpayers' money and it would simply lead to further economic downturns.One can go through all of the policies that they are putting of that nature and realise that, in fact, the simplistic, shallow solutions simply do not work in practice. Unfortunately, there are not simple solutions to complex problems. All nation states at the moment, in time of very significant change, face complex problems and the solutions, regrettably, will be somewhat complex as well.I am pleased to say that we are confident that we are on track. We have the expenditure now under control in this country and interest rates down to record low levels. We have given the people of Australia the chance for employment and the chance to become more prosperous. That is what I think most Australians are really looking for.3581Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the government's difficulty in dealing with me on complex issues a result of my level of interest and involvement in a wide range of parliamentary work compared, say, with the member for Oxley, or is this a judgment on the likely agreement on anti-Aboriginal, anti-refugee, anti-environment and anti-youth legislation? Do the comments of the Prime Minister and Senator Lightfoot mean that One Nation will be assisted into the Senate on Liberal Party preferences?3581Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The last thing I wish to see are One Nation senators in this place. I do not particularly want to see Green senators as well, but that has happened. Why don't I wish that? Because their would-be solutions to the real problems facing this country are simply unreal. Senator Margetts' solutions are unrealistic in the same way that One Nation's solutions are unrealistic. It is about time we started facing up to the fact, as I said, that complex problems require complex solutions and that is just part of life.35813581Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Social Security. Can the minister explain why the $3.8 million worth of taxpayer advertising campaign to sell the youth allowance has failed to inform families who earn more than $23,400 that after 1 July they will have to bear the burden of cuts to the benefits of their unemployed adult children? Doesn't the minister think that cutting unemployment benefits by up to $87 a week and forcing poor families to make up the difference warrants a mention in this multi-million dollar advertising campaign?3581Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I know that Senator Neal has been against the fair treatment of all young people in terms of the youth allowance. We have had this debate over and over again here on the legislation. But the reality is that this government's youth allowance will be treating young unemployed people in exactly the same way as young students. In other words, while they are still financially dependent and not yet standing financially on their own two feet, they must turn to their parents before they turn to the taxpayer.What we have introduced with the youth allowance—and Senator Neal knows this only too well—is a parental income test which is in fact somewhat more generous than the Austudy parental means test that we inherited. But we are treating all young people in a similar circumstance, whether they are students or unemployed, not like the previous government which had a financial incentive for young people to choose to be unemployed sometimes, rather than choose to study. That is bad for them and it is bad for the country.As far as getting information across to parents is concerned, yes, we have spent some money to do that and we are still spending it, because we have seen what mischief a scare campaign can do in social policy areas. I have seen it already with Mr Duncan Kerr, who is trying to describe youth allowance as `poison'. We all know that that is quite untrue. It is only a scare campaign starting again.Let parents be under no doubt about it at all. In the print advertisements there are details of the web site which allows young people and their families to surf the net and see precisely how they will be placed. The circumstances that are represented in the newspapers frequently simply give the income levels for families where there is one child. In most families, as you know, that is not the case and the income levels rise with the number of children in the family. Of course, they rise to higher levels than exist for the current Austudy that we inherited from you. There are many, many benefits.I was in Townsville at the weekend, and I am sure Senator Reynolds will be pleased to know that the young students in Townsville think youth allowance is terrific because rent assistance at last comes with the ability to study. That is something that student organisations have been campaigning for for 20 years or more. I am glad that the young people of Townsville recognise a good, social policy reform when they see it, even if the ALP do not, because they had the opportunity to introduce it when they were in government. ACOSS and welfare organisations asked them to introduce a common youth allowance. That is what we have done.3582Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, why has the government failed to advise battling families of the real impact of the youth allowance? Is it that you are trying to muzzle all criticism? Is it the same reason that you cut funding for the youth coalition—because you want to muzzle all criticism of your latest attack on battling families?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Neal has been very kindly assisted by this side of the chamber on several occasions suggesting that she might like to direct her question through the chair rather than personally to the minister. She has unfortunately avoided those suggestions from my colleagues. Therefore, I am wondering whether you might like to direct her attention to the standing orders.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There has certainly been a big improvement in the observance of the standing orders. I am sure Senator Neal will attempt to comply with them. I invite her to do so.B36Senator NEAL—Why have the government and the minister tried to muzzle criticism of this latest attack on battling families?3582Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I do not try to muzzle criticism at all. I believe that information is the surest defence against misinformation. That is why a rate calculator is on the web site for youth allowance. For those who would like to look it up, it is Youthallowance.Centrelink.gov.au. You can go and see whether you can find the informa tion that you clearly need in order to realise how good it is.As for consulting with young people, as Senator Ellison said earlier, there is much more to consulting with young people than dealing with one peak lobby group. I meet with young people around the country. I meet with young people's organisations around the country, as do Senator Ellison and Dr Kemp. We all do. That is a way to get a strong view across all shades of political opinion—rural, regional and city. The Labor Party made a huge mistake; they believed only in consulting with peak groups. Therefore, they did not know what was really happening in the country. (Time expired)35823582Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. The minister would have seen the report from the Institute of Chartered Accountants which purports to show that a typical Australian family earning $30,000 is actually worse off than one earning $20,000 per annum. This is because of the combined effects of higher tax brackets and withdrawal of social security benefits. Will the minister outline the details of this report and tell us how this problem of high effective marginal tax rates can be addressed?3582Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I thank Senator Watson for his question. We know that he has always had a close and very detailed interest in taxation matters. He is a very good senator for Tasmania and is a colleague of mine. I have seen the institute's report.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will cease sledging!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Thank you, Madam President. I wonder whether the senators opposite have also seen the report. If they need any more convincing of the need for tax reform, that report is it. It is absolutely clear. The institute's report said that a typical family on $20,000 was actually better off than a family on $30,000 after tax and social security are factored in.I have had my department have a good look at this report, and there was one small mistake in it. But, even on the corrected figures, the report stands as a loud condemnation of the state in which the Labor Party left our tax and social security systems. The corrected figures show that a typical single income family on $20,000 with a child in primary school and another in high school receives a total net income of $29,000. The same family, if it were earning $30,000, would only receive $30,150 in the pocket. So, for the extra $10,000 of extra work and extra pay, the family gets only $1,150 more. That is an effective marginal tax rate of 88 per cent.Senators opposite should cringe in their seats, because they had the opportunity over 13 years to do something about it. It is your tax system that needs reforming. The Labor Party put one in place over 13 years, and it leaves battling families with marginal tax rates of 88 per cent. Let them cringe. We have already started doing something about reforming this mess, with measures like the family tax initiative, which we introduced soon after we came into government. The Institute of Chartered Accountants acknowledges this in their press release, where they have said:There has certainly been a push by the government to redress the imbalance through both the taxation and the welfare systems. Families on $30,000 a year potentially have $27 more a week than they did last year.So we are moving and fixing the problem, but marginal tax rates of 88 per cent are still unacceptable to this government. That is why we are committed to major and comprehensive tax reforms. It is not acceptable that in five years time average income earners will be on the top marginal tax rate of 47c in the dollar, just as today's Herald-Sun has reported. It is not acceptable that toothpaste, pet food, watches and shampoo are all taxed while antiques and caviar are not. And it is definitely not acceptable that a family working harder and earning more can lose 88 per cent of their extra pay to the government. That is the mess we inherited. That is the mess we intend to fix. What is the Labor Party's policy after this time in opposition? Still nothing. Do nothing.35833583O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, my question is directed to you. On Wednesday, 3 June, at a hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee, the chair of the committee, Senator Ferguson, ruled out of order questions I asked in relation to a memorandum I quoted. Can you advise the Senate on what basis and under what rules and Senate practices Senator Ferguson could make that ruling? Senator Ferguson then directed Hansard that extracts of the memorandum I read out, and which were later broadcast on the ABC, not be included in the Hansard .What Senate rules and practices would enable Senator Ferguson to direct Hansard to remove these extracts? What action will you take to ensure that chairs of Senate committees act in a fair and impartial way? What action will you take to ensure that Hansard is a true and accurate record of the proceedings of Senate committees and is not censored by a committee chair, as happened on this occasion?3583The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Senator, I have a copy of your question, and I am seeking advice as to the substance of it and the issues that occurred before that committee. I will report to the Senate on that and also on the other matters that you have raised.35833583Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services. Minister, going into the last election the coalition had a lot to say about its commitment to small business. Does your commitment still apply to private child-care centre owners, who are small business people, who employ some 50,000 workers in Australia? Over the past couple of weeks the Democrats have gone out and met with private child-care centre owners throughout the country. We have heard stories of centre owners being forced to lay off staff, sell their family homes and work up to 80 hours per week just to keep their businesses afloat as occupancy rates have plummeted. My question: what will the government do to assist these private child-care centre owners who, with occupancy rates as low as 40 per cent, are now on the brink of going out of business?3584Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Woodley for the question. It is true that certain child-care centre owners have run into trouble—but they have run into trouble because of the policies of the previous government. As I said in a previous answer to a question from the Labor Party representatives, or from the Democrats before, I thought they should get in touch with Senator Crowley because she was the minister responsible for bring in these changes.The 1997 budget allocated $270 million of ongoing funds over four years to outside school hours care; this is an increase of $11 million. Earlier this year, an extra $8 million was directed to assisting services. A total of $20 million is now being directed towards services to assist with the changeover to the new arrangements. As I have said previously, the changeover is occurring because of the different type of funding. But the allocation of centres is entirely up to the sector that provides them; it is not the government's responsibility to guarantee their funding.So, while there are some that are in trouble, there are others that are expanding. For example, I saw in one of this morning's papers a statement that there were closures of community based long day care centres and outside school hour care services, following the removal of the operational subsidy. It was stated in that newspaper report that 66 services have closed. However, it is a fact that places have increased under the Howard government. There were 48,785 places in June 1995 under Labor, and now there are 78,970 places in June 1997 under this government. So the number of places has actually increased.The outside school hour care reforms assist low and middle income families, which is more important as well. The funding to services equivalent to the previous operational subsidy continues until the end of June: the sum of $20 million, as I mentioned, 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 is provided to rural, remote and isolated services to ensure continuity of supply in these regions.Senator Woodley should take note of this: 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 is a net increase of 310 centres over the same period. I will repeat that for Senator Woodley: 43 centres have closed as at 30 April 1998; however, there has been a net increase of 310 centres over the same period.The main causes of closures were ongoing financial and utilisation difficulties and a complete lack of planning measures, as I have mentioned, by the former government. This government has introduced a new planning system to direct supply to areas of greatest need. So, inevitably, with the change to a needs base—that centres should open in areas with the greatest need—there will be some centres that have got into difficulty. The government has committed over $6 million over two years to June this year to assist community based long day care centres obtain financial and management advice. So I would suggest that those senators who are in trouble should access that advice to assist them.3584Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, Minister. I will pass on that information. Your answer raises a whole lot of further questions, but I perhaps should just concentrate on one or two. I did question Senator Crowley, and she tells me that at the election of your government none of these small businesses were in trouble; they all had waiting lists.But let me quote to you from `A new deal for small business', your election policy:The Liberal National Coalition recognises and appreciates the efforts of thousands of men and women who make up the small business sector. Their foresight, imagination and willingness to back their own judgment contributes 30 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product and generates employment for approximately 3.5 million people, or 45 per cent of the total work force. Many, many of these centres are going bankrupt. What has happened since 1996 to make the government stop recognising and appreciating private child-care centre operators as small business people? (Time expired)3585Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I know it was the Democrats who supported the Labor Party in its policies that brought about the very high interest rates that occurred—I think up to 23 per cent under the Labor Party. I think what we have achieved in a short period of time is the lowest inflation rates for over 70 years, the lowest business interest rates for the last 10 years and the lowest home mortgage rate interest.There have been enormous benefits for small business that have occurred under this government in such a short period of time, especially when compared with the policies that the Democrats supported that produced a $70 billion deficit over the seven years before this government came into power. There was a $10.5 billion deficit when we came into power. But people have forgotten that over the previous seven years there was a $70 billion deficit and we were running into trouble.The Democrats would probably do what the One Nation Party would do—print a bit more money. But we are not into doing that. Alternatively, the Democrats would increase taxation, which seems to be their recipe. (Time expired)35853585Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Does the government stand by its estimate of $1 billion in savings over five years as a result of its IT outsourcing program? In the light of the incompetence the government has demonstrated in the implementation of this program, with only one contract having been let and another withdrawn, how does the government expect to achieve these savings? And, if the government has revised its savings forecast, what is the current estimate?3585Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I will seek some advice from the Minister for Finance on it, but there is no doubt that very significant savings would flow from sensible outsourcing—I think that that is obvious to anyone—and sensible outsourcing will occur under this government. If it is being suggested to me that it is a complex process and that it would take some time, I am not surprised to hear that, but I also, equally, have no doubt that the benefits will flow that will reduce the cost to public expenditure—something the Labor Party was not prepared to face up to in government. This government, as an alternative, believes that prudent control of public expenditure is important so that all benefits can therefore flow to the Australian people through lower interest rates, low inflation and other ways in which the people rather than the government can obtain the benefit. I will seek further information on the detail and see if I can help you further, Senator.3585Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Senator Hill, I hope you have more luck extracting the information from the Minister for Finance than anyone else. Madam President, my supplementary question is: what was the cost of the failed tender process for the DEETYA-Employment National IT outsourcing contract, and what savings has the government forgone by withdrawing that tender?3585Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I could take a guess, but I think that would be unwise. I will seek the answer to that, and let you know.35853585Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. The minister will, no doubt, be aware of last Wednesday's stop-work meeting by the New South Wales Teachers Federation which brought government schools to a standstill. Will the minister outline why, besides interrupting classes of thousands of students across New South Wales, the union's action was ill-conceived and irresponsible? Will the minister outline, for the parents and people of Australia, this government's commitment to education in Australia?3585Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Senator Coonan is right: thousands of students in New South Wales—in fact, just under 800,000 students—were inconvenienced by this ill-conceived strike by New South Wales teachers. In fact, it was an effort by the teachers' union to start up their campaign against the Howard government. They wanted to mislead the New South Wales community, teachers and parents as to the true position of federal funding for government schools. Of course, they did not tell the people of New South Wales that the federal government has increased funding for government schools by 7.4 per cent. In fact, for the period 1997-2000, this government would have increased funding for government schools across the country by $1.9 billion.This government believes in a strong government school sector and a strong non-government school sector. We believe in choice. We went to the people of Australia at the last election and said that was our policy, and they elected us on that basis. It is interesting to see what the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of Thursday last week, headed `School stunt', had to say about the New South Wales teachers strike. It said:It is hard to imagine a more transparent political stunt than yesterday's stopwork meeting by teachers in New South Wales Government schools.. . . . . . . . .Clearly the Teachers Federation was firing its first shot at the Howard Government in the Federal election campaign . . .There you have it—it was nothing more, nothing less, than a go at the federal government. Even the Sydney Morning Herald realised what a transparent and misleading action this was.Let us have a look at the objectives of the teachers' union. They have got 16 objectives on the Internet; only one of them deals with education—only one out of 16. Do you know where it ranks? Number 10 out of 16. I ask you: if they are so interested in the welfare of the students and teachers of New South Wales, why don't they at least put education up the list a bit; maybe one or two, but not number 10.The Sydney Morning Herald editorial goes on to say:But the things upsetting them—meaning the teachers' union—have more to do with State Government policies than Federal policies. In fact, what they are really complaining about is what the Carr government is not doing. They should really be concentrating on the Carr government—let us see them attack the Carr Labor government in New South Wales. But, of course, they are attacking the federal government because that is really what they are after. They will not tell the people of New South Wales that we have increased funding. In fact, when you look at the 1998 figures, our funding per capita of government schools was $2,144—an increase of $157 per capita over Labor's last year in power. So there you have it: we have increased funding on a per capita basis since Labor was in power. And what did the teachers union do in New South Wales? It went on strike; it deserted just under 800,000 students.What are we doing? We have got increased funding of $45 million over four years for literacy and numeracy initiatives; with the cooperation of states and territories we have brought about national literacy benchmarks for the first time in Australia; we are spending $187 million over the period 1997 to 2000 on vocational education—Senator Sherry interjecting—9X5Senator ELLISON—Vocational education, Senator Sherry, which you should be more interested in; vocational education which touches those 70 per cent of students who do not go on to university. It addresses their needs, helps them get a job and puts them on the career pathways that they need. We have also got increased funding in the areas of indigenous education, discovering civics and a whole range of other initiatives. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous35863586The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—On 23 April 1998 the Director of Public Prosecutions was asked for advice on whether incorrect travelling allowance claims by senators found by the KPMG internal audit should be investigated.On 29 May 1998 the Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, having examined relevant travelling allowance claims and correspondence, concluded that `the material provided does not disclose matters that should be the subject of criminal investigation'.Miscellaneous3587358715:09:003587Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given today by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman), to questions without notice asked by Senators Neal and West today, relating to Centrelink and the youth allowance.This largely relates to the recent changes occurring in the youth allowance area. I suppose what always astonishes me so much about this particular government, and to some extent Senator Newman's views of those policies as they relate to youth allowance, is that they constantly state that they support families and they support battling families but this is not in accordance with what they are actually doing. On every occasion when they have an opportunity, this government and this Minister for Social Security in fact reduce the amount of money that is in families' pockets, and they often take the money out of the pockets of the families who are worst off.It was interesting that the minister noted that the issue of battling families was one that was raised on a number of occasions in debate in this chamber on the youth allowance, where we discovered, much to our concern, that almost 48,000 families who are not very well-off—families earning just over $23,000—would be worse off as a result of the youth allowance bill introduced by this minister. It is interesting to me that, despite the questions that have been raised today and despite numerous matters that have been raised in this chamber before, this government seems to be unable to see that a family on $23,400 is not a family that is well-off.I found it quite extraordinary that Senator Newman, during the debate on the youth allowance bill, told this chamber and the people of Australia that such families that had at least one adult child over the age of 18 years were well-off. Let me tell Senator Hill, Senator Newman and all the other senators on the other side that most people in Australia do not think that a family that earns $23,000 is well-off. In fact, most people would think that families that were earning that sort of money were really struggling. It is quite extraordinary that this government, which said during the election that they intended to look after battling families, families that were really having a hard time of it, are making it even more difficult for those families by taking away $87 per week when there is an adult child who is unemployed. That is what this youth allowance legislation does.It seems that the rush to get this legislation through and the rush to get the information technology up might all be for nothing, because it appears, from Senator West's question and the response that was received, that there are so many problems in the computer system and in the new newstart computer platform that it seems unlikely to me that within such a short time before 1 July they will really have it operating properly. The question that was put to Senator Newman was whether the youth allowance computer system had crashed after just 90 minutes of running. I thought it was quite extraordinary that Senator Newman was unwilling or unable to answer that question. She managed to avoid it and to talk about the difficulties of the year 2000 in relation to computer programs. I am sure it is very interesting for people to discuss the issues of the millennium bug, but that was not the question that was directed to her by Senator West. What we are trying to discover is whether this government, which says it is going to introduce this new youth allowance package on 1 July, is really in a position to do so and whether the computer system that has been set up, at major cost to the government and to taxpayers, is in fact in a position to operate effectively as of 1 July.Despite all these difficulties and the fact that the government are spending $3.8 million on telling the Australian community what a brilliant policy response they have made, they have failed to tell those families who are struggling, those earning $23,400, that many of them—almost 50,000 of them—are in fact going to be worse off as a result of the youth allowance package. It seems quite extraordinary that you can expend that much money over a very short period; we were told at estimates that that $3.8 million would be spent in just one month. I think the vast majority of Australians would believe that spending that sort of money while taking $87 out of poor families' pockets is very much a waste. It appears to me that the government are spending $3.8 million on promoting themselves in order to put themselves in a better position for the election. They are spending $3.8 million of taxpayers' money to try and convince those battling families whose pockets they are grabbing money out of that, even though they are losing money, the Howard government is in fact helping them by doing so. (Time expired)15:14:003588Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—The extraordinary thing about Labor's sustained attack on the youth allowance is that it is an attack on an initiative which is actually designed to assist young people. What never fails to amaze me is why it would be suggested that we as the party in government would set out to deliberately make things more difficult for young people. It is pretty obvious that the youth allowance is actually assisting young people or else we would not have this sustained, ongoing and unjustifiable attack.The salient and the very good features of the youth allowance, which it is necessary to repeat once again, include the most attractive feature of it, which is that it simplifies income support arrangements for young people by combining five payments types and by reducing 13 different rates to just five. The complicated previous system that Labor had pursued left so many people falling between stools and not getting any assistance at all that it was necessary to actually look at how this youth allowance could be streamlined. It will now align both rates and qualifications for all young people up to the age of 21 and remove that incentive for young people to leave education early or to choose unemployment over education or training. It is blindingly obvious that those young people who get education and training will have better opportunities to get jobs.Parental means testing of students and unemployed people aged up to 21 will also be aligned. You have heard the minister say today that young people with the lowest income families will continue to qualify for maximum rates of assistance under the parental means test. There is nothing unfair about that. Access to rent assistance for students and for unemployed 16- to 17-year-olds who live away from home for education or employment reasons is also a significant advance under this policy. Rent assistance is also available to independent young people who live away from home. What a relief it must be for young people who are not living at home and who need rent assistance to actually have that assistance available to them. A flexible activity test allows young people to undertake a variety of activities without having to change payment type.The abolition of the education leavers deferment period will ensure continuity of income support between leaving school and commencing full-time employment. Students will have access to a higher fortnightly income free income and an income bank of $6,000 designed to accommodate student work patterns for full-time casual employment over vacation periods. That is a significant advance compared to the old policy, under which casual employment actually disqualified people from their benefits; they went on, they went off and they did not know where they were with 13 different rates. The changed independence criteria are, of course, more lenient for students and tighter for some unemployed young people. All youth allowees will have access to the $500 loan advance currently made available under Newstart. That is a great benefit for young people.There are many winners from the youth allowance. Of the 560,000 young people who will be covered by youth allowance, 416,000 are students and 144,000 are unemployed. Payment for 358,600 will remain unchanged and payment for 153,750 young people will increase. All young people will benefit from the simplified income support system, which provides incentives to remain in education and training and which has the flexibility to cater for a variety of activities undertaken by young people in their transition from school to employment. Students not only gain from the availability of rent assistance but all under 18-year-olds who have to live away from home gain from the increased rates. This is a significant advance and a superior initiative to assist young people into employment.15:19:003589Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Senator Coonan has just told us about the wonderful things that her government is doing for people who have dealings with Centrelink. Senator Neal covered quite a lot of her question in that regard in question time. I would like to take this a little bit further with regard to Centrelink. I have had quite a lot of complaints to my office in Ipswich regarding this area. I would like the Senate to know of a couple in particular. The first is from a young man who lives in Caboolture and I would urge the minister to look at the Centrelink in Caboolture to see what can be done.This man had been to Centrelink at Caboolture and had seen a job on the screen that he felt he was well qualified for. First of all, he rang the number and was told to go all the way to Chermside for an interview. When he said that he lived in Caboolture and the job was also in Caboolture, he was referred to the BAVE Caboolture office. He took his qualifications and one written reference. All of his past employers had advised him that they were willing to provide verbal references whenever they were called for. He took all of his documents, about 10 pages in all, which would have gained him jobs through the CES in the past—he had used these in the past with the CES—and went along to this BAV office in Caboolture. When he presented his resume, apparently the staff member there looked down his nose at him and advised him that his resume was not good enough and that was that. I cannot believe that public servants supposedly there to help people find employment are looking down their noses and saying, `Your resume is not good enough.'I have here another letter from a pensioner. This man also lives in Caboolture. He phoned the 132300 phone number and told them that his 1998 pensioner concession card and his 1998 Queensland travel vouchers were lost. He had not received them. He says:In mid January I phoned the Centrelink customer service office in Caloundra and told them my pensioner card had not been received. I was told they would look into the matter and send the card with the concessions to me in two weeks.Two weeks later I received the concession card but the Queensland travel vouchers were also stamped void. When I enquired about the vouchers they said I must have lost my card and received a second issue.He explained that this was his first pensioner card and travel vouchers. He continued:Centrelink then told me to fill out a Statutory Declaration then send it with my documents to Queensland Rail as they cannot send any replacements. 29 April I phoned Centrelink 132300 number to make an appointment to see one of their officers for help in filling out the Statutory Declaration and what it was for. Centrelink said that would not be necessary they would send me out a letter that day. Thinking I was talking to some person at the Caloundra office, the letter should be in the mail the next day. 6th May the letter arrived one week later, with Caloundra Post Box number and Caloundra Centrelink address. The letter stating I may not have received by W.A. free rail passes and to send all my documents on to West-Rail to receive new rail passes. The letter was posted from Bunbury W.A.To cut it short, he phoned Bunbury, Western Australia and said, `Well, I am sorry, that is very nice of you, but I do live in Queensland. I need Queensland Rail passes.' This poor man then rang Centrelink again and he said, `I live in Caboolture. Am I speaking to Caboolture or Brisbane or somewhere in Queensland?' `No,' they said. `This is the Adelaide office, but we will put you through to the Brisbane office.'This is not funny. I am laughing, but I am laughing because it is the most disgraceful thing I have ever seen. This poor man finally got it all sorted out. (Time expired)15:24:003589Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—The opposition, in taking note of Senator Newman's answer to a question on the youth allowance, criticised the government in a number of areas. The first that I would address is their criticism of the government educating members of the community and explaining the new system. Senator Neal has addressed this issue, in particular criticising the government for placing some money into the budget expenditure on this very issue.It seems to me and to many others that it is the opposition who would be the first to criticise and the first to complain if a new system were introduced without an effort being made to explain its new aspects to the users of that system. It seems to me that they would be the first to complain if it were not appropriately tested. Senator Neal took issue with that today.Senator Coonan addressed some of the changes which will be introduced. The most important of the changes is a simplification of income support arrangements for young Australians that combines five payment types and reduces 13 different rates to just five—that is, it simplifies the entire system for the users and the operators and enables young Australians to access the system more effectively.As I think Senator Coonan noted, this is an initiative designed to assist young people—and let us begin there. For years and years there were complaints about the inequities in the system and the lack of incentive for young people to take up further education and training. I well remember, even in 1987, the much vaunted Priority One program of the previous government—a program that was said to be the answer to the problems of all young Australians. It was certainly decided some years later that it was not any sort of an answer—more like Priority None than Priority One.In addressing the question of youth allowance, the government has introduced positive initiatives to assist young Australians. The Labor Party, over the 13 years it was in government in this country, had every chance to increase the standard of living of Australian students, and it simply did not do so. This is a social policy reform which is intended to make sure that young people do not see unemployment benefits as the only acceptable alternative to study. It is intended to make sure that those aged under 18 do not just go on the dole but that there is some opportunity for skills acquisition and further training. It is all about incentive. No matter which way you look at it, for years and years the inequity between payments for Austudy and for unemployment benefits simply resulted in young people making the easier decision and choosing unemployment benefits rather than pursuing further education and training. It is this issue which the government has addressed with the changes to the youth allowance system.Let us look at issues like rent assistance. Young students from country areas in particular were not able to pursue an education because their low to even middle income parents could not afford to send them away. As the minister said in her second reading speech, there is now an opportunity for families, especially those with several children, to be able to afford to send their young people away for further education largely because of the availability of rent assistance which makes a real difference. They have a chance of getting skills; they have a chance of getting an education.This is merely one aspect of the government's initiatives in this area. I have spent months and months in various regional parts of New South Wales looking at government initiatives in relation to young people, particularly work for the dole, where young people have finally found some incentive and some initiative to participate in schemes and programs such as this. These are not programs that just shift numbers around as they were under the previous government—statistically convenient, yes, but in reality doing nothing for the young Australians they were supposed to benefit.What we are doing in the initiatives under the youth allowance changes is making it clear that those young people, particularly under the age of 18, should focus—and so should their families—on what is valuable from training and education. Academic education, yes; vocational training, as the minister has previously said, yes. It is all about leading to jobs and to greater opportunities for people to participate in the work force. It is all about assisting young people and providing a focus for their activities when there are difficulties in other areas. (Time expired)15:29:003590Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I also want to address the issue of Centrelink. To start with, I want to quote from an article in the Tasmanian Mercury last Wednesday, the 17th, headed `Rush to recover payouts in dole bungle'. It reads:Social Security officials are scrambling to recover unemployment benefits which may have been paid accidentally to hundreds of Tasmanians.A glitch in Centrelink's new computer system caused former social security recipients to be put back on the payment list.The programming bug has also resulted in some unemployed Tasmanians missing out on benefits and others receiving double payments.I want to address briefly the issue of some people missing out on their unemployment benefits. I have had a lass in my Ulverstone office over the last few weeks—actually a longer period than that—who has had her last four cheques not go into her account on time. The last cheque was paid in the following day. My officers work on this each time her payments have not come in. They have phoned Centrelink and we have been assured that the problem has been fixed. We will be interested to see the next time the payment is due whether it goes in on time, but it certainly has not been going on in time.This lass is a young woman living in Ulverstone. She has no family support. She has done some casual work here and there, but she relies on that payment. She has absolutely no other means of support at this stage. It is frightening for her to go to her bank and find nothing has been paid in.Another case has come to my office of a woman who was caring for her pensioner husband. She lived out in the country, outside Devonport. Her husband was taken ill and hospitalised. She moved into town at the time of his hospitalisation and he passed on. She is a woman of 60 or 61. She stayed in town to make his funeral arrangements and those sorts of things. She went to Centrelink to tell them of the change in her circumstances. She was told to fill in documents, which she did. She was told to wait in a queue. She waited two hours under very stressful circumstances, because her husband had just died. Six weeks later she has had no acknowledgment of her application for assistance. She is still waiting to hear what Centrelink are going to do to try to resolve her situation.Those sorts of cases are very difficult. They should not be happening. They are happening to people—and particularly in this woman's case—who are stressed and are not thinking clearly. She needs assistance, but it is not forthcoming. She has had a very difficult time.The article in the Mercury also states, `As far as customers are concerned, the problem is totally ironed out.' As I have explained, in two of the cases that have come to me—there have been others, but these are two very diverse cases—the problem has not been ironed out. Certainly in the area where I live it has not been ironed out. Hopefully, it will be addressed and addressed soon.The CPSU put out a media release in March warning that this new computer system would fail and that staffing levels should be maintained. I think they have proven their point. This new computer system has failed. They go on to say that the warning was ignored, experienced IT staff left, 1,300 jobs were cut and now there is a major problem. Information I have today, which is contrary to what Senator Newman has said, tells me that, as from lunch time today, there are still 827 faults in the system. Somewhere someone needs to check these facts because that was what came to me today—827 faults still in the system.15:34:003591McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—We just heard Senator Denman and the previous Labor speaker, Senator Gibbs, take their five minutes to relate a very personal story directly related to their electorates. Not doubting that those stories have substance, though they may have embellished them somewhat as they came into the parliament, the truth of the matter is—and every parliamentarian know this; members of the House of Representatives and senators from both sides of the house—when there is a genuine social security problem, a constituent comes to your office, inevitably that can be fixed up by the office of the minister—from either side of the parliament and in the previous government. When there are personal problems, the staff of the ministers will attend to those directly. So to come in here and use that as an example of the utter failure of the new system this government is trying to introduce is wrong and adds no substance to the argument at all.When the coalition first came into government it was met with a social welfare system that was riddled with fraud, that was complex, that was totally overloaded and that was simply out of date. Quite frankly, in many parts of the community it was quite resented. That is what was allowed to be built up over the last 13 years of the previous government.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Jeff Kennett was right.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—That was the system we came into.AW5CARRSenator Carr—He was right, wasn't he?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr!WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, allow me not to be baited by Senator Carr with that tiresome interjection that he uses against me on each and every occasion. On our coming into government we were met with that sort of system and no other minister in the last 13 years or since Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was the Minister for Social Security has brought such reform to the system. She has brought a discipline to the department not previously seen and a responsibility to the department not previously seen.Quite frankly, as Senator Payne pointed out in her address, there have been years of concern and complaint and the minister has acted quite responsibly and aggressively to clean up those complaints within the system. First of all, she has clamped down on social security fraud. That is exactly what the community asked for. The community had a pent-up resentment against the system. We have clamped down on fraud and we are saving some $28 million a week—a phenomenal amount. But our reforms do not take benefits away from people who qualify for them; we have just clamped down on fraud.It is important to note that the youth allowance is an important reform. People should have the facts before them. First and foremost, all the research shows that young people have a much better chance of getting a job if they have at least completed year 12. I am saying this for the benefit of those gigglers up in there in the gallery. Youth allowance provides the right incentives by making sure young people are not better off on the dole but are able to complete their education or training. This measure targets students, that is, around 70 per cent of the total youth allowance population of around 560,000.Access to the youth allowance will mean that, for the first time, young people will have access to the same benefits available to young unemployed people: rent assistance, pharmaceutical assistance, a $500 interest free advance on their payment and more lenient, independent criteria.Senator Margetts interjecting—Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—You doubt that there will be more lenient, independent criteria?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Margetts and Senator Stott Despoja! Senator McGauran, would you please address the chair and ignore the interjections coming from down there?Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner! Senator McGauran, please continue.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. If students have to leave home to study or to train—namely, students from rural and regional areas of Australia—the youth allowance gives them extra help. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Condolences3592359210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 5 June 1998 of former Senator Donald Newton Cameron, a senator for the state of South Australia from 1969 to 1978.15:40:003593Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on Friday, 5 June 1998, of Donald Newton Cameron, a senator for the State of South Australia from 1969 to 1978, places on record its appreciation of his public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Don Cameron was born at Murray Bridge, South Australia on 13 January 1914. He was educated at Gawler High School and, after leaving school, worked as a shearer. Before entering federal politics, Don was an organiser with the Australian Workers Union. He was Secretary of the South Australian Branch of the AWU from 1965 to 1969. He was also President of the South Australian Branch of the Australian Labor Party from 1967 to 1968.Don was elected to the Senate in 1969 to fill a casual vacancy and remained in the Senate until his retirement in 1978. During his time in the Senate Don was a member of various committees, including the Senate Legislative and General Purpose Committee on Health and Welfare and the Senate Legislative and General Purpose Committee on Trade and Commerce.In June 1978, valedictory speeches were made in the Senate noting the retirement of several senators. In these remarks, Don was characterised as being a quiet senator who was an ardent worker, often adding wisdom in contributions to debate. This was considered to distinguish his speeches from the ordinary party arguments in the parliament at the time. Don Cameron was, indeed, a tireless worker during his time in the Senate and will be remembered kindly and with the same respect which he earned while serving in this place.Madam President, on behalf of the government, l extend to his wife, Colleen, and his family our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.15:43:003593Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition to support this condolence motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the death of Don Cameron, who was, of course, a very well known former South Australian Labor senator. I say on behalf of the opposition that Labor senators do express our deep regret over his death and we offer our most sincere condolences to his wife, Colleen, and his family.As Senator Hill has indicated, Don Cameron was first elected to the Senate in 1969 to fill a casual vacancy. He retired in 1978 after serving the people of the state of South Australia with great dedication and distinction for those nine years in the parliament. He was a man of honour and character, and I know he really will be missed very much by his colleagues, particularly his friends in South Australia.While I did not know Don Cameron personally, I certainly know members of his family. His brother, Clyde Cameron, is of course well known to many of us on this side of the chamber and is very well known in Australian politics. His son, Terry Cameron, is someone with whom I have had an association in the Labor Party. He is currently a member of the Legislative Council in the state of South Australia. He has been very active in the Labor Party at an organisational level, including serving in a senior role as vice-president of the party nationally and as a member of our party's national executive.I do think it is proper to say that, as we remember the contribution that Don Cameron has made, it will be in that area of his commitment to the trade union movement over a very long period of time. He was the secretary of the South Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union and had a lifelong commitment to that trade union. Also, he had been a very important figure in the Labor Party organisationally in South Australia, including serving as the South Australian President of our party. I noted that on his retirement from the Senate one of his friends and colleagues, former Senator Reg Bishop, another Labor Senator from South Australia, said about him:Senator Don Cameron has been a person who has often added wisdom in contributions to debates which has distinguished his speeches from the ordinary party arguments in the parliament. He has been able to contribute some gem of wisdom to debates on many causes which have had to be propounded. He has been a most distinguished member of the parliament.I am sure that is a very accurate reflection of the contribution that Don Cameron made. We, in the Labor Party particularly, will remember the contribution and commitment that Don Cameron has made to the labour movement. That is what we will never forget. We will of course remember his dedication to our party as well as his distinguished parliamentary career. On behalf of the opposition, can I say to his family—his wife of over 50 years, Colleen, who survives him; his sons, Terry and Barry; Clyde and other members of his family—and all his friends in South Australia: we offer our most sincere condolences.15:47:003594Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I want to make a few remarks in respect of the condolence motion that has been moved in the Senate this afternoon. I think many people know that Don Cameron and the Cameron family have been very close friends of mine. I had a lot to do with Don Cameron in particular over a number of years. It is with sadness today that I note his passing, not because he has not had a long life—84 years is a very long, and in Don's case, a very productive life in a whole range of different ways—but because I guess the moment has come now when we here in this chamber remember someone who once served in here and indeed went on for another 20 years of life and service to the community and the Labor Party. Particularly in the last 10 years or so, I think the advice he gave to many new members both in state and federal politics was very useful.Don Cameron did not have the flamboyance of Clyde. Clyde, whom we all know, has featured both in television programs of the era and in many publications. But make no bones about the fact that Clyde would be the first person to say that much of what he did was possible only because his brother played a significant and key role in the trade union movement in South Australia.Indeed, Don was a very selfless man. Don did not seek high office. Don did not seek anything for himself. What Don sought was the betterment of his members, firstly, and, secondly, to look after the underdog, whoever that may be. He did that in his union service, he did that in his parliamentary service, he did that in every part of his life.Don was instrumental not only in Clyde's career but in the careers of a few others as well. I well remember the late Mick Young telling me a story that he turned up in Broken Hill when Don Cameron was a shearer at that time—and he spent quite a lot of his life as a shearer. Mick, at the age of 18, had just shown the older hands how to shear a sheep and Don Cameron immediately recognised Mick's greatness—but not for shearing a sheep. He said, `Mick, I think you ought to be going into the union office. It is probably not a good idea for you to stay a shearer here much longer.' The tally was getting too low. In many respects Don started Mick's career in the union movement and eventually in politics.Don was elected as the Secretary of the AWU in 1964. It was an election that was fraught with controversy. In fact, there was eastern states intervention in the union. Don found himself literally out of work in November 1964, with two young kids to feed. Indeed, it was a long legal battle before the democratic right and the democratic tradition of the AWU was upheld in the courts some nine months later. I draw this to the attention of the Senate here today because Don Cameron, at that time, had to literally go out and get whatever work he could get. He was out on a broom for something like nine months to feed his wife and kids while the court case was going on—and Don never wavered. Don was there and his friends, Mick Young and Jack Wright—who were other officials in this union—and many of the other people who had been very important in the Labor Party in the 1970s and the 1980s, were at Don's side.The advocate for Don's cause, Dame Roma Mitchell, who also went on to other things, took a very close interest. Eventually the case was won and Don was reinstated as the divisional secretary in South Australia. Dame Roma never lost interest in these fellows. When Keith Plunkett died some two years or so ago now—he was another one of Don's contemporaries—Dame Roma went to the funeral and said she wanted to mark the passing of one of her boys.When Don Cameron came into this place I think he was one of the last senators to face a state wide by-election, which is the way replacements were found. He served here until 1978. He never sought for himself high office because he did not have the ego that demanded that particular thing. Don wanted to serve his constituents as best he could. Don did serve his constituents the best way he knew how.Don was an intensely private man who had party contacts right up until the very end. Sadly, in the last two years his health declined to such a point that he could not go outside his own house. Every couple of weeks he would roll up on a Friday to a restaurant in Adelaide's Chinatown that many in Labor politics in South Australia go to, but for the last two years he has been unable to do that. There were many times when we hoped that his health would improve, but unfortunately it went down further and further and it became impossible for him to have any quality of life. I hosted a dinner for him in that same restaurant on the occasion of his 80th birthday four years ago—it seems that time has flown.There are many people in South Australia—many members of the Labor Party—who have a great deal of respect for Don and would like those remarks put on the public record here today. Indeed, Don Cameron was a person who quite openly would give advice to people. In fact I noticed, in looking through his parliamentary records, that when he was retiring a number of senators made note of the fact that Don Cameron was more of a friend to them than anything else. One of those, of course, was ex-Senator Neville Bonner, who made the comment about Don Cameron that had it not been for him he would have found the transition into the Senate very difficult indeed. Don went out of his way, in the words of ex-Senator Bonner, to make sure that he felt at home here and showed him the ropes in the first critical few months of his service to the Senate.Don Cameron is survived by his wife of over 50 years, Colleen, his son Terry Cameron, who is a Legislative Councillor, and his other son Barry. They and Clyde and Doris and other close members of the family all said goodbye to Don at a private ceremony the other week. Don left instructions that he was to be privately cremated with only close family at that particular service because it was not in Don's nature that he would want it otherwise. I am sad at the loss of a friend and confidant. I would be remiss in not saying here that the last time this man took part in any Labor Party activity was to come to the preselection convention—he was very ill at the time—on 8 May last year and cast his vote for me.15:56:003595Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak on the condolence motion for the passing of Don Cameron. I suspect I may be one of the few senators who were aware of Don when he was secretary of the AWU in South Australia in the mid to late 1960s when I was first active in the Labor Party and certainly when I became an organiser in the party in 1969.As Senator Quirke has mentioned, Don Cameron was elected to a casual vacancy in the Senate created by the passing of a senator. In those days, at the first opportunity for a statewide election—if the House of Representatives election was out of sync with the Senate election—an election would take place. At the 1969 federal election, which was a House of Representatives election with no Senate election, the vacancy could be voted on and Don Cameron had already been selected as the Labor Party half-Senate candidate. As a non-sitting candidate, he was our candidate for that by-election, if you could call it that, and he beat another Cameron—Martin Cameron—in that ballot. Martin Cameron is the present president of the Liberal Party in South Australia who, after being defeated by Don because he had been appointed to the vacancy, went on to become a Legislative Councillor, a founding member of the Liberal movement in South Australia, and is now president of the South Australian Liberal Party. Don beat him in that 1969 election.I remember it well. It was the first election I was involved in as a party official when the Labor Party two-party preferred vote in South Australia at a federal election reached something like 54 per cent and we won five seats from the Liberal Party. Don came into the Senate at that time and, to my surprise I must say—and many of us tried to talk him out of it—he decided to retire in 1978 after barely nine years in the Senate. Many of us were quite surprised that he chose to retire after what was a relatively short period in the Senate. He certainly had the support of the party to continue for a longer period, if he had so chosen. But that, as Senator Quirke has said, was typical of Don Cameron; he did not seek the limelight for himself, though all of us who knew him realised he was a figure of considerable substance and calibre within the Labor movement in South Australia, both as a trade unionist and as a member of the Labor Party.Don Cameron provided quiet advice to many of us who were much younger than him in those days. That advice would always be about the morality, the ethics and the consistency of what one should believe in. That was certainly Don's role and he had an influence much greater than most would believe. It is true that in a most celebrated case in AWU history Don won election as secretary, then was sacked by the then federal secretary of the Labor Party, Tom Dougherty. That was taken to the court. Roma Mitchell was the defender, as Senator Quirke said, of Don Cameron and the others who were sacked at that time. The court upheld the case that they should be reinstated.In the group that Senator Quirk has mentioned there was Reg Groth, who went on to become state member for Salisbury for a decade in the Dunstan years; Jimmy Dunford, who went on to become secretary of the AWU and ultimately a member of the Legislative Council in South Australia and who, sadly, died in office in the early 1980s; Alan Beggs, who went on to become secretary of the AWU in South Australia; Jack Wright, who was Don Cameron's successor as state secretary of the AWU and who then became a member of the parliament in South Australia; and, ultimately, Deputy Prime Minister in the Bannon Labor government. There were a number of others, such as Keith Plunkett. I do not think Keith was actually sacked by Tom Dougherty in those days because I do not think he had been appointed or elected as an official, but he certainly was an activist. I may have missed some other names in that celebrated group—ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Mick Young.