1998-06-253817SENATE403101998-06-25The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous40314031The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Senators may wish to know that today is the last day that Gordon Kimber will be working for the Senate in his capacity as manager of the Senate printing unit. He leaves to take a position with the Australian National University. He has been with the unit since 1991 and I think all of us have benefited from the skills of the unit, especially during the time of his leadership. He takes pride in his work and the unit has a unique capacity to be able to produce a committee report in the extraordinarily short time from when it has been settled and agreed, to when it is tabled in the Senate. On behalf of senators I express our gratitude to Gordon and wish him well for the next stage of his career at the Australian National University.Honourable senators—Hear, hear!403110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:403121XI4Reynolds Sen MargaretTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for Australians.Senator ReynoldsXI4Senator Reynolds(from 21 citizens)4031831X4West 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 83 citizens)Petitions received.Notices403140314031Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I give notice that, on Monday 29 June, I shall move:That the terms of reference relating to the implications of India's nuclear tests, which were referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on 28 May 1998, be amended by inserting the words `and Pakistan's' after the word `India's' in the first line.40314031Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) a survey of members providing employment assistance conducted by Jobs Australia on 1 June 1998, and (ii) its concern that all members surveyed report great difficulties with the new Job Network; and (b) urges the Government to: (i) instigate appropriate monitoring processes to report on the experiences of Job Network participants, employers, jobseekers and providers, and (ii) order a review of the system to address these problems and ensure access to employment assistance for the hundreds of thousands of Australians seeking work. 40324032Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) notes that Senator O'Chee assured the ethnic communities of Brisbane before the Queensland State election that the National Party of Australia directing preferences to the One Nation Party was not an issue because they would never be counted and that if he was wrong he would walk backwards from Brisbane to the Gold Coast; (b) grants leave of absence for Senator O'Chee to complete his pledge to walk backwards to the Gold Coast eight times, because National Party preferences have elected eight One Nation Party members of Parliament; and (c) calls on Senator O'Chee to extend his plea for tolerance to the indigenous Australians, not just Australians of Asian decent, whose rights he has rampaged against for his entire time in the Senate.40324032Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) notes that the World Heritage Bureau has asked that mining operations be stopped on the Jabiluka lease until after the bureau has investigated and assessed the effect of these operations on the World Heritage area of Kakadu; and (b) calls on the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) and the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) to immediately call for a halt to mining operations.40324032Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That:(1) On Monday, 29 June 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm; and (b) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.(2) On Tuesday, 30 June 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 2 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm; (b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm to 10.30 pm shall be government business only; and (c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.(3) On Wednesday, 1 July 1998, matters of public interest not be proceeded with.(4) On Thursday, 2 July 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 to 11.10 pm; (b) the consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports and government responses shall not be proceeded with; (c) the routine of business from 7.30 pm to 10.30 pm shall be government business only; (d) divisions may take place after 6 pm; and (e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.(5) The Senate shall sit on Friday, 3 July 1998, and that: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 4.25 pm; (b) the routine of business shall be government business only; (c) the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended from approximately 12.30 pm for up to one hour until the ringing of the bells; and (d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.Business40324032Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1175, standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, proposing an order for the production of a document by Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone), be postponed till the next day of sitting.4032Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1161, standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on the socio-economic consequences of the national competition policy, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4033Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1179, standing in the names of Senator Margetts and Senator Brown for today, relating to the Jabiluka uranium mine, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4033Motion (by Senator George Campbell) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1174, standing in the name of Senator George Campbell for today, relating to religious minorities, be postponed till 29 June 1998.4033Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. today:No. 7— National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998No. 8— Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998No. 9— Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998No. 10— National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998No. 11— Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998No. 12— Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997No. 13— Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998No. 14— Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998No. 15— Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998No. 16— Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998Income Tax (Untainting Tax) Bill 1998 No. 17— Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998No. 18— Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997No. 19— Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998No. 20— Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998No. 21— Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 19984033Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) General business order of the day No. 112—Employment Security Bill 1998 [No. 2] ; and(2) Consideration of government documents.4033Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1165, standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to wealth and assets of former President Suharto, be be postponed till 30 June.4033Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That divisions may take place after 6 p.m. today.4033Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Conroy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. No. 