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Mick Young wasn't actually sacked. Mick had already just been elected before the sacking to be the state organiser of the Labor Party in South Australia. Though socially and politically he was very close to them, he had already just moved on from being the AWU organiser at Port Pirie to be the ALP organiser, and we know of Mick's celebrated career in the Labor Party since that time.One cannot underestimate the success that Don Cameron and that team of people had in the AWU in South Australia in creating a climate for the Dunstan decade of the 1970s. Don Cameron was a very strong supporter of Don Dunstan and the many radical reforms that Don Dunstan introduced and put into place in the Labor Party in the famous Dunstan decade. Though Don Cameron had in every way a classic working class background, he certainly supported Don on many of the wider social and reform issues that he introduced in South Australia. That was a very important base for the success of the Labor Party in that period. Though Don Cameron is not given much credit, he should be given a lot of credit for it. As one who was an official in the Labor Party in the Dunstan decade, I know the role that Don played in the late 1960s and then in the early 1970s as one of those influential figures.When I worked for the Whitlam government for a period of time with Senator Bishop, who was a close colleague of Don Cameron's, I had plenty of opportunity to see the work that Don did in the Senate during that period. Don's advice, balance and comment were always sound at a time when, to the say the least, the Whitlam government was providing some pretty exciting times and opportunities. Again, Don Cameron always supported those who were in favour of reform, whether it was economic or social. Though he might not get the credit that he should have got for the Dunstan decade, he was an important figure behind the scenes in the Whitlam period.As I said earlier in my remarks, many of us were very surprised that Don chose to retire from the Senate in 1978. I agree with Senator Quirk that Don Cameron continued to have an intense interest in the Labor Party and the labour movement. If one had to say about Don what would he like to be remembered for, there is no doubt that he would like to be remembered as an outstanding trade union official and secretary of the AWU, representing the workers and their interests, particularly low paid and semi-skilled workers, which overwhelmingly AWU members were in those days and still are.I remember being a very green 22-year-old state organiser for the Labor Party in the 1969 federal campaign and then in the 1970s state campaign that began the Dunstan decade and being taken by Don to the Riverland of South Australia to speak at factory gate meetings, if you could call them that, that in fact were under an orange tree outside a packing shed or a cannery, and to talk to workers about those issues that we were promoting at the election. The way Don handled himself in talking—using simple but effective language—to ordinary people about the issues of the day was a real lesson to me about how to communicate. I have to say, he did it better than most. His record in the Labor Party in South Australia, in the Trades and Labour Council in South Australia and in the trade union movement is very significant.It was with considerable sorrow that I heard of his passing. I pass on to his wife and family, Terry and Barry, my sincere condolences and also the fact that in my very young days in the Labor Party Don Cameron had an influence on my involvement in the labour movement beyond most others. For that I am eternally grateful.16:06:003597Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I too wish to pay tribute to Don Cameron in speaking to this condolence motion. I did not know Don Cameron very much as a senator, I have to say. I did know him as a union official. He was one of the first union officials I encountered when I started work as an industrial officer for the Clerks Union in South Australia in 1967. He was then President of the Australian Labor Party and continued as President of the ALP for at least another year.Don Cameron was an outstanding figure, as we have heard from my colleagues Senator Quirk, Senator Schacht and Senator Faulkner, in the South Australian union movement. He was, as the record shows, a long time secretary of the AWU. What the record does not show is that he held that position with considerable distinction and great admiration and respect were accorded to him by the rank and file members of that organisation. He was in many respects a union official of the old school, who held the rank and file point of view on all points in an argument and who saw it as his role to represent that point of view as fully, as frankly and as openly as he could. He did that to considerable effect.I know that he was associated with the people in South Australia who were the luminaries of the AWU at the time—people such as Mick Young. A number of the names have been mentioned here today. There was Jack Wright, Jimmy Dunford and Alan Beggs. I remember particularly the industrial officers of the AWU at the time, such as Ernie Grimes. For a time John Bannon was an industrial officer of the AWU and Barry Kavanagh was also an industrial officer of the AWU at the time.The AWU and the clerks union did have one thing in common. In the late 1960s South Australia was a state with more federal awards than state awards. The industrial organisations that had state awards were in fact the AWU, which was the biggest union as far as the state Industrial Relations Commission was concerned, the shop assistants' union and the clerks union. So often I found myself in consultation with their industrial officers on how matters could best be dealt with by the state industrial commission.It was in this time that four weeks annual leave came in and when annual leave loading was deliberated upon and awarded by the commission. It was in this time, too, that equal pay for work of equal value was first awarded by the federal industrial commission and these standards had to be converted into standards within the state jurisdictions as well. The AWU was a leading union in ensuring that no worker in South Australia was left behind and, in fact if at all possible, led the field this these matters nationally.During all of that the eminence of Don Cameron permeated the scene. I have not had as close a relationship with him politically as my colleagues who have spoken in this debate, but I value what I thought was a generous and open friendship that he offered to me as a young industrial officer. He did so with a degree of decency and, I might say, sincerity that I have not really encountered very much in my political and industrial life. They were the hallmarks of Don Cameron. He was basically a very decent person and a very genuine Australian.He was someone who always expressed, in whatever discussion he was involved in, true working class values. In the period of time in which he was an eminent figure in the labour movement he was a person best classed as a true progressive; someone interested in progressive reform at all times.He was the president of the party at the time when the long run of the Playford government in South Australia came to an end and Frank Walsh became the first Labor Premier after Playford, followed by Don Dunstan. He presided as a strong figure in making sure that the ALP and the union movement was steered along sensible courses at a time in which massive change was occurring and a huge alteration in social values was occurring, too.That was the role he played in my experience during the period of Whitlam government when his elder brother, Clyde Cameron, was a distinguished minister. Don would sometimes worry too much about issues. He always struck me as someone who was concerned to come to grips with what was really happening, get through all of the screen of the language, come to the kernel of the matter and see how it related to the working class values that he held. He would worry away at a problem until he got to that under standing. Then, when he got there, he would be a very eloquent spokesman for the interests of the people he represented, and usually that was the rank and file members of the AWU. I feel frankly that I am a bit privileged to be able to convey my condolences to such a great Australian.16:12:003598Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Senator Bolkus did wish to be associated with this condolence motion. He is not able to be here. He was very keen that his association with this motion be made clear to the Senate.Can I indicate that he also had a very long relationship with Don Cameron. In the mid-1970s Senator Bolkus was at that time a non-senator and a young staffer employed by the then Senator Don Cameron. I would like to make it clear to the Senate that the same sentiments that my colleagues and I expressed when speaking to this condolence motion also go to Senator Bolkus.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.35983598The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 13 June 1998 of the Reverend Gilbert William Arthur Duthie, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Wilmot in Tasmania from 1946 to 1975.359810001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:359819093I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaPetition to the Australian SenateA CALL TO LABEL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS AND FOOD PRODUCTSWe, the undersigned citizens and residents of Australia, call on all Senators to support implementation of the following: a requirement to label with the production process, all foods from genetic engineering technologies or containing their products; real public participation in decisions on whether to allow commercialisation of foods, additives and processing agents produced by gene technologies; premarket human trials and strict safety rules on these foods, to assess production processes as well as the end products.Precedents which support of our petition include several examples of foods already labelled with the processes of production: irradiated foods (internationally); certified organic foods; and many conventional foods (pasteurised; salt-reduced; free-range; vitamin-enriched; to name only a few).We ask you all to accord a high priority to supporting and implementing our petition.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 1,909 citizens)359910DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identify so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 10 citizens)359932TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned shows:(a) a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air and noise pollution;(c) Western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and(e) an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate not pass any bill which would lead to the construction of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 32 citizens)3599361TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the 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 BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 361 citizens)3599331X4West Sen SueTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament;This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate, decisions by the Howard Government affecting the price and availability of medicines.The decision to remove (delist) a number of drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and also the decision to pressure people to switch to cheaper, older and less effective drugs, will disadvantage the less well off in our community who will not be able to afford the best most suitable drugs, the drugs their doctors have prescribed for them.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse these decisions immediately.Senator West1X4Senator West(from 33 citizens)35993231I4McKiernan Sen JamesTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that we, the citizens of regional Australia, call on the Senate to do everything possible to ensure that all Australian citizens have an equitable opportunity to be able to view the 1998 FIFA World Cup from France which is to be broadcast via the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) Network.Regional Australians proudly belong to a multicultural nation and enjoy a widespread interest in international sport. We call on the Australian Senate to end the current discrimination that ensures that only metropolitan centres have access to the direct telecasting of one of the great sporting events of the world.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Senator McKiernan1I4Senator McKiernan(from 323 citizens)Petitions received.Notices360036003600Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the call by Xanana Gusmao for the Senate to reconsider its rejection of a motion calling for his unhindered release and for self-determination for East Timor; and(b) calls on President Habibie's Government to release Xanana Gusmao immediately and unconditionally, and to hold a free and fair referendum on the question of independence for East Timor.36003600Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), no later than 3.15 pm on 29 June 1998, the following documents:In relation to all advertising, promotional, information and/or public relations campaigns planned, commissioned or undertaken by any Commonwealth department or agency since March 1996, where the estimated or final cost, whichever is higher, of the campaign exceeded $500 000:(a) all briefs requesting research to be carried out for the campaign by consultants, whether for qualitative or quantitative research;(b) all scoping studies carried out in preparation for these campaigns;(c) all research reports from consultants providing results of the research of any kind; and (d) acquittal documentation indicating the detailed costings of the research undertaken or planned.36003600Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-99Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1998Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998.I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during this sitting and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1998-99APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1998-99APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL 1998-99Legislative authority for expenditure under the annual Appropriation Bills expires on 30 June each year and, unless new expenditure authority is in place by that time, activities of Government agencies funded through the annual Appropriation mechanism must cease.The Appropriation Bills will provide legislative authority for expenditure in 1998-99. Passage of the Bills before 30 June 1998 is required to allow funds to be made available to all agencies from 1 July 1998, thereby ensuring continuity of program expenditure. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance and Administration)CUSTOMS LEGISLATION (ANTI-DUMPING AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) AMENDMENT BILL 1998The principal purpose of these Bills is to amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 and repeal Anti-Dumping Authority Act 1988 to implement the Government's announced reforms of the anti-dumping and countervailing systems in response to the Willett Report. The bills also make a number of minor and technical amendments to the anti-dumping provisions of the Customs Act 1901, including the removal of the local content rule from subsection 269T(2) for the purpose of determining whether goods are manufactured in Australia.On 24 February 1998 the Government announced major changes to the administration of anti-dumping and countervailing investigations which will see investigations completed within a 155 day time frame.This is to be achieved by the abolition of the current bifurcated investigation process in which an investigation progresses through two separate agencies, Customs and then the Anti-Dumping Authority (ADA). The ADA is to be abolished and Customs will have the sole responsibility for undertaking a comprehensive investigation and consultation process.A new administrative appeal mechanism, independent of Customs, is to be.established which will provide all interested parties with a right to seek a speedy review of final finding as to whether to impose dumping or countervailing duties. Under current arrangements the only avenue open to an interested party seeking a review of a final finding is to institute proceedings in the Federal Court.The Industry Task Force on Anti-Dumping, an informal grouping of major manufacturers and related associations, has expressed its strong support for the changes. The Task Force noted that the prompt implementation of the changes would remove the present uncertainty surrounding the administration of investigations, which has discouraged or delayed significant investment decisions to the detriment of the efficiency and competitiveness of Australian industry.Introduction and passage of this package of legislation during the 1998 Winter sittings is desirable as it will ensure that the new amendments can begin by the scheduled commencement date of 1 July 1998 to the benefit of Australian industry. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs)DATA-MATCHING PROGRAM (ASSISTANCE AND TAX) AMENDMENT BILL 1998The proposed Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 will remove the existing sunset clause in the Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990.The Bill needs to be introduced and passed in the 1998 Winter Sittings as the current sunset clause takes effect on 22 January 1999 and, if it were to come into effect, data-matching activities which help ensure the integrity of the social security system would have to be discontinued. This would result in a substantial negative impact on the forward estimates. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the Parliament considers the future of the data-matching program in 1998.(Circulated by the authority of the Minister for Social Security)NATIONAL FIREARMS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION BILL 1998At its meetings of 10 May 1996, 17 July 1996 and 15 November 1996, the Australasian Police Ministers' Council (APMC) resolved that there be uniform national controls on firearms. The APMC also decided that there should be a buyback of prohibited firearms during an amnesty period of twelve months. The buyback was funded through an additional medicare levy. Compensation was paid by the States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, which were then reimbursed by the Commonwealth for compensation paid out and for some of the administrative costs associated with the buyback.Norfolk Island has almost finalised its legislation to bring it into line with the APMC resolutions. The National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 will make provision for the Commonwealth to fund that buyback out of remaining medicare levy funds in the same way as it did the States and mainland territories.The Bill will also deal with the position on Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. While it is thought that there may be few or no prohibited weapons on these islands, provision needs to be made for an amnesty period and a buyback by the Commonwealth.The Bill is urgent because there should be provision for reimbursement by the Commonwealth before the Norfolk Island Administration starts making compensation payments for guns handed in. The amnesty period should commence in all three territories as soon as possible so that prohibited firearms do not remain in the community for any longer than necessary.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Justice)PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1998The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the charge from $27 to $30 with effect from 1 January 1999.The $3 increase was announced in the 1998-99 Budget.In most cases, the charge is collected on behalf of the Commonwealth by international airlines at the time of sale of tickets for departures from Australia, in accordance with arrangements entered into under section 10 of the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. It is not uncommon for such tickets to be sold up to 12 months in advance of the intended departure date. In order for airlines to be able to collect the increased amount on tickets sold between 1 July 1998 and 1 January 1999, for post 1 January 1999 departures, it is necessary that the amendments, with appropriate transitional arrangements, be in place before 1 July 1998.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs)TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (FARM MANAGEMENT DEPOSITS) BILL 1998PurposeThe proposed Bill implements the new Farm Management Deposit (FMD) Scheme announced in the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. It replaces and/or amends a number of Acts, in particular the Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Act 1976 and the Income Tax assessment Act 1936.The FMD Scheme will commercialise and modify the existing Income Equalisation Deposit (IED) and Farm Management Bond (FMB) schemes.Reasons for urgencyIntroduction and passage of the Bill in the 1998 Winter Sittings is sought to provide certainty to financial markets that an investment product and risk management tool will be available.The FMD Scheme is a key plank of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia packages It progresses agricultural policy by providing a mechanism for enhancing farmers' ability to manage risk and be financially self-reliant. Under the legislative changes the prior IED and FMB Schemes will be made more commercially attractive and accessible for primary producers. The proposed amendments have the support of the financial community and rural sector. Expectations are high that the FMD Scheme will be available for the next financial year (1998-99). The FMD Scheme is a taxation based tool and uncertainty for potential investors will be increased if the Bill is not passed prior to the commencement of the taxation year.The Department currently holds deposits in trust for approximately 9,500 clients in the IED and FMB Schemes. When the FMD Scheme commences these funds will have to be either withdrawn or transferred to financial institutions depending on the wishes of the individual client. Transfer and clarity for depositors would be simplified if notification could occur in line with a financial year changeover. Introduction and passage should occur prior to 30 June 1998 to allow notification of changes to depositors so transfers to the FMD Scheme could be mate for the 1998-99 financial year.Effect of not passingDelaying the passage of the proposed Bill until the Spring sittings would create uncertainty for farmers' investment decisions in the 1998-99 financial year and reduce their ability to achieve self-reliance in managing risk It would also make uncertain conversion of existing IED deposits to FMD deposits for the 1998-99 financial year. It may create difficulties for financial institutions and rural stakeholders who have provided considerable assistance in the development of this mechanism.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (LANDCARE AND WATER FACILITY TAX OFFSET) BILL 1998Purpose of the proposed Bill:This measure will implement the Government's election commitment that a rebate may be claimed for expenditure incurred on the prevention of land degradation.The Bill contains the measure giving effect to an announcement made on 1 July 1997 by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.Reasons for urgency:The Minister announced that expenditure incurred after 30 June 1997 would be eligible for the rebate. To give effect to this policy for the 1997-98 income year. the Australian Taxation Office needs the law to be in place as soon as possible before the end of this financial year.Result if Bill not dealt with in these sittings: The measure will not be implemented in the time frame announced by the Government if the Bill is not passed during the 1998 Winter sitting period. Until legislation is in place, taxpayers will be uncertain about the intended operation of the law. The costs of administering the measure will increase with any delay in implementation.(Circulated by authority of the Treasurer)WHEAT MARKETING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998The purpose of the proposed bill is to implement the final stage in the restructure of the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) as a grower owned company from 1 July 1999. The first stage of this process, to allow the AWB to conduct its activities through wholly owned Corporations Law companies, was implemented by amendments to the Wheat Marketing Act 1989 last year. At that time the importance of a two stage approach to the restructure was accepted by the Senate and the need for further legislation was foreshadowed.The proposed bill will terminate statutory marketing arrangements for wheat from 1 July 1999. A small statutory body will continue to undertake the AWB's current functions for the administration of wheat export controls. Ownership and control of a successor company to the AWB, to undertake the AWB's marketing and financing functions, will be passed to wheatgrowers by the issue of A Class shares and the conversion of equity in the Wheat Industry Fund (WIF) to B Class shares.Introduction and passage for the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1998 in the 1998 Winter Sittings is being sought to provide certainty to financial markets about the longer term changes to the AWB.Under the legislative changes agreed to last year the AWB's wholly owned subsidiary will have the opportunity to develop a track record and identity as a fully commercial (rather than a Government-backed body) and achieve a credit rating to enable it to operate after Government underwriting is withdrawn on 1 July 1999. The sooner that the future conversion of the AWB's subsidiary into a grower owned Corporations Law company is settled in legislation, the more likely it is that the company will be accepted by financial markets.The AWB is one of Australia's largest borrowers on short term markets to finance advance and related payments for pool wheat delivered to it, and it is essential that the new grower company's access to funds for these purposes is not put in jeopardy. Legislation which clearly establishes the capital base of the new company as shares from the conversion of the WIF will remove any doubt that the WIF capital could be dissipated. This should build up the confidence of lenders dealing with the grower company.Delaying passage of the proposed bill until the 1998 Spring Sittings could place unnecessary uncertainty over the final stage of privatisation which would be unsatisfactory from a commercial point of view.(Circulated with the Authority of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)36033603Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:(1) That the Senate notes: (a) the observation expressed in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration entitled Cultivating Competition: Inquiry into aspects of the National Competition Policy Reform Package , that there has been no major analysis of the broader socio-economic costs of the National Competition Policy; and (b) that many voters in the 1998 Queensland election indicated that they were disillusioned with the unquestioning push by the major parties for economic reforms such as National Competition Policy without considering the broader impacts of such changes.(2) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, be appointed to inquire into and report, on or before the first sitting day in 1999, on the following matters: (a) the broader socio-economic consequences, including costs, of the National Competition Policy, as implemented by the Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 , including, but not limited to, the impact of the policy on: (i) unemployment, (ii) changed working conditions, (iii) social welfare, (iv) equity, (v) social dislocation, and (vi) environmental impacts; and (b) the relative effect and variation in impact of the National Competition Policy on urban and rural and regional communities.(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats and 1 nominated by the Greens (WA) or independent senators.(4) That the quorum of the committee be 3 members with 1 representing the Government, 1 representing the Opposition and 1 representing either the Australian Democrats, the Greens (WA) or independent senators.(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.(6) That the chair of the committee be elected by and from the members of the committee.(7) That the deputy chair of the committee be elected by and from the members of the committee immediately after the election of the chair.(8) That the deputy chair act as chair when there is no chair or the chair is not present at a meeting.(9) That, in the event of the votes on any question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.(10) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the senators appointed to the subcommittee.(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.36043604O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—At the request of Senator Knowles, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the continued monitoring of the operation of the Health Legislation (Private Health Insurance Reform) Amendment Act 1995 be extended to 10 December 1998.36043604Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) recognises the vital contribution of the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition (AYPAC) to the development of policy affecting young Australians through its effective and comprehensive representation of young people;(b) deplores the Government's short-sighted and mean-spirited replacement of AYPAC with a twice-yearly consultation with a select few young people, in contravention of a promise it made in 1996 to `improve the effectiveness of government in responding to the needs and concerns of young Australians by consulting directly with young Australians around the nation through formal representative organisations such as AYPAC';(c) rejects the notion that a twice-yearly meeting of 50 young people without funding to carry out vital research into the effect of policies on young people and advise the Government on a year-round basis constitutes adequate consultation of young people and their concerns;(d) condemns a reduction of almost $140 000 in funding to the representation of young people in policy development; and(e) urges the Government to reverse this decision and restore funding to AYPAC so it can continue its invaluable work.36043604Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes yet another departure from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs in the resignation of the First Assistant Secretary of the Schools Division, Mr Bill Daniels; and(b) acknowledges Mr Daniels' 28 years of experience and expertise in the education portfolio area and regrets the loss of corporate knowledge which his departure will bring.36053605Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on 24 June 1998, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes moves within Indonesia and the United States of America to investigate the wealth and assets held by ex-president Suharto and his family and associates;(b) calls on the Australian Government to establish an inquiry into such wealth and assets in Australia; and(c) urges the Australian Government to take prudent measures to ensure that any future request from Indonesia for such assets to be frozen or returned is not compromised in the meantime.36053605O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I give notice that, on 24 June, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) a report commissioned by the former Queensland State Government and prepared by the University of Queensland found a significant relationship between pig meat imports and domestic prices, (ii) pig meat imports doubled in 1997, (iii) prices received by Australian pork producers have collapsed to their lowest level in 30 years and are significantly below the cost of production, (iv) the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) announced after the 1996 federal election that exceptional circumstances assistance would be available for rare and severe events not just for drought, (v) the Minister released prior to the 1996 federal election a document entitled `Reviving the heartland' which stated under the heading `Exceptional Circumstances' that a collapse in world prices is an unforeseen event and therefore should be treated as exceptional and justifies special Government measures, (vi) the surge in imports and the collapse on domestic prices have been accompanied by the fall in world prices for pig meat, (vii) a combination of all the above factors has created a crisis in the industry which is well beyond normal management practices; (viii) despite: (a) the Howard Government's change in the definition of exceptional circumstances to include an unanticipated collapse in prices, (b) the fact that research undertaken on behalf of the former Queensland Government has established a link between surging imports and collapsing prices, and (c) the fact that pork producers incomes have collapsed, the Minister has refused the industry desperately needed short-term help, (ix) the Minister approved an application for special short-term assistance to farmers in the Monaro A district because of a range of factors, including lack of rainfall and pests, and (x) the assistance is restricted to only 12 months because the region did not qualify for drought exceptional circumstances; and(b) calls on the Minister to: (i) immediately review his decision to reject exceptional circumstances assistance for pork producers; and (ii) release all reports and related material on which he based his decisions: (a) to reject the application for short-term help by the pork industry, (b) to reject the application for exceptional circumstances assistance to the Monaro region in December 1997, and (c) to approve the application for exceptional circumstances assistance to farmers in the area known as Monaro A in March 1998.36053605Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities for inquiry and report by 24 July 1998:Whether there needs to be reform of the law regulating industrial relations and/or corporations so that it appropriately and adequately deals with the following issues:(a) the trend for companies to declare themselves insolvent in order to avoid paying employees their legitimate entitlements;(b) the trend to use shell companies to avoid the normal contractual obligations arising from the employer/employee relationship;(c) protecting workers' entitlements in the transmission of businesses;(d) corporate avoidance or evasion of Workplace Relations Act protections;(e) protecting workers' entitlements in circumstances of privatisation or contracting out;(f) protecting against manipulation of corporate structures to avoid employee rights and entitlements;(g) protections for workers employed by insolvent employers;(h) the inter-relationship between the Corporations Law, the Workplace Relations Act and awards and industrial agreements; and(i) minimising the adverse effects on employees of insecure employment forms.36063606Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes:(a) the two proposed magnesite mines and value-added processing by Crest Resources near West Takone and Golden Triangle near Savage River on Tasmania's north-west coast;(b) that the north-west coast is a region of Tasmania which has had significant industry restructuring, high unemployment and net population decline;(c) the projects will be appropriately assessed for their impact on the environment under relevant State laws;(d) the attempt by the Tasmanian Greens' State member Ms Peg Putt to mislead the Tasmanian and Australian public by claiming the caves and karsts would be threatened by any mining proposals;(e) the rebuttal of such claims by Mr Bevis Dutton of the Savage River Caving Club and geomorphologist Mr Kevin Kiernan, the author of a study of the karsts, which Ms Putt incorrectly quoted, rejecting her claims;(f) Mr Kiernan's view that he did not believe there was a conflict with mining in the area given commonsense, goodwill and careful planning;(g) Ms Putt's failure to apologise for misleading the public;(h) Ms Putt's condemnation of the proposals before a pre-feasibility study is carried out; andSenator Brown interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—She should, Senator Brown. I will take that interjection.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—She hasn't misled anybody.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—She has grossly lied to the Tasmanian and Australian public—and you know that very, very well, Senator Brown.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Bring this on.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It will be a ripper of a debate.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You're the one who'll get ripped.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I note Senator Brown's constant interjection and interruption in opposing a very worthwhile—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! Senator Sherry, you should not be making an offensive comment about a state member of parliament.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—That's right.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Are you asking me to withdraw the comment, Mr Acting Deputy President?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think you should, yes.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I will withdraw the comment that she lied, but it was a terminological inexactitude and she did grossly mislead the public. To conclude: (i) Ms Putt's admission in reference to the general area that, `It has been quarried and timber harvested in the past, but it has regained a high quality wilderness'.36063606Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) congratulates the national youth broadcaster, Triple J, on its Rock Enrol campaign; and(b) encourages all young Australians 17 years and older to enrol to vote.36073607Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that the Victorian Treasury recently overturned a prohibition on electricity companies offering power from renewable sources at extra cost, (ii) that this decision allows Victorian consumers for the first time to pay a levy on their power bills for the proportion of their electricity that comes from renewable sources, under an accredited scheme administered by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority, (iii) that four out of five electricity companies operating in Victoria now offer green power, and (iv) that in New South Wales, the scheme has attracted 17 000 households and 80 businesses since its inception in 1997; and(b) congratulates: (i) the Victorian Government for its decision to allow green power in Victoria, and (ii) Environment Victoria and Greenpeace, which provided much of the momentum for the public campaign to allow green power to be offered to Victorians; and(c) encourages initiatives promoting the use of power from renewable sources in each State.36073607Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of Senator Jacinta Collins, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights be extended to 5 November 1998. 36073607Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of Senator Bishop, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of the Senate on 25 June 1998, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the impact of Government child care funding cuts on families, children and child care services.360716:29:003607Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to move a motion to exempt a bill from standing order 111.Leave granted.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I move: That the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 7 of standing order 111 not apply to the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during this sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard . Copies of the statement have been circulated in the chamber.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—HEALTH CARE (APPROPRIATION) BILL 1998The Bill will appropriate funds to make a Commonwealth contribution for the period of 5 years starting on 1 July 1998 to the cost of health and emergency services provided by hospitals in the States and Territories; and to fund projects designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of, or to reduce demand for, such services, or to improve patient outcomes from such services.The Bill requires introduction and passage in the same sitting to ensure the continuity of Commonwealth funding for public hospitals ant related services.If the Bill is not dealt with in one sitting there will be no legislative basis to allow payments for health and emergency services provided by hospitals in the States and Territories, meaning States and Territories could lose up to 10 per cent of their revenue base. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Health and Family Services)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion, say aye; those against, say no. I think the ayes have it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, do you have some problems?16:29:003608Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—Yes, I do. Which motion was just put to the Senate?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The motion was to exempt a certain bill.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I thought it was a notice of motion. Obviously, it is not a notice of motion. If it is a notice of motion, then we—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Leave was granted to move the motion, and we voted on the motion.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I am sorry, but that is not the way we should be dealing with these kinds of motions. To incorporate the terms of reference of something we are actually being asked to vote on right now is not the way to put things through the Senate. I am sorry, but I certainly do not give leave to be acting in that way; that is not the way to get your program through at this time of the year.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You actually did give leave.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. While the opposition will be voting for the exemption, I think the Senate was confused as to what was put. There was some discussion between you and the clerk, and I think it was unclear to some of the senators whether we were voting on leave to move the motion or to put the motion. I think it would be in the interests of the Senate if we actually retraced our steps a bit and were clear what we were doing.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Leave was sought to move the motion and, once leave was granted, we then proceeded.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. During the seeking of leave, the minister said that the statement of reasons had been circulated in the Senate. However, I, for one, had not received it at that time; I have since.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—It is on your desk.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to Senator O'Chee, it is on your desk over there; it was not over here, but it was delivered consequently. It is quite untoward for us to have been asked to vote on that motion without having had the arguments put to us. I ask that the vote be resubmitted to the Senate if the minister would be so good as to permit that. If not, I ask that my vote against the motion be recorded.16:30:003608Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—by leave—Senator Margetts, I am advised—and it might assist you and, in particular, people reading the Hansard or people listening at the moment who may think a swiftie has been pulled—that this matter was raised at the whips meeting this morning and that you had a representative at the meeting. It was indicated then that the government intended to do this at this time today. Subsequent to the meeting, both your office and Senator Brown's office separately were rung and advised in relation to this matter.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I was not in my office. I haven't been spoken to because I was in the Senate.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—As I was saying, the matter was raised at the whips' meeting. Senator Margetts had a representative there. Subsequent to the whips' meeting, both senators were rung to see if there was a problem. One senator is now indicating in the chamber by way of interjection, having already had the liberty to speak himself, that he simply has not been in his office. That is regrettable, but I am simply trying to indicate that the government has had good intentions and followed the appropriate process for when this sort of change is sought to be made, and that is, raise it first thing in the morning and put it on the Senate red.16:33:003608Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—Mr Acting Deputy President, I suggest it would be more useful if this were done as a notice of motion, and then we would have a little time. I am sorry about the confusion, I was not able to go to the whips' meeting today. Instead of just getting something in your hand and being expected to decide on the spot, it would be more reasonable to put it as a notice of motion and then we can vote on it after we have actually had time to consider it.16:34:003609Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—by leave—One of the difficulties with that, Senator Margetts, is that the reason it was raised at the whips' meeting this morning is that there is a possibility that we will want to deal with this tonight. That was the whole purpose of raising it this morning. I am sorry if your representative did not convey the matter back to you, but that was the purpose of early notice being given today.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The motion has been carried and, unless it is the wish of the Senate that the vote be recommitted, we stand by that.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Both of us asked whether that could be traced back to its first stages because of the confusion—I do not think that is an unreasonable thing. Because our response related to that level of confusion, we are asking, quite reasonably, that leave be asked for again so we can respond based on our now ascertaining what the situation is. I am suggesting that it is reasonable that this be put as a notice of motion and dealt with accordingly.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Margetts, I can only put the motion again by order of the Senate.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I asked for leave—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—However, if you wish, you can have your vote recorded against the motion.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Mr Acting Deputy President, I wonder if you might just ask the Senate if they would give leave for it to be recommitted? You have not actually asked the Senate if they would do that. It is happening all the time in the Senate; people say, `Can we go back to that?' I would appreciate it if you would actually ask that question before saying, `No, we can't go back to it.'10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If that is what you are asking to do, can you seek leave and put it formally, and I will accept it.16:36:003609Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I seek leave for the issue to be recommitted from the start.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The issue of leave for the motion has already been dealt with. My understanding is that if the request is that the motion be put to the vote—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Be recommitted.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—Yes. If the actual motion itself be voted upon, we are quite happy to accept that. It is just that the inexactitude of the terminology used by Senator Margetts does require me to clarify it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Margetts, could you clarify your position? Are you seeking leave for the motion to be put or to go right back to the beginning?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—The words I used were that we start from the beginning. I do not know how to make that any clearer. If Senator O'Chee wants to refuse leave, that is for him to say. I would like to seek leave that the leave sought by Senator Vanstone be put again because of the confusion on this side whether we were being asked to vote on an issue on which we have only just received the information in our hands.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Perhaps we can try to short-circuit this. Senator Margetts, this is very difficult, especially when people are trying to raise things in the appropriate order. There was a meeting this morning which you had a representative attending and I am sorry if your representative has not kept you informed and consequently you come to this issue, as you say, fresh—ab initio, if you like—and do not know what is going on. Will it assist you if we agree to withdraw what we have done and give notice that at a later hour we will move it? That in a sense gives notice of a motion but it still will allow it to come on if the need we were anticipating this morning arises that we might need to discuss it later today. Would that be satisfactory?DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—It is an improvement.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for that course of action to be followed? There being no objection, it is so granted.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—I will seek leave at a later hour to move that. Are you happy, Senator Margetts? The whole place is running according to your agenda.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I do not actually appreciate the patronising. It is the truth that we have a whips' meeting in the morning. It is also the truth that good government does not wait until you are making the vote to put that into the hands of senators. If there was an agreement at the whips' meeting, there was a necessity, I would have thought, to provide this earlier than right on the time the vote was taken. I do not think the patronising is particularly appreciated.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—That is why you were rung, Senator.Committees361036103610Motion (by Senator O'Chee, at the request of Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 and a related bill be extended to 23 June 1998.Business36103610Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Carr) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1073 standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, relating to the Government's response to a question asked at an estimates hearing, be postponed till 5 sitting days after today.Committees361036103610Motion (by Senator O'Chee, 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 until 23 June 1998.36103610Motion (by Senator Woodley)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the commercial utilisation of native wildlife be extended to 30 June 1998; and the report on the effects of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport be extended until 12 August 1998.Business36103610Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1158 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the introduction of the Constitution Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament—Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998, be postponed till 24 June 1998.3610Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1089 (relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act) and No. 1121 (the division of senators into two classes for the purposes of rotation) standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, be postponed till 24 June 1998. Committees361136113611Motion (by Senator O'Chee, at the request of Senator Ferguson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 be extended to 24 June 1998.Business36113611Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1101 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on government consultancies on waterfront reform, be postponed till 29 June 1998.Leave of Absence3611Motion (by Senator O'Chee) agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ferguson for the period 22 June to 26 June 1998, on account of parliamentary business overseas.Business36113611Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1146, standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the retention of census data, be postponed till two sitting days after today.3611Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Mackay) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 641 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Sentor Alston), be postponed till 10 August 1998.3611Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till 2 July 1998Miscellaneous3611Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) estimates by the World Health Organisation that a bacterial infection, cancrum oris , known in Africa as the `noma', is killing 80 000 children a year in the world's poorest countries, (ii) forecasts by Oxfam that the disease will kill up to half a million children in Niger by the year 2000, (iii) that the disease is entirely curable in the early stages by applications of mouthwash and antiseptic cream, (iv) that the group most susceptible to the disease is severely malnourished children in developing countries, and (v) Oxfam's valuable work in drawing to worldwide public attention the ravages of this disease;(b) acknowledges the increases of $10 million in Federal Government funding for African projects in 1998-99; and(c) urges the Federal Government to give early consideration to providing funding for proposals to treat cancrum oris in Niger.Miscellaneous3611Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the appointment of scientist Mr Don Henry as executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, (ii) Mr Henry's credentials, which include negotiating the world's largest tropical forests protection package in the Amazon on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature with the World Bank, and other substantial forest conservation gains in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, and (iii) Mr Henry's comment that the rest of the world listens to Australia because of its past reputation with important environmental initiatives;(b) congratulates Mr Henry on his appointment; and (c) recognises that Australia does indeed have an important role to play globally in showing environmental leadership for the benefit of future generations.Documents36123612361210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 48 of 1997-98—Performance audit—Data management in the APS.Miscellaneous361210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present responses from the High Commissioner for Britain, Mr Alex Allan, and the Deputy Head of Mission of the Embassy of Ireland, Mr Pat Bourne, to a resolution of the Senate of 25 May 1998 concerning Ireland.Committees36123612361210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing order No. 38, I present the 14th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Multilateral agreement on investment: Interim report together with the Hansard record of proceedings and minutes of evidence, which were presented to the President on 1 June 1998. In accordance with the terms of the order, the publication of the document was authorised.16:49:003612Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.It is a very thin document that has been presented. It has been mentioned that, up to the date of printing, there had been 792 submissions, making it an inquiry that has had more immediate submissions than many others, considering the time that was available. There are obviously some very strong statements that are coming out in relation to this report, but there are probably many more questions that are raised in the statements. It states: Finally we note the assurance given by the Senate on 31 March 1998 by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp, that the government will not sign the agreement unless it is satisfied that it is in the national interest to do so.It says:In summary, there are both misconceptions and misleading material circulating about the nature and the effect of the MAI, some of which is reflected in the submissions received to date.I guess that statement in section 1.65 reflects the press release that the chair put out before hearing evidence from the inquiry.Not a lot will happen as a result of this report unless there is some means by which the government can change its own negotiating stance, and is prepared to change its negotiating stance and listen to what the public is saying about public interest. If there is no means for or no intention of the government to change its negotiating stance in relation to the multilateral agreement on investment then this report, thin as it is, will not be worth the paper it is written on.Generally governments are required to look for a response within, say, three months of a report like this being written. That would put us just prior to the next time Australia will be asked to sign the agreement. I would obviously be looking for a quick response, if possible, from the government to the concerns that have been handled here. But, as I said, this may not be worth the paper it is written on; it may simply be a pre-election exercise by both major parties if there is no actual means, ability or political will to change anything in Australia's negotiating stance on the multilateral agreement on investment.Many of the concerns expressed were that Australia's stated position was not in the national interest, that what was left out of the multilateral agreement on investment in terms of exemptions left very large gaps, including environmental standards, wages and conditions, and human rights objectives.If nothing changes in Australia's negotiating position, all the nice words in the world from this committee or any other committee will not change that situation which is causing a great deal of concern throughout local governments and many regional and rural communi ties in Australia. The question that needs to be answered, and answered as quickly as possible, is: has the government actually heard the concerns? If it has actually heard, is there any willingness whatsoever to change Australia's negotiating stance? If the answer is yes, let us hear that answer quickly. Let us find out what role Australia might play in the future. If the answer is no, then the honest thing for the government to do before the election is to say so, and the rest of the community can act accordingly.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills36133613UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Pursuant to standing order 38, I present the 12th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund entitled The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 , together with submissions and the Hansard record of the proceedings which were presented to the President on 1 June 1998. In accordance with the terms of the order, the publication of the document was authorised.16:53:003613Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.With some notable exceptions, the reports of joint house committees, as is the case with Senate committee reports, do not usually attract a high level of controversy. However, this particular report and the hearings which preceded it attracted a great deal of controversy.I rise today to disassociate the Australian Democrats with this report, except in so far as our dissent is represented in the minority view. Although there presently exists only one member of the parliament who belongs to that organisation—I think an organisation which all Australians ought to despise—known as One Nation, the average Australian punter could be forgiven for thinking that this report is indeed a One Nation policy document. Let me put it on the record that One Nation policy as it stands would abolish ATSIC and force indigenous communities to use mainstream services. It would extinguish native title and reinvigorate those policies that led to the near complete genocide of one of the most ancient civilisations on this planet.Let there be no mistake: one of the tools of genocide is the destruction of elements of culturally significant places and artefacts so that people are isolated and alienated from those places. Surely after 210 years, and the decimation that has been visited upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Australians, it is time now to say `enough'—enough of the destruction of rock paintings, enough of the forced removal of children from their families, enough of the paternalistic values and policies which choose not to see the pain of others and enough of the racially based arrogance that says white people simply know best. If history has shown us anything, it is that indigenous people and their cultures have suffered as a consequence of disrespect and ignorance. Surely it is time—in 1998—to say enough.The reason why this is such a bad report is because the government members are in the majority. The report merely reflects their continuing contempt towards the indigenous people of this land and, I might say, to 99 per cent of the evidence presented to them in the two very quick hearings which were held in Melbourne and Canberra. The refusal of the government to hold hearings anywhere else except in Melbourne and Canberra once again says something about those two particular places and one other capital in Australia. Those of us who live outside of that particular triangle often have to make this complaint.No-one in this parliament says that heritage protection legislation is not in need of reform, and the government certainly admits that. The 1984 act has, at almost every turn, been shown to be inadequate. However, I believe that most Australians would be aghast to know that no effective Commonwealth legislation is in existence to protect the culturally important and significant sites of indigenous people. It is very difficult to fathom that almost no act of the Commonwealth parliament has been effective in protecting the ancient and precious heritage of Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines. What is even more difficult to fathom is that the present government, by the presentation of the bill—the basis of which forms the substance of the report—fails to protect heritage.The states and territories of this land have not covered themselves in glory in their dealings with indigenous people. In fact, not to understate the matter, they have been directly responsible for implementing many atrocities in the past. During the Wik debate, I put on the record many of those incidents. They are not something that happened 200 years ago or 210 years ago as people like to say; they are incidents which have occurred right up to the present day. The incompetence of the states and territories was tacitly recognised in 1967 when, in the most successful referendum in the history of this nation, the people of Australia voted to give power to the Commonwealth in the area of indigenous affairs. It is lamentable that that power has insufficiently been utilised to improve the lot of our most impoverished people.Despite this momentous change in the constitution, the coalition government has argued in this parliament and the courts that, if it chooses, it should be able to make laws to the detriment of Australia's indigenous people. Government members actually argued it during the committee hearings into the native title Wik bill. They argued it in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and the government argued it before the High Court during the Hindmarsh Island bridge case. Who will ever forget the anti-contribution made by Senator Lightfoot in his first speech in this place? He said:I, in effect, said that Aboriginal people in their native state were the lowest colour on the civilised spectrum.At the beginning of this contribution I made specific reference to the policies of the Liberal and National parties and how, in effect, they derive from the same philosophical position as One Nation. Let me underline that this is a sad falling away from a party which, under Malcolm Fraser, moved the Northern Territory land rights legislation and had it passed into law. How far that coalition has come from those days. As we heard today in question time, some coalition senators have expressed that they would prefer to work with One Nation in the Senate than either the Greens or the Australian Democrats. Well, that speaks volumes.Despite our proud 21-year history of defending the rights of ordinary Australians, despite the fact that since the Democrats first took their seats in this place in 1977 supply has been guaranteed to both Liberal and Labor governments, and despite the fact that it was the Australian Democrats which moved the first legislation to save the Franklin Dam and that it was the Australian Democrats that helped to stymie the introduction of the Australia Card, some Liberal senators would prefer to work with Australia's first experience of a fascist political party. I say that not in a pejorative way but in an absolutely technical description. That does speak volumes.In closing, in dissociating ourselves from this report the Australian Democrats do not divest themselves of what we consider to be the national responsibility to protect all Australian heritage, but particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We will work with the non-racist parties in this Senate to make that possibility a reality and to fulfil the report that Justice Evatt did for the government, on their behalf, on this very matter and which the government then ignored in its bill and in this report. I am ashamed that a federal government in this country should bring down such a discriminatory report and a bill which is so inadequate.17:02:003614Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I will speak briefly in relation to the Native Title and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund Committee's report on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 . I was able to sit in on one hearing. Not being a member of the committee, I could not be a participating member of this committee. However, I was greatly concerned about the way the committee was going about its business in as much as, as Senator Woodley has indicated, the kinds of recommendations that have been put forward by Justice Evatt were not really on the agenda.Ironically, I recall that, during discussions on the Hindmarsh Island bill, I put to the Senate that those recommendations should be looked into and at the time Senator Collins also agreed that that should be done. At the time the government said it was all too difficult because they would have to go to the states, it would take a long time, they would have to talk about it, they would have to think about it and they really could not decide on it in advance of doing that, but funnily enough they had enough time to put through their own recommendations to their own amendments, which are going in the other direction.I have not had a chance to have a look at this full report, but I would like to express, along with Senator Woodley, my concern about the way this took place and about the way that the government's agenda of reducing rights can be done really quickly, but in terms of any decent objectives for the protection of rights it is all too difficult. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous361536153615Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I table the corrigenda to the portfolio budget statements 1998-99 for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the health and family services portfolio and the social security portfolio.Miscellaneous36153615West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the European institutions—France and Belgium—between 20 and 30 April 1998. I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to the report.Leave granted.