1167 standing in the name of Senator Conroy for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4033Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 1121 (relating to division of senators into two classes for the purposes of rotation) and 1089 (relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act) standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, be postponed till 29 June 1998.Committees403440344034Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Visy Industries Pty Ltd is establishing a new pulp mill in New South Wales which will process plantation timber rather than virgin native timber, (ii) the mill will recycle water, reduce chemical use and will not use chlorine in its operations, (iii) this value-adding operation stands in stark contrast to the $400 million worth of unprocessed woodchips that Australia exports annually, and (iv) companies such as Kimberley-Clark manufacture so-called recycled paper that actually includes content from virgin native forests and pre-consumer waste;(b) congratulates Visy Industries Pty Ltd for persisting with efforts to produce genuine recycled paper in light of the Coalition's actions which have discouraged its production and consumption, for example, by rescinding the sales tax exemption for recycled paper; and(c) urges the Coalition to reintroduce sales tax exemption for recycled paper so that Australia's native forests can be protected from woodchipping.40344034Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator McGauran) agreed to:That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 26 June 1998, from 9.30 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into communications to and within Australia's external territories. 40344034Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for report by the end of the spring sittings in 1998:The appropriateness of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) involvement in non-defence matters, with particular reference to the current legal basis for ADF involvement in such matters, including section 119 of the Constitution, section 51 of the Defence Act, Part 6B of the National Road Transport Commission Amendment Act 1998, Australian Military and Airforce Regulations and Defence Instructions.Parliamentary Zone4034Motion (by Senator Calvert) agreed to:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority:(a) establishment of an International Flag display in the Parliamentary Zone;(b) interim landscape works, Constitution Place, Parkes;(c) introduction of parking restrictions along the West Block western car park access road, proposed on behalf of P&O Facilities Management; and(d) introduction of parking restrictions at East Block car park, proposed on behalf of the National Archives of Australia.Miscellaneous4034Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator O'Brien) agreed to: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 avail able 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. Committees40354035403509:41:004035Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 361 entitled Auditor-General's Reports 1997-98: First quarter and Finance Minutes to report Nos 349, 350 and 352. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard and to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Madam President, on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present Report 361, Review of Auditor-General's Reports 1997-98, First Quarter .Madam President, the main purpose of this report is to inform the Parliament that the Committee has reviewed the audit reports presented by the Auditor-General during the first Quarter of 1997-1998.The Committee selected two Auditor-General's reports for further examination at a public hearing held on 16 June 1998. Today, I propose to highlight issues about which the Committee has the most concern.First, I wish to make some comments about Audit Report No. 5 Performance Management of Defence Inventory.The issues canvassed by the Committee with respect to this report included:. best practice in supply chain performance management;managing inventory as an asset;. clearer performance targets;. integrated and effective performance management;. the impact of performance management on Defence's inventory management culture; andthe availability and retention of inventory management expertise.The current Defence inventory of spares, consumables and repairable items (excluding explosive ordnance) is valued at approximately $3.9 billion. Extra procurement and maintenance of repairable items by external contractors costs an additional $1 billion annually.The Committee welcomes the comprehensiveness of the audit and the Defence Department's agreement to all of its recommendations.However, this Committee has long-standing concerns with the performance management of Defence inventory and assets and the inability of Defence to fully address recommendations from previous reviews and audits.The Committee appreciates that the legacy of three separate logistics organisations has contributed to fragmentation, isolation and lack of inter-Service communication. This has resulted in significant duplication of effort in logistics performance management in Defence.The Committee therefore supports the establishment of a single performance management organisation and welcomes the formation of Support Command Australia, established in 1997.At the same time, the Committee believes that a watching brief should be maintained on the ability of this new organisation to ensure the success of an integrated information system across Defence. The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence should conduct annual reviews of the strategies used by Support Command Australia, to ensure rationalisation of duplicated functions across Defence are successful.The Committee appreciates the unique nature of inventory management in a defence context. However, the Committee considers that managing Defence inventory as an asset, particularly in the accrual accounting environment, should focus attention on the level of stock needed to meet Defence contingency planning.Contingency and strategic planning is central to the effective management of any major organisation, whether in the public or private sector. The Committee recommends that Defence should arrange to examine the methods adopted by overseas defence organisations and should benchmark its inventory performance management against comparable inventories in the private sector.The Committee agrees with the audit findings that Defence should increase the use of clearly identified performance targets in order to provide meaning and direction for the development of performance measures in the supply chain.The Committee does not accept Defence's argument that within its distribution chain, performance targets are difficult to measure and expects that Defence will implement the audit report recommendations to which it has agreed.The Committee considered the question of training and education in the area of inventory management. The Committee accepts the audit findings that there is a significant shortage of inventory management and supply chain professionals. The Committee is concerned therefore that Defence has not sufficiently addressed the problem of attracting suitably qualified personnel into its organisation.The Committee does not accept the proposition put forward by Defence that staff loyalty to the Defence Force alone will retain highly qualified personnel. Without specialised staff it is unlikely that the large savings anticipated from the performance management of Defence inventory will be achieved.The Committee recommends that Defence should seek to identify ways by which it can attract and retain staff qualified in the management of inventory and supply chain.Madam President, I now turn to the second audit report examined by the Committee, Audit Report No. 10, 1997-98, Aspects of Corporate Governance: The Australian Tourist Commission.The Australian Tourist Commission is a statutory authority that operates under the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 . A ten-member Board governs the ATC which, with the exception of the Managing Director, is appointed by and reports to the Minister for Sport and Tourism.The Committee appreciates the timeliness of the audit and its thoroughness in highlighting the need for a range of reform measures. Foremost amongst these is the need for the ATC to ensure that it achieves its statutory objectives and that links are developed between these and the ATC's corporate objectives.The Committee's hearing focused on the audit report findings that the ATC is currently unable to demonstrate that it is fully meeting all of its statutory objectives. In particular, the objective which relates to the protection of Australia from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism, and to aspects of the objective relating to maximising the benefits to Australia from international tourism.The ATC has three statutory objectives. These are:. to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas;. to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors; and. to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.The Committee notes that the ATC recognises the benefits of the audit, has agreed with all of the recommendations and has taken action to implement a number of them. The Committee understands that the ATC has won a number of national and international marketing awards and welcomes the recognition it has been given by the World Tourism Organisation as one of the most efficient tourism authorities in the world.However, the Committee is concerned that areas of weakness identified in various audits and reviews have not been addressed because of a lack of effective and ongoing processes to monitor and implement recommendations.The Committee recommends that within the context of a corporate governance framework, the ATC should introduce effective and ongoing processes to monitor the implementation of recommendations made in previous audits and reviews.The Committee agrees with the audit findings that the ATC faces particular challenges in interpreting and addressing the broader implications of its statutory objectives. In particular, the objective relating to the protection of Australia from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.The Committee appreciates that a lack of regulatory power is inhibiting the ATC from meeting this objective and recommends a two-pronged approach.First, the ATC should enter into an extensive dialogue with relevant State and Territory authorities for the purpose of developing a cohesive strategy to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of overseas tourism.Secondly, that the Board of the ATC should propose to the Minister for Sport and Tourism that the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 be amended to clarify the ATC's role.The Committee considered the ability of the ATC to measure its performance against its statutory obligations. In the area of visitor numbers, for example, the Committee believes that the ATC has been unable to assess whether tourists have been attracted by its marketing campaign, are avoiding current world trouble spots, or are reacting solely on beneficial exchanges rates.In the Committee's view, the ATC's performance under its statutory objective to increase arrivals has been uneven. The Committee agrees with the audit findings that, the extent to which the ATC's investment in international tourism promotion has contributed to the increase in visitor numbers is unclear from the ATC's performance information.In order to ensure the ATC has sufficient controls and process in place to monitor its performance and report on outcomes, the Committee recommends the ATC should seek the employment of a professional consultant to work with program managers for the purpose of developing a sound corporate governance framework.The Committee, against the background of the current Asian economic crisis, discussed the impact on Australian tourism from Asia. The Committee understands that visitor numbers from South-East Asia are falling, but agrees with the view of the ATC that to walk away from the Asian market at this time would be foolhardy.It is too early to say precisely what the economic outcomes in the region are likely to be. The Committee welcomes the ATC's plans to continue exploring a number of strategies to help revitalise the business because the signs are both positive and negative. This relates particularly to the relative weakness of the Australian dollar to the US dollar and the UK pound.In the Tourism forecasting Council's assessment, the outlook for growth from the markets in the USA and Canada remains positive and Europe will continue to be an important source market, although tourism from that region is expected to increase at a slower rate than most other markets.While the Committee does not expect the ATC to lessen its efforts in developing Asian markets at this time, it is clear from statistics cited in the Committee's report that the North American and European markets have further potential for development.The trend in visitor numbers from 1994-95 to 1995-96 shows a slight increase in tourist numbers from several countries in North America and Europe. For example, the United States of America shows a modest increase of 5%. However, there has been negative growth from Germany, while France and the United Kingdom have decreased by 9% and 3%, respectively.The ATC has a continuing statutory obligation to increase the number of international visitors to Australia. To ensure the ATC meets its objective,The Committee believes it is timely for the ATC to develop strategies which aim to reinvigorate the North American and European markets.May I conclude, Madam President, by thanking on behalf of the Committee those people who contributed their time and expertise to the Committee's review hearings, upon which this report is based. The Committee appreciates the cooperation it has received from the agencies involved.I am also indebted to my colleagues on the Committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiries, Dr Margot Kerley, the Committee Secretary, Ms Marie Kawaja, Ms Jennifer Hughson and Ms Tiana Gray. Madam President, I commend the Report to the Senate.25 March 1998.Debate adjourned.4038403809:41:004038Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the eighth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills entitled The Appropriate Basis for Penalty Provisions in Legislation Comparable to the Productivity Commission Bill 1996 , together with a submission and the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.09:42:004038Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I have a short statement which has been prepared by the staff. This matter is of some importance, so I would like to go through it in an expeditious way. The Senate referred this matter to the committee on 3 