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—It is with much pleasure that I table this report. This delegation was a great honour to lead. This delegation was accorded opportunities that many delegations may or may not have been accorded. We certainly were able to visit many of the important organisations within the European institutions. When you start looking at what the institutions are, it is quite mind-boggling, particularly to understand the differences between the various institutions.We visited the European Union and the Council of Europe. We also heard about the European Council. We saw the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which comprises the parliamentary members of that. We also saw the European Parliament. We saw the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Commission. We saw the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. We did not see the International Court of Justice, which is in The Hague. We also saw the European Investment Bank. It is important to recognise that the European Union is our major and largest trading partner when you take the union as a whole. I think it needs to be remembered in Australia that, when taken as a whole, that is the case.We were also honoured to be able to observe Anzac Day on the Somme on the Western Front. For many of us, I think, that was a very moving occasion. Before talking about the Western Front, I would like to say that we had the honour and the privilege of being guests of the European Parliament on the day that the British minister and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined to the European Parliament what is now commonly known as the `Good Friday agreement'—the forerunner, we all hope and pray, of the resolution of the Irish conflict. The delegation thought it was a very great honour to sit and observe as these two great people outlined the work they had done and paid tribute to John Hume and Jim Nicholson. Ian Paisley was also mentioned.It was a very interesting time for the delegation to be in Europe because there was not only the occurrence I have just outlined. The following Saturday the meetings occurred that led to the beginning of the Economic Monetary Union and the beginning of the Euro. It was a significant time for us to be in Europe and to see the changes happening with the European currency.It is also significant that there are some reforms going on in relation to common agricultural policy. Maybe the reforms are not moving as fast as we would like, but there are certainly some reforms being discussed and some major challenges being faced within Europe. In Australia we hear of the problems of small communities and the death of small communities because of the drop in commodity prices. We are not the only country that is facing the problem of the drift away from rural communities to the major cities. It is also a problem which is having to be addressed in Europe. I feel that there are a number of issues where there is commonality.The delegation included some of my colleagues from the lower house. The deputy leader of the delegation was the Hon. David Jull. The delegation included Senator Gibson from this chamber and Mr Noel Nicks, Mr Ted Grace and Mr Steve Dargavel from the other place. I give my thanks to those of my colleagues who travelled with me. It was a great delegation. It was a delegation which worked hard, and we worked well together. At the time we were away the waterfront dispute was at its peak, and the delegation was able to work together to present Australia's point of view. We were able to respect one another's differences of opinion and, as I say, we worked very well together as a group.I also want to pay tribute on behalf of the delegation to the Australian Embassy in Paris for their organisation, on our behalf, of the brief time we were in France. But a big thank you must go from the delegation to our embassy in Brussels, led by Don Kenyon, the Ambassador. The delegation thanks Mr Kenyon and his wife, Fleur, Jane Drake-Brockman, Alex Brooking, Anne Owens and Anthea Griffin. Anthea Griffin is the third secretary at the embassy in Brussels, and she was responsible for the itinerary. She made it work. Her tireless work and her contribution certainly need to be noted.The delegation would not have worked as well without the support of the delegation secretary, Andrea Griffiths. We had some fun with the names `Anthea Griffin' and `Andrea Griffiths', but we managed to overcome that problem. The members of the delegation want to record their thanks to Andrea for her work. As can be seen in the report, we returned to Australia after 30 April and, about six weeks afterwards, the report has hit the chamber. The report was so promptly presented because of the work Andrea did in compiling it. On behalf of everybody in the delegation, I say a big thank you to her.I also want to say a personal thank you to the delegation. It does not appear in the report, but a great-uncle of mine is buried at Lebucquiere on the Somme. He was killed in April 1915. When they heard about this, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was able to provide us with the exact details as to where to find the cemetery and the grave. We drove across the Somme looking at the small villages a kilometre or so apart, each one of which had Commonwealth war graves. The Commonwealth war graves are signified by a very large and imposing white cross. You can travel for hundreds of kilometres without ever losing sight of a large white cross. Tens of thousands of men and women gave their lives in that war—it was horrific. But it was even more moving to stand at some of the battle sites such as Beaumont-Hamel and hear the stories of what happened. At Beaumont-Hamel, the Newfoundland Regiment put 1,000 men over the top one night and less than 100 were able to make it to roll call the next morning.When you hear of those sorts of figures and the sorts of deeds that happened in those battles, and when you see how close together the front-line trenches of the opposing sides were, you realise just what an horrific occasion it must have been. You also become very aware that this was the last war fought with old technology. We had the very great honour of being able to see the new memorial park at Le Hamel where a monument is being built. The monument commemorates the first battle where Australian soldiers were led by an Australian general, General Sir John Monash. It was called `the turning point'. It was the first Allied offensive in World War I to be a victory. It was the turning point. Monash was able to utilise all the new technology that was available. He was able to utilise the artillery in conjunction with the tanks, in conjunction with the infantry, in conjunction with the air force. That battle lasted 93 minutes—in 93 minutes it was over and won. The delegation was able to see the site that is being prepared for that memorial and, on 4 July, the memorial will commemorate the 80th anniversary of the battle.As I said, I also had the honour of visiting Lebucquiere Cemetery where my great-uncle is buried. I was able to see that cemetery and that grave at first-hand. I was probably the first member of the family to actually visit that particular site. It was a very moving experience.We also visited the Villers-Bretonneux memorial for Anzac Day and laid a number of wreaths at the memorial and at the local French memorial as well. We went to visit Bullecourt and the two memorials there plus the diggers memorial. It was a great honour to be able to participate and lay wreaths on behalf of the Australian parliament at those ceremonies. If you have to spend Anzac Day away from Australia and if you cannot be at Lone Pine or at Anzac Cove, there is no other more moving place to be than at the Somme.On the Sunday, the following day, we were able to go to the Menin Gate ceremony at 8 o'clock that night where they play the Last Post. Every night, every day, every year the Last Post is played. It was of great significance. The whole committee feels greatly honoured and appreciative of being able to participate in that. I would like to thank again everybody who was involved in assisting us with this very worthwhile visit.Bills3617Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws: Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Act 1997 Law Officers Amendment Act 1997 Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Act 1998 Taxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Act 1997 Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Act 1998 Interstate Road Transport Amendment Act 1998 Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Act 1998 Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Act 1998 Bills3617r518Billsr5163617Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.361717:18:003617Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—STEVEDORING LEVY (COLLECTION) BILL 1998This bill, together with the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998, one element in the Government's commitment to facilitate reform of the Australian stevedoring and shipping industry. The bills raise a levy on stevedoring operations to fund payments that may be made by the Government in connection with reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry and ensure that the industry is responsible for such funding and not the taxpayer.The potential benefits of waterfront reform are of vital significance to our national interest. The present arrangements, based on union monopoly, are costing Australia dearly. Our waterfront is inefficient, unproductive and unreliable by world standards. It prevents Australia achieving not only the immediate economic benefits flowing from maximising our international competitiveness, but also, more importantly, the long-term improvement in the perception of our overseas trading partners of Australia as a reliable supplier.When the Government came into office in 1996, it inherited a stevedoring sector where productivity and reliability were in decline, despite a decade of direct government involvement in waterfront reform and commitment of some $430 million to the reform process.Successive independent reports to the Government on the progress of micro-economic reform, including the Productivity Commission and Industry Commission, have concluded that the stevedoring sector remains an impediment to the competitiveness of our manufacturing and primary production sectors. Business consistently expresses concern about the high charges, low productivity and unreliability of the waterfront.Control over the supply of operational labour is been concentrated in the hands of a single union, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). Consequently, the union has the scope to exercise considerable influence over how the stevedores manage their business and it has largely dictated the terms and conditions under which any new entrant stevedore may operate.The monopoly power wielded by the MUA, has consistently prevented or undermined changes to outdated work practices. As a result productivity and reliability remain low. Relative to our international competitors, our performance is getting worse and not better.Australia can no longer afford to have monopoly labour arrangements in strategic economic sectors, like stevedoring and shipping, which adversely impact on their efficiency and reliability and thereby reduce our nation's international competitiveness.In line with its election mandate and public commitments, the Government has already taken decisive action to facilitate reform of the industry. With the passage of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 has outlawed union preference. The act also restores the balance in the relationship between employers and employees and encourages greater flexibility in the labour market.Awards are being simplified to ensure they form a genuine safety net. Increased negotiation of employment conditions, both at an individual level and collectively, is ensuring conditions applying to a particular workplace promote efficient performance of work at that enterprise and increased workplace flexibility.For the first time, there are now effective remedies against unlawful industrial action. The reinstatement of the primary and secondary boycott provisions to the Trade Practices Act 1974 provide affected parties with redress in the event of illegitimate industrial campaigns. These remedies have been instrumental ensuring that recent industrial action on the waterfront has not escalated into the wide-ranging sympathy action that has characterised waterfront stoppages of the past.On the waterfront, the Government has reached an agreement with our two major stevedoring employers, Patrick and P&O Ports, under which the stevedores have agreed to adopt seven key performance benchmarks as the basis for continuing improvement. These include:An end to overmanning and restrictive work practices.Higher productivity. We have commitments from the major stevedores to achieve a benchmark for container terminal cranes of 25 containers being moved per hour, as a national average across the five major container ports.Greater reliability through less industrial disruption and the elimination of outdated work practices. The level of industrial action on the waterfront should be no worse and preferably better than the national average.Improved safety. Injury and fatality levels must come back to the all industries average or better.Lower costs throughout the logistics chain to the waterfront gateway.More effective use of the technology available to increase productivity and ship turnaround times.Improved training.The achievement of these reforms requires stevedores to implement significant structural changes in their operations and to manage the resultant rationalisation of their labour force.While the means of achieving these reforms is a matter for the industry participants to determine, the Government has a vital part to play in ensuring the legal framework supports any legitimate initiatives to implement more productive labour arrangements including those adopted by new entrants to the industry.The Government also intends to facilitate access to funding for redundancy related payments arising through reductions in excess labour arising from industry restructuring. The promotion of this restructuring is crucial if Australia is to have an efficient and reliable waterfront. This bill, together with the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 is intended to ensure that this funding is available and that industry, and not the taxpayer, will meet the cost.I now turn to the specific provisions of the bill to explain how this will be achieved.The levy arrangements proposed by this bill, in conjunction with the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998, are modelled on the existing stevedoring levy legislation, the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act 1977 and the Stevedoring Industry Levy Collection Act 1977.However, the new arrangements are considerably simplified and, unlike the 1977 arrangements, they will not apply to bulk cargo. The performance of seaboard bulk cargo terminals is generally accepted as already being internationally competitive.This bill provides the mechanism for collection of the levy imposed by Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998, on the loading and unloading of containers and vehicles in Australia. The flat rates of levy that will apply upon the commencement of this legislation are considerably simpler than the administratively complex scheme applying under the 1977 legislation.Under section 7 of the bill, the levy is to be paid by the person who is responsible for the loading or unloading by way of contract, arrangement or understanding with the owner/charterer of the ship, which generally means the stevedoring company.The maximum rate of levy is set by section 5 of the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 at $10.00 per vehicle and $20.00 per container. However, the bill provides for a lower rate of levy to be prescribed by regulations. The Government intends to set the actual rate at $6.00 per vehicle and $12.00 per container.Both the major stevedores have agreed that the levy at this rate can be absorbed into their existing structure of charges so there is no overall increase in costs to shippers. The cost of these arrangements will be borne by the stevedoring industry itself. It is anticipated that not only will our importers and exporters not have to pay more but also, as workplace reforms are implemented, stevedoring costs will progressively diminish.Importantly, unlike the arrangements under the 1977 acts, the proposed levy arrangements will not impose any obligations on shipping lines or shipping agents.The method of collection also is simplified under this bill. As provided by section 9, this will be by way of returns to my Department at regular intervals on which payment of the levy is to be based. The Secretary of the Department can appoint inspectors, who are to be employees of the Commonwealth, or a State or a Territory, and they will have various powers to access premises and search for documents, as outlined in section 13 of the bill.The special appropriation in section 17 will allow the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business to authorise payments that are in connection with, or incidental to, the reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry, including meeting the cost of associated financing and administration costs. The amount of money that may be appropriated is capped at $250 million.The bill makes no provision for a "sunset" date by which time the levy must be terminated. It includes a mechanism in section 8 for the determination of the final levy month after which liability to pay the levy will cease. It is not the Government's intention that the redundancy funding arrangements will be available indefinitely. It is anticipated that it will take six or seven years for the levy payments to meet the full cost of the redundancy benefits.A review of the levy legislation and rate of levy will be conducted within three years after its commencement.Government assistance will be available to all stevedores who take the opportunity to undertake much needed reform. This legislation underpins the administrative arrangements necessary to encourage the stevedoring industry to actively tackle the fundamental restructuring required to achieve the Government's reform agenda. Reform that will allow the industry to move away from its history of inefficiency, inflexibility and uncooperative relations between employees and management.STEVEDORING LEVY (IMPOSITION) BILL 1998This bill should be read in conjunction with the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998. It establishes a levy on stevedoring operations consistent with the administrative arrangements that I have outlined for that bill.Under section 7 of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 the levy is to be paid by the person who is responsible for the loading and unloading of shipping containers and vehicles in Australia by way of contract, agreement or understanding with the owner/charterer of the ship, usually a stevedoring company.The maximum rate of levy is set by section 5 of the bill at $10.00 per vehicle and $20.00 per container. As I indicated for the previous bill, a lower rate of levy is to be prescribed by regulations. It is intended the actual rates will be $6.00 per vehicle and $12.00 per container.Both the major stevedores have indicated that the levy at this rate can be absorbed into their existing structure of charges so there is no overall increase in costs to shippers.It is also intended to prescribe by regulation a zero rate of levy for local cargo, so that containers and vehicles shipped from one Australian port and unloaded at another Australian port will not be levied. This measure will ensure that Australians who rely on sea freight because it is cheaper than road or rail freight, or is the only means of transporting goods, will not be disadvantaged by the imposition of the levy.I already have referred to my intention to conduct a review of the levy legislation and the rate of levy within three years after its commencement.The levy mechanism is well understood in the stevedoring industry for raising funds for industry purposes with a statutory levy dating back to 1947. By contrast, the levy arrangements under the current bills are simpler and are directed at supporting crucial restructuring of the stevedoring sector.Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) adjourned.Bills3620r458Billsr488Billsr485Billsr5063620Bills received from the House of Representatives.3620Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—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.362017:19:003620Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 and 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—Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (RETIREMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS) BILL 1998The purpose of this Scheme is to meet welfare and adjustment objectives by providing a three year "window of opportunity" for low income, age pension age farmers and their partners to gift the farm to the younger generation without affecting their access to the age pension, and to retire from farming with dignity.Madam President, this measure is targeted at those farm families who are in hardship because their businesses are capable of supporting only one family but are being required to provide a living for two or more families. It will remove a significant barrier to the intergenerational transfer of the family farm in such situations.Eligible farmers will be able to gift their farm enterprises, with a net value of up to $500,000, to family members of a younger generation who have been actively involved with the farm. This will allow those farmers to retire and have immediate access to the age pension. The family farm will no longer be required to support two or more generations.The bill provides for the Scheme's commencement from 15 September 1997, although people who transferred their farms in the preceding five years might also be able to benefit from the Scheme. It is intended that the Scheme will operate for three years only, that is, until 14 September 2000.There are several elements that need to be met for a retiring farmer to qualify for the age pension under the Scheme. I will outline some of them. The Scheme will be open to farmers of age pension age who owned farming property as at 14 September 1997, and have owned a farm or farms for at least 15 years or have been actively involved in farming for 20 years, subject to the limitations on property value and income.Madam President, the net value of the family farm can be up to $500,000, not including farm debts. However, where a farmer wishing to retire currently owns a farm in partnership with an eligible descendant, and wishes to transfer his or her share of the farm to that person, only the retiring farmer's share of the equity in the farm will be included when valuing the farm.The farmer's total income over the 3 financial years prior to the transfer can be up to the applicable age pension rate, depending on marital status. Any losses from the farm can be used to off-set other income including non-farm income. Social Security and Veterans' Affairs income support payments as well as Austudy payments are not treated as income for these purposes.If a farmer decides to retain a life interest in their home on the farm or excise their home from the remainder of the farm, the value of the home and of any surrounding land of up to two hectares that is used for domestic purposes will also be deducted from the value of the farm being gifted. The farmer can continue to live on the farm.The member of the younger generation to whom the farm is being gifted is required to have been actively involved in the family farm for the preceding three years. However, the bill also allows a discretion to cover situations where an eligible descendant has been undertaking studies relevant to farm management or has been forced to seek employment off the farm due to exceptional circumstances such as drought.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate.Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1998The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, which is now before the chamber, contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. I will briefly outline the amendments of substance.Schedule two of this bill commenced on the third of July 1997. The customs duty on aviation gaso line (avgas) contains a component to recover the costs of aviation terminal and enroute navigational services provided to the general aviation sector by Airservices Australia. In reviewing the costs of providing these services for 1997-98, Airservices Australia proposed a reduction in the duty of 0.6 cents per litre on avgas, which represents a five per cent decrease in real terms.This reduction in costs to aircraft operators follows the implementation of an election commitment by this government. This commitment was to freeze the airways component of avgas duty in 1996-97, except for movements in the consumer price index, while working towards the implementation of a fairer system of funding for the general aviation sector's contribution to Airservices Australia.The component of duty on avgas payable to the civil aviation safety authority for the costs of aviation safety regulation remains unchanged.Madam President, the amendments contained in schedule three of this bill came into effect on the thirty-first of January 1998. The reduction in duty rates on avgas in schedule two of this bill would have been superseded by the commencement of the Customs Tariff (Fuel Rates Amendments) Act 1997 on that date. By customs tariff notice published in a Commonwealth gazette on the eighteenth of February 1998, the reduced customs rate of duty on avgas was reinstated.The other amendment contained in this schedule is of an administrative nature and results again from amendments contained in the Customs Tariff (Fuel Rates Amendments) Act 1997. Section nineteen to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 contains a table of paired customs subheadings and excise items. This section provides the duty nexus between customable and excisable revenue goods by allowing customs rates of duty to be adjusted in line with movements in the excise rate of duty.The amendment amalgamates the table existing prior to the thirty-first of January 1998 with the new aspects introduced by the customs fuel rates legislation.Schedule four is operative from the first of March 1998 and creates a new item sixty-four in Schedule four to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.At its meeting on the twenty-seventh of August 1997, the ministerial committee on the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games agreed to introduce certain import concessions for the 2000 Olympic and paralympic games and associated test events. As a result, amendments to the temporary imports provisions have been finalised and a new passenger concession by-law for unaccompanied baggage for Olympic family members has been implemented by the Australian Customs Service.This amendment creates a new item in schedule four to allow non-personal and non-commercial goods to be imported into Australia duty free by Olympic Games family members.The reality of the Olympics and associated events is that members of the Olympic family will bring with them a variety of goods which are to be used in a non-commercial manner. These will include give-aways, hospitality samples and other consumables that will be used for team promotion and for cultural and hospitality activities.It is intended that the concession will not apply to tobacco and alcoholic products or extend to any importations of a commercial nature.Similar concessions were offered at the Nagano winter Olympics and by host countries at previous summer and winter Olympic and Paralympic games.The amendments contained in the other schedules of this bill are of an administrative or technical nature and will have no financial impact on the importing public.I commend the bill.Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1998The Bill gives effect to some of the measures announced in the 1997-98 Budget and in other Government statements. The Bill also contains other amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act and the rewritten income tax law.Fringe benefits taxThe Bill will implement changes to the FBT law relating to record keeping exemption arrangements and provide an exemption from fringe benefits tax for benefits arising from an employer's participation in certain student exchange programs.The record keeping exemption completes the FBT measures proposed by the Government in response to the recommendations made by the Small Business Deregulation Task Force. Legislation has already been introduced to deal with taxi travel, car parking and the arranger provisions. All these measures will reduce compliance costs for most employers and, in particular, for small businesses.The record keeping measure introduced in this Bill is specifically targeted at those employers whose fringe benefits in a base year do not exceed an indexed threshold amount and who do not significantly alter the fringe benefits provided in later years. The benefit threshold will commence at $5,000 for the 1996-97 FBT year.Having established a base year, employers will not be required to keep FBT records and will have their FBT liability in future years determined from the base year taxable benefits. This measure will apply to benefits provided from the date of Royal Assent and to FBT liabilities from the 1998-99 year.The FBT exemption for benefits arising from an employer' s participation in an approved student exchange program will apply from the FBT year commencing 1 April 1996. This exemption demonstrates the Government's commitment to reducing compliance costs.Depreciation of plant previously owned by exempt entitiesThe Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is being amended to set a common base for the depreciation deductions for plant that can be claimed by exempt entities which first become taxable on or after 4 August 1997 in relation to plant they already own, and by taxable entities which purchase plant from an exempt entity in connection with the acquisition of a business on or after 4 August 1997.The depreciation deductions available to such entities will be limited to a choice between the notional written down value of the plant at the time it enters the tax net and its undeducted pre-existing audited book value at that time.Arrangements treated as a sale and loan and limited recourse debtThe Bill will implement a measure announced in the 1997-98 Budget to prevent taxpayers obtaining deductions for capital expenditures in excess of their actual outlays. The measure will apply where the expenditure has been financed by hire purchase or limited recourse finance and the debtor does not fully pay out the capital amounts owing.In those circumstances, an amount will be included in the debtor's assessable income to compensate for any excessive deductions that were allowed to the taxpayer. The adjustment to taxable income will reflect amounts that remain unpaid when the hire purchase or limited recourse debt arrangement is terminated.This amendment applies to debts that are terminated after 27 February 1998.An associated amendment will treat taxpayers who finance assets by hire purchase as the owners of those assets for purposes of applying the various capital allowance deductions. Hire purchase and instalment sales transactions will be treated as the equivalent of sale, loan and debt transactions in assessing the taxation liability of the financier and the hire purchaser respectively.This amendment applies to arrangements entered into after 27 February 1998. Franking credit and dividend streamingThe Bill will implement one of the measures announced by the Government in the 1997-98 Budget to prevent franking credit trading and dividend streaming, namely, the introduction of a rule to limit the source of franking credits available for trading.Subject to transitional measures explained in the Bill, these amendments apply from 7.30 pm AEST, 13 May 1997.Sales Tax (Exemption and Classification) Act 1992The Bill amends the sales tax law to correct a deficiency in the sales tax law to the exemption for goods incorporated into property owned by, or leased to, always exempt persons or the government of a foreign country.Access to the exemption will now be available only where the property is occupied principally by an always exempt person or the government of a foreign country or where the property is used principally for the provision of services to an always exempt person or government of a foreign country.Commercial debt forgivenessThis Bill contains consequential amendments arising from changes to the capital loss rules in Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 2) of 1997. The technical amendments will not affect the practical effect of the debt forgiveness provisions. These amendments apply to debts forgiven after the date of introduction of this Bill.New South Wales Police Integrity CommissionThe Bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to enable the Commissioner to disclose information acquired under a taxation law to the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission.Deductions for giftsOn 10 October 1996 the Treasurer announced, in Press Release No. 102, the introduction of a tax deduction nor gifts of $2 or more to the Menzies Research Centre Public Fund. As announced at the time, this is consistent with the arrangements as apply to the Evatt Foundation, which has had tax deductibility status since 1981.The Bill will give effect to the Treasurer's announcement and amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow income tax deductions for gifts of $2 or more to the public fund. Income tax deductions will be available for donations made to the fund from 2 April 1998Technical amendmentsSchedules 6, 7 and 8 contain a range of technical amendments to the rewritten income tax law to correct minor errors in translating the fine detail of the 1936 Act. Schedule 9 includes in the 1997 Act, the rewritten education and training payments provisions of the 1936 Act as amended by Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 1) 1997 and proposed amendments contained in the Social Security (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998. It also closes off the 1936 Act provisions.Full details of the measures in the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the Bill to the Senate.Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY BILL 1998The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 will give effect to Australia's obligations as a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and will provide a legislative basis for its national implementation.I would like to say how pleased I was to see such strong bipartisan support for the CTBT Bill in the House of Representatives. It is a reflection of the strength of feeling held by both the Australian parliament and the Australian community that we should take a determined stand in our foreign policy in support of nuclear non-proliferation. I hope that we will see the same level of support for the CTBT Bill here in the Senate. Australia is strongly committed to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime as a key element of our national security and we should continue to maintain the very significant reputation that we have built up over the past 30-odd years as a constructive player in the establishment of that regime.The CTBT bans all nuclear weapons test explosions and all other nuclear explosions for all time. It marks a watershed in international efforts to address the global threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and is an indispensable component of the international nuclear arms control regime. Over the past 30 years, this regime has succeeded beyond all expectations in constraining the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Almost every country in the world is committed never to acquire nuclear weapons, and never again to engage in the type of spiralling nuclear arms race which occurred during the years of the Cold War. 186 countries, including the five nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 149 states have already signed the CTBT. Fourteen states, including two nuclear weapon states—France and the United Kingdom—have ratified, while many others are preparing to do so.The recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan highlight the importance of the CTBT. The Treaty provides the firmest international and political basis on which to condemn India's and Pakistan's actions. The Government's response to Indian and Pakistani testing has been unequivocally strong. India and Pakistan have been similarly castigated by many countries individually and in international fora, including at a Special Session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva and the United Nations Security Council. The Government will be unremitting in our efforts to bring India and Pakistan into the global non-proliferation regime. We call again on both India and Pakistan to sign and ratify the CTBT without condition, to accede to the NPT and to support the commencement and early conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, signed the CTBT on behalf of Australia when it was opened for signature in New York on 24 September 1996. Early ratification by Australia is critical. We are one of the forty-four states whose ratification is required in order for the Treaty to enter into force.Australia is universally recognised as a key player in the adoption of the CTBT and we can be justifiably proud of the part we played in achieving this outcome. We were instrumental in accelerating the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva. Following the failure to achieve final consensus in the CD on a draft Treaty text which was all but agreed, the Government initiated action to take the unprecedented and courageous step of submitting the Treaty to the United Nations General Assembly for adoption in September 1996. Following intensive work by members of the Government and Australia's diplomatic missions, the Australian-sponsored resolution attracted the co-sponsorship of 127 countries, and was adopted with the support of an overwhelming majority of the international community from countries in all regions of the world. This was a truly great achievement by the Australian Government.On presenting this bill, I would like to remind the Senate of Australia's long-standing and well-deserved reputation as a leading international player on arms control issues. That reputation has been enhanced by this Government's imaginative and successful efforts in taking the arms control agenda forward.This Government's commitment to the cause of disarmament is evident in our substantial contribution to the international movement in favour of the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines (APL) as a weapon of war. In December 1997, Australia joined over 120 countries in signing the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines. The next step is to get negotiations under way in the Conference on Disarmament as soon as possible as a way of complementing the Ottawa Treaty and tightening the clamps on the global supply of landmines. I was pleased to see the reappointment of Australia's Ambassador for Disarmament, John Campbell, to the position of Special Coordinator for anti-personnel landmines in the Conference on Disarmament, and we are working hard in Geneva to develop an ad hoc committee mandate for negotiations to ban exports, imports and transfers of APL.On 3 February 1998, in his second address to the Conference on Disarmament since becoming Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer urged the CD to begin immediate negotiations, not only on a ban on landmines transfers, but also on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Mr Downer has instructed that Australia be active in Geneva and elsewhere in promoting this so-called "Cut-off" Treaty as a priority arms control objective for 1998 and beyond.In another area of the arms control agenda, Mr Downer recently announced a new initiative to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The Government's initiative is aimed at fast-tracking the negotiations on a verification system for the BWC, and highlights our serious commitment to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.By signing the CTBT, Australia has aligned itself with the basic obligation not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion. Part 2 of this bill makes it an offence to engage in activities prohibited under the Treaty and provides appropriately severe penalties of up to life imprisonment for offences committed under clause 6 relating to the Treaty prohibitions.The CTBT will establish an intrusive verification regime. The International Monitoring System (IMS), which is the principal arm of this regime, will be a worldwide network of over 300 monitoring stations and laboratories. Australia will host 21 monitoring stations and laboratories. Part 4 of the bill provides for the establishment and the operation of monitoring facilities on Australian territory, including authorisation to gain access to these facilities.Part 3 of the bill covers the arrangements which would apply should an on-site inspection be called on Australian territory. Part 5 of the bill provides for the establishment of a National Authority to manage Treaty implementation in Australia.I commend the bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) adjourned. Ordered that the bills listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills3625r525Billsr5263625Bills received from the House of Representatives.3625Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—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.362517:20:003625Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—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—Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998FILM LICENSED INVESTMENT COMPANY BILL 1998The Government recognises the importance of an active, innovative and vibrant Australian film industry—both on cultural and economic grounds. The portrayal of uniquely Australian perspectives and stories are important to us as a nation. Australians are proud of the high standard and successes of our film industry, and there is increasing interest in contributing to that success through avenues such as investment.We also recognise that the production of film is a high risk business, and that it is necessary to provide incentives for the private sector to invest in the film industry. Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act was introduced in 1981 to encourage a broader base of private investment for Australian films.Whilst 10BA has been important in attracting private investment into the industry, there are flaws with the system. A number of films were never released while others appear to have inflated budgets.As part of his wide ranging review of Commonwealth Assistance to the Film Industry, Mr David Gonski recommended that the current 10BA and 10B taxation concessions be replaced by the introduction of a Film Licensed Investment Company tax concession.The Government consulted widely on the detail of Gonski's proposal. We listened to industry concerns about replacing 10BA and 10B with a completely new and untested mechanism. As a result of these concerns we decided not to replace 10BA until the FLIC scheme had been properly trialed. The Government will retain 10B. The FLIC scheme will operate alongside the current 10BA concession for 2 years from the 1998-1999 financial year.The adaptation of Gonski's FLIC model signals an innovative and exciting new approach to government support to the film industry in Australia. The FLIC scheme provides an opportunity for the Australian film industry and the investment sector to work together in attracting more effective and wide ranging private investment into the development and production of qualifying Australian films. It is envisaged that the FLIC scheme will be able to tap into a part of the investment market which has shown interest in the past in investing in the film industry. As the film industry matures and develops, the Government believes that sophisticated investors will be attracted to investing in a slate of film and television productions across which their risk can be spread.This bill enables the introduction of the Film Licensed Investment Company pilot scheme. Under the scheme up to $40 million worth of concessional capital over the two year period will be allowed to be raised for investment into qualifying Australian film and television product. A Film Licensed Investment Company will be a commercially driven company that will invest in a slate of eligible film and television product. Companies will be selected through a competitive application process. Shareholders will be eligible for an upfront tax deduction of 100% on their investment into the company.While the licence period for raising concessional capital will apply for just two years, the FLIC will have up to three years to invest the capital and up to four years to complete production. The FLIC will be able to start raising non-concessional capital at the end of the two year licence period. This represents a major commitment of Commonwealth funding to the film industry. The cost to Government is estimated to be up to $20 million over the two year pilot period. The FLIC scheme will deliver support to the industry that is transparent and accountable, and afford investors an alternative avenue for investment in film. This introduces a level of contestability between current funding sources through the provision of an alternative source of funds from that currently available from the Film Finance Corporation and that which can be raised under Division 10BA.The FLIC scheme will support and promote the ongoing development of the Australian film industry by facilitating the establishment of a new Australian owned and controlled company that will raise capital primarily from Australian investors for investment in qualifying Australian film.The FLIC does not replace any existing funding for the industry, rather it will complement those programs. The Government recognises the vulnerability of the industry, especially for some of the most culturally sensitive genres, and need for certainty for investors and producers alike. Forward funding for the Australian Film Commission and the Australian Film Finance Corporation was confirmed in the 1997-98 Budget, and the continuation of Film agencies was confirmed in the Government's response to the Gonski report in November 1997.Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (FILM LICENSED INVESTMENT COMPANY) BILL 1998The Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) bill 1998 is a companion to the Film Licenced Investment Company Bill 1998.The bill authorises a deduction for money paid during the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 income years to subscribe for shares in a Film Licensed Investment Company (FLIC). The deduction is not allowable until the shares have been fully paid and issued to the shareholder.The legislative package comprising the two bills is intended as a pilot measure, to provide assistance to the Australian film production industry in a way that complements the existing tax concession in Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. FLIC shareholders will be able to effectively spread their investment across a range of films, whereas Division 10BA applies to investments in individual films. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order for the first day of the 1998 spring sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills3626r529Billsr531Billsr5333626Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Newman ) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.362617:21:003626Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—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—APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL 1998-99The purpose of this bill is to appropriate the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the running costs and capital expenditures of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 1999.The total amount sought is $138.1 million. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in the Schedule to the Bill.I commend the bill to the Senate.APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1998-99This bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1998-99 totalling $30,864 million.Appropriation Bill (No. 1) provides for proposed expenditure on the ordinary annual services of Government. The expenditure program of the Government, to which the provisions in this bill relate, was outlined in the Treasurer's Budget Speech, on 12 May. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedule to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the Treasurer's Budget Speech.I commend the bill to the Senate.APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1998-99It is with great pleasure that I now introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99, which, together with Appropriation Bill (No.1), is one of the principal pieces of legislation underpinning the third budget of the Howard Liberal-National Party Government. This bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1998-99 totalling $4,172 million.Appropriation Bill (No.2) provides for proposed expenditure on:. the construction of public works and building;the acquisition of sites and buildings;. certain advances and loans;. items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital in nature;. expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not been previously approved.Provision is also made for grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in schedule 2 to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the budget speech delivered by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Costello).Reflecting recent experience, the provision for funding from the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration contained in Appropriation Bill (No.2) has been increased by $40 million to $215 million with a commensurate reduction in the provision contained in Appropriation Bill (No.1). There is no overall increase in the provisions for the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration being sought from Parliament.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the first day of the 1998 spring sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills3627r527Billsr538Billsr542Billsr5393627Bills received from the House of Representatives.3627Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—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.362717:23:003627Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—WHEAT MARKETING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998Madam President, this bill concerns the restructuring of marketing arrangements for the export marketing of Australian wheat based on the objectives of grower ownership and control, self reliance and a fully commercial approach to marketing. Industry and Government have both agreed that a structure based on these objectives would best meet the needs of industry into the next century.In April 1997, the Government agreed to industry's recommendation for the establishment of a grower owned and controlled company to assume responsibility for wheat marketing from 1 July 1999, when the Government guarantee of the Australian Wheat Board borrowings ends.The new grower company will operate under Corporations Law in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association. It will have two classes of shares—A class shares will be issued only to growers and will give control of the company; B class shares, issued on the basis of Wheat Industry Fund equity, will form the capital base of the company. Madam President, as a transitional step towards these arrangements, Government agreed that the Australian Wheat Board establish a wholly owned company to carry out all the commercial activities of the Board. The new company AWB Ltd, with separate subsidiaries to undertake pooling and domestic trading, became operational on 1 June 1998.In March 1998, industry put to Government, and Government endorsed, the final details for the new arrangements to commence on 1 July 1999.Madam President, the bill before the House completes the legislation necessary for the restructure of the Australian Wheat Board. It addresses the following key areas:. the conversion of the Wheat Industry Fund to shares and thereby providing the capital base of the new company structure;. provision for managing the continuation of the wheat export monopoly; and. other transitional matters to finalise the new arrangements.Conversion of the Wheat Industry Fund to sharesAlmost a decade ago, the wheat industry commenced building up funds for a capital base for a future grower owned Australian Wheat Board via a levy on wheat sales. These funds were paid into the Wheat Industry Fund.Under the bill, from 1 July 1999 the Wheat Industry Fund will be returned to growers in the form of B class shares. B-class shares will be issued to Fund equity holders on the basis of one share for every Fund unit and will provide the new company's capital base.Madam President, the issue of shares to growers to replace Wheat Industry Fund equity is a significant financial transaction. Growers have been rightly concerned as to the taxation implications. The taxation treatment to apply to the conversion of the Wheat Industry Fund to shares is covered by tax legislation. So there can be no doubt, I would like to reiterate the taxation arrangements agreed to by Government.As announced in November 1997, shares in the new grower company are to be treated as capital for taxation purposes. Automatic roll-over relief from capital gains tax on conversion of the Wheat Industry Fund units to shares, means that capital gains tax on the shares will only apply when they are disposed of.For capital gains tax purposes, the cost base of the share is to include levy contributions made by growers prior to 13 May 1997, indexed for inflation. However, levy contributions made after 13 May 1997 will remain immediately income tax deductible, and will receive the benefit of capital gains tax indexation until disposal of the asset. On disposal of the asset, the cost base is to be reduced by levy contributions made after 13 May 1997.In addition, the Government has decided that the capital gains tax small business roll-over provisions, as announced in the 1996-97 Budget, will be available to growers where a wheat industry fund unit is disposed of and the proceeds applied to the purchase of another small business `active asset'. However, this roll-over relief will cease to be available after the Wheat Industry Fund units are converted to shares.Provision of the Wheat Export MonopolyMadam President, the bill also provides for the retention of the wheat export monopoly from 1 July 1999.Specifically, the bill provides for an independent statutory authority, to be known as the `Wheat Export Authority', to manage the export monopoly on wheat.To give growers the certainty that they have been asking for, the bill also provides that the new grower company pool subsidiary (called `company B') has an automatic right to export wheat for five years. Requests to export wheat from other than the grower company pool subsidiary (as currently happens) will be managed by the Wheat Export Authority in consultation with the grower company pool subsidiary.The Wheat Export Authority will oversight the pool subsidiary's use of the export monopoly to ensure it is being used in accordance with the intentions of Parliament. It will also examine and report on the benefit to growers from the pool subsidiary's performance in relation to the export of wheat.Madam President, the Government is committed to the principles of National Competition Policy. Continuation of these arrangements for the export monopoly for the full five year period will be subject to the outcome of a comprehensive and independent National Competition Policy review in 1999-2000.Assuming the National Competition Policy review in 1999/2000 recommends continuation of the export monopoly, it is envisaged that before the end of the prescribed five year period in 2004 an export monopoly performance review would be held. Specifically, the review would assess the performance of the pool subsidiary in its use of its wheat export rights and advise Government on the future operation of the export monopoly, including whether that company should continue to have special export rights. Such a review would probably be linked with a National Competition Policy review process. It would be up to the Government to decide who would receive any special export rights beyond 2004 and for Parliament to amend the legislation as necessary. Other Transitional MattersMadam President, the bill also provides for a number of other transitional matters to finalise the restructure of the Australian Wheat Board including:. deletion of the redundant provisions of the Wheat Marketing Act 1989;. the completion of the transfer of assets, liabilities and staff from the Australian Wheat Board to its wholly owned holding company prior to 1_July 1999; and. continuation of Government underwriting for pool borrowings outstanding as at 30 June 1999, until these borrowings are repaid.ConclusionThis bill finalises the legislation for the restructure of wheat marketing.Administrative and legal work, such as the transfer of staff and assets to the new companies, will be completed over the next twelve months.The grower company of 1 July 1999 will be a robust, commercial company with the flexibility to meet the marketing challenges of the next century. Industry is to be congratulated on its success in developing this model and we now look forward to industry taking control of its future as it enters this exciting new era of opportunity.I commend the bill to Honourable Senators.NATIONAL FIREARMS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION BILL 1998This bill complements the National Firearms Program Implementation Acts of 1996 and 1997 supporting a firearms buyback scheme in the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island.Following the tragic events at Port Arthur in April 1996 the Australasian Police Ministers' Council agreed to nationwide gun control measures. A significant element of these measures was the amnesty and compensation scheme for owners of semi-automatic firearms. It was agreed that people who surrendered these firearms during the amnesty period, would be compensated and the Commonwealth would pay the cost of the compensation scheme.The Commonwealth also agreed to pay compensation for the surrender of other prohibited firearms of a more dangerous type where the surrender is consistent with the spirit of the national firearms program.The compensation-for-surrender scheme in the States and mainland territories was funded by a one-off increase in the Medicare levy for the income year 1996-97. The funds raised by that one-off levy will also meet the cost of the scheme in the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island.The bill provides for me to authorise payments for the purpose of providing compensation to firearms owners and dealers and for purposes directly connected to the compensation scheme and for implementation of licensing and registration schemes in the territories.The bill appropriates moneys from the consolidated revenue fund for these purposes.The National Firearms Program has received bipartisan support. I ask that that support continue.I commend the bill to the Senate and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (FARM MANAGEMENT DEPOSITS) BILL 1998Madam President, honourable senators, this bill establishes the Farm Management Deposits Scheme.The bill introduces an important element of the government's integrated rural policy strategy to build a competitive, sustainable and profitable rural sector. The government's new Agriculture—Advancing Australia initiative is the first attempt in many years to comprehensively address the range of issues facing rural Australia. This Scheme delivers on a major commitment given by the Coalition at the last election.Extensive consultation with State and Territory governments, farmer groups, financial institutions and the public has contributed significantly in shaping the measures introduced today. The initiatives in this bill have received widespread endorsement from key farming bodies such as the National Farmers' Federation and from the financial sector, including the Australian Bankers' Association.The Farm Management Deposit (FMD) scheme enhances and expands the previous Income Equalisation Deposit (IED) and Farm Management Bond (FMB) schemes operated by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. This bill has been carefully designed to meet the Coalition's long standing desire to encourage increased financial self reliance among farmers, while also taking account of the high variability of farm income streams, and the vulnerability of farming businesses to natural events.Madam President, the bill takes the operation of the FMD scheme out of Government hands and commercialises it. The FMD scheme will be a tax-linked financial risk management tool that allows farmer taxpayers to transfer income between high income and low income years. The Government's aim is to improve primary producers' capacity to manage financial fluctuations caused by environmental and market conditions. It helps them do this by allowing them to set aside considerable cash reserves earned during high income years for use in low income year, in a tax effective way. Financial institutions are likely to offer a range of products, providing farmers with more choice as well as increased flexibility in their investment decisions.I will be asking my Department and the Australian Taxation Office to ensure reporting arrangements are in place so that the scheme retains its integrity and can achieve its objectives. The restriction of the scheme to prudentially controlled deposit taking institutions or those with government guarantees on the deposits will increase the security of deposits.The key features of the enhanced FMD scheme will be:. A limit on holdings in the scheme of $300,000 per taxpayer;. The investment component will be set at 100 per cent on the entire balance—this means interest will be able to be earned on the whole deposit which has been made out of pre-tax income;- currently the investment component is only 61 per cent for IEDs;. Eligibility will be restricted to primary producers with a taxable non-primary production income of not more than $50,000;. The scheme will be commercialised and delivered through financial institutions, making it far easier for farmers to make deposits and withdrawals;. Investors will be able to elect only one institution with which to hold deposits, however this institution may be changed at any time;. Financial institutions will pay an interest rate determined in the market;. Deposits will be fully tax deductible in the year of deposit and taxable in the year of withdrawal;There will be a minimum deposit period of 12 months;Interest will be taxable in the income year it is earned;. On withdrawal 20 per cent of the amount withdrawn will be deducted for tax purposes but this deduction may be exempted if the depositor demonstrates to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy that he or she is in serious financial difficulties;. As with current arrangements, FMDs will not be available to companies, trusts or partnerships, although individual beneficiaries of trusts and individual members of partnerships will be able to use them.IEDs and FMBs have, to date, had a low rate of uptake, mainly because they have been inflexible and not commercially attractive or tax effective. Some 222 million dollars are currently invested by more than 6600 people in IEDs and 110 million dollars by more than 3300 people in FMBs. Primary producers with existing IED or FMB accounts will be able to transfer them to FMDs with no loss of tax benefits.The revised conditions in the new FMD Scheme, including its commercial nature, larger investment component and flexibility of withdrawals, should secure an increased uptake of the new scheme. This is appropriate as the aim of the package is to encourage more farmers to use such deposits to manage risk.The Government will be closely monitoring the operation of the scheme; in particular the interest rates offered by financial institutions and the fees and charges they levy on FMD accounts.The Income Equalisation Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Act 1984 applied only to interest payments made under the IED scheme during the period 29 June 1984 to 22 November 1984 inclusive. All relevant periods for amendment or appeal processes relating to that time period have expired. The bill repeals the Income Equalisation Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Act 1984 as it has become redundant.Madam President, today is a proud day for me as Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The Farm Management Deposit Scheme and the new financial risk management capability it offers will be of great benefit to the farm sector.I have great pleasure in commending the bill to honourable senators.PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1998The purpose of this bill is to amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the rate of the Passenger Movement Charge (the charge) by $3, to $30, with effect from 1 January 1999. The increase was announced by the Treasurer in the 1998-99 Budget and will help meet the additional costs associated with the transit of people and goods for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.The charge, which is imposed on the departure of a person from Australia, is collected by airlines and shipping companies at the time of ticket sales and then remitted to the Commonwealth in accordance with arrangements entered into under section 10 of the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. These arrangements have been extremely successful and beneficial to all stakeholders, not the least being the passengers whose departure from Australia is unimpeded through a seamless process which no longer requires the purchase of charge stamps.Current arrangements with airlines are due to expire on 30 June 1998 and the Government is finalising negotiations with interested parties for new arrangements to apply from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001. The increase in the charge will have no impact on the arrangements and collection and remission procedures will remain the same.It is, however, desirable that the amendment to give effect to the increase in the charge from 1 January 1999 be in place at the earliest opportunity so as to provide certainty for airlines and shipping companies in relation to ticket sales for departures after the proposed date for the increase.Ordered that the resumption of the date be made an order of the day for the first day of the 1998 spring sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills3631r5373631Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.363117:24:003631Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—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—This bill delivers on the Government's commitment to pay in full the offer made to the States in relation to health funding at the Premiers' Conference in March.This legislation allows the Commonwealth to continue funding to all states and territories based on the fair and reasonable Premiers' Conference offer.The Government is not prepared to delay any longer in ensuring the continuation of funding for hospitals. We are introducing this bill to provide certainty for the people of Australia, who can rest assured that Commonwealth funding for their hospitals will not be stopped. Already, Queensland and the ACT have given in-principle commitment to enter into Australian Health Care Agreements.Although the other States have yet to accept the Government's very generous offer, we will not be denying the people of those States access to the services they require. The Commonwealth will continue to provide those States with funding for their hospitals.To receive funding under this bill the States will be required to adhere to principles ensuring universal access to health and emergency services free of charge, on the basis of clinical need and within clinically appropriate periods, regardless of the patient's location.These principles are based on those applying under the existing Medicare Agreements.This bill reaffirms the Government's commitment to Medicare, and provides for fair and reasonable funding to the States.