September 1997. The reference was prompted by debate in this chamber about the penalty provisions which had been included in the Productivity Commission Bill. Senators might recall that that bill created a number of offences such as failing to provide information to the Productivity Commission, or refusing to answer questions or produce documents. These offences were expressed to be punishable by six-months imprisonment.The committee's report looks at the penalty provision in the Productivity Commission Bill in some detail. It then looks at the penalty provisions in comparable Commonwealth legislation. The committee observes that imprisonment is often imposed as a penalty for information offences where someone is claiming a financial benefit, or where an organisation such as the ASC or the ACCC is attempting to investigate a possible breach of the law. Statutes which create quasi-judicial bodies such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal also often provide for imprisonment as a penalty. However, many research and advisory bodies—such as the Productivity Commission—have no power to compel others to provide them with information, and many of those which have been given this power cannot enforce it with the threat of imprisonment.The committee's report goes on to discuss the principles which govern statutory penalty provisions. Penalties must be fair and appropriate. As I say, if they are similar concepts, the penalties must be consistent. For bodies such as the Productivity Commission, penalties should be chosen to ensure that the organisation can operate effectively, rather than simply to punish people. Imprisonment should always be a penalty of last resort.Ultimately the committee concludes that there is a need to review and clarify the criteria which govern penalty regimes for Commonwealth legislation. The committee recommends that the Attorney-General develop more detailed criteria in this area. These criteria should ensure that penalties are more consistent, more appropriate and make greater use of a wider range of non-custodial penalties. The Attorney should make these criteria available to ministers, drafters and the parliament. Only in this way shall we ensure that an appropriate and consistent penalty regime is established covering all Commonwealth legislation.In closing, I thank James Warmenhoven, the secretary of the committee, Margaret Lindeman, and the Attorney-General for providing us with people to give us information about these matters. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Business40384038Motion (by 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 30 June 1998. Committees40394039403909:46:004039McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I present the third report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on its inquiry into the Australian legal aid system together with submissions and the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.4039McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I am very happy to be concluding this extensive inquiry by presenting the third report on the legal aid system, but I am not happy to be reporting on a crisis caused by this government's cuts to legal aid. In presenting the report, I acknowledge the assistance of the many staff of the committee's secretariat who assisted the committee over the two years of the inquiry. Regrettably, because of the many changes to personnel, they are too numerous to name but I do thank them all. I also thank my committee colleagues for their cooperation during the course of the inquiry.Next financial year, the Howard government will spend $46.8 million less on legal aid than if 1995-96 funding levels and commitments had been maintained. With no commitment to index the legal aid agreements, that situation is likely to get worse by an additional cumulative $3 million a year. In total, the forward estimates disclose that the Howard government will spend $231 million less in real terms over its first six years than if 1995-96 funding levels had been maintained.The committee received ample evidence that the cuts are having a devastating effect in the community. My own constituents of Western Australia are most affected. It is, at the very least, disappointing that the Western Australian Attorney-General, Mr Peter Foss, was not able to convince the Commonwealth Attorney-General, who is from WA, that Western Australia should be funded on a basis equitable with the rest of Australia. WA has been the hardest hit of all the states and territories, with 41 per cent cuts in today's terms. Both persons have been deservedly condemned by all Western Australians. Apart from the regional impacts, the cuts have been particularly devastating to people from non-English speaking backgrounds, indigenous Australians, those living with disabilities and the aged.The cuts have also been a failure in their administration. They have been implemented by an incompetent Attorney-General, who used the wrong year's figures, who put in place inadequate guidelines, who could not get the agreements signed on time despite having more than a year to do so, and who still has not put in place effective mechanisms to monitor the impact of the cuts.The cuts have seen the abandonment by this government of its responsibility for domestic violence matters. These are matters which the Prime Minister has claimed are of national importance but which he is unwilling, in over 95 per cent of cases, to provide funding for.Evidence before the committee demonstrated that the funding caps are cutting off cases mid-stream and there is insufficient discretion to be able to extend funding in deserving cases. Funding caps should not be used to deny justice in individual cases.Evidence to the committee was that the legal aid commissions have little ability to meet the costs of the exceptionally expensive criminal cases that occur unpredictably from time to time. The committee does not regard it as acceptable that funding to other legal aid cases is being squeezed to pay for these cases. It recommends that the Commonwealth provide additional funding to meet the extra costs involved in these exceptional cases.Legal aid in these cases has become increasingly threatened. Funding for virtually all immigration matters has been removed and severe restrictions apply to veterans, social security, product liability and discrimination cases. The new requirement, that there be a substantial benefit to the public or a section of the public before legal aid is provided in discrimination cases, ignores the community interest in preventing all forms of discrimination. The present law allows tax deductibility for litigation related legal expenses by businesses, but similar deductions are seldom available to non-business litigants. Evidence to the committee disclosed a widespread belief that Australian taxpayers are subsidising business litigation regardless of the merits of the case or the fee paid to the lawyers. In a climate where public resources are scarce the committee has called for a review to ensure that the taxation treatment of litigation related legal expenses is equitable.The committee concluded that the government's failure to understand the importance of legal aid in our community demonstrated a clear lack of understanding and consultation about the needs of the community. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the Commonwealth and the legal aid commissions should enhance their consultation with the community through the formation of linked national, state and territory legal aid councils.The committee report contains 192 tightly packed pages of evidence and analysis, all of which are extensively referenced from the submissions and the evidence given at public hearings. A further 80 pages of attachments are also included. The report is very clear public evidence that some members of the committee were interested in the subject of the inquiry, that the submissions were read and that the voices of concern were heard. The report makes 22 very reasonable and very sensible recommendations.By contrast, the government senators provided an addendum of over 100 pages of double spaced commentary that refers to only one of the 284 submissions to the inquiry. Government senators have stopped listening to the people. The addendum is riddled with typographical errors which demonstrate a very slip-shod approach to the inquiry. This is indicative of the government's handling of this issue.Government senators in their flawed paper ignored the reality that current levels of legal aid funding make it extremely difficult for large numbers of those who have meritorious claims to receive assistance. For example, they argue in paragraph 7.28 that a person alleging discrimination should be entitled to legal aid only where the discrimination can be shown to have a broader public interest effect beyond its effect on the individual. They boldly assert that to permit people to receive legal aid in other than these circumstances would `leave the system open to spurious claim'. How on earth is a claim by an individual relating to discrimination inherently spurious, particularly when it is the subject of the same merits test as other applications for legal aid?It is typical of this government's contempt for those who have to overcome some form of discrimination or disadvantage and it is disappointingly similar to the rhetoric of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). It is the politics of envy, blame and division. It is yet another example of the vicious use of wedge politics by the Howard government to set Australian against Australian.The addendum simply ignores the overwhelming weight of evidence that points to the fundamental failings in what is left of our national legal aid system. In short, not only are government senators blind to the problems created by the slashing of legal aid funding by the Howard government but they advocate wilful ignorance of the ongoing effects of the cuts. Instead, they advocate two possible alternatives to legal aid—increased assistance through community legal centres and the increased usage of legal expense insurance. For the reasons explained in the committee report, neither of these is a suitable replacement for legal aid funding.Government senators ignored the fact that in the first two budgets the Howard government cut funding for community legal centres. They simply do not seem to understand that a crisis in the community legal service sector had already been created prior to the legal aid cuts and that this in turn had resulted in massive increases in demand for these services. Instead, the government senators pathetically rely on the announcement of a $2.85 million per year funding increase in the 1998-99 budget, which is supposed to make up for the legal aid cuts that are worth $46.8 million in real terms next financial year.The reality is that the community legal centres are increasingly unable to help middle Australia that they were designed for because their scarce resources are overwhelmingly being used to help these worthy people who have been denied legal aid as a result of the Howard government's cuts. Government senators have forgotten the many stories told to the committee about the revolving door syndrome. Worse still for middle Australia, the government's massive increase in court and tribunal fees have ensured that these people are being shut out of the legal system in droves.The committee did examine legal expense insurance and noted the problems that have been encountered with the implementation of these schemes in Australia. Whilst not discounting the possibility that it may be useful among those who can afford it, the committee noted that it is unlikely to be a viable mechanism for delivering assistance to legal aid recipients, who were overwhelmingly government pension recipients.The committee noted in paragraph 7.57 of its report that the Law Council had approached the government for assistance in relation to employer related legal expense insurance schemes, but the government had refused to provide that assistance. Notwithstanding this, the government senators suggested that the committee should have conducted a detailed six-point reference inquiry into legal expense insurance. The committee saw these terms of reference for the first time when they appeared in this addendum. It seems that the left hand of this government does not know what the right hand is doing.In conclusion, the government senators' addendum is blind to the problems caused by the slashing of legal aid, seeks to blame the alleged inefficient management of legal aid commissions for the problems and is not interested in tracking the problems identified in the future. In paragraph 9.39 of their paper, government senators have the audacity to claim that the legal aid cuts have actually enhanced access to justice. All this just supports what everyone in the community has known all along—that is, that this government simply does not listen. I commend the report to the Senate. (Time expired)09:57:004041Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—The government senators' report seems to have hit its mark to have resulted in such an impassioned performance from Senator McKiernan, who has shown himself completely incapable of really addressing the criticisms of the dissenting report on legal aid in some sort of dispassionate way. He failed to see that the government senators really did offer some very constructive criticism of the approach, the flawed methodology that was adopted throughout this report, the mishmash of anecdotes that were relied on in the absence of any data, the untested assumptions and the flawed conclusions.If he had done that, he would have been grateful that the government senators took the trouble—albeit double spaced, I must admit—to go through and identify where this report seriously fails the Australian people as an attempt to evaluate the problems that have been experienced from time to time in the legal aid system over the years. For many years some of the difficulties faced with burgeoning legal costs and funding have been addressed in various reports.The government senators approached the inquiry in the recognition that this was an opportune time to critically examine new proposals for the efficient and cost-effective delivery of legal aid to those who need it most. That is why the majority report is such a disappointing document. It confines itself to the basics of legal aid. It looks at legal aid exhaustively. It does not open its mind at all to the fact that there are so many people in Australia who do not qualify for legal aid. We have to look at new and innovative ways to look after those Australians as well as the very poorest people who do qualify for legal aid.The legal aid report primarily squanders this opportunity. It was a great opportunity to examine some solutions to the problems that have beset the legal aid system in