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the first day of the spring sittings 1998, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills3631Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 Bills3631r473Billsr479Billsr475Billsr4663631Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that the House of Representatives had made the amendments requested by the Senate to the bills.3632Bills on motion by (Senator Newman) read a third time.Committees363236323632Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the following variation in the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade:Mr Jull in place of Mr Bradford.Bills3632r424Consideration resumed.3632The bill.17:28:003632Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:(1) Page 1 (after line 9), after clause 2, insert:2A Review of operation of Act (1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act to be undertaken as soon as possible after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act. (2) A person who undertakes such a review must give the Minister a written report of the review, including any recommendations for changes to the regulation of managed investments. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 6 months after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act.I note that the running sheet makes the observation that our amendment is similar to the Democrats' amendment No. 1 which is on sheet 943 revised 2. Let me speak for a moment to my amendment. This goes to the review of the operation of the act, and the explanatory memorandum of the government's bill states that the government intends to review the new arrangements applying to managed investments after two years. We are proposing that this be done by the ASC and the Treasury, and will examine in particular the resource allocations of the new SRE regime—that is, single responsible entity—for the ASC and for the Treasury.Labor hopes that this review will still occur as the resource implications for the ASC is a critical issue for the successful operation of the new scheme. What is unusual about the review, mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, is that the government does not anticipate changing the regulation of managed investments at the time of the review. If that is indeed the case, why have the review at all? What is its purpose? What if the review finds that the regulation of managed investment trusts is flawed and should be changed? Would the government ignore the results of such a review?Labor's amendment will require a review to take place before three years and that the review is to be tabled by the minister in the parliament within six months of completion. The review should be conducted by someone with enough experience in the industry to have a good grasp of the operation of managed investments and an understanding of how the new regime will operate. It would be preferable that the person be external to the government.Labor's amendment is designed to ensure that there is greater transparency in the operation of the new scheme and that any problems which are identified can be scrutinised by the public. The onus will be on the government of the day to respond to these problems with the appropriate legislative or other changes that are necessary. I must say that, given the contentious nature of the debate, an open and transparent review of the process in our view is essential.17:30:003632Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It is very important, obviously, that we have parliamentary scrutiny in relation to the important issues that have been mentioned in the second reading debate on the Managed Investments Bill. I would like to take this opportunity, having picked up on what Senator Cook says about accountability and open processes, to return briefly to my speech during the second reading debate. In that speech I mentioned that the draft regulations had not been made available. During that speech the minister, by means of interjection, called out, `Rubbish, you have had them for six weeks.' I would like to clarify the situation, having checked in the meantime exactly what had been around for six weeks.The policy document was around for six weeks. It is not unreasonable to put on the record that there has been no briefing offered to the Greens (WA) in relation to the draft regulations of the Managed Investments Bill. For all the guffawing, that is the reality. There has not been, to our knowledge, any sight of the draft regulations. So it is not unreasonable for people to assume, if in a speech during the second reading debate a senator says, `I haven't seen any draft regulations', and if you have the minister yelling out `Rubbish!' from the other side of the room, that that should be based on something related to the truth. But that is not what happened.I have still not seen draft regulations. A policy document was available. It was my staff who were being contacted about the group of bills from which the managed investments bills were separated. Therefore, I would be happy to receive an apology from the minister in relation to the impression that he may have left the Senate with by making that interjection.17:33:003633Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The provision that the opposition has put, item 1 on sheet 939, we would support. Legislation which generates such controversy and fears and which potentially has such a significant impact should have a set period of review. We suggest in our own amendment a review after three years, which would have allowed for the transition period plus one year of operation under the new system. But we would support yours since it has precedence.Amendment agreed to.17:34:003633Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—For the sake of the record I therefore withdraw item 1 on sheet 943, revised 2, which was the same amendment.17:35:003633Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 25), after paragraph (4)(b), insert: (ba) a copy of any resolution passed under subsection 601FBA(2);(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (after line 15), after section 601FB, insert: 601FBA Scheme members may direct responsible entity to appoint agent (1) Nothing in this Act prevents a majority of members of a scheme from deciding that the proposed responsible entity must engage an independent agent to hold scheme property. (2) A resolution passed at a meeting of scheme members may direct the proposed responsible entity to lodge with the registration application a compliance plan that provides for scheme property to be held by a person other than the responsible entity as the responsible entity's agent. (3) A person appointed as an agent must not be related to the responsible entity.(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (after line 32), at the end of section 601HA, add: (2) If a registration application is accompanied by a copy of a resolution passed under subsection 601FBA(2), the compliance plan lodged with the application must provide for scheme property to be held by an independent person as the responsible entity's agent.Greens (WA) amendments 1, 2 and 9 relate to the choice of funds and the ability for scheme members to direct a responsible entity to appoint an agent. We would insert after section 601FB a new section, that `Nothing in this act prevents a majority of members of a scheme from deciding that the proposed responsible entity must engage an independent agent to hold scheme property', that `A resolution passed at a meeting of the scheme members may direct the proposed responsible entity to lodge with the registration application a compliance plan that provides for scheme property to be held by a person other than the responsible entity' and that `A person appointed as an agent must not be related to the responsible entity.'Amendment 9 adds after section 601HA, that `If a registration application is accompanied by a copy of a resolution passed under subsection 601FBA(2), the compliance plan lodged with the application must provide for scheme property to be held by an independent person as the responsible entity's agent.'This relates back to the issues that were mentioned during my second reading contribution. The government seems to be reducing the choice, rather than increasing the choice. That certainly seems to be going in the wrong direction. I find it difficult to believe that there could be credible reasons for wanting to reduce the real choice and stop people from going to the stage of deciding as an entity that they would like to do that. I am keen to hear the government's and the opposition's response to that.17:37:003634Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government will not be supporting these amendments, as I indicated at the conclusion of my second reading speech. We will be supporting opposition amendment No. 2. As I understand it, that amendment will have the effect that, where either the manager or the trustee fails to retire, under the existing scheme which the government's legislation already has in it, a meeting of investors will be required and the opportunity will arise at that meeting for a vote of the investors on whether there would be an independent, unrelated party which would hold custody of the assets.The government will be supporting that amendment, which we believe will not impact upon the crucial policy of a single entity having responsibility for the management and custody of the funds. We believe that these other amendments would do that by impairing the single responsible entity concept which is pivotal to this scheme.I indicate to Senator Margetts through you, Mr Chairman, that we will not be supporting her amendments. As I foreshadowed, we will be supporting opposition amendment No. 2, which would conflict with these amendments.17:39:003634Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The parliamentary secretary has accurately described the amendment that we have foreshadowed as our second amendment. I think our amendment is more flexible than what the Greens (WA) have proposed. My understanding of their amendment is that the person appointed cannot be related to the responsible entity.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—And there's a problem with that?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No. All I am saying is that ours provides greater flexibility. Your amendment says, `A person appointed as an agent must not be related to the responsible entity.' Ours enables the person appointed to be related; therefore there is a greater scope of option available under our scheme than under the scheme moved by the Greens (WA).17:41:003634Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would just like to make the point that there were some strongish statements made before this legislation was dealt with—certainly at the end of the last sitting fortnight—and the Labor Party made some strongish statements in relation to their contribution on the second reading. It does seem that somehow a deal has been done and that they may well have gone to water on a number of these issues, and that is very unfortunate.Amendments not agreed to.17:41:003634Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 19), at the end of paragraph (1)(a), add "as a fiduciary accountable to the members as beneficiaries of the registered scheme".(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 21), after "person", insert "of business".(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 22), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add ", having regard to the circumstances of the scheme".(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (after line 5), at the end of section 601FC, add: (5) A provision in a scheme's constitution is void to the extent to which it would have the effect of excluding or modifying any of the duties of a responsible entity, or of any officer or employee of a responsible entity, under this Law or the general law.These are amendments to section 601FC and they ensure the standard of care required for a director of a responsible entity—that it not be reduced. They clarify that the standard of care owed by directors of the entity is that required by the general law of trusts and not some lower standard. Why should this be necessary? The standard is unclear. It may be lower than currently required under the general law of trust. The test under the Managed Investments Bill roughly equates to that under the Corporations Law. It is arguably less rigorous than the SIS Act test. However, there is a degree of uncertainty because the courts, in AWA Limited v. Daniels, have shown a willingness to expand the scope of the duty depending, amongst other things, on the nature of the enterprise in question.The standard of care required of a trustee under the general law of trusts is that of an ordinary prudent man of business. That comes from Charitable Corporation v. Sutton. There is little doubt that this test is higher than the test proposed by the Managed Investments Bill. For the purpose of clarifying the standard of care required of a responsible entity, it is reasonable to suggest amending the provision to reflect that the standard required is that of a trustee under the general law of trusts. This basically reflects the theme of my contribution on second reading—that we should not, under the Managed Investments Bill, have a standard less than other laws. It seems to be going in the wrong direction from that which it should.17:44:003635Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Australian Democrats consider these amendments to be largely technical but that they add to the bill, and we will therefore support them.17:44:003635Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I cannot so quickly ascertain whether or not the amendments add to the bill, add to the responsibilities placed on directors or diminish them. My most recent experience in relation to these directors' duties matters is debating the fine detail of the words of the proposed amendments to the company laws under the corporate law economic reform program. When you start fiddling with the words of how a person under the companies law should be responsible as a director by adding words such as `a person in business', you start sending signals to the judges who have to ultimately determine these things.We are going through a debate at the moment in which this parliament will take part in the near future in relation to directors' duties as to whether or not to put some very similar words into the companies law, which all management investment schemes will be subject to anyway. All directors will be subject to the duties as prescribed in the Corporations Law. I was given these amendments this morning. They have not received any consideration by experts in this field. All of the Corporations Law proposals that this government has dealt with—and, to the credit of the previous government, that the previous government dealt with—were put through an extraordinary, excruciating but very worthwhile process of public consultation so that experts in the field of companies law, accounting and other areas were able to analyse the detail of the effect of these changes to the law.I cannot be assured that the proposals put forward by the Greens in these amendments increase the responsibilities of directors or decrease the liability by potentially constraining the weight that a court would put on the responsibility of that person. I put forward as an example of that argument—and it is a very vital one—that a court might look at the care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise under 1(b) of the bill. If you were to add, for example, the words `in business'—and this argument has been put to me by top company lawyers in relation to a similar exercise which we are going through on the company law economic reform program—it diminishes the responsibility of people who are not in business.That is the argument we have had put to us in relation to a proposal to amend the directors' duties provisions of the companies law where we were proposing to put in some words to make it clear that the director would be required to have to act as a director would who had had the experience based on that director's experience. We thought that would be a sensible reform because the court could look at the experience of that person who was exercising that judgment or making that decision in business. It was put to us by directors and by company lawyers of long experience that, by trying to make a practical interpretation of what a director's duty should be and how the court should look at how a reasonable person might be judged as to whether it was a reasonable decision to make based on their experience, by putting in the words with that person's experience these directors argue that it would increase the requirement for experienced directors but significantly diminish it for inexperienced directors.I would argue, with my very limited knowledge of these matters, that to put in the words `in business' you would increase the requirements on a director who was in business. But, if you had a director of a managed investment scheme who was a trade union representative for trade union interests, that person may not have experience in business, and therefore the courts would read down that person's responsibility. I do not give that as an example of why those particular words may or may not improve the scheme; I give them to the Senate as an example of how I cannot be convinced that these amendments increase the responsibility of directors. I cannot be convinced that these are amendments that will make the single responsible entity more responsible. I would not like to make any amendments to this bill that were so uncertain.17:50:003636Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Is it not amazing that the only people who seem to be able to demand certainty in Australia under legislation these days are large corporations? They seem to get it whenever they ask for it. What we are asking for is a greater deal of certainty and clarity for ordinary people in Australia. The minister has just given us a quite lengthy critique of my use of the insertion `in business' but it does not actually say that. It says `of business'. Experience of business is actually different from experience in business. If you have been a union official and you have been involved with superannuation funds for the last X number of years, I guess that would be experience of business. It does not reduce it. We are talking about the duty of people working within the industry. The fact that the minister has just rebuffed something that does not exist in my amendments is a pretty good indication of what is happening here. I think it is a bit of a snow job. The reality is that we are asking for some clarity for those people who do not normally get clarity. At the moment the only people getting certainty are the people who have the power and influence to demand it. They are the ones who are getting it.17:51:003636Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I would like to make a couple of points on the Managed Investments Bill 1997 . First of all, in the earlier matter Senator Margetts said that she feared that the Labor Party had spoken boldly in its contribution to the second reading debate, that a deal had now been done and that our position had been watered down or words to that effect. This is a terrible, disgusting reflection upon such a noble party as the Labor Party and, by inference, upon me. I can assure the Senate that no deal has been done. Our view of the amendments that we have foreshadowed and intend to move to this bill have been consistent throughout its whole consideration.Having disposed of that, let me now go to the issue that is before the chair. I find myself in a similar position to that of the parliamentary secretary: that, considering the full import of what are, on the face of it, simple amendments but which plumb very deeply in terms of their complexity and inferences of law, this is not a matter that I feel confident to take on foot, as it were. Also, this is not a matter upon which I have obtained any learned or considered advice in the time available to me since receiving these amendments.I am disposed though to say that the amendments ought to be kept in mind and, when the review in three years time comes back, the amendments could perhaps be reconsidered against the light of the experience of that review to see whether or not there is a call to make them. That was my first reaction. My second reaction is to say, `Well, one ought to be a little more considered than that perhaps,' and I could support a proposition which would mean that these amendments are not proceeded with at the moment. We could take advice over dinner, come back and then put a definitive position down on the record, having given these amendments more thought. I am torn between both those options, none of which satisfactorily meet the desires of the mover. But I must say that, given the notice that I have before me of these amendments, I do not think my duty requires me to do anything more than I have said—prudence certainly does not.So I do foreshadow to the mover, to the parliamentary secretary and to Senator Murray that, while I am disposed to vote against these amendments and consider them again in the light of that three-year review, I am open to any suggestion, should it be taken up by the Greens, to defer this matter until after I have had some more advice over dinner, since I think we will still be going by the time the dinner break comes around and could deal with it straight after.17:54:003637Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am happy to take up Senator Cook's suggestion. I just remind him that that wording comes directly from the trust law. So it is nothing new to law. It is nothing that to dated has caused the world as we know it to end. The wording is considered to bestow a reasonable amount of clarity within law for courts to make decisions. Senator Campbell indicated that it might influence the court, and certainly that is what we are hoping to do. We are concerned that, if we leave legislation in such a form as to leave that degree of lack of clarity, it will make it more and more difficult for the average punter, if things go badly wrong, to get some form of justice. Whatever is possible at this particular time is worthy of consideration over dinner.I would like to point out that my office has not been slack on this issue; as everybody else has, we have used the time which has been available to us as well as we could. It is just one of those things that, in relation to the balance of power, one does as one can. You either stand back and look at a bill and say, `Okay, this has some real problems but, hey, potentially I'm in the balance of power so I haven't got time to deal with it,' or you could look carefully at it and produce amendments that try to improve the bill. That is what we have sought to do. I suppose there will always be a problem when you have senators in this situation of trying to review legislation when there are entire parties looking at it from their own viewpoint which might be different in terms of the accountability that you require.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Margetts, could I suggest, therefore, that you move the deferral of the consideration of Greens (WA) amendments 3 to 6 on sheet 1023 revised?Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That further consideration of the amendments be postponed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will move to Democrat amendments 3 to 7 and 11 on sheet 943 revised 2.17:57:003637Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 9), at the end of subparagraph (i)(ii), add "by an independent custodian approved by the ASIC (see Division 4)".(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 27 to 30), omit subsection (2) and the note.(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 19 (after line 18), at the end of Part 5C.2, add:Division 4—Appointment of custodian601FU ASIC's approval of appointment(1) The ASIC must approve a company as custodian of a scheme's property if: (a) the company is not an externally-administered body corporate; and (b) the company is not an associate of the responsible entity; and (c) the ASIC has no reason to believe that the company does not have the capacity to perform, efficiently and honestly, the functions of the custodian of the scheme.(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the ASIC may have regard to the following matters in relation to each officer of the company who is to perform duties in connection with the performance by the company of the custodian's functions: (a) whether the officer is an insolvent under administration; and (b) whether the officer has been convicted of serious fraud during the 10 years ending on the day the application for approval of the company as custodian is made; and (c) whether the ASIC has reason to believe that the officer is not of good fame and character; and (d) whether the ASIC has reason to believe that the officer will not perform efficiently and honestly the duties that the company, as custodian, may require the officer to perform.The ASIC may have regard to any other matters that it considers relevant.(3) The ASIC may, at any time, revoke an approval given under this section if it has reason to believe that the company: (a) does not satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (1)(a) and (b); or (b) will not perform, efficiently and honestly, the functions of the custodian of the scheme.601FV Functions of a custodian(1) The functions of the custodian of a registered scheme are: (a) to be vested with all the scheme property (either itself or through agents as permitted by paragraph 601FC(1)(i)); and (b) to act in accordance with the directions of the responsible entity in relation to the property except if a prudent person in the custodian's position would have reasonably believed that the directions of the responsible entity breach Part 5C.7.(2) The custodian may also perform other functions that it is required to perform under the terms and conditions of its engagement.601FW Duties of custodianIn carrying out its functions, the custodian of a registered scheme must: (a) act honestly as a fiduciary accountable to the members as beneficiaries of the registered scheme; and (b) exercise the degree of care and diligence that a prudent person would exercise if he or she were in the custodian's position; and (c) act in the best interests of the members and, if there is a conflict between the members' interests and its own interests, give priority to the members' interests; and (d) not make use of information acquired through being the custodian in order to: (i) gain an improper advantage for itself or another person; or (ii) cause detriment to the members of the scheme; and (e) ensure that scheme property is: (i) clearly identified as scheme property; (ii) held separately from the property of the custodian, the property of the responsible entity and the property of any agent appointed as permitted by paragraph 601FC(1)(i); and (f) not make improper use of its position as custodian to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for itself or for any other person or to cause detriment to the members of the scheme; and (g) if the scheme has a compliance committee, report to the members of the compliance committee any breach of this Law or the scheme's constitution that relates to the scheme, as soon as practicable after it becomes aware of the breach; and (h) carry out and comply with any other duty, not inconsistent with this Law, that is conferred on the custodian by the scheme's constitution.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 11), after "scheme", insert "by an independent custodian approved by the ASIC".(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 12), after "601FC(1)(i)", insert "and Division 4 of Part 5C.2".(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 53 (lines 10 to 13), omit all words after "Without limiting this,", substitute "the ASIC may exempt a scheme from the requirements of subparagraph 601FC(1)(i)(ii) if the ASIC is satisfied that the need for the scheme property to be held by an independent custodian is negligible.".Senator Margetts, I would not claim it as a virtue every time, but this time I can be a little bit virtuous in that these amendments have been previously circulated to all members of the Senate. Therefore, I hope that the government will not only have had time to look at them but also be thoroughly supportive of them as a result.Parliamentary Secretary, in my speech during the second reading debate I did outline the problems, as we saw them, with the Managed Investments Bill. These related to two critical deficiencies. Firstly, the bill, in our view, does not provide millions of Australians with adequate choice about the management of their savings—and that is not only our view, of course, but the view of a number of the critics of elements of the bill. Secondly, the bill does not improve the security of those investments. In our view—and Senator Harradine quoted some very good other authorities—it generally reduces that security. So we have tried to redress those problems to the extent that we can within the current bill.Both your government and the Labor government prior have made a laudable virtue of international benchmarking and striving for commercial best practice. But in its pursuit of the single responsible entity model the government directly contradicts international practice. The SRE is believed by some to be inconsistent with principles 2.1 and 2.3 of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions regulation of liquid collective investments document. Also, out of 42 countries surveyed by KPMG in 1995 only two, the British Virgin Islands—and I do not know if that is part of Richard Branson's outfit—and the Netherlands Antilles operated without the combination of manager and trustee custodian.As Senator Harradine said in his speech during the second reading debate, Australia clearly intends to go out on its own—and we have some concerns about that. While we accept that to run against international opinion is not necessarily always wrong, we are concerned that in the process Australians' money could be put at greater risk, without them being asked whether it should be put at greater risk. The amendments I am speaking of here deal with the issue of the independent custodian and really are an attempt to reduce the risk in that area.In an article in the Australian Financial Review, Simon Hoyle reported that international ratings agency Standard and Poor's raised concerns that the bill would severely undermine the security of investors' money. The article cited Standard and Poor's as advocating in an SRE system at the very least the presence of an independent custodian to hold the funds' assets separately. An independent custodian was a feature of Labor's proposed bill, as you would recall, Senator Cook, and was one of the key provisions excised by the coalition when they produced their own bill.The amendments I have put together require scheme funds to be held by an independent custodian where a trustee does not exist, and they define the role of the custodian. But, because the parliamentary secretary has in the past made the good point that you need to retain flexibility whenever you can, amendment No. 11 of the group we are debating here together allows for the ASIC—as it will be—to exempt a scheme from having a custodian in circumstances where the ASIC considers that the need for an independent custodian is negligible. In other words, a custodian would be mandatory unless the regulator says it does not need to be.We think that those particular provisions that we have laid out in our amendments, in fact advance the security of assets considerably. They do not detract from the bill; they do not detract from the intention of the bill. They do, however, firm up the security element. In particular, you will see that amendment No. 5, which is under discussion here, covers the appointment of the custodian, ASIC's approval of the appointment—which is critical—the functions of a custodian and the duties of a custodian. Those are spelt out in some detail, and all of those are taken from experience, both in law and in practice.Parliamentary secretary, as I said earlier, in our view this strengthens your bill; it does not take away anything from it. We are hopeful that the opposition will heed these arguments since they are the ones the opposition put in their earlier versions of the bill. Accordingly, I commend to the Senate Democrats' amendments 3-7 and 11.18:02:003639Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The coalition government will not be supporting these amendments to the Managed Investments Bill 1997 . I do, however, thank Senator Murray for providing the amendments to the government some many weeks ago and for accepting our offers of briefings and discussions on a number of occasions so that we could seek to work through where the Democrats were coming from and try to explain in more detail the government's proposals. I think Senator Murray also took up the government's offer of briefings by people such as the chairman of the ASC.We are not of a view to support these amendments because they fundamentally attack the single responsible entity concept. The government is very keen to avoid rebuilding the two-tiered structure by another name. If you are to bring into the law the concept of an independent, unrelated party custodian, you then start building in the potential for a fiduciary relationship between investors and the custodian.The investor protection that is built into the regime, that has been recommended by CASAC and the ALRC, is that the responsible entity will be responsible to the investor and that the courts cannot try to lay off the blame to some other party. So it is crucial to ensure that that fiduciary relationship only exists between the responsible entity and the investor. The great investor protection regime that is built by this bill—and we strongly argue that it is a better scheme than the one that Australia has at the moment—is the strength of that fiduciary relationship, but it also is built on the flexibility that can apply.Mr Temporary Chairman, as you know better than most, this legislative scheme is built to cover every investment scheme from a small agricultural scheme which may be worth only a couple of million dollars, right up to the huge funds managers such as BT and AMP and everyone in between. This includes the small funds that are emerging in Australia where some very successful funds managers are moving away from ANZ or Westpac or wherever and setting up their own niche market investment funds with $100 million, $150 million, $200 million under management, and competing against the big funds.That range of entities, structures, schemes, will be covered by the Managed Investments Bill. This includes everything from a $500,000 to a $1 million vineyard, plantation, ostrich farm—though that is probably not a good example—all those agricultural type schemes, blueberries—for Mr Hartnell's benefit—property syndication type projects, small and middle sized funds managers right up to the hundreds of millions of dollars schemes.You need a flexible scheme. No doubt—and we have given the ASIC the power to do this—at the very small end it will be very much in the interests of the scheme manager to have an organisation, an agent, controlling the custody of the assets that is independent. There will be organisations that fulfil that role, and they will have to comply with the ASIC, the licensing requirements and the law. You may find that very large organisations will be able to do the custodial work by a related party, in-house, using the requirements under the law. Under that, they are going to need independent directors, they are going to need a compliance committee, they are going to need a compliance plan, and that is all going to have to be registered with ASIC.This scheme is flexible; it does allow an independent custodian, so it does give people choice. They can choose to go to an existing trustee organisation and say, `We would like to create a compliance plan, set up a scheme, and we would like to use a trustee organisation as a custodian of the scheme assets.' They can go to some other organisation that offers itself out for custodial services and they have to comply with the law and they will have to comply with ASIC's policy statements, which—as Senator Margetts has pointed out—have been published in draft form by ASIC, have been consulted on with the industry and will be finalised prior to 1 July.That is the benefit of this scheme. When you by law require an independent custodian for all schemes, you undermine the basis of the entire single responsible entity concept. There is a difference between the so-called bare custodian that was put into the collective investments bill that was released by former Attorney-General Michael Lavarch in December 1995 and the proposal that the Democrats put up here today. The so-called bare custodian that was put into the Labor bill could indeed have been an internal related party custodian. It did not need to be independent and it did not need to be at arm's length from the manager; that bare custodian, as it became known, could have been a related party.The government looked at that concept and we thought that giving it a minimum assets requirement may well cost the small fund managers out of the business. If you put in a minimum capital adequacy requirement for a bare custodian of $5 million, someone who had funds under management of less than $100 million would get priced out of the market and you would not have any small fund managers anymore. Of course, for a big organisation like AMP or BT the bare custodian would have been a joke anyway because $5 million capital adequacy would have meant nothing in terms of investor protection, nor would it have made much of a dint in their accounts. That is why the government opted for a flexible scheme. It will see many funds, I am sure, opting to have an independent custodian, for a whole range of reasons, but it will not restrict schemes to using that form.The government's strong policy commitment in this is to bring in a single responsible entity and not to allow the law to be amended in a way that would diminish the fiduciary relationship between the investor and the single responsible entity by mandating independent custodians. That is when you start watering it down, building up a separate fiduciary relationship which we believe will get built up by the courts, and destroy the clarity of that relationship between the investor and the manager. We will be opposing these amendments and hope that the Senate will do so.18:10:003641Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is one major thing wrong with the parliamentary secretary's contribution, and that is that he has not actually explained adequately to the Senate why the government is not prepared to look at whether a single fiduciary entity is such a good thing. Various examples were given earlier that under the current system there have been rip-offs and there has been money lost, but there has been nothing proved in any way, shape or form by the parliamentary secretary that under the proposed scheme we are not going to see more. I just wonder whether, if we ever come to the point of reviewing this legislation, we are going to be under huge pressure not to change it if it actually lets people off the hook and provides an out for various fund managers. The reality is that giving examples of where the current system may be at fault is not sufficient argument to say that you therefore make it a single entity and the single entity is therefore going to make it more accountable. Concern is clearly expressed by several senators here, including Senator Harradine, that this will be less accountable and, instead of actually fixing the problem, you actually create a huge problem and perhaps in a couple of years time we are going to have urgent legislation to address this. Someone will say, `Shock, horror! We did not know this was going to happen. We must do something.' We have the ability to look into the future to some extent and have some caution here, and I do not think the government is doing that in this regard. We will be supporting the Democrats' amendments.18:12:003641Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We, like the government, have had these amendments for some time and have had a chance to deliberate on them. In saying that, I do not imply any criticism of the Western Australian Greens. It was a sensitive matter a moment ago but it ought not be. We have all been in this chamber long enough to know that the vicissitudes of parliamentary life are that sometimes you cannot get your amendments in on time.Turning to this matter, the parliamentary secretary has provided, I think, a long and useful analysis—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Long and inconclusive.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—That is your description. Perhaps I should apply my own to complete my own sentence. It is a long and interesting analysis of the reasons why the government rejects this amendment. We share many of the views expressed by the government, I must say.The question has been raised—fairly, perhaps rightly even—that, since an amendment such as this was contemplated in earlier Labor Party legislation when we were in government, why is it that we are now departing from what appeared to be the position then. I think that is the thrust of the criticism of the likelihood of Labor Party support for the government's amendments by the Democrats, by Senator Andrew Murray. I think that is a reasonable proposition to raise and I do not criticise Senator Murray for doing so. Can I say that in my speech on the second reading I made it clear where we were coming from and that this would be our preferred approach. I mentioned two things to justify a change in our position. When you mandate an independent custodian, we believe you raise real doubts as to whether that will undermine the role of the single responsible entity. In the previous legislation, we did not have the same doubts at all that that would be the case. We do now have considerable doubts that you in fact undermine the role of the SRE.However, one of the overriding concerns we have always had is that the funding and resources for the Australian Securities Commission be adequate to meet the task that commission will have in fulfilling its role with respect to this legislation. I note on that front that the government in this budget has provided $7.1 million over three years for the ASC. That would seem to meet the concerns that we have, although I would seek, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, of the parliamentary secretary an assurance that government funding of the ASC will be at appropriate levels to meet the needs of this legislation and to ensure that the role is properly policed. If such an undertaking were not forthcoming, it would be of considerable concern to the opposition and in fact would cause us to reconsider our vote for the amendment.18:15:003642Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—That makes it hard to answer. I note in the gallery the chairman of what will be the ASIC, Mr Alan Cameron. I welcome him to the Senate. I am sure he would like me to say that I would like to give him a blank cheque. That is right—he is nodding.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—But he is not holding his breath.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—He is not holding his breath. We made it quite clear on this, particularly during the Wallis legislation debate, which I think that Senator Cook carried as well, that we will be monitoring closely the performance of ASIC in its new duties under the Wallis reforms, which have now been passed in this place. I put on record the government's thanks to the opposition parties for their support of those measures in making sure they are through this place so that scheme can be up and running, as planned, on 1 July.I also made it quite clear in that debate, but I reiterate for the record here, that the government will keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the managed investment scheme as well. It is in the government's interests and in Australia's interests to ensure that the implementation of the scheme is a great success for the people of Australia and for the investors of Australia. Indeed, if it is not a success there will be a political price to be paid—my head may be part of that. So we will be closely examining the implementation of this scheme and I give an unequivocal commitment that the ASIC will be appropriately resourced to ensure that the implementation of this scheme is successful and that it is able to implement an investor protection regime, which we think is an improvement for Australia.Amendments not agreed to.18:17:003642Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (lines 18 to 23), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) The constitution of a registered scheme may be modified, or repealed and replaced with a new constitution, only by special resolution of the members of the scheme.This amendment relates to the constitutional changes and the impact that members might have on constitutional changes. This is important. What we are asking is to ensure that the constitution can only be changed with the approval of members. This is an amendment to 601GC(1)(a) and (b). Why is this important? We believe that, otherwise, we reduce the current protections. That is because, under the bill, responsible entities are permitted, under section 601GC, to modify, repeal or replace a scheme constitution without reference to or approval by investors in certain circumstances, depending on the sole judgment of the responsible entity. Nor does the bill require the ASC to approve changes to scheme constitutions.By contrast, the current law requires the independent judgment of the trustee as to whether proposed changes to trust deeds are prejudicial to investors. If the trustee believes that a proposed change is prejudicial, it can only be made with investor approval. That, I believe, is a safeguard that should be there.We are looking at the danger of erosion of rights. The constitution is the scheme's most important governing document. Can you imagine being in a club or an organisation or even a country when somebody could actually change the ground rules that you have been operating on, making laws and by-laws without your knowledge? You are going along believing the by-law is read in a certain way and they can change that whole set of rules.Here we have the most important governing document specifying provisions for the managed investment scheme's most important aspects, such as the responsible entity's powers of investment, powers to raise and borrow money, members' rights to withdraw from the scheme, responsible entities' rights to be paid fees, members' complaint mechanisms and winding up of the scheme, and fund managers can make changes to scheme constitutions that in subtle and apparently innocuous ways can reduce the rights of ordinary investors. There is a real danger this will happen in some cases. Why should we let it happen? In a democracy, investors should have the right to have all amendments to the scheme constitution referred to them for approval. This amendment can be supported in the interests of giving investors some say over their investments.The bill creates the power, on the part of the responsible entity, to change trust deeds unless it takes the view itself that the matter is prejudicial. This means that there is no independent party, such as the trustee or the ASC, so who is going to say that? Who is going to point that out? It is going to be able to approve the changes which a responsible entity makes to the rights of investors, as set out in the scheme trust deed or constitution. This is an extraordinary amount of power to vest in a responsible entity that is supposed to look after other people's money in accordance with a set of rules under which those people invest in the first place. In any event, such absolute power is repugnant to sound business management principles.The safest course of action under this bill is to require a scheme constitution to be referred to the investors for a vote. Otherwise, the responsible entity will have to be judge and jury as we no longer have this independent party. It will have to recommend and, in itself, approve changes without reference to a third party. There is no notice required.It should be noted that there is nothing in this bill that requires any of the amendments made by the responsible entity to be notified to the investors before the changes take place. So not only do they not get to vote on them and not only is there not an independent entity that is necessarily going to judge whether they ought to have a say but they also do not have to have any notice. It is a bit like people getting a bit hot under the collar here if they are asked to vote on something that they have only just seen.Again, this seems unnecessary erosion of the rights of investors to have a say as to how their legal rights are to be changed. If you were to look at each of these elements logically, you would have to say that the logic should be that, if the government is absolutely determined to have a single entity, there has to be protection in relation to changes in the constitution. I would urge support from the Senate.18:22:003643Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government will not be agreeing to this amendment. We believe that the constitution should be able to be changed, particularly where there is no adverse effect on members' rights. I refer Senator Margetts to page 21 of the bill, with which I am sure she will be familiar. Section 601GC looks at how a constitution can be changed. Paragraph (a) provides that major changes would have to be made `by special resolution of the members of the scheme'. In many examples, schemes should be able to be, and can be, changed where the changes are minor and do not affect members' rights.If some nasty scheme manager or single responsible entity does seek to change a scheme and that affects members' rights, then the members of the scheme have a recourse and may recover from the manager under 601MA, which you will find at page 44. 601MA (1) states:A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's responsible entity that contravenes a provision of this Chapter may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the responsible entity whether or not the responsible entity has been convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of the contravention.So there is a remedy there if the responsible entity acts against the interest of members' rights. It is very much in line with putting more power in the hands of shareholders and members of schemes in this circumstance. It allows them to take action and gives them a statutory right to take action in the case of that breach.If you were to require a managed investment scheme to hold a meeting of scheme members for every change to the scheme, you would put massive costs—and totally unnecessary costs—on members of the schemes. If you are looking at shareholders' rights, you have to look at why they invest in schemes in the first place. An important reason is to get a return on their investment. If a managed investment scheme is to be successful, one of the things you have to do is ensure that the cost of managing the scheme—the administrative costs—is kept to a minimum. If you go around forcing schemes to have meetings of members every time they need to make any change—as I think your amendment would force them to do; and I am not being frivolous here—it would certainly be good to be in the business of renting out large function centres, if not the MCG. If this amendment were to go through, you would actually be required to send out notices of meetings to possibly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of investors on a regular basis. It would be very expensive and unwieldy.We think the structure in the bill actually strikes a neat balance. It ensures that, if you do have a big change to the constitution, you will have to go to a meeting, but if it is an administrative change that cannot affect, and does not affect, the rights of members, then you will be able to make it. This is set out on page 21 of the bill. You will have to lodge it with the ASC. Any of the modifications will have to be lodged with the ASC—or the ASIC as it will become known shortly. There must be a consolidated copy of the constitution lodged with the ASC. So there is a requirement. You cannot do it in secret—it has to be lodged. There are protections there for all scheme members. We think the balance is right. We think that your amendment would upset that balance.NaN:00:003644Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I am sure most people are actually members of incorporated bodies. I think it is reasonable that members of incorporated bodies should get a say in respect of constitutional changes—even in the case of teeny-weeny changes where there might be no money involved.I believe there is a problem in that there is nobody to independently judge whether this will have adverse effects on members' rights. What happens when people do not find out until it is too late? Are we really saying that there is recourse if that recourse relies on action by the managers themselves—the managers who may, in fact, be bringing about the changes? In reality, you cannot say that that will be the case. You have already given us examples of legal recourse resulting in only a certain proportion of every dollar. We are saying that, as a government and as a parliament, we cannot deliberately put in legislation something that is going to leave people in the position of having to take legal recourse if we have the power to actually do something about it.Constitutional changes have to be done in this way because there is no independent person who is legally required to advise members on adverse effects. If you have not given people the ability to have a say in any constitutional changes and you do not have an independent adviser, the reality is that you have left those people in double jeopardy. That is why this amendment is necessary. I am sure that, in most people's minds, it does not come down to simply management costs. As a responsible parliament, there are more important things for us to be looking at. We are looking at certainty for investors. Individual mums and dads, the people who have put their money into such funds, do not know how to fight this when they do not know what is going on. That is a reality. There is nothing to ensure that they will know that these changes are going on. Are we going to rely on the managers to tell their members that they might be doing something against their interests? Surely we should be dealing with this with our eyes open and surely we need to take some action. Recourse may take a long time. Recourse may not bring any great benefits in the end if the changes that have taken place mean that people have already been damaged because they have not found out until it was too late.18:29:003645Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I think Senator Campbell is correct in striking the balance between practicality and the need to have some check in the interests of members. I do not think the situation is that—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You don't really believe that, do you?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—No, Senator Margetts. I do not think the analogy, for example, with trustee law in respect of superannuation is a good example of striking a balance between practicality on the one hand and sufficient supervision on the other—in the case of superannuation trusts, the ISC and members.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Prior to the dinner adjournment I was commenting that Labor will not be supporting Greens amendment No. 7 and that, on balance, Senator Ian Campbell's argument should be supported and the Greens amendment should be opposed. I was commenting briefly from my experience in trust law relating to superannuation, which is not dissimilar in principle to the issue we are dealing with here with the Greens amendment. Certainly, in trust law in regard to superannuation if the trustees had to convene a meeting and consult with the members of a superannuation trust each and every time the trust deed was to be amended, it would simply be administratively impossible and it would be highly costly.I think we have to balance the practicality of the Greens amendment—and I think I would be impractical; it would be extremely costly in its implementation—with the checks against capricious action in respect of amendments of the constitution of a registered scheme. As Senator Ian Campbell has said, there are two checks. One is that the responsible entity must lodge with the ASC a copy of the modification or the new constitution. Then he referred us to page 44 of the bill where there is a second check, if we like—civil liability of responsible entity to members. Labor believes that, on balance, the government's approach is correct on this matter.19:32:003645Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have just two points. Parliamentary Secretary, I appreciate your remarks that a remedy is there within the bill whereby those who are defrauded or who have a problem can take action to recover their moneys. But as far as possible this Senate should avoid circumstances where people have to pursue the remedy, because preventive action is far cheaper, far quicker and far less damaging to the financial or physical health of investors than having to pursue the remedy at law. I make that as a general point.My second point really refers to your remarks about Senator Margetts's amendment forcing compliance with a particular course of action. I would have been prepared to accept your view if within that approach you had mandated that the funds were required to have got approval from their investors for a constitutional provision which allowed the fund manager to change the rules even if those rules were, as you pointed out, not serious or material. If somebody or an investor knowingly agrees to a constitution which delegates their rights to the responsible entity in whose interest it may be appropriate to conceal their motives or the reasons for their actions, if somebody in full knowledge makes that decision, then let the buyer beware. That is their problem. But clause 601GC of your bill actually says:(1) The constitution of a registered scheme may be modified. . . . . . . . . (b) by the responsible entity if the responsible entity reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.The investor can have nothing to say about it. Whether the investor likes it or not, you are telling them they have to lump it or like it. I think that is the reverse end of the stick. You were criticising Senator Margetts's amendment for trying to improve investor security by requiring that constitutional changes be mandated by special resolution and yet at the same time you are supporting a mandated position whereby the responsible entity can disregard members' interests or views even where those members themselves may not like it and may not want to accept that approach.I would have thought from your point of view that the appropriate approach if you did not want to mandate would be just to mandate that any constitution that had such a provision would in the first place have to be approved by the members. That is how constitutions are approved, aren't they? They are approved originally by members of the scheme. That is at the heart of the flawed thinking about this bill because you have here a situation where you are giving constitutional carte blanche to people in whose interest it may sometimes be to defraud, mislead or interfere with members' rights and interests in a manner which will result in loss.Yes, there is a remedy, but then people have to go through the agonies of the courts. Then again there is the problem that the definition here in the bill is, shall we say, incomplete because it says:(1) The constitution of a registered scheme may be modified, or repealed and replaced with a new constitution:. . . . . . . . . (b) by the responsible entity if the responsible entity reasonably considers the change will not adversely affect members' rights.The entity may reasonably consider a change of the registered office from Sydney to Honduras entirely appropriate. It does not really affect much, but it might allow the moneys to be moved around in a totally different manner from which they were moved before.Whilst I understand your criticisms of Senator Margetts's approach, I am not sure at all that your alternative is better. If I had to toss up between the two, I know which one I would choose—and that is Senator Margetts's amendment because it guarantees that the members themselves have the say over what happens to the constitution, which is the instrument which governs the way in which their moneys shall be dealt with. On that basis, I would be inclined to support Senator Margetts's amendment.19:37:003646Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—There is one issue I want to raise, and that is the provision that the Parliamentary Secretary referred us to on page 44: the ability of a person affected by a responsible entity going amiss to take legal action. That leaves it open to the person who holds an interest in the fund to take legal action. This has been raised on a couple of occasions.Why that should be of some interest to you, Mr Temporary Chairman, is that it raises the issue of what legal funds are available for a person to take action. He or she would be taking action against a responsible entity which would be able to use the funds of the responsible entity to pay the legal expenses against the member who is taking the action. The member might be refused legal aid because he or she holds interests in the fund which take he or she above the level that would entitle him or her to legal aid, even if legal aid was available for a civil action.It seems a most awkward thing that the way we are going to give sanctions to members of these funds is by allowing them to sue, at their own cost, their fund, which is able to use their money which is put in the fund to defend their action and to pay for any damages out of the funds to which the person suing them has contributed. It just seems to be a very awkward way—one could almost say it is an unfair way—of allowing the members to try to force the fund to work as it should.19:40:003646Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I could not have said it better. I only wish Senator Cook had been in here to hear that very interesting question: is it really recourse if there are not necessarily funds for people to access justice or even for them to have any guarantee that they will be able to get their funds back if something of that nature has happened?I have something that I want to add while the minister is thinking of an answer to that very good question. I know of organisations which literally cannot afford stamps. But we are not talking about organisations which theoretically cannot afford stamps; we are talking about multihundreds of millions of dollar organisations which presumably can afford the stamps. We are talking about organisations which, if there were teeny changes to their constitutions, might do as other small organisations do: put the changes together when they are having an annual meeting. I would think that there would have to be some regular communication with members. I would think that the organisations could probably even save stamps if they advised their multiple members at the same time they were doing other mail-outs of the constitutional changes that were being proposed.I do not believe we are talking about a ridiculous situation. If a fund changed its constitution willy-nilly every five minutes, I would think that would be a very poorly managed fund. I would think that the directors would find themselves in legal hot water because they themselves would not know where they were at, let alone their members. Are you suggesting that funds will and should change their constitutions every five minutes or every few days or every two weeks because they do not know how to manage themselves better than that?I would suggest that, throughout history, organisations have worked out how to amend their constitutions in ways that meet their time deadlines and financial and other restrictions. Quite frankly, even small organisations which need to change their constitution for some reason between annual general meetings could organise a special general meeting or something—a mail-out or some other kind of communication with their members. I cannot believe that we are dealing with such very large amounts of money and such very large bodies and that we are suggesting that it is beyond the realms of possibility that they can organise to change their constitution in any sort of order that enables their members to be advised.19:42:003647Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I just want to explain to Senator Margetts, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, that this is not an easy process. I think the analogy that I used of a superannuation trust is a good one. Firstly, I know about this, having sat as a trustee on a superannuation fund and been faced with having to change trustees quite frequently. I am not saying weekly or every second day or anything like that, but maybe three or four times a year. Three or four times a year you say, `Well, 45c a throw. Maybe 100,000 members.' You are looking at a significant cost.Secondly, in respect of this legislation it is not necessarily the fault of the custodian or, in the case of superannuation, the trustee. Unfortunately, government legislation changes very frequently, and that is not a criticism of this government or our government. The fact of life is that I know that in respect of superannuation—having sat as a trustee when there was a Labor government—there were frequent changes every year. It has been the same under this government: frequent changes every year. Trustees do require alteration, and often, to make matters worse, retrospectively. Often you wait months for the legislation. That is not a criticism of this place; it is just a recognition of the facts of life in dealing with legislation. Often these changes are retrospective. It is annoying for the people who manage and are custodians of people's funds.I have listened closely to the comments you made, Senator Margetts. I can say that, from the experience I have had, the practical concerns reinforce my conviction that it is extremely difficult to agree to your amendment. If there were no other balances in the legislation we would have to do something, but there are other balances in the legislation and I have commented on those. I just think we have to balance practicality against the checks and balances that are proposed—the level of legal scrutiny. I do not think it is perfect, but I think it is the only practical way through.19:45:003648Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Cooney asked me a question, and the core of it was about who pays if the responsible entity does act in a way that is deemed to be against the interests, in changing the constitution. The responsible entity would pay, and the person would not be able to be indemnified out of scheme property. If you go to 601GA(2)(b) at page 20, you will see that the entity can only be indemnified if it is `in relation to the proper performance of those duties'. If it is not in the proper performance of the duties, which would obviously be the case there, the scheme property would not be available.19:46:003648Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I notice that 601GA(2) says:If the responsible entity is to have any rights to be paid fees out of the scheme property, or to be indemnified out of scheme property for liabilities or expenses incurred in relation to the performance of its duties, those rights:(a) must be specified . . .