Australia. The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee presented a good platform to examine the system, to find the areas of efficiency and deficiency, and to generally gather information from which to move forward.Instead, the opposition majority report tabled this morning takes the debate backwards rather than forwards. It offers no viable solutions, it is based on pretty watery logic and it simply fails to address the issues. It is a great disappointment because the opposition refuses to look beyond bandaid solutions. The opposition has made the flawed assumption that simply throwing unlimited funds at legal aid will solve the problem—and, of course, it will not.As I said a little earlier, the report fails to address the issue that many Australians are precluded from access to the justice system. A great number of Australians fall just outside the threshold for legal aid and, therefore, if they want to litigate, they must risk their own funds. I would have thought that this was a pretty fertile area to use to look at how the legal system might better address the needs of those people. Many Australians do not have the resources to risk and very often meritorious cases are simply not able to be proceeded with. The report pays very scant attention to vehicles such as legal expense insurance which, when combined with conditional fees, offers the opportunity to open access to justice to a great many more Australians.The reason that this report is so disappointing is that it did not even look at the recent developments in the United Kingdom where the vehicle to take the pressure off legal aid funds has been a very successful combination of conditional fee arrangements with lawyers plus `after the event insurance'. I am sure the members of the opposition have never heard of this because they did not bother to go and look or seek any submissions from people who might have been able to provide some evidence about this. After the event insurance is an innovation in legal service delivery which enables people who otherwise would not undertake litigation because they are not in position to risk their own funds, to do so. These people are certainly not in a position to pay costs and possibly even indemnity costs, if they lose, yet they often have a proper case that ought to be ventilated and ought to be allowed to go to court.The after the event insurance scheme enables litigants to take out this insurance after their cause of action has matured and after they decide to litigate. It does not even require people to anticipate that they might have some need for access to the courts at some stage and be prudent and take out insurance against the event. This is after the event insurance. It has been part of a quite extensive overhaul of legal aid in the United Kingdom, yet this report does not even mention it, let alone examine it as a possibility to take the pressure off the legal aid budget. No, this report simply goes back to the old mantra that, if there is more money, then everything will work better—wave a magic wand.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Like the $10.3 billion deficit.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Yes, that is exactly right. That might have been the solution under Labor, but it is certainly not the solution that this government sees as being a sensible and prudent way to ensure that there is a proper delivery of legal services in this country.It is not as if there was no evidence that might have indicated this during the course of the inquiry. A principled approach to the evaluation of the legal aid system requires a careful appraisal of the need for legal services and a decision as to the level to which taxpayers' money should fund that need. It is a perfectly unexceptional proposition. It also requires a balancing of interests between the community as a whole and individual rights and a rigorous approach to directing money for legal services so that it actually hits the target where it is most needed. The majority report fails to address this balance. It also does not address the issue that much of middle Australia is precluded from access to the justice system because of the expenses of the court system.I would have thought that was something that would have concentrated the minds of the opposition well. Mr Robert Cornall, the Managing Director of Victoria Legal Aid identified this major issue in his evidence. He said: The criticism you have made also assumes that the only issue here is between people who can afford trials and people who qualify for legal assistance. It fails to recognise the fact that middle Australia is largely excluded on both these counts.The majority report must stand condemned in the eyes of the Australian people in that, despite the opposition having had a great opportunity—having trawled around the country a couple of times, having spun out this inquiry for over a year—it does not even address the basic justice needs of the majority of Australians. It must stand condemned on that count alone.A cursory look at the report shows that it is long on complaint but virtually devoid of any reasoned solutions supported by any data. It fails to provide a basis for any rigorous evaluation of the legal aid system. It is disappointing because the opportunity to identify and discuss imaginative proposals to modernise legal aid delivery systems in Australia has been overlooked in the political expediency of simply trying to score points against the government. I think that, with a topic as serious as legal aid, that is pretty important.We have commended the efficiencies of the Queensland Legal Aid Commission. We have suggested that there is a fertile field in which to at least examine legal expense insurance. The opposition did not even look at the new reforms to criminal law cases that I spoke about in the adjournment debate a couple of nights ago: the sorts of efficiencies that mean that the legal aid dollar goes further and that people who do need access to legal aid get a better deal because the legal aid they get is more focused on providing an achievable outcome.In summary, what I really want to say about this, particularly in answer to Senator McKiernan, is: do not look at whether our criticism is double spaced; look at the sensible suggestions it provides.10:07:004043Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I commend Senator McKiernan on the Legal and Constitutional References Committee report on legal aid. He has, I know, worked hard, industriously and successfully to bring it to fruition. Sitting next to him, I would commend him—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—It is your swan song, Jim.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—No, not the swan song; he is going to contribute mightily to this community for many years to come. Senator Abetz, you will look back on this day as a day of privilege, that you were able to speak on a report introduced by Senator McKiernan.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—It will be the highlight of my parliamentary career.