—and so on. I take it that that would normally be done. What I am saying is that you do not know whether the person running the scheme has acted in the performance of his or her duties until after the case is over. In any event, the court might well say, `It was a responsibility of yours, as the manager of the scheme; as the responsible entity, the person in charge, it was your duty to fight that action. Even though you have lost, it was your duty to do it and therefore you get your funds out of the scheme.'I understand what you are saying, but you have to look at it at the time the issue arises, when the costs have been incurred. What is going to happen is that, if a person is faced with the possibility—as anybody is who goes into a court case—that they might lose the issue, they are not going to go ahead: first of all, they cannot afford the expense of the case, whereas the responsible entity can—because, at that point, the responsible entity is performing its duty. It must be, because you do not know it is not performing its duty until after the case is over. That is quite clear.19:48:003648Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will respond to that, but I am not going to take any more time on this. We have spent nearly one hour on one line of the bill, but that is not to say that this is not an active, positive and constructive review of a complex piece of legislation. It makes it quite clear at (2)(b) under 601GA that the funds are only available in relation to the proper performance of those duties. If the manager has not properly performed those duties and he is found to be in breach of 601MA, then the money is going to have to come out of the manager's pocket.Senator Cooney, this reinforces something I read from an independent commentator on the bill. I gave a speech recently in Sydney at a law firm called Freehill Hollingdale and Page, who have written an independent analysis of the director's duties changes that we are bringing in under the corporate law economic reform program. They are warning their clients that they need to look at these directors' duties—particularly for directors of managed investment schemes—under the government's proposed Managed Investments Bill.I cannot quote them, because I do not have their newsletter in front of me, but I paraphrase them as saying, `the onerous new responsibilities placed on directors under this bill.' In other words, they are saying, `If you are a director of a managed scheme, beware, because you have onerous new responsibilities over and above what you would have if you managed an existing scheme.' That is from an independent commentator who has looked at the director's duties under this bill, looked at it under the corporate law economic reform program and said, `If you are a director and you are a client of Freehill Hollingdale and Page, beware, because you have onerous new responsibilities placed on you by the government in Canberra.'19:50:003648Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I say this in the kindest way: it would be very helpful if advisers and lawyers actually ran a few cases and understood what it was like to litigate from the start. What he has put in the act does not necessarily convey what it is like in the conference room and what it is like when you are trying to run cases in the court. It would be helpful if, at times, those that advise us had some practical experience of what it is like to run a court case.19:50:003649Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Perhaps what the minister was describing, in relation to the law firm that he was talking about, might be a law firm which actually takes its responsibility seriously. To make themselves feel that they have done everything they are supposed to under law, there may well be things that directors have to do under this legislation that they would consider onerous. However, the argument that we are making is that human nature, experience, the law courts and the media all say that there are people who will use other people's funds unscrupulously. Those people are not potentially going to have seminars with the minister to find out exactly what they should be doing: they may well find out what they can get away with. That is the reality of life. I wonder: if there were an expose in a couple of years time, with very large amounts of money and very large numbers of ordinary mums and dads in Australia affected, would we come back and say that we did not know?Senator Sherry said that, under superannuation funds, there can be a situation where trustees turn over up to four times per year. That may well be the case, but there is a difference under managed investment funds. I understand that, whereas under super funds you may have a say in who your trustees are by electing your trustees, managed investment funds have people appointed without your say-so. Once again, you have something that super funds do not have. We are suggesting that, if there is that hands-off situation in relation to managed investment funds, there needs to be some kind of quid pro quo. That is not being given, we believe, in terms of this legislation.I can read the numbers. I also see that Senator Cook is back. I hope he has had a really nice dinner and has had time to consider my previous amendments. From what Senator Sherry said, it looks as though I am not going to be particularly successful with the Greens WA amendment No. 7. More is the pity, but I think we are going to be back in this chamber in a couple of years time—providing we are all still here and are not dealing perhaps with parties who do not put in this kind of work—to check legislation and deal with it again, to try to clear up the mess.Amendment not agreed to.19:53:003649Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 22 (lines 1 to 6), omit subsection (4), substitute: (4) The responsible entity must send a copy of the scheme's constitution to a member of the scheme within 7 days if the member asks the responsible entity, in writing, for the copy, and must not charge the member any fee for the copy.We are now dealing with the next stage. Having clearly found what the majority in the Senate were saying in relation to Greens (WA) amendment No. 7, this gives another opportunity for some level of notice in relation to members. This ensures that members have access to the constitution of the fund—it only requires a request in writing. It deletes the previous requirement in the bill that allowed access to the constitution only if the member paid for it. We are saying that people will know and people will be able to get funds back—or may be able to get funds back. Senator Cooney has clearly indicated that if you cannot prove in advance that a manager has broken the law then you have got to take the risk of taking them all the way down the line—if you can afford the risk—to try to get your funds back or try to get recourse.We are asking that members have guaranteed access to the constitution of their funds by putting it in writing. Why do we need this? Members should not have financial limitations on access to such important information that outlines important features such as voting rights. Knowledge of the constitution and people's rights under it are important to investor protection. As there is no trustee, members will have to take more initiative to ensure their rights are not abrogated. They should not have impediments to having access to their rights.If, as the government and the opposition have indicated, and the opposition has indicated, this recourse is fair and available, then surely people need to have some information upon which they can judge whether or not the action taken by their managers has been according to the fund's constitution. We know this is going to be more difficult if the constitution can be changed without their knowledge, but at least there should be some basis by which members can be guaranteed access, if they require it.19:55:003650Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I was going to suggest to the Greens (WA) a couple of courses of action. I do have concerns—having spent the last 18 or 19 months of my life consulting with industry, investors, shareholders, people who manage funds and people who act as trustees for funds, on the fine detail of this legislation—that to make decisions not just on foot, as I think Senator Cook said earlier, but on the run, is not a sensible way. This bill was referred to a committee. Quite frankly, these amendments, at least for the government, appeared today.I was going to suggest that perhaps a constructive process—if we want to proceed down a constructive path—may well be to refer these amendments for consideration by the joint parliamentary committee. If the government and the parliament find merit in them through an inquiry, they can be incorporated. The government would have to give consideration to their incorporation, but certainly it would be open to the Greens or any other senator to move them as amendments to the Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill which we expect will be introduced into the parliament next week and debated in the next sittings of parliament. That bill contains a significant number of amendments to the Corporations Law. It certainly would be an available vehicle to the Senate within a matter of days in terms of its introduction, and a matter of only weeks in terms of its debate in this chamber. If you would like the industry that will be affected by these changes to be able to look at them—and they go into a whole range of areas to do with managed investments—I suggest that it would certainly be a more normal process to allow industry to have a view and a say on all of these amendments rather than us having to second-guess the impact they might have on managed investment schemes which, as has been pointed out by all honourable senators who have contributed to the debate, affect the lives of millions of investors across Australia. I ask Senator Margetts to give consideration to referring these amendments to the Corporations and Securities Joint Committee. I would undertake that when they are referred, as part of the committee's current reference in relation to the CLER legislation, that the government would look at the report of that committee and it would remain open to any senator to move amendments to that bill.I really have trouble with legislating company law reform and managed investment reform when I do not know whether the industry has even seen these. Surely someone has, but today is the first time that the government has seen these amendments. I reiterate that, after 18 or 19 months or longer, in discussing the fine detail of this legislation, I find it a little bit of an insult to the industry and the investing public to be trying to redesign a piece of legislation with about six hours notice.19:59:003650Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I find it a bit of an insult having to deal with legislation that has been so firmly criticised by those who know during the inquiry and the government did not take any notice themselves, quite frankly. We are responding to the kind of information that was thrown up in that inquiry and through people who we know who are experts in that field as well. I do not think simply going to the industry now and saying, `What do you think? How about you do this review on Senator Margetts's amendments?', is necessarily what is required. Maybe what there will need to be, and if I take some of the comments that Senator Cook made earlier, is a firm commitment from both sides of the Senate that there will be a set time by which these arrangements under which the legislation is dealt with are reviewed.I can take advice and I can get give you some ideas by the end of this debate as to when, I might suggest, that review could take place, but I do not think simply giving it to industry and saying, `Can you tell us what you like and what you do not like?' gives the potential problems with investors time to emerge. We are being asked to take a lot of what the government is saying here on trust. During the speeches in the second reading debate three senators here said that the practice the government is talking about is not carried out in just about any country with these kinds of investments. So it is not we who are suggesting something that is unknown; the unknown is coming from the government side. What we are trying to direct you to is some certainty for investors amongst structures that are known, that do have some track record, rather than what the government is proposing. The cautious ones here are the Greens and the Democrats, and some within the opposition who probably are not in the chamber at the moment. It is not we who are leaping; it is you who are leaping. The cost will be to those people who are being put at risk. I can see what your intention is. I will still be arguing my amendments as they come. I will count the numbers as I go and if it is obvious that it is not going through, at least those arguments are on the record. When the expose is done eventually on Four Corners or on the Sunday program or whatever, at least I will be on the record as saying that you could have done it another way.20:01:003651Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My riding instructions are that we do not support this amendment. I might say, though, that I am inclined to take a view that the constitution of an entity ought to be available to the members of the entity. The provisions of the bill do make it available upon the payment of a fee up to the prescribed amount required by the responsible entity. When we are talking about the constitution of some body we are talking about the rules and procedures of that body that cover and bind its members. In order to discharge one's responsibility as a member, one ought to be well advised about the rules. Not knowing ought not to be an excuse. Knowing should be within the reach of everyone. So I take a plain man's view of this amendment.I would be grateful if there were some guidance from the Parliamentary Secretary. When we say that `a responsible entity must send a copy of the scheme's constitution to a member of the scheme within seven days if the member asks the responsible entity in writing for the copy and pay any fee up to the prescribed amount required by the responsible entity', one presumes that the member will be made aware of this entitlement at the relevant point and can therefore exercise their right and that the fee they would be required to pay is not a userious fee; it is a fee that simply covers the cost of the transmission and printing of the document.Could the Parliamentary Secretary confirm with me that that would be the intention of how this provision would operate and indicate whether he has anything to say on what the level of fee might be or on how one ought to regard what is a fair charge—whether the fee just pays the cost of printing and postage or whatever. `Up to a prescribed amount' means, I think, that in the regulations an amount will appear. If there is any advice you can provide to the chamber as to what that might be at this stage, I would appreciate it.20:04:003651Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government's view is that it would be a cost recovery operation. If people do want to know their rights and obligations they would want to get a copy of the relevant legislation. If they want to do that, they will have to buy it either from a Commonwealth government bookshop or from CCH or some other supplier of the legislation. If they want a copy of the constitution of a scheme, that will be available on the ASIC database. They are required to pay a fee for accessing it there. Furthermore, if they want a copy of a company's constitution, it is open for companies to pay for that.Finally, I do not know what current practice is. I have not inquired into this. It is the sort of thing that could be inquired into if you allowed it. And I did not say, Senator Margetts, `industry'. I said industry might like to comment on all these amendments. I said that a joint parliamentary inquiry into the effect of these amendments would certainly give the government more information on their effect. I do not know whether it is done at the moment, but certainly in the current legislation there is no requirement that members of a scheme be provided with a copy of the constitution for free. So to that extent it would be a departure from the existing legislation, I am informed.20:06:003652Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Basically what we are saying is that members will have to pay to access knowledge of their rights. Those are the rules that they are supposed to abide by and that other people are supposed to abide by in relation to them. If it is cost recovery, I guess we are back to the position of who is going to determine what the cost of putting together those changes are. It could be that one of their managers decided that they would have to have a conference in Europe in order to change some particular elements. This is a far-flung example, but who is going to change that? You were invited to give an idea of whether or not in these unseen regulations there would be some kind of ceiling limit and cost recovery. It could mean almost anything, depending on where the managers might have gone to have their conference in order to decide what the changes to the constitution might be. So we are still left none the wiser on the basis that you have user-pays. The people whose money is being used in order for the managed funds to make their money are going to have to pay for their rights as members. Terrific.Amendment not agreed to.20:07:003652Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I move:(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 24 (line 21), after "may", insert ", with the approval of the ASC,".(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 25 (after line 8), at the end of section 601HE, add: (3) The responsible entity must give notice in writing to members of any modification to the compliance plan, or of a new compliance plan, 21 days before lodging the proposed changes with the ASC under subsection (1). (4) The responsible entity must send a copy of the scheme's compliance plan to a member of the scheme within 7 days if the member asks the responsible entity, in writing, for the copy, and must not charge the member any fee for the copy. (5) A summary of the compliance plan of a managed investment scheme: (a) must be contained in every prospectus issued in respect of the managed investment scheme; and (b) must set out the main provisions of the compliance plan.What we are looking at here is access to the compliance plan. Greens (WA) amendment No. 10 relates to approval—that approval by the ASC is required for all changes to the compliance plan. Amendment No. 11 requires that members must be given notice of changes to the compliance plan, that they will have access to the compliance plan and that new members should be able to inspect the compliance plan. I find it amazing to think that there should be some concept that this should not happen.Why do we think this should happen? It is a document of fundamental importance for investor protection. The bill replaces compliance supervision by an independent trustee with supervision by either a majority of independent directors—that means a minority could object—or by a compliance committee. In either case, the compliance plan is the blueprint for compliance with the Corporations Law and the scheme's constitution. Like the scheme's constitution, the compliance plan is a document of fundamental importance for the scheme, including provisions for the manner in which scheme property is to be identified and held, when assets are to be valued, ensuring adequate record keeping and so on. It also provides notice of information of investors.Under the bill, changes to this document may be made without notice to investors, like the constitution. Investors should have notice of changes to the compliance plan to be able to assess any potential implications of the change. This amendment requires 21 days notice to members of any changes. It requires access and members should be able to receive a copy of the compliance plan free of charge, similar to what we said under the constitution. The scheme exists for the benefit of members, and members should face no impediments in receiving information about their investment scheme. It should provide access for new investors to free and informed choice. Why not? Because the compliance plan is of fundamental importance to the running of the scheme and to investor protection. A summary of the plan should be attached to the prospectus so that investors may judge for themselves whether or not the scheme is something they would wish to invest in. Such a requirement promotes free and informed choice. I commend this amendment to the Senate.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Margetts be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; against—20:10:003653Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It is hard to understand that we have no response at all from either side. I know the government seems to be digging their heels in, but I think it is not unreasonable—considering that large amounts of people's money may be involved here—that they at least give some reason why this is not the case.20:10:003653Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I made it quite clear earlier on that I believe it is entirely inappropriate to make these sorts of changes to legislation on the run. The compliance plan provisions were drafted by Attorney-General Lavarch and his team. They have been the subject of consultation and discussion since December 1995, and they are designed to perform a key role in the investor protection regime. I have made it clear that the government—unless, on the absolute face of it, there is some overwhelmingly meritorious provision that cannot in any way undermine the provisions of the bill—will not be supporting these amendments. I have suggested a positive and constructive route and that is to refer them to the corporate law standing committee and have them dealt with by that committee, have them report back to the parliament and the government and to make decisions on these matters in six or seven weeks time when that bill comes back before this Senate.I cannot see merit in changing the compliance plan in this way. I have had a look at the Greens (WA) amendments as much as I have been able to do in the last five or six hours, and I do not propose to be voting for them tonight. It is a bad way to legislate.20:12:003653Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—How annoying. Fancy people coming into the Senate wanting to make changes to improve legislation to protect investors. What an annoyance. I can see why it would be easier for this government to deal with One Nation, because they are unlikely to do that. How annoying. Fancy people taking legislation seriously. Fancy people wanting to come in and protect those people you are legislating against. Fancy wanting to do that. What an annoyance. Yes, I can see that.20:12:003653Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could tell the Senate where or how members can get access to the compliance plan.20:12:003653Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—It is lodged with the Australian Securities Commission and it is available on their database for anyone in the world to see.Amendments not agreed to.20:13:003653Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 26 (line 4), after "scheme,", insert "and every 3 months thereafter,".This amendment requires the auditor of the compliance plan to audit quarterly. The reasons are to facilitate early detection of any problems, inconsistencies or fraudulent practices. Once per year, in our opinion, is insufficient. It gives the auditor the ability to monitor on an ongoing basis, and perhaps that makes the annual audit a lot quicker. Even minor breaches may be an early warning sign of more serious non-compliance in the future or serious but latent problems within the scheme. It also gives the SRE regular feedback on the compliance plan and allows the SRE to make the necessary changes. It is an incentive to be vigilant because regular audits give the SRE incentives to maintain their compliance with the plan.It is possible, under the bill as it exists now, for there to be no external audit or compliance for up to 15 months after the commencement of a scheme, given that the audit would only need to take place within three months after the end of the financial year of the scheme. So basically people would not know for some time that something had gone very wrong.Serious operational and compliance problems frequently show up in the early stages when a new scheme is developed. It is extremely important that there be frequent third party reviews of compliance in the absence of an independent trustee. These reviews should be carried out quarterly. An example of a problem that could arise with the inadequacy of the annual audit as opposed to quarterly audits is that of the payment of fees or reimbursement of expenses to the responsible entity.Under section 601GA of the bill, a scheme's constitution must provide that a responsible entity is entitled to be paid fees or be reimbursed for expenses only in relation to the proper performance of its duties. Once again, like the managers who potentially put their constitutional changes together on some overseas posh holiday—that was just an example—no independent party signs off on the fees or expenses claimed by the responsible entity. It effectively pays itself. A dishonest responsible entity could easily abuse this power unless truly independent compliance audits are carried out fairly frequently. In the absence of the independent trustee, surely this would be something that could make people feel more at ease with the scheme that the government has set up.20:16:003654Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government believes that the audit provisions and the compliance plan provisions are thorough and are designed to protect investors and to ensure that there are sound, sensible third party audits of compliance with compliance plans. We believe that to require three-monthly audits would add massive new expenses to schemes that would be to the detriment of investors—not to their benefit.20:17:003654Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Australian Democrats have some doubts about this amendment on the grounds of cost. It is unusual for auditors to audit more frequently than annually, although I would have liked to have seen a provision which would require the auditor, if they are concerned that a compliance plan may need more frequent audit because of potential problems, to advise ASIC accordingly. I would hope that they would feel free to do that anyway in case there is a problem. I am afraid that on the grounds of cost and usual practice we cannot support this amendment.20:18:003654Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—For very much the same reasons the opposition will not be supporting this amendment either.Amendment not agreed to.20:18:003654Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 22), at the end of section 601HG, add: In this section: books includes financial records.This amendment clears up any potential confusion as to what constitutes books, given that the government, the opposition and, in this case, the Democrats believe that once a year will be enough, and sometimes up to once in 15 months, for a scheme. This allows the auditor of the compliance plan access to original financial records as opposed to the mere recording of financial information on the books of the scheme. Why is this necessary? The auditor needs access to the original financial records in order to be thorough.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Margetts, I think there is a question of clarification from the parliamentary secretary.20:18:003655Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I would like to make a statement because it may save time going through that. The answer to the amendment is that under section 9 of the Corporations Law as it exists there is a definition of books which includes `a register; any other record of information; accounts or accounting records, however compiled, recorded or stored; and a document.' So there is an all-inclusive definition of books which I think you are seeking to put in which is already in the Corporations Law under managed investments legislation. We are dealing with this part of the Corporations Law and it is subject to the Corporations Law. It would make the amendment unnecessary. I am happy to bring this over to Senator Margetts if she would like.20:19:003655Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—That was not a point of order from the parliamentary secretary; that was just an interruption of what I was saying. I thought it was quite rude. The parliamentary secretary says that this is covered by the current legislation. Perhaps it would not hurt if it had been restated, but I shall check this in the meantime and find out whether or not there are potential problems in relation to this. Can the parliamentary secretary guarantee that there will not be auditors who in this case will feel or be restricted to the financial information in the books of the scheme? Is this a guarantee that you are giving us?20:20:003655Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am advised that the answer is that there will be no problem, having regard to the definition of law which I read out in my rude interruption.20:20:003655Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Australian Democrats think that the parliamentary secretary in this instance is correct.20:20:003655Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We will not be supporting the amendment.20:21:003655Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I was just wondering whether, considering that the minister is giving us his reason for not considering my amendments more carefully, he has had a chance to look at them. I would like to know whether or not I can move that the committee report progress and we can go on to some other piece of legislation to give him a chance to have a look at the amendments, rather than dismiss them out of hand on the basis that I have not got the right to move them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If it is your wish to move that way, you can do so, Senator.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I do so. I move:That the committee report progress.Motion not agreed to.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—It just goes to prove that it is not a matter of not having the time but not wanting to and how dare I put them.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Now, Senator Margetts, we move to No. 15.20:22:003655Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(15) Schedule 1, item 1, page 29 (after line 7), at the end of Part 5C.4, add: 601HJ Members' right to information on scheme held by ASC (1) A member of a registered scheme is entitled, during normal business hours of the ASC, to inspect and take copies of any document that relates to the affairs of the scheme. (2) Subsection (1) applies to any document lodged with the ASC by: (a) that scheme; (b) that scheme's compliance committee; (c) that scheme's supervising trustee; (d) that scheme's responsible entity; or (e) another person. (3) The right under subsection (1) to inspect and take copies of documents is an additional right and does not limit subsection 601FC(2). (4) The Freedom of Information Act 1982 does not limit a member's right to gain access to information under this section. (5) An action for defamation does not lie against any person in respect of the publication by any person of a document to which a member has been granted access under subsection (1).This amendment provides investors with access at a reasonable price to documents lodged with the Australian Securities Commission or its new form. It protects them from defamation proceedings if it makes these documents public. It ensures that the Freedom of Information Act exemptions do not limit this right of access.Why is this necessary? This is necessary in terms of access because access to information is a key aspect of enforcing compliance. Remember, the parliamentary secretary said that people will have recourse if they can take their managers to court. Of course, to be able to take their managers to court, they would have to have some idea about what has gone wrong in relation to documents lodged with the ASC.It is a basic principle of trust law that beneficiaries are entitled to information about the management of their property and to inspect trust documents—and for that, I refer to re Londonderry settlement. The right of beneficiaries to inspect trust documents flows logically from their ownership of what they have paid for. It ensures that the right of access cannot be modified or abolished.However, this right can be modified or cut down by the trust instrument, or it may be adversely affected by contracts binding the responsible entity to commercial secrecy. Thus, the responsible entity could limit investors' normal rights to inspect trust documents by entering into a commercial agreement with confidentiality clauses. For instance, a responsible entity may sign such contracts with its parent company to shield documents from investors.As the bill stands, there is also nothing to stop a scheme's constitution prohibiting—I repeat, prohibiting—a member's access to any information. For instance, the constitution could say that members may be entitled to inspect documents after giving one month's notice in writing of their wish to do so. Inspection shall be subject to the absolute discretion of the single responsible entity, and the single responsibility entity shall be under no obligation to give reasons for the exercise of this discretion.Obviously, in terms of accountability, the threat of publicity is all very important. The most potent inducement to compliance is to ensure that investors in managed funds have a clear and unqualified statutory right to any information held by the ASC—and, remember, the parliamentary secretary has just said that documents lodged by the ASC could be accessed. In relation to the fund, financial transparency is assured, and the markets are better insulated from potential abuses of trust or conflicts of interest—for instance, responsible entities using investor funds to bolster the profits of an associated underwriter facing a shortfall.Potential publicity is a powerful inducement for responsible entities to avoid such conflicts of interest. Since defamation law is frequently used to suppress reporting of financial irregularities, it is desirable that publication of documents be privileged and that the law not be allowed to be used to draw an opaque screen over questionable actions of fund managers.It should be noted that defamation law is never available to hinder free press reporting in the financial markets of the United States. Overseas analysts have commented unfavourably on how, in some countries in the region, such as Malaysia, legal threats have been used to suppress adverse economic or investment commentary. Are we going to have that in here to be competitive with the region?In terms of transparency, much has been made recently of how the Asian financial crisis owes much to lack of financial transparency—and haven't we said a lot to the region about how this should be avoided—and how crony capitalism has masked underlying weaknesses in investment. It could be most unfortunate if the bill were to proceed without measures to ensure full transparency to investors on how their funds are managed. It is hardly necessary to state how such an omis sion would damage Australia's financial reputation.One expects this amendment to have the support of the government, which is at pains to differentiate Australia's financial system from some of those in Asia and to dispel overseas ideas that our markets are rigged by insiders, like some Asian financial markets. This amendment should provide early warning, because investors raising queries on documents with the ASC may well act as an early warning system for spotting potential problems of fund mismanagement, and it does not affect strategic decision making.This right of investors to know does not cut across fund managers' strategic decision making or prejudice beneficial investment opportunities for investors since the documents and reports would normally go to the ASC after investment decisions have been made and implemented. It would only be in a rare case of dispute over legality or propriety of disposed investment that reports might become public in advance. But that is proper and appropriate, as investors ought to know if there are serious questions over proposed investments.In relation to avoiding exemption in the freedom of information, as the Freedom of Information Act applies to the Australian Securities Commission, it is necessary to ensure that the intention of this section is not thwarted by claims of exemption under the act, such as client privilege or commercial in confidence. It is simply not appropriate that an investor seeking information as to what has been done with his or her money be met with any ground of refusal by an administrative body charged with a duty of monitoring the investment scheme.There should be a cap on price. Investors are free to take copies of documents with their own equipment, such as portable scanners, without being charged, or to have the ASC provide copies for them at not more than 20c per page. This figure is reasonable in light of the fees and taxes paid by investors towards the ASC's running costs—otherwise, the government would be getting us to pay twice. What we are saying is more than reasonable. Basically, we are saying that we should have some transparency with people's money. Honourable senators may remember that, when the Greens (WA) asked that people have access to information about their superannuation funds originally—that is, where their money was going—shock, horror, the world was going to fall apart. Now we are proudly told by the insurance industry that this is part of normal practice; all good insurance companies do it—and, of course, there are legal requirements in there. We were part of the process which required that to happen—and the world did not end. In fact, it is considered to be quite good commercial practice for people to be able to tell others where their choices are within superannuation.So I do not believe that the world will end here either. We are talking about people's basic right to know what is being done with their money—not anybody else's money. We are not protecting some commercial in confidence relating to otherwise unknown entities; we are talking about people being able to access what is happening to their own money. Hence, I would commend this amendment to the Senate.20:30:003657Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—A few points that Senator Margetts makes demand a response. Firstly, the information must be lodged with the ASC, will be entered on the database and will be accessible by the public. Secondly, the ASC is entirely funded by levies on corporations. Even though corporations are taxpayers, it is not funded from the consolidated revenue in the normal way; it is actually entirely funded by fees charged to companies and it is entirely self-funded. Finally, even if you were overseas on a junket fiddling with your constitution, you could not put in your constitution that members had to give three months notice or whatever in writing and charge them an exorbitant fee, because 601GC(4) requires that the constitution be provided to a member within seven days for a fee which is limited by regulation.20:31:003658Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This amendment would put a new clause—clause 601HJ—after the existing clause 601HI entitled, `Members' right for information on scheme held by ASC'. Quite clearly, the reason why certain materials have to be made available to the ASC—or the ASIC, as it will now become—is that they are matters that ought to be available to the public and on the public record, and they are lodged there for that purpose. I think to pretend there is some sort of veil of prevention to access those documents, as this seems to suggest, is wrong. In fact, it is quite counter to the purposes of the provisions within the ASIC itself. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment.20:32:003658Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I remind the Senate that basically the problem occurs when those documents are withheld, and there might potentially be some reason for the ASC to withhold them which might not be fair on the actual investor, the holder of money. The concern was not that it was not lodged with the ASC—we know it is—but there are a number of reasons why information about a person's own investments are, in fact, withheld by the ASC. We are saying there should be a right of access, and there is no good reason I can think of why a person does not have a right of access to their own documentation lodged with the ASC.Amendment not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—We now move to Greens (WA) amendments 16 to 20.20:33:003658Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I do not want to be rude and interrupt—genuinely; I try not to be rude—but can I suggest that Senator Margetts might give some consideration to moving amendments Nos 21, 22 and 23 while she is moving amendments Nos 16 to 20. They all deal with the functions of the compliance committee, and it might be natural to cognate debate on those. I understand that we are now moving to amendments Nos 16 to 20.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is correct. Senator Margetts can take that into account. 20:33:003658Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If the government is saying that it is going to say no to all of them, it is really up to the rest of the Senate, if I ask that amendments 16 to 23 be dealt with cognately, whether that will affect the rights of others. So I am happy to seek leave to deal with amendments Nos 16 to 23 cognately, providing that does not interfere with the rights of anybody else in the chamber.Leave granted.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—I move:(16) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (line 16), at the end of paragraph (a), add "and the ASC".(17) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (line 17), after "entity", insert "and the ASC".(18) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (lines 23 to 26), omit paragraph (c).(19) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (line 28), after "entity", insert "and the ASC".(20) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (line 30), after "entity", insert "and the ASC".(21) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (after line 31), at the end of section 601JC, add: (2) In carrying out its functions, the compliance committee may commission independent legal, accounting or other professional advice or assistance, at the reasonable expense of the responsible entity.(22) Schedule 1, item 1, page 33 (line 15), at the end of subsection 601JD(1), add: ; and (e) act solely in the best interests of the members of the registered scheme.(23) Schedule 1, item 1, page 33 (after line 21), at the end of section 601JD, add: (3) A member of the scheme's compliance committee has the same duties as an auditor of the compliance plan under subsection 601HG(4) and has qualified privilege under section 601JE in respect of a notification made to the ASC under subsection 601HG(4). (4) A member of the scheme's compliance committee has the same rights of access to all information provided to the auditor of the compliance plan under subsections 601HG(5) and (6). (5) A member of the compliance committee is liable to the members of the scheme in respect of the duties set out in this section.Amendments Nos 16 to 20 ensure that the compliance committee reports any breaches to the Australian Securities Commission as well as to the SRE. They also require the compliance committee to report its assessment of the adequacy of the compliance plan to the ASC as well as to the SRE. Currently, this bill only requires the compliance committee to report to the Australian Securities Commission if it is satisfied the SRE has not taken or will not take appropriate action. Currently, the Australian Securities Commission is not privy at all to the comments on the adequacy of the compliance plan.Why is it necessary? It increases the independent watchdog role. It is not enough to tell the responsible entity what it, itself, has done and only report to the Australian Securities Commission if the responsible entity has taken no action to remedy those breaches. If the compliance committee has to wait until the responsible entity takes action—if it takes action—before informing the regulator, the compliance committee's role as independent watchdog is severely weakened.In terms of timing, significant damage may occur to members' investments in the meantime through improper dealings and possibly fraud. It facilitates early detection of problems. Although it seems a routine matter, a report on these matters to the ASC will serve as an early warning mechanism that there may be problems with the quality or level of compliance required of the responsible entity and, thus, larger, more serious problems can be averted. If the SRE knows that all breaches will be reported to the Australian Securities Commission, they have an incentive to ensure that they are following the compliance plan to the letter. It is not an onerous requirement; this extra requirement will require no more than a postage stamp or the electricity required for a fax or an e-mail.Greens (WA) amendment No. 21 relates to independent advice available to the compliance committee. It allows the compliance committee to have independent legal, accounting, computing or other specialist professional advice to assist it in making assessments. Why is it necessary? In carrying out its functions in an independent fashion, the compliance committee may need this advice. It should have the right to acquire such advice independently and at the expense of the responsible entity so that it can perform its functions thoroughly. One wonders what they might be forced to do if they did not have that right.Amendment No. 22 increases duties on compliance committee members. Compliance committee members are required to act solely in the interests of members. Why? Because under the bill the duties of compliance committee members are significantly less strict than those of the board of directors. Because the compliance committee members stand in the place of independent directors and have the role of scheme watchdog in the absence of an independent trustee, the members of the compliance committee should have at least the same scope of responsibility as the directors of the responsible entity. Compliance committee members should act as fiduciaries solely in the interest of investors; they should not be the servants of two masters.Amendment No. 23 relates to new section 601JD(3). This requires that each member report any compliance breaches to the ASC. Why not? It requires that compliance committee members are given qualified privilege regarding notification of breaches to the Australian Securities Commission so that they have some protection and thus will not be reluctant to perform their duty to notify the Australian Securities Commission. It is necessary to create a positive duty. Although it is stated to be a function of the compliance committee itself, placing a positive duty on each member of the committee ensures that breaches must be reported.Arguably, a statement of function is not the same as a positive duty to do something, nor is it as strong an indication of the importance of the requirement. Thus the committee members should have a positive duty to report breaches of the constitution, of the compliance plan and of the Corporations Law of which they become aware as soon as possible to the ASC. Remember that we have heard that there is no guarantee that the members are going to know that these things are happening. These are the same requirements as those placed on the auditor of the compliance plan.Amendment No. 23 also has a new subsection 601JD(4), which gives compliance committee members access to documents. For compliance committee members to be effective, they must have access as of right to the records, documents and offices of the responsible entity. How would they report otherwise? This amendment gives them the same rights of access to information enjoyed by the compliance plan auditor under section 601HG(5) and 601HG(6).Amendment No. 23 also inserts a new subsection 601JD(5). This makes compliance committee members directly liable to investors for failure to perform their statutory duties. It enables greater accountability, and a high level of responsibility and accountability such as this strengthens investor protection and, should I say, investor confidence. Compliance committee members will take their responsibilities seriously and remain vigilant regarding compliance by the responsible entity if this is the case.Considering that I have put all my arguments together, I will be very pleased to hear the details of why the government this time does not like them. Of course, I am still happy to see that there will be some review of this later if all of them are knocked back.20:40:003660Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I can assure Senator Margetts that this scheme will be kept under review by the parliament and also by the government, and most definitely on a day-to-day basis by the ASIC.I will respond specifically to the amendments moved by the Greens (WA), firstly Nos 16 to 20. These amendments attack, not in an aggressive way but in a philosophical way, the concept of the responsible entity. We are trying to build here a culture of compliance within managed investment schemes, where the responsibility is placed on the directors. That is different to the concept of having an outside trustee looking over the shoulders of the directors and other third parties all trying to have their say. We are trying to build structures within managed investment organisations that create a culture of compliance, and the compliance committee is part of that. It has functions as defined in the law, and in many respects the Greens' amendments say that they have quite specific duties and try to set out those duties in a check list sort of approach. I guess members of compliance committees could, if they had ticked the boxes, say, `I have been a good compliance committee member,' just by ticking that box that the law places in front of them, and then forget the other duties and responsibilities they might owe.The bill seeks to adopt what we consider the more correct position, the one that will maximise investor protection. Under this position, the compliance committee must report any breaches to the responsible entity and it also must report the breaches to the ASC if it believes that the responsible entity is failing to act. In other words, if the responsible entity has had a report made by the compliance committee and the responsible entity fails to act on that report, the ASC must be advised. We think that seeks the right balance. It is encouraging internal redress before you run off to the ASC. The ASC certainly does not need to be made aware of each and every breach, no matter how minor or inadvertent. But, if there is failure to act, certainly it becomes a responsibility of the compliance committee to inform the ASC.We also note that under section 601FC(1)(l) the responsible entity is under a duty to report to the ASC any breach of the law that has had or is likely to have a materially adverse effect on members' interests as soon as practical after it becomes aware of the breach.Greens' amendment No. 21, together with Greens' amendments Nos 22 and 23—these comments relate equally to those now cognated amendments—would probably create a situation where the members of the compliance committee owed fiduciary duties directly to investors in the scheme. As I have said a couple of times, this begins to undermine the foundations of the single responsible entity concept, and once you do that you then undermine the move that the Managed Invest ments Bill sets up—that is, creating a direct fiduciary responsibility, uninterrupted, between the responsible entity and the investors.Once again, the amendment—I do not think it is doing so intentionally—seeks to undermine this concept. It seeks to set up an array of fiduciary obligations to members which may well conflict with those of the responsible entity or confuse members as to the responsible entity's duties. This is the problem. If you are all of a sudden whittling away at the responsible entity concept by setting up fiduciary responsibilities around that entity to the extent that those bodies, compliance committees and other parts of the structure, owe fiduciary responsibilities directly to investors, you reduce the responsibility of the directors of the responsible entity.That is what is at the core of the concept. You want to keep the directors of the responsible entity wholly and fully responsible to the investors. Sure, you can contract out managerial type responsibilities within the scheme, but they cannot, and cannot be allowed to by the law, contract out their fiduciary responsibility to the investors, which is paramount in this scheme.20:45:003661Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—If we get a situation where perhaps the whole of the committee knows that a director is doing the wrong thing and they are not required by law to say anything, what will be the legal comeback after that?20:45:003661Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—They are required to. If the responsible entity has been informed of that breach and they have not taken action on it, they are required to report it. Furthermore, there is another internal redress, which we have already covered, and that is the independent third party audit of compliance with the compliance plan. So, even if the compliance committee are not fulfilling their duties, the auditors will pick up on that. We believe it is an integrated structure that offers the best protection for investors and protection of the investors' funds. It is also a different approach to that which is built into the existing scheme, where you are relying on a number of different organisations, primarily the trustee and the manager, owing separate fiduciary responsibilities to investors. This one tries to build a different culture; it tries to build a culture of compliance within the organisations.20:47:003661Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The parliamentary secretary says that we should be able to trust those people who have the role of carrying out those responsibilities. The simple question here is: if what we are trying to do in our amendments is to make sure that culture is an automatic one—that people know there are a number of people who also have a statutory obligation to advise if they are doing the wrong thing—does not what we are doing ensure a greater level of compliance? Are your actions and your changes going to, or are they designed to, increase the level of compliance or maintain the level of compliance, or is it crossing your fingers and hoping for the best?20:48:003661Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I guess that is more of a second reading, philosophical type question, but it is an important one. The government is setting up this scheme, which puts in place onerous responsibilities on directors and members of compliance committees, because we believe very strongly, as the former Attorney-General Mr Lavarch did, that you cannot stand by and allow a legislative and regulatory structure to remain in place that allows investors to be so destroyed as they were in the Aust-Wide and Estate Mortgage collapses. That is what caused the CASAC and ALRC review to take place.Multimillions of dollars worth of investors' money went straight down the tube because there was this false sense of protection under the existing legislation. That is why Mr Duffy appointed the review, that is why Mr Lavarch brought the legislation in and that is why this government took its responsibility very seriously and spent the last 18 months looking at the failure of the existing legislative regime. We made a decision, as a government, as the previous government did, that we could not stand by—and that we would be negligent to stand by—and allow this legislative scheme to stay in place and not proceed down this path. We take that responsibility extremely seriously and that is why we are here tonight.20:49:003662Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I can agree with the government on the first tranche of what we are dealing with cognately—amendments 16 to 20—and on amendments 22 and 23. However, I have a question about amendment 21. Amendment 21 relates to the function of the compliance committee. It is proposed that there be an extra clause added to the provisions in the bill which would say:In carrying out its functions, the compliance committee may commission independent legal, accounting or other professional advice or assistance, at the reasonable expense of the responsible entity.Prima facie, there is a point here which goes to what qualifications and background might the compliance committee have. Can the parliamentary secretary enlighten me on that and foreshadow where this question heads? If they do not have available to them, within their committee, the necessary professional qualifications, what is to prevent them from accessing this type of advice anyway within the bill as it stands without this amendment?20:51:003662Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The compliance committee is a creature of the responsible entity and it is very much in the interests of the responsible entity to ensure that the compliance committee fulfils its roles and functions under the compliance plan. If it fails to do so then it is going to be in breach not only of its own plan but also of the law. It is a function of the responsible entity. The entity is required by the law to ensure the compliance committee works properly and complies with the law. So it is in the interests of the scheme, in the interests of the responsible entity and in the interests of the investors to ensure the compliance committee is given the resources and information it requires. There is nothing to prevent that happening; in fact, it is all designed to encourage that to happen.20:52:003662Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Do I understand that answer to mean that, if this amendment were not carried, nonetheless, the compliance committee could, if it felt the need, commission independent legal, accounting or other professional advice or assistance at a reasonable expense of the responsible entity in order that it discharge its obligations under the provisions of this bill?