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—It will. One of the issues we have to face in the future is whether to keep calling what we are talking about, the legal aid system, or whether we have to start talking about the legal justice system. A lot of the problems that arise in this area come about because legal aid is seen as an addendum to the social security system rather than as a justice system. Senator McKiernan has given me a press cutting from the Daily Telegraph of Tuesday, 23 June 1998 which says that the Attorney-General of New South Wales has made available to the Director of Public Prosecutions extra funds. The last paragraph of the report reads:The government has granted Mr Cowdery's—May I say that Mr Cowdery is a man of outstanding ability and integrity and he has helped this committee with the issue of legal aid—request for more money with a $1.713 million increase in the 1998-99 Budget to $44.6 million.He did that correctly because the justice system must work. But if the prosecution of offences is essential to the justice system in this community, so is the defence of those matters that are brought before the court by the DPP.That is what Senator McKiernan is talking about, that issue of justice, in terms not only of the criminal law but of the law generally, whether it be civil or otherwise. If one of the core responsibilities and duties of a society and one of the reasons we have a society is to see justice done, then that society should ensure that people are able to put their case as well as they are able. They cannot do that if they are not properly defended. It is very difficult to defend yourself or to bring a case on your own behalf. At the last estimates committee hearing Mr Brian Martin, the Federal DPP, said in response to a question about the emotions people have when they go to court that that is why the statement that anybody that defends himself has a fool for a lawyer—a classic statement—is correct, because of all the emotions that are involved. That is a reason, amongst many others, as to why people should be properly defended.One of the things the government have to look at is the amount of law they make. It is all too common these days for governments of whatever colour to talk in terms of the need for law and order where in fact Australia is not a country that is threatened in any overwhelming sense by a lack of law and order. It is threatened by law and order but it is not threatened by crime in the way that the law and order people say it is. That is not to say there is not crime; of course there is, but it is nowhere near as extensive as is made out. One of the ways to solve the issue of legal aid is to make sure that there is less law to occasion the need for legal aid. That is one of the problems we have to face and Senator McKiernan—I hope he stays on—is sure to look at that issue in the future.This is a good report. It shows a great understanding of what the need is for legal aid. There clearly has to be more spending on legal aid. Perhaps I ought to indicate an interest here. My daughter-in-law, Emma Hunt, as I have declared before in this place, is a community lawyer affected by the amount of legal aid funding that is available. But, in addition to being the occasion of my declaring an interest she is also a source of information about this area. I would just like to close by paying tribute to all those dedicated people who are community lawyers—and I think Senator Abetz would agree with me on this point. They do great, generous and underpaid work in a situation where they are up against the odds because they are not as well resourced as those opposed to them, and I would like to use this occasion to pay tribute to them.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I agree with you.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Thank you, Senator Abetz. I know you are going to get up and criticise the report but I know, on that issue, the issue of the dedicated people, there is agreement.I would say about this report that it would be a pity if today we got to the stage where we were not able to go ahead in trying to solve this very great issue in the justice system. We ought to have our political exchanges, but then we should come together, as we have in the past, and try to solve a problem—a problem, as I say, not of social security but of justice; a problem that goes to the third arm of government and which is essential to the future of the country. Finally, I again pay tribute to the work and intellectual capacity of Senator McKiernan.10:15:004044Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—I commence my comments by complimenting the secretariat and staff for their hard work in the preparation of this legal aid report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee. I also compliment Senator McKiernan on his chairmanship of the committee; unfortunately, I will not compliment him on the report. But the chairmanship and the running of the committee I think has been a tribute to the way in which this Senate committee system operates, and I want to put my thanks to Senator McKiernan on the record. I also place on record my thanks to Senator Helen Coonan, who with this report largely took the running on behalf of the government senators, and I compliment her on her very well reasoned commentary in the government senators' response to the third report.The report itself, however, is somewhat disappointing. The committee, I believe, used a lot of words to say nothing much at all. Senator McKiernan gave us a very impassioned speech about legal aid funding, but there seemed to be as much vim and vigour about it as in his railing against the injustice of $4 cappuccinos in the parliamentary dining room. If we are to take Senator McKiernan seriously about injustices within the community, I think he has to target those issues that he wants the community to believe him on. If he wants to be so concerned about $4 cups of cappuccino in the parliamentary dining room, with that being such a big justice issue, when he comes in here with the same vim and vigour complaining about legal aid, I have to say to him that there is a bit of a credibility gap.I have a few comments to make in relation to legal aid generally. When this government came into power, we faced a substantial budget deficit left by the previous government. Part of social justice is to ensure that this generation does not leave a legacy of debt for the next generation to pay off—a very important social justice issue, especially for the young people. I would like to think that, when I leave this parliament, there will be an inheritance, a positive inheritance, to pass on to the next generation, rather than a legacy of debt. So that is one very important point.The other point is that even the previous government was starting to analyse legal aid contributions by the states and the Commonwealth to determine whether the states were paying their fair share. It appeared that they were not and, therefore, the Commonwealth embarked upon a decision to try to separate out Commonwealth legal aid matters from state legal aid matters. I think that was fair enough in all the circumstances.The undertaking of this review of legal aid funding has brought together this country's directors of public prosecution and legal aid commissions, to sit them down and have a proper dialogue as to the way criminal cases ought be run in this country. Both sides have acknowledged that a lot of savings could be made, if a commonsense approach were to be taken to the running of criminal cases. With directors of public prosecutions being paid for by the taxpayer, legal aid being paid for by the taxpayer, I think the Australian taxpayer has a right to ask both sides of those criminal cases to try to come together, resolve the cases as much as possible and, thus, minimise trials and also minimise