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That assumption is quite correct.20:52:003662Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The parliamentary secretary is quite right. What he is experiencing here is indeed a philosophical clash, and the clash is between those who think that the bill has inadequate investor protection and the government which thinks that their bill improves investor protection. What Senator Margetts has been seeking to do is assist elements of the bill to help protect investors to a greater degree.That same clash is evident in the parliamentary secretary's interpretation—and, indeed, the government's interpretation—of the collapse of Aust-wide and other funds some years ago. Those on the side of the trustees having a role to play in fund management were acquainted at the hearings by extensive evidence, including in camera, that the presence of trustees enabled greater recovery of moneys to occur than if the trustees had not been there.What we are talking about here, parliamentary secretary, is not a perfect system as it exists, and I would doubt that you would claim that your proposed system would be perfect. You are merely, I hope, proposing that it would be better. Nevertheless, since it is a clash of views, I think you should accept that the evidence is there to support both sides of the argument. You obviously put your side and Senator Margetts and others will put theirs.I, as you know, have long campaigned on this bill to enhance investor security. I believe that these particular sets of amendments do not take away from the bill but that they add to the protections that investors might look for. In particular, if Senator Cook, on behalf of the ALP, is inclined to separate out item 21 and support it, I would support that course of action as well.20:55:003663Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question in relation to the investigation by the ASC into the Crown Casino. What was the basis upon which the Crown Casino's management was actually investigated?20:56:003663Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—That question is entirely irrelevant to this area because that happened under the continuous disclosure regime, under ASX listing rules and under the corporations law. Managed investment schemes are quite different creatures from that. That is why we have this piece of legislation. They are very different creatures.20:56:003663Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The parliamentary secretary has chosen not to answer. A board member actually had to resign in this particular case in order to pass on to the Australian Securities Commission information which would not have reached them otherwise. That is the kind of message that I am trying to give. In the case of Crown Casino, just requiring the management to do the right thing obviously did not work by itself, and there needed to be that backup to make sure that the ASC actually did take action and investigate.20:57:003663Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I am sure the parliamentary secretary has answered this fully, but I am struggling to keep up. If I may indulge the Senate for a moment, I would like to go back over it. When I talked about amendment 21 of the Greens, I asked whether it was possible for the compliance committee to do these things without there being this amendment carried, and I understood the answer to be yes. In that case, it would seem to me that the need to carry this amendment is removed. Obviously if it is within the competence of the committee to do so and they do not breach any law or other provision, then they can have access to outside professional accounting, legal or other advice.Since I raised that matter, I note that the Australian Democrats have also expressed an interest in this. Whilst accepting your advice, parliamentary secretary, would you mind pointing to the section of the bill which states how they may exercise that responsibility?20:58:003663Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I would point out two things. Firstly, there is nowhere in the bill that says that they are allowed to do that, but certainly they are not prohibited from doing it. Paragraph (b) of section 601JD(1), which deals with duties of members, states that a member of a scheme's compliance committee must:. . . exercise the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they were in the member's position; andParagraph (c) states:not make use of information acquired through being a member of the committee in order to . . .To not seek that advice, to not get that professional assistance, could in fact be contrary to their duties. I do not think any reasonable person could say, `Sorry, that wasn't available. I am going to lock myself in a glass cage and I cannot get the information.' That is unreasonable, and I am sure any court would find that.In terms of members of the compliance committee giving information to ASIC—or ASC as it is at the moment and, I think, will be until 1 July—there are two matters that the Senate should be aware of. I am sure Senator Cook, Senator Margetts and all senators would be interested in this. A member of the compliance committee under subsection 601JD(2) is required to take all reasonable steps to assist the ASC—so it is quite a positive duty there—in carrying out a check under subsection 601FF(1).In terms of providing information to the ASC, which is a matter Senator Margetts has just raised in relation to the Crown matter, 601JE states:A member of a scheme's compliance committee has qualified privilege in respect of a statement concerning the operation of the scheme made by or on behalf of the committee, or a member of the committee, to the responsible entity or to the ASC. So they have quite significant protection there in making reports. I think that covers one of the issues that you raised earlier.My attention has just been drawn to page 23 of the bill. Paragraph (b) of section 601HA, the contents of compliance plan requirements, states:(b) if the scheme is required to have a compliance committee . . . ensuring that the compliance committee functions properly, including adequate arrangements relating to:(i) the membership of the committee; and(ii) how often the committee meetings are to be held; and(iii) the committee's reports . . .Subparagraph (v) states:the committee's access to information that is relevant to the responsible entity's compliance with this Law . . . So I think it is making it quite clear that they have access to that and resourcing to that extent. It would be obviously unreasonable for that not to occur.21:01:003664Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I am grateful for that explanation. Would I be right in assuming that, if a compliance committee wanted to commission some outside advice and were advised, for example, by the single responsible entity, then under section 601JD, duties of members, they could then rely on the points you have referred to as being their responsibility in seeking that advice and, if there were still some obstruction, the logical course of action for them then to take would be to go to the ASC or the ASIC?21:02:003664Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Committee members, I believe, have qualified privilege so that allows them to speak only between themselves and the ASC. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the committee members had a requirement to assist the ASC in an investigation. I do not think anyone is disputing that that could be the case. I am suggesting that there needs to be some point by which that information is naturally put to the ASC if there is a compliance fault. It is all very well people virtually waiting, feeling they need to wait or waiting for some reason until the ASC asks them and then assisting but perhaps not saying anything or lying doggo until they are asked and maybe then and only then telling the truth. We are suggesting that that may well be too late.If you are suggesting that a member of a committee could have given information without being sued earlier, I do not know if that is correct because it depends whom they were giving it to. In relation to the committee members, it is a qualified privilege between committee members and the ASC. So, basically, they are not entirely covered to make that information public.21:04:003664Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am informed by greater legal minds than mine that it is qualified to the extent that, firstly, it must be provided to the ASC; it cannot be provided to other people. Secondly, it is qualified to the extent that, if the information that was being provided was malicious or not in good faith, then the privilege would not apply in that respect.21:04:003664Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I was just asking the parliamentary secretary what the ASC can do with that information. Do they themselves have privilege to be able to provide that to the wider public arena or do they themselves not have privilege?21:05:003664Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The ASC does indeed have a qualified privilege to do that.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—To do what?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—To provide that information to the public if it so chooses. That was the question, was it not? If the ASC received this information to say that the Margetts trust funds management is stuffing up and not complying with their plan and that is provided by Andrew Murray, who is on the compliance committee who gets his qualified privilege, then Mr Cameron can say, `This is information that is in the public interest,' and they have privilege in relation to that information. That is something the ASC does fairly regularly in relation to breaches of the Corporations Law now.21:05:003665Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The compliance committee `may commission independent advice'. Is that basically a right that they have? There is nothing in the legislation which says they may not or cannot do that. But basically it says, if it is in legislation, somebody will assist them, I guess. If someone went to a tax adviser or a financial lawyer and said, `What can I do here?', then at least there would be something that said, `You have the right to commission other professional advice.' That may well be of assistance.If it is not said that it cannot be done, I am not sure that that means necessarily that they will have access to that or that information that is provided to them will actually be able to be used in the way they would like it to be. So I do agree with Senator Cook—at least that is what I think Senator Cook was saying. If we were to vote on that, then perhaps we might get a reasonable outcome. It is a highly reasonable that people should be able to access that kind of advice in order to benefit from reasonable outcomes. That advice should be there potentially as a right and should be considered to be part of the proper process.21:07:003665Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Just for the record, I think the parliamentary secretary said yes in answer to my earlier question. I see him nodding in the affirmative and I take that to be affirmation that my statement is now true.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—What—that they can do it?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No, earlier I asked: if the compliance committee wanted to exercise their rights under duties of members and somehow or other they were told by the single responsible entity that that person would not pay for the outside consultations of professionals, then could they exercise their rights under section 601JD, duties of members? And if there were still some obstruction, could they then go and approach the ASC or the ASIC? They were my questions and I think for the Hansard record they were overtaken by a subsequent question without the reply being included in the Hansard . The reason why I have just sought affirmation is to get the reply in Hansard .H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You have got a nod in the Hansard .RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I have got a nod in the Hansard . But I think the Hansard would show that you have said yes.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I understand someone gave a wink last night and it is not good enough for me to give a nod tonight, so I will say yes.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—A wink and a nod together might be a more compelling affirmation. This is a problem that I am trying to wrestle with. I think the functions of the compliance committee are quite important. I do not gainsay for one moment any of the explanations made by the parliamentary secretary, and I think all of them are true. Therefore, if one took a rigid reading of legislation—the reading I am prone to always take, I must say—then there is no need to unnecessarily clutter the bill with explanatory amendments which are not needed when one can read into this the normal rights and responsibilities of a body such as a compliance committee or the rights, responsibilities and duties of members.The question now, though, however sums down in my mind to whether I ought to vote for amendment 21 on the grounds that it provides a signpost in the legislation which may direct people in doubt as to what their rights are to, in fact, what their rights might be. So that we are not taking things as understood or read within the legislation; it is clearly stated in there. As I say, my normal approach to this is not to clutter legislation unnecessarily. From time to time I have voted against amendments which simply restate provisions that are written in the law everywhere in the bill and make it a cluttered and unreadable document. I often vote against amendments which set out general statements. This is an amendment which sets out a general statement.I am tempted to vote for it, but I must say that I think I am talking myself into not doing so on the basis that, to anyone who is in any doubt about this debate, the Hansard must surely be a fairly clear guide as to what the rights and obligations are and what the parliament thinks is the appropriate way of handling them. While it is appealing to put a signpost amendment in, I think it is better to keep the legislation as clean and as uncluttered as possible.21:11:003666Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I was hoping to be able to help Senator Cook, but I think he has persuaded himself otherwise. I would say this to you about amendment 21, Senator Cook: we all in this room have probably sat on committees. Some of us have sat on boards. A few of the lucky ones have been ministers or parliamentary secretaries. We are aware that, if there is doubt, generally speaking you look for black letter. You either go to your constitution—or your memorandum and articles, as they used to be—or you go to the act. This specific area is an area in which, in my view, a compliance committee may be populated by people who may not be aware of the forceful approach that they might be entitled to take. Let us assume that they have some fund managers who are in turn rather forceful. Those fund managers may persuade them that to go in this direction would exceed their brief or what they are allowed to do. I think it highly unlikely that, in those circumstances, they are going to refer to the Hansard record. I think it highly likely that they will refer either to the act or to the constitution.If there had been a note in the act that would, I think, have met your hope, Senator Cook. Senator Margetts has not designed it as a note. I think its explicitness does not take away from the intention of the bill. I think it adds to the independent powers of the compliance committee. It is, I think, Parliamentary Secretary, your intention that the members of the compliance committee exhibit both independence and determination to ensure that investors' funds are appropriately protected. I may have been too late to intervene, but that is my view, for what it is worth, Senator Cook.21:13:003666Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Mr Temporary Chair man, I have been cogitating on the remarks of the Australian Democrats. I must say that the remark that does persuade me in this case is that the type of people concerned here may not be the type of people who are familiar with reading the Hansard record. I am inclined, therefore, to reverse my earlier expression of opposition to this amendment.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I can give you some other reasons, if you like.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Nothing is worse than a procrastinator. I disdain procrastination—I prefer to be decisive. If there are other reasons, Parliamentary Secretary, I do not want to delay the debate unnecessarily, but I would be silly not to listen to them. I will not insult you by not doing so.21:14:003666Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I appreciate that. It was a point that I made when I was putting it all together. It is very much making it clear that creating a special right in the law that these members can go out and do this—as opposed to leaving it as something that they would do in the normal course of their business—does create the potential and the perception that members of the compliance committee, or the compliance committee as a whole, owe a separate and different fiduciary responsibility to the investors. That is what the government is trying to avoid.As a government, in considering any amendments made by the Senate, we will look very closely at anything that impinges upon the fiduciary relationship or that even alludes to a separate relationship between a particular part of the responsible entity and the investors. Our legal advice is that there is a risk in making this explicit in the bill when you are not making a whole lot of other things explicit.Even though I have made it quite clear that there is no reason that a member of the committee could not, in reasonably carrying out their duties, go out and get that advice—and we have gone through all of the areas that make it clear that they can do so, and no-one can point to where they cannot get that advice—the risk that the government sees in this is that, by putting such a signpost in the legislation, you are creating a signpost that the parliament is saying that there is owed by these people a special fiduciary duty that is not in place for other members of the responsible entity. That is why we are concerned about that.I have just been handed another note, which reinforces the fact that they may be forced to go out and get some independent advice. If they do not have legal, accounting, investment management or whatever other advice, you may actually require them to go out and get this sort of advice. It is not simply a matter of `Let's put this in the law and make a little note': it creates a serious concern for the government, and I would ask Senator Cook to think seriously about it. I alert you to the fact that the government does take this amendment quite seriously and that we will look at it in terms of the impact it has on the single responsible entity concept, because that is where the government sees the main risk.21:17:003667Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I guess the inevitable question to the parliamentary secretary is: what on earth is the point of having this committee? What on earth do they do, if they do not have guaranteed access to original data and they do not have any guaranteed requirement that they must actually report if something is going wrong? I can imagine there must be dozens of ex-parliamentarians who would be putting their hand up gleefully to be members of these committees, because they will be paid a nice little sum of money and they will not have any responsibility. What you have done is create a nonsense of a committee that does not have any real role to play. Mr Temporary Chairman, I would like you to put amendment No. 21 first.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendment No. 21 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the remaining amendments moved by Senator Margetts be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.21:19:003667Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I move:(24) Schedule 1, item 1, page 36 (after line 3), at the end of Part 5C.5, add: 601JK Members to approve removal of external directors and compliance committee members (1) Subject to subsection (2), the responsible entity may, with the ASC's consent, remove an external director or member of the compliance committee of the responsible entity. (2) An external director of a responsible entity or a member of the compliance committee may not be removed before the expiry of his or her term of office without a special resolution of members of each scheme registered by the responsible entity approving the removal of the external director or compliance committee member at a meeting called by the responsible entity under Division 1 of Part 2G.4.Amendment No. 24 requires members to approve removal of external directors and compliance committee members. It requires a special resolution before external directors and members of the compliance committee can be removed. Currently, there is nothing to stop directors from removing these independent watchdogs at will. It is necessary because there is no security of tenure.The bill does not prevent the arbitrary removal of external directors from the board of the responsible entity, nor of compliance committee members from the compliance committee. In other words, if they give out information that some members of the board do not want known, they can be removed. There is no security of tenure, and no notice of removal is required to be given to investors of the removal of an external director or of a compliance committee member. That does compromise the independence of these people, and the performance of their functions and duties is thus severely compromised.Under the bill, these people are appointed by the responsible entity, are paid by it and can be dismissed by it without cause or due process. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a responsible entity from dismissing a truly independent external director or compliance committee member who may be asking too many probing questions and replacing them with somebody more compliant, nor perhaps from continuing to replace them until they get the right answers.21:20:003668Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We will be opposing this amendment because, already under the law, the responsible entity is under an obligation to have either a board with a majority of independent directors or a compliance committee with a majority of independent members. As long as the responsible entity complies with that requirement, the law should not be overly prescriptive about the mechanisms followed to achieve that result. There can be no doubt, certainly in the government's mind, that these amendments could result in extremely long delays in changing the composition of boards or compliance committees, where that is required, or even where the relevant board member or committee member wishes to resign.21:21:003668Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary can tell us what provisions prevent the arbitrary removal of external directors.21:22:003668Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—It would presume that, where you have a board of external directors, there would have been a majority vote for that to be achieved. It depends on what you call `arbitrary'. If you mean that you want to get rid of a director merely because you do not like the colour of his suit or whatever, you would have to have a majority on the board; and there is a requirement that the directors would have to act honestly and in good faith, as well.21:22:003668Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—If a member of the compliance committee or an external director is to be removed, is that something that would go to ASIC for notification?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is.21:23:003668Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have a question for Senator Campbell. If an external director was removed and felt that his or her removal was perhaps unjustified or for the wrong reasons, they would be able to complain to the ASC, could they not, and advise the ASC that they were concerned as to the motives?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Yes, they could.21:23:003668Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Could the parliamentary secretary advise where in the act it is stated or even assumed that a majority vote is necessary to remove an external independent director?21:23:003668Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—You would need a resolution and to pass a resolution on a board it is like this place; you need 50 per cent plus one.21:24:003668Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Is it not likely that a number of those people on the board are, in fact, employees and they put themselves at risk by perhaps dobbing in, if that was not the case? They might find their own positions at risk if they were to dob in, if those conditions were not met in any way and those kind of dismissals did not take place properly?21:24:003668Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—You do have a majority who are external directors, firstly. Secondly, the directors have a duty under the Corporations Law. They have additional duties under this to act in good faith and to act honestly.21:24:003668Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to make one further comment. We are talking about the majority of a board and in fact it means it has nothing to do with the investors at all. In the end, the decisions might be seen to be in the best interest of the board, if they have got things they do not want to be made public, but perhaps the investors might be the ones losing out here and the board might be protecting themselves or their director.Amendment not agreed to.21:25:003668Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(15) Schedule 1, item 2, page 58 (lines 6 to 22), omit section 1457, substitute:1457 What happens if neither of the bodies gives a retirement notice(1) If neither of the bodies gives a retirement notice during the first year after the commencement, the management company must: (a) as soon as practicable after the end of that year, convene a meeting of the holders of the prescribed interests to: (i) choose a proposed responsible entity for the purpose of making a registration application; or (ii) decide that the undertaking is to be wound up; or (iii) decide that the undertaking is to be registered as a managed investment scheme with a proposed responsible entity and a supervisory trustee; and (b) lodge a notice with the ASIC setting out the outcome of the meeting.(2) Before the meeting referred to in subsection (1) is held, the fund managers and trustees must prepare cases, in a form approved by the ASIC, for and against retaining a trustee in respect of a particular scheme, for joint submission to all holders of prescribed interests.(3) Any decision by holders of prescribed interests under paragraph (1)(a) must be by ballot.(4) The result of the ballot will be determined by a simple majority of holders of prescribed interests voting in the ballot.(5) The result of the ballot is binding on the scheme.(6) If, at the meeting, the holders of the prescribed interests do not choose a proposed responsible entity, decide that the undertaking is to be wound up or decide that the undertaking is to be registered with both a proposed responsible entity and supervisory trustee, the management company may apply to the Court for an order directing it to wind up the scheme.(7) If, at the meeting, the holders of the prescribed interests decide that the undertaking is to be registered as a managed investment scheme with a proposed responsible entity and a supervisory trustee: (a) the supervisory trustee will have the functions and duties set out in subsection (4); and (b) on registration of the scheme, the provisions of paragraph 601FC(1)(i), and subsection 601FC(2) and Part 5C.5 will not apply to the proposed responsible entity.(8) A supervisory trustee of a registered scheme must: (a) be approved by the ASIC to act as the supervisory trustee of the scheme; and (b) act honestly; and (c) hold scheme property on trust for scheme members; and (d) ensure that scheme property is: (i) clearly identified as scheme property; and (ii) held separately from property of the responsible entity and of the supervisory trustee; and (e) not comply with the directions of the responsible entity to deal in scheme property: (i) if a prudent person in the position of the supervisory trustee would have formed the view that the proposed dealing: (A) is not authorised by the constitution of the scheme; or (B) is inconsistent with the investment strategy set out in the prospectus issued by the responsible entity in relation to the scheme; or (ii) if the direction involves a transaction which is prohibited by Part 5C.7; and (f) monitor compliance by the responsible entity with the Corporations Law and the scheme's constitution; and (g) report breaches by the responsible entity of the Corporations Law and the scheme's constitution to the ASIC and the auditor of the compliance plan; and (h) provide a half yearly report to members of the scheme of the responsible entity's compliance with the Corporations Law and the scheme's constitution; and (i) bring civil proceedings (funded from scheme property) on behalf of members of the scheme when directed to do so by an ordinary resolution of members or with leave of the Court; and (j) not make use of information acquired through being the supervisory trustee in order to: (i) gain an improper advantage for the supervisory trustee or another person; or (ii) cause detriment to the members of the scheme; and (k) not make improper use of his or her position as the supervisory trustee to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for himself or herself or for any other person or to cause detriment to the members of the scheme; and (l) take all reasonable steps to assist the ASIC in carrying out a check under subsection 601FF(1).(9) A supervisory trustee of a registered scheme has qualified privilege in respect of a statement concerning the operation of the scheme or the operations of a responsible entity made to the members of the scheme, the auditor of the scheme's compliance plan or the ASIC.(10) A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss or damage because of conduct of the scheme's supervisory trustee that contravenes subsection (8) may recover the amount of loss or damage by action against the supervisory trustee whether or not the supervisory trustee has been convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of that contravention.(11) An action under subsection (10) must be begun within 6 years after the cause of action arises.Parliamentary Secretary, you would probably have guessed that, of all our amendments, this is the most important for us, because I know you read our minority report with great care. The essence of our argument has been that we accept that the government has the right to pursue a different direction with this bill. We accept that the government may have the right to determine that future schemes should be shaped in a manner which is determined by the government, and which all investors would know is the law, because that would be the basis on which they first enter those schemes.Our problem has consistently been with investors who are in existing schemes, who are going to find their funds changed as a result of this law, without them having any say in that whatsoever. We have consistently argued that it is contrary to the coalition's own belief in choice, and it is contrary to good and ethical practice, for that to occur. So Democrat amendment 15 goes to the heart of choice: that where investors' own money is at stake, they should have the right to determine in existing schemes whether the existing format continues or whether they move to the government's new format. We are not talking about future schemes, we are talking about existing schemes.This amendment refers to the situation where the two bodies presently existing have the opportunity to give a retirement notice. It refers to what happens if neither of the bodies gives a retirement notice. What the Democrats have recommended here is that after the first year, if neither the manager nor the trustee has retired, transitional period fund managers—and the transitional period, as you know, is two years—and trustees must separately devise the for and against cases for their scheme, have their cases approved in a form acceptable to the ASC which would ensure therefore that they are objectively and truthfully put, and put them to the vote of investors in that existing fund. We have proposed that a simple majority should determine the outcome.If, as the proponents and the supporters of the bill argue, and as the government argues, the case for single responsible entities is so overwhelming, then investors will surely plump for them. We are suggesting to you, Parliamentary Secretary, and to the government, that if this is your belief you should have faith in it and not be afraid to offer the investors choice in case they do not go with your model.Especially when you have majors such as the AMP, recently launched on the Stock Exchange with an immense thump, when you have the Bankers Trust, when you have these huge corporations like Lend Lease or very smart market operators like Macquarie, they should be able to show investors that their capital, legal and accounting resources make it possible for them to do without a trustee. But not giving investors a choice implies a fear by the government and the proponents and the supporters of this bill that investors in existing funds—not in future funds—may in fact disagree. I say to you, if they do disagree, that is their right; it is their money. It is their right to disagree. It is their right to choose to retain the existing set-up.The trustees are independent from the managers of the funds, are presently licensed by the ASC and are paid from trust assets. They are in a fiduciary relationship with members of the fund scheme. They hold the legal title to trust assets as custodian. They monitor compliance with the manager's obligations under the trust deed and they take enforcement action on behalf of fund members where the manager is in breach of the trust deed.I have had enough conversations with you, Parliamentary Secretary Campbell, and I have heard enough from you in the hearings and on the Senate floor to know that you can point to deficiencies in that relationship. I accept that there are deficiencies. What I do not accept is that investors should not be able to choose whether they stay with a system that they are familiar with even if it does have deficiencies and warts. That is my problem. My problem is not that we disagree philosophically; my problem is that existing investors are going to be compelled to change from a set-up where they may indeed find themselves more secure.Much better informed people than any of us senators in this place have said there is greater risk from this scheme. I am quite aware, too, that much better informed people have said there is less risk in the scheme. There are two sides to the coin. But why take the risk? Why not allow investors to make the choice? If we are to allow trustees a role in these cases in which they are desired by investors, desired by people—it is their money—then we felt that in this amendment that role needs to be spelt out. If you go through the amendment—it is a fairly lengthy one but it does have the virtue of having been pre-circulated—you will see that we have spelt out, both in common law and in statutory law, the understood functions of a trustee.I am pretty certain, because I have had long conversations with the Parliamentary Secretary, that he will stand up and say no to my amendment. But my plea is to the remainder of the Senate to pay attention to the needs of investors in existing schemes because the alternative—to paraphrase or to badly quote somebody else—is too ghastly to contemplate. If as a result of the choice here you end up in a situation where investors are not given that choice, and if by some chance that none us can foresee, particularly the government, whose heart is wholly behind this, some major fund goes belly-up and one of the problems is that people lose their money because a scheme is changed without regard to their own interests and their own wishes and their own needs as to how they deal with their money, I am not sure how we in this place would feel, but the government may find itself in serious legal trouble.I would certainly institute a class action if I were such an investor, or I would get other people to institute one with me, because I do not think the government should take unto itself the legislative right to change the existing ways people are investing their money without their having the opportunity to say yes or no as to whether they agree. So that is the purpose of this amendment. I commend it to the Senate.21:34:003671Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I do not know if we will be raining writs of mandamus. I guess we have to look in the future to see if that is going to be the case and whether the government has left it open, if losses do result from that, for people to be able to take action by way of class action on them for having helped to cause that situation. The embarrassment may be fairly severe, but I guess I would need further legal advice to find out whether or not there will be any recourse to government in terms of their responsibility and others who voted for it.Honourable senators would realise that I have been desperately trying to insert precautions, desperately trying to put in some fallbacks, desperately trying to provide that which was not provided in the first concept the government has come up with in relation to the single entity. Senator Murray from the Democrats has indicated that he would like to provide that choice for the investors themselves to make. The Greens WA would be prepared to support it, of course.21:35:003672Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government will not be supporting it, so I will not disappoint Senator Murray there. I regard it as being fundamentally in conflict with opposition amendment 2, which we have indicated we will support. Can I say for the record that CASC and the Law Reform Commission did look at this concept of grandfathering existing schemes. I looked at it as well, when I was doing my consultations. It would have been a very neat way for me to have assuaged the concerns of my friends in the trustee industry. It would have been very easy for me and very personally pleasant for me to say, `It is okay; we are going to grandfather you all and we can all be friends.' That would have been a very easy policy decision to make. But CASC and the Law Reform Commission looked at it. I didn't know until today that they had, quite frankly. They looked at the concept of grandfathering and said that it was the wrong thing to do because you would end up with two different regulatory regimes for two different sorts of schemes.I came to that decision. The Treasurer and the government came to the decision that to effectively end up with two different forms of collective investment in Australia, a dual legal system, additional regulatory costs and the ASC having to administer two sets of laws would be a great risk. We can debate forever whether we are better to have one system, the old system or the new system. Can I suggest to honourable senators that to have both would be a severe risk. That is the fundamental reason we are opposing this amendment.21:37:003672Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I agree with the last point by the parliamentary secretary, and I believe that the amendments that I will later move, opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 on sheet 939, are an appropriate further change to this legislation. The opposition believes it is offering members in existing schemes a choice in relation to custodial arrangements. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Murray's ) be agreed to. 21:37:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.45Bishop, M. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W.* Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.21:45:003672Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I move:(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (after line 32), at the end of section 601HA, add: (2) If: (a) a registration application is made as a result of a resolution passed under subparagraph 1457(1)(a)(i); and (b) the resolution included a direction under subsection 1457(1A); the compliance plan lodged with the application must provide for scheme property to be held by a person other than the responsible entity, or a person that is not related to the responsible entity, as the responsible entity's agent.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 58 (after line 18), after subsection 1457(1), insert: (1A) A resolution passed under subparagraph (1)(a)(i) may direct the proposed responsible entity to lodge with the registration application a compliance plan that provides for scheme property to be held by a person other than the responsible entity, or a person that is not related to the responsible entity, as the responsible entity's agent.These amendments refer to allowing members of existing managed investment schemes to choose preferred custodial arrangements in certain circumstances. Together, these Labor amendments will allow investors in existing managed investment schemes the opportunity to exercise a choice in the way that the assets of their scheme will be held in the event that the scheme becomes a single responsible entity.After the new SRE regulatory scheme comes into effect, investors in new managed investment schemes will be able to exercise a choice by voting with their wallets and choosing a managed investment scheme which best suits their individual investment preferences. For example, an investor may wish to invest in a scheme which will be using the services of a custodial agent which is not related to the SRE. To other investors the way the scheme assets are held may not be a deciding factor in which scheme they invest in.The custody of a scheme's assets may not be a big issue for some investors. Other futures of the scheme may be more important, such as returns and fees and charges, but for others the custody may be the crucial issue, and it is for these investors that Labor is moving its amendment, particularly investors in existing schemes. Existing investors in managed investment schemes can, under Labor's amendments, have a choice in the way that that scheme's assets are held. The way that the government's bill is currently framed, the investors in existing schemes have only one option in this area, and that is to withdraw from the scheme, which will involve transaction costs.Under the government's bill, if after 12 months neither the fund manager nor the trustee of a scheme have left the field and allowed the other party to become the SRE, there must be a meeting of scheme members to determine what is to be done with the scheme. At the meeting of members, the members can choose to either wind up the scheme or they can choose which entity—the funds manager or the trustee—they would like to become the SRE. However, under Labor's amendment, scheme members will be able to direct not only which entity they would like to become the SRE but also how they would like the SRE to hold the scheme assets. That is, investors will be able to determine whether they wish the SRE to engage the services of a third party to hold the scheme's assets. The third party may or may not be related to the SRE.Labor's two amendments intend to provide that, if neither the manager nor the trustee of an existing scheme retires in the first year of transition, then at the subsequent meeting of investors they may decide whether or not custody shall be undertaken by a third party. The provision is not, however, intended to restrict investors' choice in this regard to a party unrelated to the SRE, nor is it intended to require a resolution appointing a specific party to hold scheme assets. The third party agent employed by the SRE will still have to be approved by the ASC as part of the licensing arrangements. SREs will have the right to appoint any custodial agent they see fit as long as it is in the boundaries of the direction provided by investors at the meeting of members. However, the agent must still be approved by the ASC. Labor's amendment gives investors in existing schemes a choice of custodial arrangement. Given that much of the debate on managed investments has been about custodial arrangements, these are important amendments.21:48:003673Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government will support these amendments.21:48:003673Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Australian Democrats support both amendments.21:48:003674Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—That makes it unanimous, unless anybody else says so. The Greens WA will also support these amendments.Amendments agreed to.21:49:003674Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (line 26), omit "for the benefit of the members", substitute "and the interests of members in the scheme property".(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (lines 28 and 29), omit "that come out of the scheme property, or that could diminish or endanger the scheme property", substitute "that could diminish or endanger the scheme property, or that could adversely affect the interests of members".These amendments assert clearly the interest of investors as being essential to the purpose of the section, which is about related party transactions by managed investment schemes.21:49:003674Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We will not be opposing these amendments.21:49:003674Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We will be supporting these amendments.21:49:003674Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) will be supporting these amendmentsAmendments agreed to.Amendments (by Senator Margetts)—by leave—proposed:(25) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (line 7), after "entity", insert "or an officer of the responsible entity".(26) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (line 9), after "against", insert "the officer or".(27) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (line 10), after "not", insert "the officer or".(28) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (line 11), after "against", insert "him, her or".Progress reported.Adjournment367410000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn. 367421:50:003674O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I rise tonight to speak on a matter which is of great importance to young people in Australia: the abolition of funding for the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, AYPAC. This organisation has effectively represented the views of young people for many years, and it has received government funding since 1991, enabling it to provide a voice for young people throughout Australia. Unfortunately, this voice is now telling the Howard government what it does not want to hear. This is a diverse group and they speak as they find the issue. Recently they have found that their members were concerned about issues such as work for the dole and the youth allowance. It is unfortunate that the reaction of the Howard government has not been to heed these views; it has been to attempt to silence them.The Howard government apparently cannot take constructive criticism on these issues. It is apparent that the government is not prepared to listen to the views of the people most affected by its policies or those that represent them. So the decision to cut funding to this key body reflects poorly on the government but particularly on Minister Kemp. It seems that this is a spiteful decision by the government. AYPAC is—perhaps soon I will be saying was—a diverse coalition of youth organisations and networks. Their members include such radical bodies as rural youth, the scouts, the guides, YMCA, Fusion, the youth affairs council and networks in each state and territory.Senator Chris Evans interjecting—8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Terrible, Senator Evans! These are hardly radical organisations. AYPAC represents some 750,000 young Australians through over 400 organisational and individual members. Full membership was open to non-government national youth organisations and to state youth affairs councils from each state or territory. These groups combined to make up a national representative board of 19 members.With such a membership base, AYPAC truly represented the views and interests of young people from all walks of life and from all over Australia. AYPAC's role was as an umbrella group, and that allowed a coordinated response from youth and youth organisations to government on government initiatives. It has been a mechanism to encourage greater coordination and cooperation among youth groups by bringing together diverse organisations to identify problems and discuss solutions.AYPAC has also participated in a wide range of policy and program advisory committees, including the national youth affairs research scheme; the youth task force of the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs; the partnership subcommittee of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation; and various telecommunications forums. When the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson, sought young Australians to travel to Rome to represent Australia at the International Food Summit and Youth Forum, AYPAC provided them.It is not surprising, however, that the government has sought to silence this group. We are on the eve, I must say, of the introduction of the youth allowance. This policy has been met with great concern from young people all over this country. No slick advertising campaign will change the fact that it discriminates against young Australians. In a climate of rising youth unemployment, apparently the best that this government can come up with is a youth round table that will meet twice a year with 50 participants who have been hand-picked by the minister. While this discussion group will be dealing with issues such as youth suicide, employment and training, there is unfortunately no follow-up mechanism.Minister Kemp apparently is bent on setting up a committee that will tell him only what he wants to hear. Unfortunately, he ignores the views of young Australians at his peril—and, of course, at the peril of this government. It gives the appearance that this government does not really want to listen to young people, to young Australians; it gives the impression that this government does not want to hear their views. This is a decision which will be seen as a slap in the face for all young Australians.If Minister Kemp and Mr Howard are serious about understanding the issues affecting young people, then they will reconsider their decision, they will reinstate funding for AYPAC and they will allow that organisation to continue on with the good work that it has been carrying out. It is AYPAC that will provide, that can provide and that would, given the opportunity, provide an impartial voice for young Australians.367521:56:003675Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on the same matter and perhaps begin where Senator O'Brien has left off—at the axing, if you like, of the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition. Not only are we asking or urging the government to reconsider this decision, we are demanding that Dr David Kemp, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, reverse this incredibly negative and regressive decision.We have condemned in this place today, and last week after the announcement was made, the decision of the government to shut down—that is, to defund—this nation's national peak representative body for young people, AYPAC. It was last Thursday, 18 June, that the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp, announced—having told or effectively given the organisation a fortnight's notice only 20 minutes before the announcement was made publicly—that the government would not be renewing AYPAC's contract for this year, and that contract is now due to expire on 30 June.That is a bit suspicious really, considering what starts on 1 July—and that is, the governments's common youth allowance. I just wonder exactly how bad the government expects its CYA legislation or policy to be, in that it has effectively banned any dissenting or consultative voice from young people. At a time when introducing its common youth allowance—effectively, the day before its introduction—the government has chosen to throw away the expertise and networks that have been amassed since AYPAC's inception in 1991.Instead of an expert, well resourced, permanent youth body, the government has stated that the only input young people will have on youth policy will be through twice yearly meetings of a select few—basically, 50 young people. There is no indication whatsoever that these people will be given adequate resources to support the development of policy and to advise the government.The defunding of AYPAC is yet another broken promise, another non-core promise, from this government. In fact, this coalition actually acknowledged the important role that AYPAC played in its 1996 federal election document, `Giving hope to our young'—which, of course, was released before the election. It promised that the Howard government would `improve the effectiveness of government in responding to the needs and concerns of young Australians by consulting directly with young Australians around the nation through formal representative organisations such as AYPAC.'AYPAC has been an invaluable resource not only in the provision of policy advice to successive governments but also in assisting those who work with young people, providing information through newsletters, holding conferences on youth issues and as a forum for national youth organisations throughout the country. AYPAC has hosted wide ranging projects, such as a non-English speaking background youth project and an indigenous youth project. The latter was funded by the reconciliation council for three years and resulted in, among other things, a document called Compact—a publication that gives valuable guidance on how to be part of the process of reconciliation. It is a document I was glad to quote from during Democrat contributions to the Wik debate.Through the indigenous youth project, AYPAC assisted organisations to improve their networks and work better to help indigenous young people, and advocated for their needs. The circumstances that young indigenous people are in, in regard to hous ing, health, education, unemployment, incarceration, et cetera, are all worsening. AYPAC is one organisation which has been well placed to ensure the issues of those most disadvantaged are addressed. I remind this chamber that the first budget brought down by this government cut ATSIC's funding by $470 million, forcing ATSIC to abolish its community and youth support program. This has left organisations like AYPAC as the only advocate—C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—Didn't stop them paying Sugar Ray Robinson $1 million.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Hang your head in shame, Senator, through you, Madam President. I think many young people today are not interested in your interjections, Senator Heffernan, because they know that organisations like AYPAC have been left to pick up the pieces. They are one of the few advocates for young indigenous people in this nation today. AYPAC has held two national conferences, the Youth Gatherings of 1996 and 1994. These conferences provided training for youth workers and young people, publicised—yes, publicised—government programs, and developed policy. AYPAC is uniquely placed for this sort of role.In the last few weeks AYPAC has been working with DEETYA's coordinator of the 41 new youth officers in order to link them into existing youth affairs networks. This is exactly the sort of liaison between government and non-government organisations that we all should be encouraging and that AYPAC was perfectly placed to provide and assist with. Now Dr Kemp, the minister, is proposing that DEETYA will consult directly with peak bodies representing young people across Australia.AYPAC is an organisation of peak bodies, and Senator O'Brien has just referred to a number of bodies included in AYPAC, such as the Scouts and the Girl Guides. Yes, Senator O'Brien, through you, Madam President, they are not exactly the most subversive organisations in Australia, yet this government is still pretty scared of the concept of an umbrella, united organisation representing young people. Other groups include the YWCA, the YMCA, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, the Australian Association of Adolescent Health, the National Union of Students, Australian Rural Youth, as well of course as the state and territory youth affairs bodies.These organisations, through the AYPAC board, have already formulated policy and advice for government and the youth sector. The rationale of the minister is that he wants to give young people more direct input into government. It actually seems to deliberately ignore the range of activities that AYPAC is already responsible for—the kind of activities that they already conduct, that they facilitate—that do provide direct input to government policy for young Australians.I am not intending to criticise the government's voices of youth initiatives—the round table and, apparently, support for the YMCA youth parliaments, an event that has been going on for a number of years with, I believe, minimal government assistance—because I am not suggesting that these are not potentially incredibly worthy endeavours. But Dr Kemp purports that the round table will replace AYPAC's wide-ranging functions. This is comparing apples with apple orchards, if you like. Why not complement the work of AYPAC, or add to, or perhaps value add to, with this so-called twice yearly round table that the government seems to prefer?Is this government afraid of meeting with young people? Or is it that it just does not want to deal with young people, that it restricts its meetings with young people to two meetings a year? I was astounded in question time today to hear Senator Ellison, the minister representing the minister, in this place suggest that one of the opportunities being made available for young people to input into government policy and discussion was an Internet site. Great—let's go to a chat room with Dr David Kemp; I can't think of anything more exciting. This government seems to be very cyber friendly, what about contacting and dealing with young people and consulting with young people directly, face to face, not just twice a year?Fifty individuals on this round table, without resources or research facilities, meeting twice a year, does not constitute a policy formulation process. It is an insult to Austral ian young people to claim that their concerns can be addressed in this way. Is the government intending to defund the Australian Council on the Ageing? Will they claim that perhaps flying in 50 older Australians to a function twice a year serves as a sufficient means of consulting with them? No—because this is a political decision. They are not cutting AYPAC's funding because they have to; it is because they want to. As Michael Raper of ACOSS commented:This is not the first time the government has withdrawn funding at short notice from an organisation that was publicly critical of some of their policies. The Government should recognise that silencing voices in opposition does not reduce the negative impact many of their policies are having on low income and disadvantaged groups.It makes no sense to create such a valuable resource for young people in government and then disband it. There has been a peak national body in this nation for 20 years. The predecessor of AYPAC was the Youth Affairs Council of Australia, established in 1979, and every government since then has been able to work with it. They may not always agree and like what they say, but they have worked with it—except this government. It is a mean-spirited and nasty move by the federal government to destroy a long-established organisation through which the major youth organisations around Australia are able to liaise and develop policy on the issues facing young people. This can only be seen as a political decision—a nasty, regressive decision designed to silence the voice of young people in this country.367722:06:003677McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I want to return to one of my well versed themes that I have used in this place on a number of occasions, that is, migration matters, particularly dealing with illegal migration.On Saturday, 13 June of this year the West Australian newspaper, under the headline `Fishermen in migrant racket', reported on the sentencing of a number of Indonesian fishermen who were convicted in Australian courts in Broome and in Darwin of landing illegal migrants in Australia. The group of four Indonesians in Broome were given sentences of seven months and those in Darwin were given sentences of eight months—they were mainly young men. The people who brought the illegal immigrants into Broome by boat were paid the equivalent of $508, which is around one year's salary for the fisherpeople, and the ones in Darwin did much better because they got paid the equivalent of $1,000—this is information that was given to the respective courts. Seventeen Bangladeshis were brought in through Darwin, so it is no small problem.The Federal Police agent who investigated it is quoted in the newspaper as saying that it was a big worry that the lure of easy money would prompt a spate of Indonesian fishermen to take part in illegal immigration rackets. The newspaper report continues:He said federal police were mounting a crackdown to send a clear message to the fishermen that it was not worth the risk. But this was hard because the money was better and easier than fishing. If they were caught, they at least knew their families were taken care of while they enjoyed three good meals a day in an Australian jail.Racketeers approached fishermen to transport the immigrants because they knew the way, were experienced ocean-goers and many were poor and desperate enough to cooperate. "They are very easy targets at the moment, with the situation over there, because the money's ripe," Agent Curtis said. "Our information is that it's fairly organised. Indonesia seems to be the launching place."The article continues:Last month, in the Northern Territory, another eight Bangladeshi men were found wandering near Gove, in Arnhem Land, after being dumped by an Indonesian fishing boat crew.In sentencing the four Indonesians in Broome to seven months gaol on the Wednesday of the week preceding this article, Magistrate Col Roberts said that a deterrence policy was needed. I would certainly agree with the magistrate. But from a visit to Broome I made last week I found that perhaps a sentence to prison is not in itself a deterrent. I found out something that particularly disturbed me: the individuals who are apprehended and sentenced could actually be making money out of it. Even though they are only paid a pittance by our standards—whilst they serve time in prison they are paid $13.44 per week—for somebody who is sentenced to 12 months, that is pretty close to the equivalent of the salary they would be receiving for carrying out their normal occupation back in Indonesia, and generally that is fishing. So it could actually be an incentive for people to keep coming here.I have mentioned the people smuggling, but I am equally disturbed to note, from my visit to the Willie Creek detention centre in Broome on Friday last, that the fisheries authorities, the people who patrol our fisheries zones, have apprehended 50 fishing boats illegally fishing in Australian waters so far this year. That is a record number of apprehensions. One individual in the detention centre is there for his eighth visit; it is the eighth time that he has been apprehended, in some instances has served time in prison and then was sent back at enormous expense to the Australian taxpayer. There are the detention costs and then the repatriation costs as well.It appears, because of the situation in Indonesia, that there is a real incentive for these people to risk coming to fish illegally in Australian waters. If they come down and get a reasonably good catch and are not apprehended by our authorities, they have made money. Even if they are apprehended, charged with illegal fishing and then sentenced, they can still go back home with a significant amount of money. There is a catch, however. Our Migration Act has a clause in it which says that money can be taken from them when they are removed from Australia to be put towards the detention costs. It appears that these well-travelled individuals are quite aware of that. So, after earning their money in the prison—usually Broome prison, which I suppose is not the nicest place in the world, but you can be imprisoned in worse parts of the world—they transfer the money into goods, such as colour TVs, CD players and on one occasion gold watches. They bring them out of Australia back to their fishing village or wherever they have come from and they sell it and they have made the money for the trip.That is very disturbing for a number of reasons. Our fisheries in that region of the world need protection, otherwise we would not be protecting them to the degree that Australia is protecting them. If they are not protected, they will be fished out in a very quick time, I am told. I do not pretend to be an expert on this particular subject, but I did receive a very detailed briefing from some fisheries officers in Broome on Friday last. I did appreciate that, and I commend them and the people at Coastwatch and at other organisations who are involved in the protection of our fisheries.I hope that my raising this subject here tonight will encourage some people, be it the immigration department, the Australian fisheries authorities or the authorities in the Western Australian government, to take some action on this. I do not think it is good enough that we in Australia are offering an incentive to people to break our laws and to have them benefit from the breaches of our laws. I think something has to be done about it. We have had 50 fishing vessels breach our borders and illegally fish in our waters. You see the photographs of the catch they have taken and you hear some of the horrific stories of them taking sharks, for example. They just take the fin; they do not take any other part of the body any more because the fin is the most important and expensive part of the animal. We cannot allow this to continue. I would hope that our Western Australian government might also look at this problem as well and look at the policy of payment to individuals while they are serving time in prison.I am further disturbed to be told—and this is second-hand information, no stronger than that—that these individuals, the Indonesian fishermen who have been apprehended, have been sentenced and are being released on parole to do work around the town of Broome. That work can be pruning, it can be sweeping the streets or it can be just generally tidying up. But it can also be working in the homes of some of the aged people in the community. I was told that some of the people have been approaching the residents of Broome, seeking cigarettes and money from them. These people are not legally in Australia, even though they are in prison. There is a duty of care on the authorities, in my opinion, to ensure that they are not wandering unsupervised, as it would appear, through the streets of Broome.I hope that my words here, brief though they may be on this occasion, will spark some action. I know our immigration officials are already concerned about this and I would hope, perhaps in the near future, that our Joint Standing Committee on Migration might be able to have a look at it. I would like to, at a different time, say something about that committee because there is a recommendation before the other place that the committee be wound up. That is not a decision or a recommendation that I would support.22:16:003679Senate adjourned at 10.16 p.m.Documents36793679The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Torres Strait Regional Authority Election (Casual Vacancies) Rules 1998.Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 118.Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 12 of 1998.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act and Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Repeals and Consequential Provisions) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 107.Australian Postal Corporation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 99.Beef Production Levy Act, Cattle (Exporters) Export Charge Act, Cattle Transactions Levy Act, Live-stock (Exporters) Export Charge Act, Live-stock (Producers) Export Charges Act, Live-stock Slaughter (Processors) Levy Act, Live-stock Transactions Levy Act and Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 106.Charter of the United Nations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 102 and 123.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Exemptions Nos CASA 20/98 and CASA 21/98. Instruments Nos CASA 175/98, CASA 202/98, CASA 204/98 and CASA 207/98. Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 100.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notice pursuant to paragraph 45(1)(a)—Establishment of— Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited. Sydney Airports Corporation Limited.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 109 and 128.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 101.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1998/21-1998/23.Export Market Development Grants Act—Determination of the balance distribution date for grant year 1996/97—Determination 1/1998 BDD.Family Law Act— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 121 Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 117.Financial Management and Accountability Act— Financial Management and Accountability Orders Amendment 1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 122.Financial Management and Accountability Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 112.Freedom of Information Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 111.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 125.Health Insurance Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 103 and 124.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section 15—T11-98.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 — Heritage Conservation Rebate (Recognised Heritage Register and Recognised Heritage Body) Declaration No. 1 of 1998. Notice under section 159UD—Heritage Conservation Rebate Maximum Approval Limit. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 129.Life Insurance Act—Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner's Rules made under section 252—Commissioner's Rules— No. 31—Variation of Commissioner's Rules No. 25—Annual Statistical Returns. No. 32—Variation of Commissioner's Rules No. 26—Collection of Statistics. Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 130.Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 113.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 104.Native Title Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 120.Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 115.Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 105.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and National Residue Survey (Ratite Slaughter) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 127.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Live-stock Transactions Levy Act, Live-stock (Producers) Export Charges Act, National Residue Survey (Sheep, Lambs and Goats Transactions) Levy Act and National Residue Survey (Sheep, Lambs and Goats Export) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 126.Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 110.Public Service Act— Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1998/19-1998/22. Public Service Determinations 1998/10-1998/14. Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1998/35-1998/42.Radiocommunications Act—Radiocommunications (Trading Rules for Spectrum Licences) Determination 1998.Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Notices of Declaration—Notice— No. 3 of 1998—Medibank Private Limited. No. 4 of 1998—Australian Rail Track Corporation.Student and Youth Assistance Act— Determination No. 1998/1—Determination of Courses for the Purpose of Paying AUSTUDY. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 132. Superannuation Act 1976 —Declaration—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 131.Superannuation Contributions Determinations SCD 98/3-SCD 98/6 and SCD 98/4 (Addendum).Superannuation Guarantee Determination SGD 98/1.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 108.Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 114.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 4/98.Sydney Airport Demand Management Act— Determination of Sydney Airport Compliance Scheme 1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 119.Taxation Determination TD 98/12.Taxation Ruling— SST 10 and SST 11. TR 97/2 (Addendum). TR 98/7-TR 98/9.Telecommunications Act— Determination under section 51—No. 1 of 1998. Telecommunications Numbering Amendment Plan 1998.Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act—Telecommunications (Amount of Annual Charge) Determination 1998 (Amendment No. 1).Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 116.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 196B—Instruments Nos 37 and 38 of 1998.3681The Acting Deputy President tabled the following documents received since the last sitting of the Senate:Treaty—Bilateral—Revised national interest analysis—Agreement on Mutual Recognition in relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings, between Australia and the European Community [Revised version of national interest analysis tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 26 May 1998] [Received on 3 June 1998]Committee to Examine the Use of the Term `Drug Free'— Interim report on the use of the term `drug free' in relation to presentation and advertising of therapeutic goods, 8 May 1998. [Received on 4 June 1998] Government response to the interim report on the use of the term `drug free' in relation to presentation and advertising of therapeutic goods. [Received on 4 June 1998]Proclamations3681Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified:Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 —Act, except for Part 1—1 July 1998 (Gazette No. GN 22, 3 June 1998).Wheat Marketing Amendment Act 1997 —Divisions 5 and 6 of Part 2, and Part 2 of Schedule 1—1 June 1998 (Gazette No. GN 21, 27 May 1998).Miscellaneous3681A return to order relating to a review of the first two years of operation of certain amendments to the Corporations Law by the First Corporate Law Simplification Act 1995 was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 28 September 1995Answers to Questions on Notice3682The following answers to questions were circulated:3682(Question No. 1015)10153682Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 December 1997:(a) What training or seminars for Canberra-based public servants employed by the department haveoccurred outside Canberra since March 1996; and (b) Where has the training taken place.3682Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The following table gives details of the training courses which were organised by the Department held outside Canberra since March 1996:Course TitleNo of PeopleCourse DurationCourse VenueProviderMiddle Management Development Program165 daysSutton, NSWPeople and StrategyPeople Management and Development Section Team Building192 daysBinalong, NSWKieran O'Callaghan & AssociatesMiddle Management Development Program185 daysBatemans Bay, NSWPeople and StrategySenior Officer Manager Program115 daysBowral, NSWPeople and Strategy3682(Question No. 1081)10813682Denman, Sen KaySenator DenmanFY5TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 6 March 1998:(1) Has the Tasmanian Government responded to the offer from the Commonwealth in providing a third of the funding for construction of an access road to the port area of Devonport, Tasmania, under the Roads of National Importance program; if not, (a) has a counter offer been put to the Commonwealth by the Tasmanian Government for construction; (b) what are the terms of the counter offer.(2) If an agreement has been reached between the State Government, Local Government and the Commonwealth, when is the physical work of construction set to commence and when is it planned to be completed.3682Alston, 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) No. A formal proposal has not yet been received. However officer discussions have been under way for some time to develop a satisfactory proposal.(a) No.(b)Not applicable.(2) Until a Project Proposal Report is received by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, no indication can be given on the likely commencement and completion of construction of the project.3682(Question No. 1097)10973682O'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 Brisbane Airport:(1) (a) What arrangements are there governing the minimum allowable altitude for aircraft passing over residential areas during take off and landing on each runway; and (b) have these arrangements been altered since 2 March 1996. (2) For each month since January 1996, on how many occasions has each runway limit been breached.3683Alston, 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) (a) The operation of aircraft in Australia is covered by the Civil Aviation Regulations. However, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) advise that the Regulations do not prescribe minimum altitudes during take-off and landing over residential areas. Altitude limitations during take-off and landing are not feasible because of the nature of the activity.However, CASA requires aircraft departing and landing at airports, including Brisbane, to follow published procedures for minimum gradients. Aircraft departing from airports are required to comply with a minimum climb gradient of 3.3% from the departure end of the runway, unless a steeper gradient is necessary for obstacle clearance. Aircraft approaching to land are required to follow a 3 degree approach path to the runway, beginning from an approach altitude which is dependent on whether the aircraft is following visual or instrument procedures.(b) No.(2) Not applicable.3683(Question No. 1108)11083683Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:(1) Has the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) recommended to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council a draft standard to the Food Standards Code for the labelling of foods using gene technology; if so, does the draft standard prescribe mandatory labelling for foods containing new or altered genetic materials; if not, why not.(2) (a) What does the term `substantial equivalence' mean when used to describe foods containing new or altered genetic materials; and (b) what does `conventional counterparts in a characteristic or property of a food' mean as it relates to `substantial equivalence'.(3) What are the scientific principles relied on by ANZFA to justify its decision that it was not necessary to prescribe mandatory labelling of foods that are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (4) What public health factors were relied on by ANZFA to justify its decision that it was not necessary to prescribe mandatory labelling of foods that are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.(5) How is it `more restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate outcome'.(6) What are Australia's obligations to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreements with respect to foods containing new or altered genetic material.(7) Is the draft standard prescribing mandatory labelling for foods containing new or altered genetic materials necessary to comply with the minimum requirements of the WTO Agreement; if so, how; if not, why not.(8) How would the draft standard be inconsistent with Australian policies if it was not implemented.(9) Why is labelling of foods containing new or altered genetic materials which are substantially equivalent not useful information for consumers.(10) Is all information currently required to be included on labels useful information for consumers; if so, how.(11) Is there any information currently required to be included on labels which is not useful information for consumers.(12) Does ANZFA prescribe other standards which cannot be enforced; if so, which ones; if not, why not.(13) Are there any other circumstances where ANZFA has decided not to prescribe a standard because it is regarded as not practicable; if so, what are these circumstances; if not, why is food labelling for foods containing new or altered genetic materials a special circumstance.(14) Is there any data available to ANZFA which shows consumer preferences for labelling of foods containing new or altered genetic materials; if so, what is it; if not, does ANZFA intend to obtain this data.(15) How is `substantial equivalence' determined when used to describe foods containing new or altered genetic materials.(16) Is a food derived from a plant or animal which contains new or altered genetic materials the same as food derived from a plant or animal which does not contain new or altered genetic materials.(17) Does genetic engineering have the same outcome as traditional breeding techniques for food crops and animals; if so, what procedures would be undertaken to introduce genes from one phyla into another phyla using traditional breeding techniques.(18) Is genetic engineering a precise manner for transferring genetic material from one genome to another for food crops and animals. (19) Where genetic engineering is applied for transferring genetic material from one genome to another for food crops and animals, is the level of expression of the inserted genetic material predictable.(20) Where genetic engineering is applied for transferring genetic material from one genome to another for food crops and animals, does this procedure occur at low frequencies; if so, what is the range of frequencies.(21) (a) Where genetic engineering is applied for transferring genetic material from one genome to another for food crops and animals, are all integrated genetic materials stable; and (b) how is this determined.(22) Where genetic engineering is applied for transferring genetic material from one genome to another for food crops and animals, are marker genes included in the new or altered genetic materials; if so, are all these genes harmless to humans and are there any other environmental consequences.(23) (a) Where genetic engineering is applied for transferring genetic material from one genome to another for food crops and animals, are any of these marker genes antibiotic resistance genes; and (b) is this important.(24) Where genetic engineering is applied for transferring genetic material from one genome to another for food crops and animals, is there any possibility of horizontal gene transfer into the genome of humans.(25) Are there some pleotropic effects of genetic engineering of food products which are not considered in determining `substantial equivalence'.3684Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes. The draft standard prescribes mandatory labelling for any food that is or contains components produced using gene technology containing new or altered genetic material and not substantially equivalent in any characteristic or property to a conventionally consumed food.(2)—(4) and (15)—(25) In the context of the draft standard, substantially equivalent in regard to a characteristic or property of the food means that the nutritional and compositional value of the food falls within the normal range for similar foods that are or contain foods derived by conventional breeding methods. This includes that the food does not contain higher levels of anti-nutritional factors or natural toxicants or introduced allergenic factors and does not lead to the food having a different pattern of dietary exposure. A determination of substantial equivalence can be carried out at the level of the food source or at the level of the specific food product. This involves a consideration of the molecular characterisation of the new food source; phenotypic characteristics of the new food source in comparison to an appropriate comparator already in the food supply; and the compositional analysis of the new food source or the specific food product in comparison to the comparator. The comparison may be made to the parental line/strain and/or other edible lines/strains of the same species, or it can build on a comparison of the derived food product (eg, protein, carbohydrate, fat) with a comparable conventional food product.The application of the principle of substantial equivalence to safety assessment enables the public health and safety risks of the food to be characterised by reference to the known public health and safety characteristics of its conventionally bred counterpart. All relevant effects are taken into account in determining `substantial equivalence*.(5)—(6) Australia is party to two World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreements which are relevant to foods. The Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) addresses measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) addresses technical regulations and standards to ensure the quality of exports; protection of human, animal or plant life or health, or the environment; or for the prevention of deceptive practices. These agreements oblige Australia to ensure that its regulations and standards are applied consistently, are based on sound data and are no more trade restrictive than is necessary to achieve a legitimate objective.(7) The draft standard is consistent with the requirements of the WTO SPS and TBT agreements in that it provides a level of consumer protection for safety and deception, consistent with other existing food standards, without imposing undue restrictions on the movement of goods in trade.(8) There is currently no specific regulation of foods from gene technology. If the draft standard is not implemented then consumers would not be assured that foods from gene technology had been assessed and found to be safe before they were sold and that where these foods were compositionally or nutritionally different they would be informed.(9) The issue of whether the labelling of foods containing new or altered genetic material which is substantially equivalent is, or is not, useful information for consumers has been assessed by ANZFA in the context of all potential sources of information likely to be available to consumers. ANZFA is concerned to ensure that a comprehensive approach is taken to ensure consumers have access to adequate information which would allow them to make informed choices.In regard to the value of mandatory labelling, ANZFA has given particular attention to the comprehensive labelling requirements enacted in the European Union. This regulation allows "may contain" labelling statements where the presence of a genetically modified component is uncertain. ANZFA has questioned whether the statement "may contain" is of value as it has the potential to be required on a very large number of foods. Such a statement may be of value to the extent that a consumer totally opposed to the processes of gene technology could avoid any food bearing the appropriate label. However, for a consumer wishing to make a choice on the basis of perceived relative benefits of a food produced using gene technology compared to a conventional counterpart, or between two foods produced using gene technology, the statement "may contain" is of little value. In addition, it is likely that a number of foods bearing this label would in fact contain no genetically modified component and, in that respect, such labelling has the potential to be deceptive. Therefore, to introduce full mandatory labelling, resulting in the proliferation of such "may contain" labelling statements, could in fact distract a consumer from making an informed choice.(10)—(13) ANZFA is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the Australian Food Standards Code. In developing or reviewing food standards, the ANZFA must have regard to the objectives outlined in section 10 of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991.Consistent with these statutory objectives, the review will, where possible: reduce the level of prescriptiveness of standards to facilitate innovation by allowing wider permission on the use of ingredients and additives, but with consideration of the possible increased need for consumer information; develop standards which are easier to understand and make amendment more straight forward; replace standards which regulate individual foods with standards that apply across all foods or a range of foods; consider the possibility of industry codes of practice as an alternative to regulation; and facilitate harmonisation of food standards between Australia and New Zealand.The review will also be carried out in accordance with the competition policy principles which have been adopted by the Council of Australian Governments. These principles require the review of all business regulation to remove unnecessary obstacles to competition, and an assessment of the social, environmental and economic impacts as well as the impacts on health of proposed regulation on all affected sectors of the community.Through this review ANZFA will ensure that mandatory food labelling is only required for information which has been assessed as necessary, having regard to voluntary labelling and to the other sources of information available to consumers. ANZFA will also ensure that standards are enforceable and that any standards which cannot be enforced are deleted.(14) ANZFA is aware of a number of surveys undertaken in Australia and overseas in which a majority of consumers have expressed a desire for foods produced using gene technology to be labelled. ANZFA considers that it is the primary responsibility of industry to provide consumers with information on such foods where these are substantially equivalent to their conventionally bred counterparts and is committed to working with industry and consumers to facilitate the provision of such information.(16)—(17) There is no intrinsic reason why a food derived from a plant or animal which contains new or altered genetic material should not be the same as food derived from a plant or animal which does not contain new or altered genetic materials. Any differences will result from the specific genetic material present and the way in which it is expressed. Traditional breeding techniques would not normally result in the introduction of genetic material from one phyla to another, although, wide-crossing and similar techniques can be used to transfer genetic material between species which do not normally interbreed.(18)—(19) Genetic engineering provides a means for introducing a precise sequence of DNA into a genome. The exact position of each insertion and the level of expression will vary from insertion to insertion. Screening is used to determine which insertions are then selected for further commercial development.(20) The frequency of successful transfer of genetic material from one genome to another will depend upon the techniques used, the species to which the technique is applied and the level of expression of inserted genetic material desired.(21) Inserted genetic material is not necessarily stable. Stability in a commercial product is ensured by screening prior to approval for release of a genetically modified organism. Only organisms containing material found to be stable are approved by the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) for release into the environment.(22)—(23) The use of marker genes and the types of marker genes selected will depend upon the techniques used and the organisms involved. The ANZFA draft standard will ensure that any food that is or contains components produced using gene technology will be assessed for safety before it can be sold. This assessment will include consideration of any marker genes present, including possible antibiotic resistance marker genes. The assessment of any implications for the environment is undertaken by GMAC prior to release.(24) Although there is a theoretical possibility of horizontal gene transfer from foods into the genome of humans, in practice such transfers do not occur. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the probability of such transfer from a food made from or containing a genetically modified organism would be any greater than from food made from conventionally bred organisms.3686(Question No. 1110)11103686Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:With reference to page 67 of the 1996-97 annual report of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA):(1) Does ANZFA undertake `special projects'; if so, what special projects are currently being undertaken.(2) What `special projects' were undertaken in the 1995-96 financial year.(3) What monies were provided to ANZFA for these `special projects' in the financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97.(4) (a) Who or what provided these monies; and (b) what did they receive in return for these monies.(5) What does `other' in `other revenues' mean.(6) What `other' are currently being undertaken.(7) What `other' were undertaken in the 1995-96 financial year.(8) What monies were provided to ANZFA for these `other' in the financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97.(9) (a) Who or what provided these monies; and (b) what did they receive in return for these monies.3686Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The term `special projects' refers to one-off tasks that ANZFA is required to undertake, however, these `special projects' are directly relevant to the core business activities of ANZFA. Both internal and external auditors, together with the Authority's finance staff, agreed that a separate revenue category be developed due to the materiality of the revenue involved. There are currently two special projects: (1) participation in regional activities relevant to food standards; and (2) review of the Model Food Act 1980, review of State and Territory Food Acts and to develop a (new) nationally uniform Food Act. (2) Initial development of the Australian Food Safety Information Network (AFSIN) on behalf of the State and Territory health authorities.(3) During the 1995-96 financial year, $96,800 was provided to ANZFA for the initial development of AFSIN.During the 1996-97 financial year, $51,000 was provided to ANZFA for the initial development of AFSIN—this funding remained outstanding in the previous financial year; $126,126 was provided for the regional project; and $160,000 was provided for the Model Food Act project.(4) (a) AFSIN funding was provided by the States and Territories in the 1995-96 financial year. Participation in regional activities was provided by AusAID and Model Food Act project funding was provided by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services in the 1996-97 financial year.(b) The AFSIN funding was used to develop the architecture of an ORACLE database. Each State and Territory Health Authority was provided with a stand alone computer which connected to the database. The State and Territory Health Authority users were encouraged to enter test data into the database and were provided with technical advice and assistance centrally from ANZFA.The regional project funds were used to undertake a study of regional product standards initiatives and to develop a regional development program under the auspices of The APEC Standards and conformance sub-committee.Model Food Act funding was used to develop a model for a nationally uniform food legislation.(5) `Other' in `other revenues' is comprised of small differing types of income, individually immaterial to disclose separately. `Other' includes the following specific items: public register access charges—the public can request access to certain Authority records; car parking fees—recovery of costs for staff who park their private vehicles in ANZFA leased parking bays; Comcare reimbursements; refunds/recoveries from various organisations for travel and salary costs for staff who speak at conferences and seminars; and Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Health and Family Services for the provision of a Nutritional Analysis—this accounts for 9% of 1996-97 `other revenue'.(6) `Other' for the 1997-98 financial year includes Comcare reimbursements, car parking fees, public register access charges and refunds/recover ies from external bodies for travel and salaries for staff attending seminars and conferences etc.(7) `Other' for the 1995-96 financial year includes Comcare reimbursements, car parking fees, public register access charges and refunds/recoveries from external bodies for travel and salaries for staff attending seminars and conferences etc.(8) In the 1995-96 and 1996-97 financial years the `other' in `other revenue' comprised immaterial amounts of differing types of recovery payments for services provided. These items included the following specific items:. Public register access charges (1995-96—$1,713; 1996-97—$2,045);. Car parking recovery from staff (1995-96—$8,180; 1996-97—$9,016);. Comcare reimbursements (1995-96—$39, 258; 1996-97—$50,365);. Speakers fees (1996-97 only—$11,046); and. Refunds/recoveries from external bodies for staff attending conferences and seminars and accounting transfers make up the remaining funds.(9) (a) The `user' of the service provided these monies.(b) In return for monies paid the `user' received various outcomes ranging from utilisation of a car parking space to access to the public register.3687(Question No. 1130)11303687Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) Is it a fact the salt-affected areas of Western Australia the worst affected region for salinity in Australia, increased from 264,000 hectares in 1982 to 1,804 million hectares in 1996.(2) Does the Government agree that, if no action is taken, future estimates of the potential areas in Western Australia vulnerable to salinity degradation are as high as 6,109 million hectares, according to the Australian Magazine of 21 and 22 March 1998 quoting State and Federal Government documents, National Dryland Salinity Program and Western Australian salinity statement.(3) What resources are being allocated, and what policies and programs have been adopted, by the Federal Government to combat the problems of salinity and land degradation in Western Australia.(4) (a) How much money has the Federal Government allocated to spend on combating the problems of salinity and land degradation in Western Australia; and (b) what does this repre sents in cents per hectare, based on 1,804 million hectares being salinity-affected.3687Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)—(2) I agree that it is a serious problem. I understand the increase in areas affected in WA to be from 264,000 hectares in 1982 to 1,804,000 hectares in 1996, not an increase to 1,804 million hectares. I understand the potential area in WA vulnerable to dryland salinity degradation is 6,109,000 hectares, not 6,109 million hectares.(3) The Western Australian State Salinity Action Plan is an agreed priority in the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia.(4) (a) and (b) In 1997-98 the Commonwealth Government committed over $23 million of Natural Heritage Trust funds from programs such as Bushcare, Landcare, Rivercare and Farm Forestry to WA. These funds are being expended on projects and activities predominantly in the south west of WA where the Salinity Action Plan is targeted. Given that funding available under the Natural Heritage Trust has been significantly increased for 1998-99 I would expect that the level of Commonwealth commitment to addressing salinity problems in WA will be even greater in the next year.3687(Question No. 1135)11353687O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 15 April 1998:(1) When did the New South Wales Government first apply for drought exceptional circumstances (DEC) assistance for the Monaro district.(2) (a) When did the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Committee (RASAC) inspect the region; (b) when was the RASAC report provided to the Minister; and (c) when did the Minister advise the New South Wales Government of his decision.(3) If the application was rejected, what was the basis of the rejection.(4) Were subsequent applications made by the New South Wales Government if so: when were they lodged; (b) when did RASAC inspect the region; (c) when did it report to the Minister; and (d) when was the New South Wales Government advised of the Minister's decision.(5) What was the basis of the decision in respect of the application.(6) (a) What area was covered by the New South Wales Government's successful application for DEC for the Monaro district; and (b) how many farm families were in the area covered by the application.(7) (a) What percentage of the area covered in the application was approved for DEC assistance; and (b) how many farm families are in that area.(8) (a) How many farm families have qualified for farm household assistance and business support; (b) how many families failed to qualify for family and/or business support; and (c) on what basis was each application rejected.(9) With reference to a statement by the Minister, in answer to a question without notice on 7 April 1998, that more people receive more assistance than was possible under the arrangements in place under the previous Government, with the exception of the extension of the recovery period, to what other variations to the previous DEC arrangements was the Minister referring.(10) (a) How many people are currently in receipt of DEC assistance; and (b) what is the average value of that assistance.(11) (a) How many people would have been in receipt of DEC assistance under the program administered by the previous Government; and (b) what would have been the average value of the assistance.3688Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The New South Wales Government first wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy on 6 August 1997 to request DEC assistance for the Monaro district.(2) (a) RASAC inspected the Monaro region on 15 September 1997.(b) On 19 September 1997, the New South Wales Government requested that the Monaro application no longer be considered under DEC, and instead be assessed under general exceptional circumstances (EC). On 16 October 1997, Minister Anderson wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture requesting clarification of the event for which EC assistance was being sought and requested that additional information to support the application be provided promptly. RASAC provided its report to Minister Anderson on 21 October 1997. On 11 November 1997, the New South Wales Government provided additional information for consideration in the assessment of their application. On 15 December 1997, the Government decided not to provide EC support to the Monaro Region but requested that RASAC reassess the region in early 1998. (c) Minister Anderson advised the New South Wales Government of this decision in writing on 31 December 1997.(3) The government accepted RASAC's findings that the specified area of the Cooma region did not meet the criteria for EC as. overall rainfall for the last three years had been near average;. pasture is naturally of poor quality but could be improved;. weed infestation was similar to that in the Greater Monaro Region; and. livestock numbers had declined but no more so than in other areas of New South Wales.(4) (a) On 30 January 1998, the New South Wales Government provided Minister Anderson with supporting information for the reassessment of the Monaro region.(b) RASAC inspected the Monaro Region on 2 February 1998. On 5 February, the New South Wales Government amended the boundaries of the Monaro Region application area (henceforth known as Monaro Region A), increasing its area by approximately one third. In addition, on 9 February 1998 it was requested that an additional area (known as Monaro Region B) to the south of the original Monaro application area be considered for EC assistance.(c) RASAC reported to Minister Anderson on 18 February 1998 for Monaro Region A and 3 April 1998 for Monaro Region B.(d) The New South Wales Government was advised of the Commonwealth Government's decision in relation to Monaro Region A on 3 March 1998 and for Monaro Region B on 8 April 1998.(5) Conditions in Monaro Region A were considered to have deteriorated since RASAC's previous visit. An EC was declared based on the impact of a succession of adverse climatic and biotic events. Monaro Region B was declared in DEC as it met all criteria including the threshold meteorological criterion.(6) (a) Monaro Region A is bound on:. the east from Cooma to Numeralla Road to the Numeralla River;. the south along the Numeralla River to the Kydra Nimmitabel Road. East to the junction with the Snowy Mountains Highway at Nimmitabel;. the west to the Monaro Highway junction;. west down to the Monaro Highway to Bibbenluke;. west on Bukalong Road to Bukalong Creek; . south and west downstream of Bukalong Creek to Bombala River to the Delegate River to the Snowy River to the eastern boundary of Kosciusko National Park, following the Kosciusko National Park north west to Pot Hole Creek;. north up Pot Hole Creek to the watershed on Beloka Range. Following the watershed along the Beloka and Barney's Ranges to the Berridale Rocky Plain Road at the Gap east along the road to Wullwye Creek;. north up Wullwye Creek to Berridale Middlebank Road, at Growlers Gully then north to Middlebank; and. east on road from Middlebank to Cooma.Monaro Region B:. extends south along the Monaro Highway from Bibbenluke (the boundary of Region A) to Bombala, continuing south along the Monaro Highway to Little Plains River;. continuing south downstream along the Little Plains River to the NSW border at Bendoc Upper;. north west along the NSW border to the boundary of Kosciusko National Park; and. north along the east boundary of Kosciusko National Park to the junction of the Snowy River (the boundary of Region A).(b) It was reported by the New South Wales Government that there are approximately 150—160 landholders in Monaro Region A and 78 landholders in Monaro Region B whose land has a carrying capacity of 1 500 DSE or greater.(7) (a) 100 per cent of the areas covered in the two applications were approved for either EC or DEC assistance.(b) See answer to 6 (b) above.(8) (a) To date, there are 39 applications which have been approved for Exceptional CircumstancesRelief Payment (ECRP) in Monaro regions A and B. Of the 12 applications received for DEC Interest Rate Subsidy (IRS) there is only one approval to date.(b) As at 27 April 1998, there had been 3 unsuccessful claims under the ECRP. No DEC IRS applications have been rejected to date; eleven are still under consideration.(c) All ECRP applications which have been unsuccessful failed due to the off-farm assets test.(9) In addition to Drought Exceptional Circumstances, the Government gives recognition to Exceptional Circumstances that are beyond the scope of normal risk management, and that in these circumstances it is in the national interest for the Government to provide assistance.A new Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment (ECRP), equivalent to the previous Drought Relief Payment, has been established and is available to eligible farmers in declared Exceptional Circumstances. In assessing Exceptional Circumstances there is no meteorological trigger criterion.This is in addition to an extension of the recovery period for Drought Exceptional Circumstances, from six to 12 months.(10) (a) As at 1 May 1998, there were 2,743 farmers across Australia in receipt of ECRP. As at 31 March 1998, there were 1,093 DEC IRS recipients.(b) During April 1998 the average value of ECRP assistance paid to each farm family was $1,010 per month.(11) (a) Income support (Drought Relief Payment) under the previous Government from Oct 1994 (the commencement of DRP) to Feb 1996 is shown in the following table:StateTotal $m Oct 94—Feb 96Average No clients per monthapprox $ average monthly paymentQueensland86.945,2501,000NSW79.2664,5001,000Vic0.156201,000SA3.1963001,000Tas1.2311001,000Total(b) Business Support Assistance in the form of DEC IRS provided by the previous Government from 1993-1994 to February 1996.State/Territory$mTotal Number of Approved GrantsAve. $ per grant per yearNSW50.5453,42214,771QLD67.3696,31810,663VIC0.8925017,840SA1.1712255,204WANilNilNilTAS1.5658318,855NTNilNilNilTotal121.54210,09812,0363690(Question No. 1136)11363690O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 15 April 1998:With reference to the answers provided to question 622 from the recent estimates hearings of the Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee which states that payments were made "to organisations associated with the National Farmers Federation (NFF)"; and that the programs through which payments were made were identified as Regional Assistance Program, New Work Opportunities, JobStart and Training for Aboriginals Program:(1) What are the names of the organisations "associated with the NFF".(2) (a) What level of funding was provided to each of the above organisations; (b) from which program did each organisation receive assistance; (c) what was the level of funding; and (d) for what purpose was the funding provided.3690Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The requested information is provided in the attached table. The organisations "associated with the National Farmer's Federation (NFF)" were identified from a list of members included on the NFF's Internet website.Organisation1996-971997-98Purpose of Payments$$Qld Farmers' FederationJobStart600Wage subsidy for employing disadvantaged job seekerRegional Assistance Program347,000Drought Project—income support and training costsAust Macadamia SocietyJobStart750Wage subsidy for employing disadvantaged job seekerCotton Australia LtdJobStart1,595Wage subsidy for employing disadvantaged job seekerNSW Farmers' AssociationRegional Assistance Program263,000Drought Project—income support and training costsVic Farmers' FederationRegional Assistance Program28,92041,920Payments for Farm Employment and Training Co-ordinatorSA Farmers' FederationNew Work Opportunities4,660Broker Fees and Income Support PaymentAust Dried Fruits AssociationNew Work Opportunities56,391Broker FeesTraining for Aboriginals Program9,650Traineeship for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander job seeker3691(Question No. 1143)11433691Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 17 April 1998:(1) Given that nine departments have now answered in full the questions placed on notice on 16 October 1997 (questions on notice 902-916, Senate Notice Paper of 21 October 1997) relating to qualitative and quantitative research, on what basis was it decided that the department would not authorise the money, time and effort involved to assemble the information required to provide and answer to the question.(2) What qualitative or quantitative research has been undertaken by the department and its agencies since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) What was the nature of the research undertaken, (sample sizes, questionnaire length, evaluation); and (b) to whom were the results of the research available.(4) In each instance, which firm or firms have been engaged to undertake this work.(5) In each instance what has been the cost of the work undertaken. 3691Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The decision was taken as it would have required considerable money, time and resources to provide a full answer to the question and, in the interest of efficient utilisation of departmental resources, I was not prepared to ask my Department to divert staff from existing priorities.(2)—(5) Some information concerning research undertaken by my Department since 3 March 1996 is available in the Department of Health and Family Services' Annual Report for 1996-97 which was tabled in October 1997.3691(Question No. 1146)11463691Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator ColstonPF4QLDIND00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 April 1998:(1) What was the system used for providing legal aid for veterans' appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) prior to 1 July 1997.(2) How has the system been changed since 1 July 1997.(3) Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the amount of legal aid now available for veterans' appeals to the AAT allow legal practitioners to conduct sound cases for veterans.3692Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) A special legal aid scheme for war veterans was established by the Commonwealth to enable war veterans with eligible or operational war service, or their next of kin, to have access to legal aid which is means test-free, in order to pursue reviews of war-caused disability pension entitlement or assessment claims. This scheme was, and continues to be fully funded by the Commonwealth.(2) Under the former legal aid agreements, legal aid commissions obtained reimbursement from the Commonwealth on a quarterly basis for war veterans matters they administered under this scheme. Under new legal aid funding arrangements war veterans funding is included in the global legal aid funding amount paid quarterly in advance to each commission.(3) I am satisfied that the amount of legal aid under the new legal aid Agreement will enable eligible war veterans to obtain appropriate advice and representation to pursue their war-caused disability pension and assessment claims in the AAT.3692(Question No. 1149)11493692Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.3692Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a)—April 1996$7,207May 1996$14,801June 1996$1,029October 1996$2,027December 1996$4,770January 1997$4,235February 1997$555March 1997$6,367April 1997$1,398May 1997$1,862June 1997$1,268July 1997$2,207August 1997$2,710September 1997$5,012November 1997$586,117(Of this amount $583,051 was for advertising placed by the Constitutional Convention Secretariat)December 1997$2,258February 1998$945March 1998$4,486April 1998$3,490Months not included in the above breakdown represent nil expenditure.(b)—April 1996$237August 1996$32October 1996$565November 1996$2,902December 1996$144January 1997$11,183April 1997$45June 1997$11,509July 1997$7,364August 1997$90February 1998$380Months not included in the above breakdown represent nil expenditure.(2) (a) 98%; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) 2%—Commonwealth of Australia Gazette.(3) (a) 85%.(b) Since March 1996 the department and some portfolio agencies have placed non-campaign advertising with the following organisations:. TMP Worldwide;. Neville Jeffress;. Grey Advertising;. AGPS; and. Public Eye newspaper.Notices relating to state funerals and memorial services were placed by various funeral directors.3693(Question No. 1150)11503693Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on April 23:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for advertising not placed through OGIA. 3693Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Accounting systems do not permit provision of a comprehensive month-by-month breakdown of advertising expenditure for the department and portfolio agencies. The value of advertising placed by DFAT in Australia from Mar 96—May 1998 is $210,718. The value of advertising placed by Austrade in Australia from March 1996—May 1998 is $569,673. The value of advertising placed by AusAID in Australia for financial year 1995-96 was $198,234, and $307,245 for financial year 1996-97. AusAID advertising expenditure in financial year 1997-8 was $598,514 to the end of May 1998.(2) All expenditure has been for print media advertising.(3) With the exception of $5310 spent on newspaper and periodical advertising placed directly with the journals involved, all advertising by the department and portfolio agencies was placed through TMP Worldwide, (previously Neville Jeffress Advertising), which is the Commonwealth's master agency for non-campaign advertising, and which forms part of the central advertising system managed by OGIA.3693(Question No. 1151)11513693Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.3694Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The information sought is provided for each agency in the portfolio. Amounts for months not shown are nil.Treasury Department(1) Value of advertising by month:$October 19969,734November 199618,223December 199620,408(2) Print media: 100%(3) All advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA.Industry Commission(1) Value of advertising by month:$June 19961,669July 19961,033August 19966,861September 199614,443December 19961,663January 199711,186February 19971,687May 19973,941July 19975,858August 19971,341September 19975,658November 1997671December 19971,495January 19981,741February 19981,864March 19985,426April 19981,572(2) Print media: 100%(3) All advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA.Insurance and Superannuation Commission(1) Value of advertising by month:$May 19966,232June 199613,004July 19961,100August 19964,944October 19961,662 February 199770April 19971,732July 1997814(2) Print media- 100%(3) Most advertisements (98.12%) were placed through OGIA, with the balance being booked directly with publications.Royal Australian Mint(1) Value of advertising by month:$March 19963,382April 199612,171October 19967,608November 1996203January 1997515February 1997277April 199734,979May 19973,907June 19976,483August 19975,367September 1997412November 19971,200December 1997207,895January 199838,478March 19985,522May 199819,244(2) Print media 90.8%; radio 1.41%; television 7.79%.(3) Most advertisements (98.55%) were placed through OGIA, with the balance being booked directly with coin publications.National Competition Council(2) Value of advertising by month:$November 19961,442December 1996NilJanuary 19974,516February 19972,271March 19972,524April 19973,426May 19972,488June 19972,548July 1997NZAugust 19971,438September 1997558March 1998558(2) Print media: 100%(3) None of the advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA. All advertisements were placed directly with the publications.Australian Securities Commission(1) Value of advertising by month:$April 199612,213May 1996126,588June 199691,200July 199625,544August 19967,718September 199630,449May 19971,218June 199762,034July 19972,873August 19972,438September 19973,143December 1997252February 1998947(2) Print media: 100%(3) All advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA.Australian Competition & Consumer Commission(1) Value of advertising by month:$May 19968,182June 19962,610August 19961,049September 1996125October 1996160November 1996150December 199611,527January 1997377February 199772April 19971,421May 19971,472June 19976,743July 1997202August 1997274September 19979,437October 1997202November 1997202January 19989,206February 19981,950March 19981,929April 199810,329(2) Print media: 100%(3) Most advertisements (96.6%) were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA, with the balance being placed directly with specialist business or professional journals.Australian Bureau of Statistics(1) Value of advertising by month:$March 199612,303April 199611,137May 199619,983June 19962,012,108July 19965,720August 19961,685September 1996496October 199636November 1996840January 1997869February 19971,272March 19972,320April 19972,351May 199720,474June 199776July 199740November 19972,350December 19973,964January 1998240February 19982,934March 199816,097April 1998560(2) Print media 48%; radio 1.3%; television 50.7%.(3) Most advertisements (96%) were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA, with the balance being negotiated directly with newspapers, magazines, and journals.Reserve Bank of Australia(1) Value of advertising by month:$March 19965,249April 199639,933May 19964,995June 1996713,750July 199611,066August 1996500October 199656,321November 19961,969December 19962,400March 1997390April 1997500May 19976,675July 19977,862 August 19978,782September 199713,859October 19977,740(2) Print media 38.4%; television: 52%; other 9.6%. Other forms of advertising included educational material in the form of posters and leaflets, and a promotional video for Note Printing Australia.(3) None of the advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA. All advertising was placed following competitive tendering processes.Australian Taxation Office(1) Value of advertising by month:$March 19964,790April 199610,076May 19969,406June 199626,442July 199669,812August 199650,160September 199633,860October 19967,154November 1996153,724December 1996177,433January 1997891,986February 1997974,681March 199762,106April 199787,109May 199729,863June 1997110,346July 199733,469August 199730,918September 1997324,350October 1997678,499November 1997360,979December 1997163,560January 1998223,995February 199820,650March 199819,159April 199817,617May 1998640(2) Print media 58.41%; radio 3.76%; television 37.5%; other 0.3%. Other forms of advertising included display stands and a range of brochures.(3) Most advertisements (97.65%) were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA, with the balance negotiated directly with the provider, or through competitive tender processes.3698(Question No. 1153)11533698Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Gov-ernment Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.3699Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)—(2) Included in the table below are figures for advertising placed by my department and portfolio agencies since March 1996, but excluding figures for the Bureau of Meteorology which has not been readily able to extract figures on a month-by-month basis. Year-by-year figures for the Bureau are provided separately beneath the table.MonthPrint MediaRadioTVOther*TotalMar-96$6,426 $3,558 $205 $1,620 $11,809 Apr-96$12,712 $1,180 $0 $1,525 $15,417 May-96$12,133 $1,180 $3,132 $1,525 $17,970 Jun-96$27,454 $1,000 $9,664 $1,525 $39,643 Jul-96$74,922 $0 $0 $6,878 $81,800 Aug-96$10,705 $0 $0 $190 $10,895 Sep-96$6,912 $590 $0 $348 $7,850 Oct-96$4,767 $0 $0 $285 $5,052 Nov-96$15,896 $0 $0 $127 $16,023 Dec-96$1,951 $0 $0 $960 $2,911 Jan-97$3,001 $0 $2,096 $896 $5,993 Feb-97$48,002 $0 $0 $987 $48,988 Mar-97$56,623 $0 $0 $1,113 $57,736 Apr-97$7,498 $0 $0 $1,587 $9,085 May-97$6,201 $0 $0 $10,860 $17,061 Jun-97$22,432 $9,000 $0 $860 $32,292 Jul-97$84,893 $0 $22,321 $13,569 $120,783 Aug-97$41,975 $0 $2,081 $2,205 $46,261 Sep-97$20,047 $0 $2,000 $2,300 $24,347 Oct-97$29,694 $0 $0 $2,616 $32,310 Nov-97$37,446 $0 $1,099 $2,205 $40,750 Dec-97$23,574 $1,220 $6,809 $6,350 $37,953 Jan-98$3,854 $0 $3,782 $4,292 $11,928 Feb-98$39,791 $0 $2,501 $2,225 $44,517 Mar-98$46,423 $0 $300 $2,903 $49,627 23 Apr-98$810 $0 $0 $2,060 $2,870 Total$646,143 $17,728 $55,990 $72,010 $791,871 * Other forms of advertising used were:• Roadside Billboards;• Bus shelter signs;• Cinema advertising;• Airport advertising;• Brochure distribution;• Datatrax touch screens;• Promotional videos; • Gazettal advertising; and• Direct delivery of cards through letter box drop.In regard to the Bureau of Meteorology, all advertising over the period was placed with the Print Media. The following are year-by-year figures for the Bureau:• 1995-96—$18,489• 1996-97—$33,818 • 1997-98 to 23 April 1998—$47,276• Total over the period—$99,5833 (a) Nil.3 (b) Advertising is placed through TMP Worldwide or AIS Media, both of which are appointed by OGIA, or in a limited number of cases, direct with media outlets.3700(Question No. 1154)11543700Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996?(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.3700Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:To collect and assemble the information requested would be a major task for my Department, and statutory and other bodies under my portfolio, and I am not prepared to ask them to commit considerable human resources to obtain the information to answer these questions.3700(Question No. 1156)11563700Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used. (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.3700Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b) The value of advertising, other than classified advertising, placed by the Department of Social Security and Centrelink from March 1996 is as follows:March 1996 to December 1997—Nil advertising.January 1997Print advertising—$154,466; Radio advertising—$88,344.(2) (a) Of the print advertising placed in January 1997, $47,810 was placed through OGIA as part of a campaign for the Family Tax Initiative. The remaining $106,656 for the announcement of new Extended Deeming rates, was placed through AIS Media.(b) All radio advertising placed in January 1997 was to announce new Extended Deeming rates, and was placed direct through AIS Media. As this was not campaign advertising, OGIA was not involved.(3) (a) and (b) September 1997Print advertising—$325,000; Radio advertising—$58,380; Television advertising—$1,470,168.All advertising placed in September 1997 was placed through OGIA.November 1997Print advertising—$64,000.All advertising placed in November 1997 was placed through OGIA.3700(Question No. 1157)11573700Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on April 23:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for advertising not placed through OGIA.3701Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Accounting systems do not permit provision of a comprehensive month-by-month breakdown of advertising expenditure for the department and portfolio agencies. The value of advertising placed by DFAT in Australia from Mar 96—May 1998 is $210,718. The value of advertising placed by Austrade in Australia from March 1996—May 1998 is $569,673. The value of advertising placed by AusAID in Australia for financial year 1995-96 was $198,234, and $307,245 for financial year 1996-97. AusAID advertising expenditure in financial year 1997-8 was $598,514 to the end of May 1998.(2) All expenditure has been for print media advertising.(3) With the exception of $5310 spent on newspaper and periodical advertising placed directly with the journals involved, all advertising by the department and portfolio agencies was placed through TMP Worldwide, (previously Neville Jeffress Advertising), which is the Commonwealth's master agency for non-campaign advertising, and which forms part of the central advertising system managed by OGIA.3701(Question No. 1163)11633701Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.3701Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department and agencies within the portfolio of the following details in relation to advertising placed since 2 March 1996:Attorney-General's Department(1)—$1996MarchApril-May-June3,376July2,002August2,591September-October5,658November514,046December192,1241997January3,315February1,353March22,707April-May118,321June650,014July22,085August304,755September527,088October-November-December-1998January-February1,988March992April7,608Total$2,380,023*The figures above do not include advertising for staff-related gazettals, other recruitment activity, tender notices and legal notices.* 98.76% of the department's total advertising expenditure (ie $2,350,501) relates to advertising involved in the Australian Firearms Buyback Public Education Campaign. It should be noted that an additional $1,382,730 was expended in this campaign, by way of advertising on-costs which included production, dubbing, distribution, studio time, and transportation costs.(2) (a) Print media: 30%; (b) radio: 9%; (c) television: 58%; (d) other: 3%—cinema and outdoor advertising.(3) (a) 100% of the advertising placed by the department has been placed through the Master Agency, TMP Worldwide (formerly Neville Jeffress Advertising); and Advertising Investment Services Pty Limited, both of which have been contracted by the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA) to handle advertising for the Commonwealth.(b) Not applicable.Portfolio Agencies(1)—$1996March500April1211May922June300July3,890August32,666September6,651October755November980December4001997January400February145March482April200May2,431June5,333July860August7,042September22,023October3,633November-December2,3591998January2,334February3329March698April680Total$100,224(2) (a) Print media: 100%; (b) radio: not applicable; (c) television: not applicable; (d) other: not applicable.(3) (a) 17% of the advertising placed by portfolio agencies was placed through the Master Agency, TMP World Wide (formerly Neville Jeffress Advertising), which has been contracted by the Office of Government Information and Advertising to handle advertising for the Commonwealth.(b) Advertising not placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising has been placed through the direct purchasing of advertising space in: (i) local, state and national newspapers; and (ii) the following publications:• Milli Milli Wungka• South Australia Country Woman• National Farmers' Federation• Victorian Institute Journal• QLD and NSW Law Society Journal• Business Queensland• Australian Conference Diary• Commonwealth Club Magazine, Darwin• Ethnic Communities Council of NSW• Federation of Ethnic Communities• NCOSS Publication Sales• Queensland Council of Social Service• Australian Government Publishing Services ACT• Tasmanian Parent• Union Publicity Service Pty Ltd• Victorian Bar Council• University of NSW• Australian Public Sector Union Northern Territory.3703(Question No. 1164)11643703Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA) and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed though OGIA.3703Alston, 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 (a)—MonthTotals $Mar 96$8,399.49Apr 96$5,298.32May 96$3,860.70Jun 96$6,587.34Jul 96$4,031.16Aug 96$9,334.46Sep 96$1,708.20Oct 96$62,746.03Nov 96$203,035.63 Dec 96$1,125,245.33Jan 97$53,062.02Feb 97$73,350.64Mar 97$38,451.28Apr 97$527,327.94May 97$456,097.84Jun 97$489,054.43Jul 97$139,186.12Aug 97$7,687.80Sep 97$10,734.32Oct 97$22,114.04Nov 97$10,687.76Dec 97$76,237.98Jan 98$107,546.66Feb 98$83,351.44Mar 98$17,864.72Apr 98$3,361.41May 98 (to 15 May)$5,890.00Total$3,552,253.061 (b)1—MonthTotals $Mar-96$1,110.00Apr-96$2,237.00May-96$20,974.20Jun-96$19,485.16Jul-96$3,595.58Aug-96$2,717.50Sep-96$250.00Oct-96$0.00Nov-96$36,737.75Dec-96$3,170.50Jan-97$2,803.00Feb-97$5,000.00Mar-97$2,061.80Apr-97$7,023.40May-97$2,412.20Jun-97$2,225.00Jul-97$25,720.00Aug-97$14,143.00Sep-97$39,341.00Oct-97$7,820.00Nov-97$14,417.00Dec-97$58,407.60Jan-98$68,701.10 Feb-98$8,087.00Mar-98$2,218.00Apr-98$23,012.00May 98N/aTotal$373,669.791 The Commonwealth is in the process of selling the above-rail operations of the Australian National Railways Commission and transferring rail infrastructure into the recently-established Australian Rail Track Corporation. The process has left AN with insufficient resources with which to provide the level of detail sought by the Parliamentary Question, nor in the case of the above-rail operations, ready to access material from which to draw the data. Bankstown Airport has participated in local sponsorship programs such as Remembrance Day and Constable Care.(2) (a) $1,167,254.93; (b) $1 086 987.51; (c) $1,109,241.44; and (d) $562,438.97.Other forms of advertising were flyers and leaflets, Variable Message Signs, Convenience Ads (Drink Driving), Cinema and a Web Site, and advertising in AGPS Special and General Gazettes.(3) (a) The Federal Office of Road Safety placed $2,772,238.06 or 98% of advertising through OGIA. No other departmental and portfolio advertising was placed through OGIA.(b) The mechanisms for placement of advertising not through the OGIA were placement by PPK Environment & Infrastructure, direct contact with media supplier, the engagement of contractor to design a web site, placement through TPM World Wide Company (formerly trading as Neville Jeffress—an OGIA-endorsed supplier), placement through Executive Media Pty Ltd, placement through the Government's contracted agencies for non-campaign press advertising, gazette notices placed direct with AGPS, and placement direct with media sources.3705(Question No. 1165)11653705Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio on a month by month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) television; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.3705Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The value of advertising placed by the Department for the period March 1996 to April 1998 is shown below:(a)—Advertising Expenditure by Month for the Period March 1996 to April 1998Department of Immigration & Multicultural AffairsMarch-96April-96May-96June-96July-96August-96September-96$238,901.96$8,438.29-$867.81$30,702.37$4,971.50$28,502.51$1,470.18October-96November-96December-96January-97February-97March-97April-97$49,426.83$7,599.20$3,771.08$27,686.21$8,409.66$10,151.02$34,262.04May-97June-97July-97August-97September-97October-97November-97 $94.07$107,775.67$1,757.50$5,979.51$70,623.72$49,108.95$4,830.08December-97January-98February-98March-98April-98$620.38$27,873.23$42,065.94$135,689.5 6$17,270.70(b)—Advertising Expenditure by Month for the Period March 1996 to April 1998Refugee Review TribunalMarch-96April-96May-96June-96July-96August-96September-96$0.00$0.00$39.60$0.00$50.80$0.00$0.00October-96November-96December-96January-97February-97March-97April-97$720.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$720.00$0.00$0.00May-97June-97July-97August-97September-97October-97November-97$0.00$0.00$0.00$4,145.82$0.00$0.00$4,285.24December-97January-98February-98March-98April-98$0.00$0.00$2,013.90$0.00$4,388.68All advertising expenditure incurred by the Immigration Review Tribunal involved recruitment action and is therefore excluded.The above table excludes expenditure on advertising in the Commonwealth gazette but may include advertising related to recruitment or tender processes placed outside of the Commonwealth gazette as the structure of the Department's chart of accounts has no provision to identify these items separately.March 1996 expenditure reflects a nationwide television promotion encouraging immigrants to take-up Australian citizenship.An amount of $91335 was paid in both June 1997 and March 1998 to distribute migration information via publications sent out by the Australian Taxation Office.(2) (a)-(d) The Department's chart of accounts has no provision for identifying advertising expenditure by the type of media employed. A spot analysis of expenditure patterns suggests expenditure by the Department was about 70% for print media and 30% for television over this period.(3) (a) Thirty five per cent of the Department's (including its agencies) advertising has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising.(b) The balance has been placed through the agreed service provider in the relevant period contract.3706(Question No. 1169)11693706Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 April 1998:(1) What is the value of : (a) advertising; (b) public relations; and/or (c) market research, placed by, advised on or otherwise handled by the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA) on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and April 1998.(2) On behalf of which departments or agencies did OGIA place, advise on or handle: (a) advertising; (b) public relations; and/or (c) market research, on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 and April 1998.(3) What is the monthly average value of: (a) advertising; (b) public relations; and/or (c) market research, placed by, advised on or otherwise handled by OGIA between March 1993 and April 1996.(4) With reference to all advertising, public relations and/or market research placed by, advised on or otherwise handled by OGIA between March 1996 and April 1998, has all advertising copy and artwork been prepared by professional advertising agencies under consultancy contracts; if not: (a)which campaigns were handled otherwise; (b) who performed the work; and (c) what was the total value of each campaign.3707Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) AdvertisingJanFebMarAprMayJunJulyAugSepOctNovDec199 6--2,573,9254,405,4554,277,0026,485,2773,637,2902,264,0892,193,3493,229,6562,705,8432,412,28 7199 72,715,0161,971,7352,175,0932,672,8482,498,6205,539,0347,783,7677,663,2349,431,2537,700,5656,922,4131,828,14 7199 82,931,3832,727,0653,021,658Not availableNote: Contracts for advertising agencies are held by OGIA. The amounts shown for advertising are the amounts spent through the Central Advertising System for each month.(b) Public Relations and (c) Market Research Contracts for public relations and market research companies are held by the departments and agencies. OGIA is aware of the proposed budgets for these activities when they are considered, but does not hold details of actual expenditure. These are held by individual departments and agencies.(2)—March 1996AdvertisingAEC, Defence, DEETYA, DoF, DFAT, DH&FS, DIMA, DWRSB, DEST, DTRD, Treasury, A-G'sPublic RelationsNilMarket ResearchQuestacon, DefenceApril 1996AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DoF, DFAT, DHFS, DIST, DAS, DEST, DTRD, Treasury, A-G'sPublic RelationsNilMarket ResearchABSMay 1996Advertising:Defence, DEETYA, DoF, DHFS, DIR, DIST, DAS, DEST, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, ASC.Public RelationsDoF, DVAMarket ResearchANSTO, Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS), DHFSJune 1996AdvertisingDefence, DoF, DFAT, DHFS, DIST, DAS, DEST, ABS, ATO, ASCPublic RelationsA-G'sMarket ResearchDoF, A-G'sJuly 1996AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DoF, DHFS, DEST, DoCA, Australian National Maritime Museum (ANMM), Treasury, ABS, Commonwealth Loans Office (CLO)Public RelationsNilMarket ResearchDEETYA, DHFS, DASAugust 1996AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DFAT, DHFS, DPIE, DAS, AEC, ANMM, Treasury, ABS, CLO, ASCPublic RelationsNilMarket ResearchDoCASeptember 1996AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, DIST, PM&C, DPIE, DAS, ANMM, DoTRD, Treasury, CLOPublic RelationsDHFSMarket ResearchA-G's, DefenceOctober 1996AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DFAT, DHFS, PM&C, DPIE, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, DVAPublic RelationsNil Market ResearchDPIE, DIMA, A-G's, ATONovember 1996AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DAS, ANMM, DoTRD, Treasury, ATO, A-G's, DVAPublic RelationsNilMarket ResearchA-G'sDecember 1996AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G'sPublic RelationsAUSTEL, TreasuryMarket ResearchATO, DHFS, DWRSB, A-G'sJanuary 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G's Public RelationsDIST, ATOMarket ResearchATO, DHFS, DISTFebruary 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G'sPublic RelationsDoCAMarket ResearchDHFS, DAS, DoCAMarch 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, DIST, DPIE, AEC, DTRD, Treasury, ATO, A-G's, ANMMPublic RelationsDHFS, DefenceMarket ResearchAEC, DHFS, DVA, DISTApril 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, DPIE, DSS, AEC, DoTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G's, ANMMPublic RelationsDHFS, DoFMarket ResearchNilMay 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, DIST, DPIE, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G's, ASCPublic RelationsNilMarket ResearchDoF, AEC, DHFS, DAS, A-G's, AUSTEL, DESTJune 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, DIST, DPIE, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DoTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G's, ASCPublic RelationsATO, DSS, A-G's, DHFS, DoCA, DoFMarket ResearchDPIEJuly 1997AdvertisingDefence, DoF, DHFS, HIC, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ATO, A-G's, ASCPublic RelationsNilMarket ResearchATO, DoF, DHFSAugust 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DoF, DOCA, DHFS, DSS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ATO, A-G's, ASCPublic RelationsPM&CMarket ResearchDoF, DSS, Questacon, DIST, ATO, DASSeptember 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DoF, DHFS, DSS, DAS, ANMM, Treasury, ATO, A-G'sPublic RelationsDIST, DEETYA, DPIE, DVA, DHFSMarket ResearchDIST, DHFS, DVA, Australian Communications AuthorityOctober 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DoF, DHFS, Health Insurance Commission (HIC), DSS, DAS, Environment, ANMM, DTRD, DIST, Treasury, ATO, A-G's Public RelationsNilMarket ResearchOffice of the Employment Advocate, DHFSNovember 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DoFA, DHFS, HIC, PM&C, DSS, ANMM, DIST, Treasury, ATO, ASCPublic RelationsDHFS, PM&C, DEETYA, DSSMarket ResearchDefence, DHFS, DWRSB, DEETYA, DSS, ATO, DoFADecember 1997AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, HIC, PM&C, DSS, DoFA, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G's, ASCPublic RelationsATOMarket ResearchDoCA, DISTJanuary 1998AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, DSS, DoFA, ANMM, DIST, Treasury, ASC.Public RelationsDPIEMarket ResearchATO, ABS, Defence, DWRSBFebruary 1998AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, DPIE, ANMM, DIST, TreasuryPublic RelationsDHFS, DTRDMarket ResearchA-G's, Treasury, DSS, DHFSMarch 1998AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DPIE, DSS, AEC, DIST, Treasury, ANMMPublic RelationsDefence, DHFSMarket ResearchHIC, DHFS, QuestaconApril 1998AdvertisingDetails for April not availablePublic RelationsWorksafe Australia, DHFS, DWRSBMarket ResearchDHFS(3) (a) $4,165,113.(b) and (c) As noted in the answer to (1) (b) and (c), OGIA does not hold details of expenditure on these activities. They are held by individual departments and agencies.(4) No.(a) (i) Indigenous Programs Public Information campaign; (ii) Aged Care campaign.(b) (i) Various; (ii) Royce Communications.(c) (i) Campaign did not proceed; (ii) $166,238—media budget.From time to time advertorial material is produced that does not require the services of a creative agency. This material often involves using the media outlet eg, magazine, newspaper, television station, rather than a creative agency, in close consultation with the client department. Recent examples include the Greenhouse Emissions, Aged Care and Child Care campaigns.3709(Question No. 1171)11713709O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 27 April 1998:(1) When was the Government Members Secretariat established.(2) (a) How many employees did the secretariat have at that time; (b) were all positions at the secretariat advertised; if so, when and where were advertisements placed; (c) what position did each employee hold; and (d) what salary range applied to each position.(3) (a) What salary level applied to each employee at the time of his or her appointment; (b) how was that salary level determined; and (c) by whom was it determined.(4) (a) How many appointments have been made to the secretariat since it was established; (b) were the positions advertised; (c) when were the appointments made; (d) what salary range applied to any new appointments; (e) what actual salary was applied within that range; (f) who determined the actual salary level applied; and (g) are all employees based in Canberra.(5) (a) Have all secretariat employees always been located in Canberra; if not, where were they located; (b) how long were they located there; (c) were they paid any special allowances; (d) to what did those special allowances relate; and (e) how long were they paid.(6) (a) What variations have occurred to salaries paid since the appointment of each employee; (b) when did those variations occur; and (c) what was the basis for the variation.(7) (a) How many employees have left the secretariat since it was established; (b) when did they leave; and (c) why did they leave.(8) (a) How many employees have a mobile phone, a computer or a motor vehicle provided by the Government; and (b) what percentage of the costs associated with this equipment and motor vehicles is met by the Government and what percentage is met by the employee.(9) (a) How much money has been spent on renovations or refits to the secretariat office in Parliament House since March 1996; (b) what was the exact nature of the work undertaken; (c) when did it commence and what was the completion date; and (d) were tenders called for the work.(10) (a) How much money has been spent on equipment for the secretariat since March 1996; (b) what are the details of the equipment purchased; (c) when was it purchased; and (d) were tenders called for the supply of equipment; if not, why not.(11) Why was the equipment purchased by the secretariat.(12) Is any of the equipment located in a place other than the secretariat's Parliament House office; if so: (a) what equipment is located outside the office; (b) where is the equipment located; and (c) why is it at that location.(13) How much money has been spent on stationary, by month, by the secretariat since March 1996.(14) (a) How much travel has been undertaken by secretariat employees since March 1996; (b) which officers travelled; (c) where did they travel to; (d) when did they travel; and (e) what was the purpose of the travel.(15) (a) What contracts have been let by, or on behalf of, the secretariat since March 1996; and (b)which agency or agencies actually signed the contracts.(16) (a) Which of the contracts in (15) related exclusively to the operation of the secretariat; and (b) which contracts related in part to the operation of the secretariat and in part to the operation of other agencies or departments.(17) Where the value of a contract was allocated between the secretariat and another agency or department, to what extent did the secretariat benefit from the contract.(18) (a) What was the value of each contract; (b) what was each contract for; and (c) were tenders called for each contract.(19) (a) What consultancies have been let by, or on behalf of, the secretariat since March 1996; and (b) which agency or agencies actually signed the contracts.(20) (a) Which of the consultancies in (19) related exclusively to the operation of the secretariat; and (b) which consultancies related in part to the operation of the secretariat and in part to the operation of other agencies or departments.(21) Where a consultant was required to work for the secretariat as well as another agency or department, to what extent did the secretariat benefit from the consultancy.(22) (a) What was the value of each consultancy; (b) what was each consultancy for; and (c) were tenders called for each consultancy; if not, why not.3710Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 12 April 1996(2) (a) An establishment of ten positions was approved. Nine positions were initially filled.(b) No advertisements were placed by the Department.(c) The initial employees and the positions they held were:Schuller, AAdviserReynolds, LAdviserWarren, SAdviserGalilee, SAssistant AdviserOakeshott, RAssistant AdviserWiessner, AAssistant AdviserBest, YAssistant AdviserWoolcock, VAssistant AdviserCooper, BPersonal Secretary(d) The salary ranges applying to the positions at that time were:Adviser—#$49,932- $67,154 pa; Assistant Adviser—#$40,618- $46,658 pa; Personal Secretary—*$23,469—$39,877 pa.# Also paid Ministerial Staff Allowance (MSA) of $11,200 pa* If paid annual salary of $33,717 or higher, occupant could elect to be paid MSA instead of overtime.(3) (a) The salary ranges are given above. It is inappropriate for privacy reasons to provide individual salaries.(b) and (c) Under the employment arrangements approved by the Prime Minister for staff ofMinisters and other Government office holders, the commencing salary for appointees to Adviser positions and below is set by the employing Minister or Office holder. Accordingly, the Minister or Office holder responsible for the Government Members Secretariat sets the salaries for appointees.(4) (a) In addition to the staff detailed in the response to Question 2(c) above, there have been eight appointments have been made and three temporary employees engaged.(b) No advertisements were placed by the Department.(c) The dates of the appointments were as follows:Blyth, K6 January 1997Buitendam, R20 January 1997Crosby, D3 February 1997Archer, T22 September 1997Beer, J13 October 1997Kohls, L16 February 1998Chamberlain, R23 February 1998Fryar, C9 April 1998The temporary employees engaged were:Garton, J—27 May 1996; Sharp, P—11 June 1996; Schmidt, S—29 September 1997.(d) The salary range (there was a general salary increase on 17 October 1996) applicable to the new appointments were:Blyth, K$50,931—$68,497# paBuitendam, R$23,938—$40,675* paCrosby, D$50,931—$68,497# paArcher, T$41,430—$47,591# paBeer, J$23,938—$40,675 * paKohls, L$23,938—$40,675* paChamberlain, R$41,430—$47,591# paFryar, C$68,228—$90,580# paGarton, J$23,469—$39,877* paSharp, P$23,938—$40,675* paSchmidt, S$23,938—$40,675* pa# Also paid Ministerial Staff Allowance (MSA) of $11,424 pa* If paid annual salary of $34,391 or higher, occupant can elect to be paid MSA instead of overtime.(e) See answer to 3 (a).(f) See answer to 3 (c ) above. In respect of Mr Fryar, the Special Minister of State, on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business, deter mines the salary for appointees to Senior Executive Service equivalent positions.(g) No.(5) (a) No. Ms Wiessner is based in Sydney and Mr Blyth is based in Adelaide.(b) They have been based at those locations since their appointment.(c) No.(d) Not applicable.(e) Not applicable. (6) (a), (b) and (c) Variations to commencing salaries have occurred because of the National Wage Increase of 17 October 1996 and/or by annual increments. Staff generally progress one pay point within the relevant salary range after 12 months satisfactory service at a particular pay point (except staff who are appointed to positions to Senior Executive Service equivalent positions).Apart from those increases, there were two other salary variations. Mr B Cooper was promoted from Personal Secretary to Assistant Adviser on 19 December 1996. Ms L Kohls' salary was adjusted in April 1998.(7) (a) (b) and (c ) The employees who have left the secretariat, their dates of cessation and reasons for leaving are:Garton, J7 June 1996End of temporary contractOakeshott, R9 August 1996Resigned to contest by election for a New South Wales state seatWarren, S11 November 1996Transferred to position with Senator the Hon Robert HillGalilee, S22 November 1996Transferred to position with the Hon Michael Ronaldson MPSharp, P24 December 1996End of temporary contractBuitendam, R21 September 1997Transferred to position with the Hon Peter Reith MPCooper, B3 October 1997Resigned to take up position with the office of the Premier, WASchmidt, S10 October 1997End of temporary contactBest, Y11 January 1998Transferred to position with the Hon John Fahey MP(8) (a) 8 employees have mobile phones, 10 employees have desktop computers, and 1 person is provided with a private-plated vehicle. The secretariat has five laptop computers which are available for staff use off site.(b) The above equipment is totally funded by the Commonwealth. The vehicle is provided on the same terms and conditions as those supplied to the Senior Executive Service in the Australian Public Service. The Commonwealth pays the leasing and running costs for the vehicle and the employee contributes $711 pa.(9) (a) $39,960.00(b) The work undertaken comprised the alteration of the former office and conference room layout to provide additional office accommodation. The Joint House Department made minor alterations to the exterior of the office to bring it into line with the original design. All changes were approved by the Presiding Officers.(c) The work commenced in mid August 1997 and completed in early October 1997.(d) Yes.(10) (a) $54,466. Equipment for the initial setup was supplied from surplus departmental stock.(b) and (c)—EquipmentPurchasedMobile phone and pouchJun 964 x SCSI CD Rom , speaker kitsAug 964 x NEC CD Rom kitsAug 962 x Seagate 4.2Gb Hard DriveNov 96Disk Drive KitDec 96Computer HardwareJan 97Nokia 2110 Mobile phone and accessoriesJan 97Nokia 2110 Mobile phone and accessoriesFeb 972 x Seagate 4.2Gb Hard DrivesFeb 97HP Laser Jet PrinterMay 97Latitude Laptop ComputerJune 97Disk drive KitJune 97 Latitude CD-RomJune 97Iomega Zip DriveDec 973Gb HDD, Monitor and Video CardOct 97Panasonic TelevisionDec 97Grundig Video RecorderDec 97Epson Stylus Colour PrinterMar 982 x Nokia 8110 mobile phones, extended batteries, Hands free kits and Desktop standMar 982 x Dell Laptops with accessoriesApr 981 Dell LaptopApr 98(d) The department has advised that purchases were arranged by competitive quotes or through suppliers under Government contract.(11) The equipment was purchased to enable the efficient day-to-day running of the Secretariat.(12) No, apart from equipment that could be located at home under standard staff entitlements of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984.(13)—JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec1996-------329--2,150-19976,1815,0324,2912,6545,6159948711,6149717782,3572,10619981,2632,9891,3561,430--------(14) (a), (b), (c) and (d) The total costs for travel undertaken by staff of the secretariat (airfares and car transport) to 31 May 1998 were $185,259.Details of individual car transport usage is not readily available in a format to answer all parts of this question.Details of airfares follow:Linda K ReynoldsTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraTownsville17/07/1996TownsvilleCanberra19/07/1996958.00Canberra Sydney22/07/1996SydneyCanberra25/07/1996296.00CanberraBrisbane28/07/1996BrisbaneCanberra01/08/1996604.00CanberraMelbourne05/08/1996MelbourneAdelaide07/08/1996AdelaidePerth09/08/1996PerthCanberra15/08/19961576.00CanberraSydney27/08/1996SydneyCanberra27/08/1996308.00BrisbaneCairns22/09/1996CairnsBrisbane23/09/1996842.00CanberraBrisbane23/09/1996BrisbaneSydney24/09/1996SydneyCanberra26/09/1996759.40CanberraLaunceston29/09/1996LauncestonCanberra01/10/1996606.00CanberraAdelaide03/10/1996AdelaideCanberra04/10/1996638.00CanberraHobart15/10/1996183.00HobartMelbourne21/10/1996MelbourneCanberra23/10/1996450.00CanberraPerth16/11/1996PerthCanberra04/12/19961247.40CanberraBrisbane23/11/1996BrisbaneCanberra01/12/1996626.00CanberraBrisbane13/02/1997BrisbaneCanberra14/02/1997642.00CanberraMelbourne19/02/1997MelbourneCanberra21/02/1997809.00CanberraDarwin12/03/1997DarwinCanberra14/03/19971392.00CanberraPerth26/03/1997PerthAdelaide03/04/1997AdelaideCanberra04/04/19971522.00CanberraRockhampton28/04/1997RockhamptonSydney29/04/1997SydneyCanberra01/05/1997962.40CanberraBrisbane14/07/1997BrisbaneCanberra18/07/1997642.00CanberraSydney21/07/1997SydneyCanberra25/07/1997316.00 CanberraMelbourne27/07/1997MelbourneCanberra02/08/1997444.00CanberraAdelaide02/08/1997AdelaidePerth10/08/1997PerthCanberra23/08/19971552.40CanberraGold Coast08/09/1997Gold CoastCanberra09/09/1997611.40SydneyCanberra02/10/1997CanberraSydney04/10/1997316.00CanberraMelbourne07/12/1997MelbourneCanberra10/12/1997444.00CanberraPerth16/12/1997PerthSydney26/12/1997SydneyCanberra27/12/19971483.00CanberraSydney06/02/1998SydneyCanberra08/02/1998316.00CanberraSydney09/03/1998SydneyBrisbane10/03/1998BrisbaneCanberra17/03/1998782.00CanberraTamworth02/04/1998TamworthCanberra03/04/1998701.40CanberraPerth10/04/1998PerthCanberra17/04/19981276.00CanberraSydney20/04/1998SydneyCanberra24/04/1998316.00CanberraMelbourne28/04/1998MelbourneCanberra30/04/1998444.00CanberraAdelaide19/05/1998AdelaideCanberra21/05/1998702.00Total24767.40Timothy ArcherTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraSydney23/09/1997SydneyCanberra23/09/1997316.00Canberra Perth29/09/1996PerthCanberra02/10/19961276.00CanberraMelbourne03/11/1996222.00CanberraSydney11/11/1996SydneyCanberra14/11/1996316.00CanberraSydney09/12/1996158.00SydneyTamworth09/12/1996142.50Port MacquarieSydney12/12/1996SydneyCanberra12/12/1996343.25CanberraBrisbane16/12/1996BrisbaneCanberra17/12/1996642.00CanberraCairns27/01/1997CairnsBrisbane28/01/1997BrisbaneCanberra30/01/19971179.00CanberraMelbourne10/02/1997MelbourneCanberra11/02/1997444.00CanberraBrisbane10/03/1997BrisbaneCanberra17/03/1997642.00CanberraSydney23/03/1997SydneyCanberra24/03/1997316.00CanberraPerth14/04/1997PerthCanberra19/04/19971279.40CanberraAdelaide21/04/1997AdelaideBrisbane22/04/1997BrisbaneCanberra24/04/19971193.00CanberraMelbourne27/04/1997MelbourneCanberra30/04/1997444.00CanberraAdelaide19/05/1997AdelaideCanberra21/05/1997702.00Total9615.15Andrew SchullerTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraAdelaide21/04/1996AdelaideCanberra24/04/1996641.00Canberra Brisbane12/06/1996BrisbaneCanberra14/06/1996604.00CanberraBrisbane10/10/1996BrisbaneCanberra13/10/1996629.40CanberraHobart15/10/1996HobartCanberra20/10/1996498.00CanberraBrisbane18/12/1996BrisbaneCanberra21/12/1996642.00CanberraBrisbane11/03/1997BrisbaneCanberra13/03/1997642.00CanberraBrisbane09/06/1997BrisbaneCanberra13/06/1997642.00CanberraBrisbane17/12/1997BrisbaneCanberra26/12/1997642.00Total4940.40Brendan CooperTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraAdelaide21/04/1996AdelaideCanberra24/04/1996641.00CanberraBrisbane14/05/1996BrisbaneCanberra17/05/1996607.40CanberraSydney21/05/1996148.00CanberraMackay04/06/1996MackayBrisbane05/06/1996BrisbaneCanberra07/06/19961030.00CanberraPerth13/06/1996PerthCanberra15/06/19961203.40CanberraSydney23/06/1996148.00CanberraSydney02/07/1996SydneyCanberra02/07/1996296.00CanberraSydney09/07/1996SydneyCanberra12/07/1996296.00CanberraBrisbane15/07/1996BrisbaneRockhampton17/07/1996RockhamptonBrisbane17/07/1996BrisbaneCanberra18/07/19961590.00CanberraBrisbane15/07/1996BrisbaneRockhampton17/07/1996RockhamptonBrisbane17/07/1996BrisbaneCanberra18/07/19961590.00CanberraRockhampton22/07/1996RockhamptonCanberra22/07/1996792.00CanberraSydney24/07/1996SydneyCanberra26/07/1996296.00CanberraAdelaide30/07/1996AdelaidePt Lincoln31/07/1996Pt LincolnAdelaide01/08/1996AdelaideCanberra02/08/1996821.00CanberraSydney26/08/1996SydneyBrisbane28/08/1996BrisbaneCanberra29/08/1996756.00CanberraPerth04/09/1996PerthCanberra06/09/19961244.00CanberraMelbourne16/09/1996MelbourneCanberra16/09/1996432.00CanberraSydney17/09/1996SydneyCanberra18/09/1996308.00CanberraSydney17/09/1996SydneyCanberra18/09/1996308.00CanberraBrisbane23/09/1996BrisbaneSydney26/09/1996SydneyCanberra27/09/19961742.40 CanberraAdelaide30/09/1996AdelaideDarwin30/09/1996DarwinBrisbane02/10/1996BrisbaneCanberra02/10/19961358.00CanberraHobart14/10/1996HobartCanberra21/10/1996366.00SydneyCanberra24/10/1996154.00CanberraPerth25/10/1996PerthCanberra31/10/1996CanberraPerth03/11/1996PerthSydney08/11/1996SydneyCanberra09/11/19962494.80CanberraPerth10/11/1996PerthSydney13/11/1996SydneyCanberra14/11/19961247.40CanberraPerth16/11/1996PerthSydney28/11/1996SydneyCanberra29/11/19961247.40CanberraPerth26/11/1996PerthBrisbane28/11/1996BrisbanePerth29/11/1996PerthBrisbane05/12/1996BrisbaneSydney06/12/1996SydneyPerth09/12/1996PerthCanberra12/12/19964982.04CanberraAlbury16/12/1996AlburyCanberra16/12/1996244.00CanberraBrisbane17/12/1996BrisbaneSydney19/12/1996SydneyCanberra20/12/1996779.40CanberraBrisbane07/01/1997BrisbaneCanberra08/01/1997642.00CanberraSydney11/01/1997SydneyCanberra16/01/1997316.00CanberraAdelaide21/01/1997AdelaidePerth22/01/1997PerthCanberra24/01/19971552.40AdelaidePt Augusta22/01/1997Pt AugustaAdelaide22/01/1997220.00CanberraMelbourne30/01/1997MelbourneCanberra30/01/1997444.00CanberraSydney03/02/1997SydneyCanberra06/02/1997316.00CanberraAdelaide10/02/1997AdelaideCanberra12/02/1997654.00CanberraSydney18/02/1997SydneyCanberra21/02/1997316.00CanberraBrisbane11/03/1997BrisbaneSydney12/03/1997621.40CanberraMelbourne25/03/1997MelbourneCanberra25/03/1997444.00CanberraSydney09/04/1997158.00CanberraPerth16/04/1997PerthCanberra18/04/19971276.00CanberraTownsville29/04/1997TownsvilleCairns30/04/1997CairnsBrisbane01/05/1997BrisbaneCanberra02/05/19971972.00CanberraAdelaide05/05/1997AdelaideCanberra09/05/1997654.00CanberraMelbourne20/05/1997MelbourneCanberra21/05/1997444.00CanberraBrisbane10/06/1997BrisbaneCanberra11/06/1997645.40CanberraPerth18/06/1997PerthAdelaide19/06/19971195.00CanberraHobart27/06/1997LauncestonCanberra28/06/1997652.00CanberraMackay01/07/1997 MackayBrisbane01/07/1997BrisbaneCanberra04/07/19971095.00CanberraPerth08/07/1997PerthCanberra10/07/19971276.00CanberraSydney06/08/1997158.00CanberraPerth11/08/1997PerthCanberra13/08/19971276.00CanberraSydney18/08/1997SydneyCanberra20/08/1997316.00CanberraSydney25/08/1997SydneyCanberra26/08/1997316.00CanberraLaunceston03/09/1997LauncestonMelbourne03/09/1997MelbourneCanberra04/09/1997747.00CanberraSydney05/09/1997SydneyCanberra06/09/1997316.00CanberraAlice Springs09/09/1997Alice SpringsCanberra10/09/19971063.40CanberraBrisbane15/09/1997BrisbaneAdelaide16/09/1997AdelaideCanberra19/09/19971210.00CanberraSydney23/09/1997SydneyCanberra23/09/1997316.00CanberraMelbourne29/09/1997MelbournePerth29/09/1997638.00Total48371.84Jane BeerTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraBrisbane11/03/1998BrisbaneCanberra16/03/1998642.00Total642.00Susan WarrenTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraAdelaide02/07/1996AdelaideCanberra06/07/1996786.40Canberra Hobart17/10/1996HobartCanberra20/10/1996664.00Total1450.40Stephen J GalileeTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$Canberra Brisbane29/07/1996BrisbaneCanberra01/08/1996$604.00Canberra Melbourne05/08/1996MelbourneAdelaide07/08/1996AdelaideMelbourne09/08/1996MelbourneCanberra09/08/1996$785.00Total$1,389.00Keith A BlythTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$AdelaideCanberra29/04/1997$327.00Adelaide Canberra04/05/1997Canberra Adelaide09/05/1997$654.00Adelaide Canberra11/05/1997CanberraAdelaide17/05/1997$681.00AdelaideCanberra01/06/1997CanberraAdelaide06/06/1997$654.00AdelaideCanberra15/06/1997CanberraAdelaide20/06/1997$654.00AdelaideCanberra22/06/1997CanberraAdelaide27/06/1997$654.00 AdelaideCanberra22/07/1997CanberraAdelaide25/07/1997$681.00AdelaideCanberra28/07/1997CanberraAdelaide31/07/1997$654.00AdelaidePerth10/08/1997PerthAdelaide13/08/1997$1,002.00AdelaideCanberra24/08/1997CanberraAdelaide29/08/1997$654.00AdelaideCanberra31/08/1997CanberraAdelaide04/09/1997$654.00AdelaideCanberra06/01/1997CanberraAdelaide09/01/1997$711.40Adelaide Sydney21/01/1997SydneyAdelaide22/01/1997$751.40AdelaideCanberra29/01/1997CanberraAdelaide31/01/1997$681.00AdelaideCanberra02/02/1997CanberraAdelaide06/02/1997$681.00AdelaideCanberra09/02/1997CanberraAdelaide14/02/1997$681.00AdelaideCanberra23/02/1997CanberraAdelaide27/02/1997$654.00AdelaideCanberra02/03/1997CanberraAdelaide06/03/1997$654.00AdelaideCanberra16/03/1997CanberraAdelaide20/03/1997$654.00AdelaideCanberra23/03/1997CanberraAdelaide27/03/1997$681.00AdelaideCanberra06/04/1997CanberraAdelaide10/04/1997$654.00AdelaideCanberra18/04/1997$327.00SydneyAdelaide24/04/1997$374.00AdelaideCanberra10/09/1997CanberraAdelaide13/09/1997$681.00AdelaideCanberra26/10/1997CanberraMelbourne01/11/1997MelbourneAdelaide01/11/1997$681.00CanberraAdelaide14/11/1997AdelaideSydney16/11/1997SydneyCanberra16/11/1997$681.00CanberraMelbourne21/11/1997MelbourneAdelaide21/11/1997AdelaideCanberra23/11/1997$681.00CanberraAdelaide28/11/1997AdelaideCanberra30/11/1997$654.00CanberraAdelaide28/11/1997$327.00CanberraSydney06/12/1997SydneyAdelaide06/12/1997AdelaideCanberra09/12/1997$708.00AdelaideMelbourne06/01/1998MelbourneCanberra06/01/1998CanberraAdelaide09/01/1998$708.00AdelaideMelbourne12/01/1998MelbourneCanberra12/01/1998CanberraAdelaide16/01/1998$708.00CanberraSydney19/01/1998SydneyPerth19/01/1998Perth Adelaide23/01/1998$1,195.00AdelaideCanberra02/02/1998$354.00CanberraMelbourne06/02/1998MelbourneAdelaide06/02/1998AdelaideCanberra08/02/1998$681.00CanberraAdelaide13/02/1998$327.00CanberraAdelaide06/03/1998$327.00AdelaideCanberra08/03/1998 CanberraBrisbane13/03/1998BrisbaneMelbourne20/03/1998MelbourneAdelaide20/03/1998$1,183.00CanberraMelbourne12/03/1998MelbourneBrisbane12/03/1998BrisbaneMelbourne20/03/1998MelbourneAdelaide20/03/1998$1,198.00AdelaideCanberra22/03/1998CanberraAdelaide26/03/1998$681.00CanberraAdelaide27/03/1998$327.00AdelaideCanberra29/03/1998CanberraAdelaide03/04/1998$654.00AdelaideCanberra05/04/1998CanberraAdelaide09/04/1998$654.00CanberraMelbourne09/04/1998MelbourneAdelaide09/04/1998$354.00AdelaidePerth13/04/1998PerthAdelaide17/04/1998$1,114.00AdelaideMelbourne29/04/1998MelbourneCanberra29/04/1998CanberraAdelaide01/05/1998$708.00AdelaideCanberra03/05/1998CanberraAdelaide08/05/1998$654.00AdelaideCanberra10/05/1998CanberraAdelaide15/05/1998$681.00AdelaideCanberra24/05/1998CanberraAdelaide29/05/1998$674.00Total$32,367.80Vincent R WoolcockTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$Canberra Sydney13/05/1996SydneyHobart13/05/1996Hobart Melbourne15/05/1996MelbourneCanberra15/05/1996$409.00Canberra Melbourne08/07/1996MelbourneHobart08/07/1996Hobart Melbourne09/07/1996MelbourneCanberra09/07/1996$640.00Canberra Melbourne01/09/1996Melbourne Hobart01/09/1996HobartMelbourne03/09/1996Melbourne Canberra03/09/1996$664.00Canberra Hobart10/09/1996HobartCanberra11/09/1996$664.00CanberraHobart13/10/1996HobartCanberra22/10/1996$366.00Canberra Sydney08/12/1996SydneyCanberra10/12/1996$316.00CanberraBrisbane10/03/1997BrisbaneCanberra12/03/1997$642.00Canberra Adelaide20/04/1997AdelaideCanberra23/04/1997$681.00CanberraBrisbane09/07/1997BrisbaneCanberra11/07/1997$645.40Canberra Launceston28/08/1997Launceston Canberra29/08/1997$622.00CanberraBrisbane08/09/1997BrisbaneCanberra10/09/1997$642.00CanberraBrisbane24/11/1997BrisbaneCanberra27/11/1997$642.00CanberraSydney26/01/1998Sydney Brisbane26/01/1998BrisbaneCanberra27/01/1998$642.00 Canberra Brisbane17/02/1998BrisbaneSydney18/02/1998SydneyCanberra19/02/1997$785.40Canberra Brisbane06/03/1998BrisbaneCanberra17/03/1998$642.00CanberraMelbourne20/05/1998MelbourneCanberra20/05/1998$464.00Total$9,466.80Robert J M OakeshottTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraSydney05/07/1996$148.00SydneyBrisbane08/07/1996BrisbaneRockhampton08/07/1996RockhamptonMackay10/07/1996MackayBrisbane12/07/1996BrisbaneCanberra12/07/1996$969.00SydneyCanberra08/07/1996$148.00Total$1,265.00Leander KlohsTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraBrisbane18/05/1998BrisbaneCairns18/05/1998CairnsCanberra22/05/1998$615.00Total$615.00Christopher C FryarTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TO DATECOST$CanberraMelbourne22/05/1998MelbourneCanberra22/05/1998$628.00Total$628.00Aileen WiessnerTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraSydney03/05/1996$148.00CanberraSydney09/05/1996$148.00SydneyCanberra20/05/1996$148.00SydneyCanberra17/06/1996$148.00CanberraSydney20/06/1996$148.00SydneyCanberra24/06/1996$148.00Canberra Sydney22/08/1996$148.00SydneyCanberra09/09/1996CanberraSydney12/09/1996$308.00SydneyCanberra09/12/1996$158.00CanberraSydney14/12/1996$158.00SydneyCanberra17/03/1997CanberraSydney20/03/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra12/05/1997Canberra Sydney14/05/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra26/05/1997CanberraSydney29/05/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra02/06/1997CanberraSydney05/06/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra16/06/1997CanberraSydney19/06/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra25/08/1997$158.00SydneyCanberra01/09/1997CanberraSydney04/09/1997$316.00CanberraSydney25/09/1997$213.00SydneyCanberra29/09/1997$158.00CanberraSydney02/10/1997$158.00CanberraSydney23/10/1997$158.00SydneyCanberra27/10/1997Canberra Sydney30/10/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra17/11/1997Canberra Sydney20/11/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra24/11/1997CanberraSydney27/11/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra01/12/1997CanberraSydney04/12/1997$316.00SydneyCanberra13/02/1998$158.00SydneyCanberra02/03/1998CanberraSydney05/03/1998$316.00SydneyBrisbane11/03/1998BrisbaneSydney15/03/1998$609.40SydneyCanberra23/03/1998CanberraSydney26/03/1998$316.00SydneyCanberra30/03/1998CanberraSydney02/04/1998$316.00SydneyCanberra06/04/1998CanberraSydney08/04/1998$316.00SydneyCanberra11/05/1998CanberraSydney13/05/1998$316.00SydneyCanberra25/05/1998CanberraSydney28/05/1998$326.00Total$8,338.40Reginald ChamberlainTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$CanberraSydney11/03/1998SydneyBrisbane11/03/1998BrisbaneCanberra16/03/1998$642.00Total$642.00Yvonne BestTRAVEL FROMTRAVEL TODATECOST$SydneyCanberra09/09/1996154.00Canberra Sydney09/11/1996SydneyPerth10/11/19961665.40CanberraSydney21/07/1997SydneyCanberra24/07/1997284.00CanberraMelbourne28/07/1997MelbourneCanberra31/07/1997400.00CanberraAdelaide04/08/1997AdelaideCanberra07/08/1997616.40Total3119.80(e) The staff of the secretariat have the same entitlement to travel as do all other staff employed under Part III of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 including the staff of the Opposition Office holders. This entitlement is to travel on official business in Australia as directed by the Minister or Office holder responsible for the Government Members Secretariat.(15) (a) Nil.(b) N/A.(16) (a) & (b) N/A.(17) N/A.(18) (a), (b) & (c) N/A.(19) (a) Nil.(b) N/A.(20) (a) & (b) N/A.(21) N/A.(22) (a), (b) & (c) N/A. 3730(Question No. 1172)11723730O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 28 April 1998:(1) (a) What role did the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) have in the approval of an application from PowerBar Australia to import a sports food product; (b) when was that approval given; (c) what was the life of the approval; and (d) what was the scientific basis on which the approval was granted.(2) (a) Did AQIS advise the above company on 22 January 1998 that a shipment of PowerBar products were being held at the docks because the product did not conform with any food standard; and (b) what changes occurred from the initial approvals by AQIS for PowerBar products to the blocking of the above shipment. (3) (a) What role does AQIS have in the development of food standards; and (b) has AQIS been involved in the development of a sports food standard; if so, what was that role.3731Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) AQIS has not issued an approval for PowerBar Australia to import a sports food product.(2) (a) No; however AQIS did advise PowerBar Australia on 28 January 1998 that a shipment of product held at the importers did not comply with Standard S1 of the Food Standards Code. (b) There was no initial approval by AQIS.(3) AQIS has the opportunity to comment to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority during the public comment phases of the development of food standards; as the details of the sports food standard did not directly impact on AQIS's core responsibilities AQIS had minimal input to the development of this standard.3731(Question No. 1173)11733731O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1998:(1) Did the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) approve an application by a company called Power Bar—Australia to import a sports energy bar; if so, what analysis of the product was undertaken before its importation was approved.(2) (a) When was approval granted and under what authority was permission given to import the bar; (b) was there a time limit placed on the approval; if so, what was the life of the approval and how was that determined; and (c) was the importer required to renew the permit; if so, how often was the renewal required and what process was the importer required to follow.(3) (a) Has approval for the importation of the Power Bar been suspended; if so, when was that suspension imposed and what was the basis of the suspension; and (b) how long will this suspension remain in force.(4) (a) Has ANZFA determined a standard for the importation of sports food products; if so: (i) when was the process of determining the standard commenced, (ii) what procedures were followed, and (iii) when was the standard finalised; and (b) if the development of such a standard is underway: (i) when did the process commence, (ii) at what stage is the process, and (iii) when does ANZFA expect the standard to be finalised. 3731Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No, ANZFA did not and cannot approve food for importation into Australia. ANZFA develops food standards which are contained within the Australian Food Standards Code (FSC), and these food standards have effect through adoption by reference into States and Territory legislation.The Imported Food Control Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS), also adopts the FSC by reference and this is the basis for inspection and clearance of imported food at the customs barrier.As no application from Power—Bar Australia has been received to amend the FSC, ANZFA has no information on the analysis of this product.(2) As ANZFA has no authority to approve foods for importation this question would be better directed to the AQIS. AQIS is responsible for assessing the compliance of imported food with the FSC and appropriate quarantine requirements.(3) See answer two.(4) No. However, ANZFA has recently gazetted a new food standard—Standard R10—Formulated Supplementary Sports Foods. The development of this standard was commenced in 1993. The standard was developed through ANZFA*s statutory processes which, in summary, it requires:- a proposal to develop the standard to be raised by ANZFA;- a round of public consultation;- full assessment of the proposal by ANZFA, with an associated draft amendment to the Food Standards Code;- a further round of public consultation;- a recommendation from ANZFA to the Australia New Zealand Ministerial Council;- gazettal and bringing into force of the amendment to the Food Standards Code.Gazettal of this standard occurred in March 1998 and it came into force immediately.3731(Question No. 1174)11743731Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 29 April 1998:(1) Has the Minister corresponded or communicated with the Western Australian Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Cheryl Edwardes, in relation to the Western Australian regional forest agree ment; if so, can copies be provided of the correspondence or communication.(2) Has Environment Australia been involved in any correspondence or communication with any State or Federal Government department or minister, the Forest Industries Federation of Western Australia, Alcoa Australia, the Forest Protection Society, or Wesfarmers Limited or any of its subsidiaries including the Bunnings group of companies, Wesfarmers Bunnings Limited and Bunnings Forest Products Pty Ltd, in relation to the Western Australian regional forest agreement; if so, can copies be provided of that correspondence or communication.3732Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes. No copies can be provided as the correspondence relates to sensitive negotiations between the Commonwealth and the Western Australian Government in developing the Regional Forest Agreement in Western Australia.(2) Yes. Environment Australia has corresponded and communicated with State and Federal Government departments and ministers, the Forest Industries Federation of Western Australia, Alcoa Australia, the Forest Protection Society, Wesfarmers Bunnings Limited and Bunnings Forest Products Pty Ltd, in relation to the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement.Copies of correspondence between Environment Australia and State and Federal Government departments and ministers cannot be released as these documents cover sensitive negotiations between the Commonwealth and the Western Australian Government in developing the Regional Forest Agreement in Western Australia.Copies of correspondence between Environment Australia and the Forest Industries Federation of Western Australia, Alcoa Australia, the Forest Protection Society, Wesfarmers Bunnings Limited and Bunnings Forest Products Pty Ltd, in relation to the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement, have been forwarded to the honourable senator. This correspondence dates from the signing of the Scoping Agreement for a Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement on 3 July 1996.Further copies of the correspondence are available from the Senate Table Office.3732(Question No. 1177)11773732Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 April 1998:(1) (a) On what date was the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court transferred; and (b) to which body was the court's jurisdiction transferred.(2) Were Industrial Relations Court judges transferred to another court; if so, which one; if not, what happened to those judges.(3) How many:(a) Judicial Registrars; and (b) other staff, remain employed in their former positions with the Industrial Relations Court.(4) What is the unexpired period of the contracts under which these staff remain employed.(5) How many cases have been dealt with by the Court Registry since the transfer of jurisdiction.(6) What is the total annual cost for the remaining Industrial Relations Court; (a) Judicial Registrars; (b) other staff; (c) accommodation; and (d) other costs.3732Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(b) The jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court was transferred to the Federal Court of Australia.(2) All the judges of the Industrial Relations Court already held commissions as judges of the Federal Court of Australia.(3) I am advised that as at 13 May 1998 there are:(a) 13 Judicial Registrars (of which S are part-time); and (b) 17 former staff of the Industrial Relations Court now designated as employees of the Federal Court.(4) I am advised that the terms of the Judicial Registrars expire on a number of different dates ranging from 26 July 1998 to 19 December 1999. 16 of the other 17 other staff are not employed under individual contracts, the other staff member is a statutory appointee whose term expires on 18 July 1999.(5) I am advised that 379 cases were transferred to the Federal Court on 26 May 1997, 383 partially cleared cases remained with the Industrial Relations Court and 246 new cases have been filed with the Federal Court in the period 26 May 1997 to 8 May 1998. Of the total cases, 667 have been finalised and 341 are still current.(6) I am advised that the total estimated expenditure in 1997-98 is $6,762,811: (a) salaries for judicial registrars $1,389,736; (b) salaries for other staff $905,387; (c) accommodation $1,286,000; (d) other costs $3,181,688. 3733(Question No. 1178)11783733Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 1 May 1998:With reference to the 1992 national forest policy statement, and in particular to the commitments relating to wood production, wood products industry development and plantations:(1) What legislation and/or delegated legislation has been passed and proclaimed, or gazetted, in order to implement the commitments referred to above.(2) What government agencies have been established or persons employed to implement these commitments.(3) What inquiries have been conducted by the Government in relation to these issues.(4) What research projects have been conducted in relation to these issues.(5) What Commonwealth funds have been provided for each item in paragraphs (2) to (4).3733Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The 1992 National Forest Policy Statement (NFPS) was endorsed by the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments. It established an agreed framework for forest policy covering such areas as conservation, industry development, plantations, tourism and research and development. This was followed by a Wood and Paper Industry Strategy designed to encourage increased forest resources, investment, value adding and employment growth in the forest industries.The current Government has pursued a deliberate and energetic forest policy, consistent with the NFPS, which has included the development of Regional Forest Agreements; the endorsement of the Plantations 2020 Vision; a national Farm Forestry program including as an element of the Natural Heritage Trust; the development through international processes of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management; support for an active program through the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation; implementation of a Forest Industry Structural Adjustment program and the establishment of a Wood and Paper Industry Forum.Details on these policies, programs, research studies and legislation, and the financial support provided, are contained in Annual Reports, published project reports and other statements available to the Senate from my Department and other Commonwealth Departments involved, especially the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism.3733(Question No. 1181)11813733Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 May 1998:Can a list be provided of all employees, whether full-time, part-time or casual, of ministers/members/ senators who have received assistance for their studies over the period 1 January 1994 to the present, together with the aggregate total of that assistance; individual amounts are not required.3733Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Under the studies assistance guidelines, an approved student may be reimbursed course fees upon successful completion of approved units. The names of the staff members who received assistance in the period concerned are shown against the financial year the payment was made. In some cases the fees relate to courses completed in a previous financial year.YearName94/5Colman J94/5Crane G94/5McKerihan M94/5McMicking A94/5Metcalfe A94/5Palaszczuk A94/5Sheaves K94/5Tait B94/5Young D95/6Bampos E95/6Bubikova A95/6Colman J95/6Colston D95/6Craige L95/6Ford D95/6Griffiths C95/6Irving B95/6Madden M95/6Marques A95/6McMicking A95/6Milligan M95/6Nockles Z95/6Plibersek T95/6Poletti F95/6Radford P95/6Scanlan A95/6Senise S95/6Sutterby B95/6Tait B95/6Tilly J95/6Young D95/6Zavaglia L96/7Beasley M96/7Booth P96/7Brauer C96/7Colman J96/7Mc Micking A96/7Pilbersek T96/7Radford P96/7Reynolds L96/7Tait B96/7Yates J97/8Beasley M97/8Best Y97/8Brassil K97/8Chesher M97/8Colston D97/8Dick M97/8Foster D97/8Griffiths C97/8Holloway L97/8Hopwood J97/8Lindwall P97/8McConnell L97/8Moran I97/8Phillips P97/8Power M 97/8Shields R97/8Simmons A97/8Tait B97/8Talbot J97/8Verlander H97/8Wagner J97/8Witt MTotal paid$69,639.083735(Question No. 1185)11853735Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:With reference to the recently advertised positions on the Tobacco Research and Development Corporation (TRDC):(1) How much Commonwealth money will the TRDC receive in the financial years 1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/2001.(2) What is the cost to the Commonwealth of administering the TRDC in each of these years.(3) (a) Who is currently on the TRDC; and (b) what are its functions.(4) What is the Commonwealth's policy on supporting and promoting the tobacco industry.(5) How much money will be spent by the Department of Health and Family Services in each of the next 3 years on countering the impacts of smoking and running anti-tobacco campaigns.(6) Why is the Commonwealth actively supporting the TRDC to carry out research and development for the tobacco industry, whose adverse impacts on health are imposing huge costs on the community and the Government.3735Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Commonwealth provides matching, dollar for dollar, expenditure for the tobacco research and development levy up to a maximum of 0.5% of the gross value of production. It is estimated that Commonwealth expenditure in 1998/99 will be around $270,000 with similar amounts expected in the following 2 years. This compares with expected industry contributions in 1998/99 of around $660,000. (2) The operations of the TRDC are funded from industry levies and the matching Commonwealth contribution. The Commonwealth does not make any direct contribution to the administration of the TRDC.(3) (a) The Directors of the TRDC are Mr Eddie Gilbert, Mr Laurie Hunt, Mr Barry Dare and Mr Des Naughton. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Senator Judith Troeth, is currently considering candidates for the appointment of a new Chairperson.(b) The TRDC's core functions are to: investigate and evaluate R&D requirements; prepare five year strategic plans and annual operating plans for tobacco R&D; ensure R&D activities are consistent with TRDC plans; monitor and evaluate R&D progress; and facilitate the dissemination, adoption and commercialisation of R&D outcomes.(4) In general, the Commonwealth provides assistance for primary industries R&D by matching, dollar for dollar, expenditure for industry research and development levies up to a maximum of 0.5% of the gross value of production. The broad objective of this policy is to develop competitive and sustainable rural industries.The Government's dollar for dollar matching contribution is designed to provide an incentive for the primary sector to increase its R&D funding and to become more involved in R&D priority setting and the adoption of outcomes. This policy also recognises that activities funded by R&D Corporations generate a mix of public and private benefits.The tobacco industry, which provides significant social benefits to the Mareeba and Myrtleford communities, is treated on the same basis as other industries.(5) The Department of Health and Family Services has advised that:The Public Health program includes a number of national strategies including the National Drug Strategy. Allocations under the National Drug Strategy cover all drugs including alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs and it is not possible to provide a breakdown of specific allocations on a drug by drug basis as many of the initiatives funded under the National Drug Strategy do not relate to individual drugs but impact on the harm caused by drugs in general.The Government has, however, announced in the recent Budget that it will allocate $6.1 million to tobacco harm minimisation activities over the next three years. Those funds will allow the National Tobacco Campaign to continue as well as implementation of a number of policy initiatives.(6) As per question (4).3736(Question No. 1186)11863736Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:With reference to the Australian drought assistance to West Papua:(1) Was West Papua given top priority for assistance when the Australian Defence Force (ADF) first evaluated the need in 1997.(2) Was West Papua subsequently downgraded by AusAID officials, as claimed in a Radio National interview; if so, when was this done; and why.(3) Did Indonesian authorities such as the Irian Jaya Co-ordinating Bureau refuse ADF assistance when it was offered in 1997.(4) What caused the 8-month delay in getting ADF personnel into West Papua.(5) How many people are estimated to have died from the drought in West Papua.3736Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) In late 1997, staff at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta reported information from United Nations organisations, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and non-government organisations (NGOs) indicating that famine was causing deaths in the highlands of Irian Jaya. With the concurrence of the Government of Indonesia, the Australian Government immediately provided funds to support the relief effort being mounted by these agencies. There was no request at this stage from the Indonesian Government for ADF assistance and no ADF evaluation of the need was therefore conducted.(2) AusAID officials did not downgrade the situation in Irian Jaya. As indicated above, once the extent of the problem became known, the Australian Government immediately provided $1.3 million for the relief operations of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), ICRC and World Vision Australia. In January 1998, a further $2 million was provided to the ICRC emergency appeal.(3) ADF assistance was not offered in 1997.(4) ADF assistance with the relief effort was not offered until a Government to Government approach for assistance was received from Indonesia. In April 1998, Indonesia provided the first formal advice that they would accept an Australian offer of assistance with the relief operation. Following his discussions with the Indonesian Defence and Security Minister, Minister McLachlan announced on 15 April 1998 that Australia would increase its assistance to the humanitarian relief effort and this would include the use of ADF assets to increase airlift capacity. The first ADF personnel were deployed in early May 1998. This additional Australian assistance to Irian Jaya from the aid and defence budgets is expected to be worth up to $10 million.(5) Official estimates indicate that at least 600 people may have died as a result of the drought conditions. However it is likely that some deaths in more remote villages have not been reported to the authorities. As well, the incidence of malaria has significantly increased as a result of displacement of populations with low natural immunity. Recent tests carried out by medical teams from the NGO, Medecins Sans Frontieres, indicate that the mortality rate may be as high as 30 deaths per 10,000 cases.3736(Question No. 1188)11883736Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1)What are the current rules regarding the captioning of television programs so that deaf and hearing-impaired people can enjoy them.(2) Is it the case that America and Britain have laws in place to ensure that programs are captioned.(3) Will similar laws be introduced in Australia.3736Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Under the self regulatory arrangements contained in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the broadcasting industry is encouraged to develop codes of practice which relate to the captioning of programs for the hearing impaired. Commercial free to air television broadcasters are responsible for deciding whether their programs are closed captioned, in accordance with the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS) Commercial Television Code of Practice (the Code). The Code requires FACTS members to endeavour to increase the amount of closed cap tioned programming in consultation with organisations representing hearing-impaired and deaf viewers.Open and subscription television narrowcasting services are covered by the relevant Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) Codes of Practice, which require narrowcasters to identify captioned programs in their program schedule information, and to consult organisations representing hearing-impaired and deaf viewers when introducing or extending the provision of captioned programming. Codes for subscription television broadcasting (pay television) and community television are being developed.There are currently no legislative requirements for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) or the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) to provide captioning of their television programming. However, the ABC is required by both its Code of Practice and Editorial Guidelines to endeavour to increase the amount of closed captioned programming as funds permit.The Government has implemented other measures to increase the level of captioning on free to air television. In the 1996/97 Budget, the Government allocated $7 million over four years to caption the ABC and SBS early evening news services.(2) Yes.(3) The Government has recently announced its policy framework for the introduction of digital television broadcasting services in Australia. The Government will require existing commercial and national (ABC and SBS) free-to-air broadcasters to commence digital television services in metropolitan licence/coverage areas on 1 January 2001 and in regional areas from that date, so that digital transmission has commenced in all regional licence/coverage areas by 1 January 2004.As part of its policy framework, the Government will require commercial and national free-to-air broadcasters to provide a closed captioning service for all prime time programming as well as for news and current affairs outside prime time.Bills to give effect to the Government's decisions on digital television were introduced into the House of Representatives on 8 April 1998. Provisions in these Bills require the development of regulations to determine standards which are to be observed by commercial and national broadcasters for captioning of television programs transmitted in prime viewing hours and news and current affairs programs transmitted at other times.The captioning standard will apply to both analog and digital transmission of television programs andwill come into effect from 1 January 2001 (the date of commencement of digital television services in Australia).3737(Question No. 1189)11893737Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) (a) Why has the National Greenhouse Advisory Panel (NGAP) not met since October 1997; (b) when is it next scheduled to meet; and (c) what is its ongoing role now that Australia has signed the Kyoto protocol.(2) (a) What proportion of homes in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, respectively, have solar hot water; (b) what quantity of greenhouse gas emissions would be saved if the proportion of homes with solar hot water in Queensland was increased to the level of Western Australia.(3) What quantity of greenhouse gases will be emitted by the Nambour coal-fired power station planned as part of Queensland's Surat scheme.(4) Will the Government require an assessment of this proposed power station under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974(5) Which `national environmental significance' criterion in the Government's proposed `reform' of environmental legislation would trigger Commonwealth involvement in the assessment of the Nambour power station.(6) (a) How will the Commonwealth restrict increases in greenhouse gas emissions to the 8 per cent limit set by the Kyoto protocol; and (b) will the Commonwealth assess all projects with large scale emissions, including land clearing, or will it simply allow projects to proceed on a first-come first-served basis until the limit is reached.3737Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(l) (a-c) The National Greenhouse Advisory Panel (NGAP) has made a valuable contribution to the National Greenhouse Strategy which is now being finalised by governments. A further meeting of NGAP is not currently scheduled. Following endorsement of the National Greenhouse Strategy NGAP may be reconstituted as a peak consultative council on greenhouse policy.(2) (a) The most recently available data from ABS (June 1994) on domestic hot water systems shows the following percentages for the use of solar energy:StatePercentage of total in stateQueensland5New South Wales4South Australia3Western Australia21(2) (b) The extent of greenhouse gas emissions saved through the installation of a solar hot water system is dependant on a number of variables including the type of heating unit replaced and patterns of use. However, emissions savings in excess of 250,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum could be anticipated.(3) The Nambour power station proposal has not been referred-to Government and I am not aware of the details of the planned power station. Emissions from the power station will among other factors depend on the type of coal used, the efficiency of the coal firing and steam raising process, and the size of the plant.(4) Current Commonwealth legislation for environmental impact assessment only applies to proposals requiring a Commonwealth decision or action.Projects within the Surat/Dawson region are subject to environmental impact assessment in accordance with Queensland legislation. Power station developments in the region have the potential for significant greenhouse emissions and greenhouse implications will be assessed by the State Government in accordance with State legislation. Any project proposal requiring Commonwealth decisions or actions will be examined under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974.(5) Current Commonwealth legislation for environmental impact assessment only applies to those proposals which require a Commonwealth decision. Reform of Commonwealth environmental legislation is currently underway and not yet finalised. However, it is not the intent of the Commonwealth to include greenhouse issues as a trigger for Commonwealth involvement in the assessment or approval of individual proposals.(6) (a) The Government is committed to meeting the target for greenhouse gas emission reductions established under the Kyoto Protocol. The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) will evaluate progress towards the target and report to Government on a regular basis. The Government, through the AGO, is progressing towards full implementation of the package of measures, representing $180 million investment, announced in November 1997. The National Greenhouse Strategy is another important vehicle through which Australia's actions will be implemented and reported against. The Strategy is currently being finalised by the Commonwealth and the States and Territories.(6) (b) The Government will address the Kyoto target through a broad range of measures, and will be evaluating progress towards the target on a regular basis. Projects with significant greenhouse gas emissions will be assessed by State governments in accordance with State legislation.3738(Question No. 1190)11903738Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) Will the Minister order a full Commonwealth environment assessment of Queensland's Surat scheme, comprising coal mines, dams, power stations, irrigation, port development and dredging.(2) Will the total impact of this integrated regional development on the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef, and on Australia's capacity to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, be assessed; if not, why not.3738Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Current Commonwealth legislation for environmental impact assessment only applies to proposals requiring a Commonwealth decision or action. No such decision or action is needed for the Surat/Dawson scheme as a whole. Decisions relating to specific projects, such as under the Commonwealth's foreign investment policy, may trigger assessment action under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Impact Act) for individual proposals.(2) Projects within the Surat/Dawson region are subject to environmental impact assessment in accordance with Queensland requirements. I am concerned to ensure that impacts of projects on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Property are fully considered and have written to the Queensland Minister for Natural Resources in regard to the Comet and Dawson Dam proposals.Power station developments in the region have the potential for significant greenhouse emissions. Greenhouse implications will be assessed in accordance with State requirements. Those requir ing Commonwealth decisions or actions will be examined under the Impact Act.3739(Question No. 1191)11913739Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 14 May 1998:With reference to the answer to Senate question on notice no. 955 (Senate Hansard, 1 December 1997, p. 9969):(1) With reference to paragraph 6(c): on which dates, and with whom, were the discussions between February and July 1997 held.(2) With reference to paragraph 7(a): (a) Can any evidence and any report written to, or by, the Standards Review Panel of Tasmania by Dr Penelope Flett be provided; (b) specifically, what was unacceptable in the quality of care at Derwent Court and what suggested the proprietor's inability to understand how to adequately address the problems; and (c) who reviewed the decision and is that review available.3739Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Family Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The discussions took place between Mr Stephen Dellar, then State Manager, Tasmania and the Chief Executive Officer of Southern Cross Homes Inc, Mr Richard Sadek as well as some board members. Some meetings also involved other senior staff of Southern Cross Homes. Discussions took place on the following dates: 5, 6 and 21 February 1997; 6, 7 and 13 March 1997; 28 April 1997; and 21 July 1997. The discussions on 6 and 7 March took place by telephone.(2) (a) The Report of the Standards Review Panel of Tasmania was published and distributed by the Department on 21 July 1997. I am informed that a copy was delivered to the honourable senator's office in Hobart on 20 May 1998. As to theevidence considered by the Panel, that is set out in the report. Insofar as some of the documents belong to the Commonwealth, the Department is willing to provide copies to the honourable senator at his request. Other documents considered by the Panel were the property of the service provider, Jadwan Pty. Limited, and it would not be appropriate for the Department to release those documents without the service provider's consent.(2) (b) The matters raised in the question, namely complex factual issues which, for the most part, involve expert opinion are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1977. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment. To the extent that these complex factual issues relate to a current action before the Federal Court of Australia, referred to in more detail in the response to the next part of the honourable senator's question, it would also not be appropriate to comment.(2) (c) If, by this question, the honourable senator is referring to the decision of the delegate of the Minister to revoke the approval of the nursing home under section 44 of the National Health Act 1953 (the Act), that decision was reconsidered by Mr Robert Griew, State Manager, New South Wales of the Department of Health and Family Services as the delegate of the Minister for Family Services for the purposes of s.105AAB(4) of the Act. Mr Griew affirmed the decision to revoke the approval of the nursing home. Mr Griew's decision is currently the subject of an application for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and is to be considered by the Federal Court of Australia. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment.If, however, the honourable senator is referring to the finding of the Standards Review Panel of Tasmania chaired by Dr Penelope Flett that the submissions of the proprietor would not result in sustainable improvements in the quality of care being provided, then that finding is not a reviewable decision within the terms of the National Health Act 1953.