costs to the taxpayer, whilst still ensuring that justice prevails.On the issue of justice and legal aid funding, the very real difficulty with legal aid is that, in itself, it does create injustices because it is not a bottomless pit. I am sure that many a time all senators in this place have had reports from constituents—the truck drivers, the factory workers of this country—who, because they are employed, are not entitled to legal aid. Those on the other side in, let us say, a matrimonial matter are not working and, therefore, they are entitled to legal aid; they are basically able to dictate the outcome and the shots because they have the legal aid dollar available to them. The others who have to set up new homes on minimal wages are unable to afford the sort of legal representation that is provided to the person without employment. I think we need to keep that in mind as well.In relation to discrimination cases and other matters of that nature, which were touched on by Senator McKiernan, it needs to be recognised that the vast majority of lawyers now will take those cases `on spec'—on speculation. The client comes, in the lawyer looks at the case and says, `Yes, I think you've got a good genuine case and, because I believe that, I will take the case right through to the end, and you can pay the costs at the end when we have won it.' I think that is a fair and reasonable system. Therefore, the poorest person can come into the office with a case and, if it is a justifiable and sustainable one, it will be run for them by the private profession.It is appropriate that legal aid be made available for the class type actions that Senator McKiernan referred to, and that is allowed and continues. The report at pages 191 and 192 makes conclusions and recommendations in relation to the tax deductibility of legal expenses; it seeks to draw the conclusion that only big companies get the benefit of tax deductibility.If I were up on a charge of trespass, for example, and I sought to defend that case, my legal costs would not be tax deductible, but if you are a Green senator you can get tax deductibility for your defence of charges. I refer senators to a speech I gave in this place on 20 June 1996 about a fundraising campaign that was undertaken to provide assistance to Senator-elect Brown. The document I read out said:Court defences are very costly and those who place themselves in this position by standing up for the environment need our fullest support. The best way you can assist is to provide cash donations (any amount, $20 or more, whatever you can spare) to the fighting fund. Please forward your donations either direct to the Tarkine National Coalition or— and this is the important bit—for tax deductibility through the Tasmanian Conservation Trust Incorporated, marked for the Tarkine campaign.So Senator Brown's defence was funded by donations, or part of it at least—we do not know how many donations he got—by tax deductible donations. There was no real mention of that in the report, was there—that there is the other side to the question of tax deductibility? Why should a Green senator-elect get the benefit of tax deductibility for donations for him to run a defence when anybody else within the community is unable to get tax deductibility? Without putting too fine a point on it, Senator Brown and his supporters—or, if not Senator Brown, at least Mr Peter Sims, who was the coordinator of the Tarkine National Coalition—were basically running a bit of a scam.There are always two sides to every story and, unfortunately, the majority report was very careful to ensure that only the one side was put down. Another example was in relation to Dietrich applications. Without going into all the detail as to what a Dietrich application is, the reality is that there have only been four such cases, yet the majority report would have us believe that the whole legal aid system has been brought to its knees because of the Dietrich application. But there have only been four of them, so, with respect, I think the report does not do full justice to the situation that is in front of us. I conclude, as I started, by complimenting the secretariat and Senator Coonan for the excellent work in preparing this report.Debate (on motion by Senator Murray) adjourned.Bills4046r4834046Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.404610:26:004046Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum and I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The introduction of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 (the bill) comes after a long process of consideration and review of the current regime for protecting indigenous heritage areas and objects in this country and will replace the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (the 1984 Act). While the 1984 Act was intended to be interim legislation which would operate as a forum of last resort when State or Territory processes were inadequate, this aim has not been realised, and considerable difficulties have been experienced with the Act as illustrated in the long running dispute over the proposed Hindmarsh Island bridge. Apart from the repeal of the sunset clause in 1986 and the insertion of Part IIA in 1987 which applies only in Victoria, the 1984 Act has not changed in the last 14 years, and reform of this legislation is now long overdue. Indeed a review commissioned by the previous government was already under way when this government came to office in 1996 with an election pledge to reform the Act. There is common agreement on the need for reform.Indigenous Australians are often in a situation where places that hold particular cultural significance for them are located on land that is either privately or state owned. Sometimes these places are in remote and relatively undeveloped areas where they are safe from disturbance and no specific protection of them is required, nor indeed does the location of the significant area necessarily need to be revealed to anyone. However, there are times when new activities can pose a threat to a particularly significant area. Indigenous people require that where the integrity of such an area is under threat, there is a means available by which they can seek protection of that area. For the parties who are proposing to undertake an activity that may disturb a heritage area or object it is necessary that any claims for protection are dealt with in a fair, transparent and timely manner.In order to achieve a fair and effective process for indigenous heritage protection a number of important changes are being introduced in the bill. In particular the Commonwealth heritage protection regime will be reformed to address a number of difficulties with the operation of the 1984 Act and to clarify the respective roles of the Commonwealth and the States.One of the major problems with the 1984 Act was the requirement that the Minister personally satisfy himself about the significance of areas or objects to indigenous people. The bill establishes a Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection, a statutory office holder who will advise the Minister on heritage protection. In particular the Director, rather than the Minister, will make assessments of the importance of areas or objects to indigenous people.Another improvement in the operation of the Commonwealth's regime arises from our recognition that most heritage protection cases have more than one solution, and that with goodwill and a spirit of compromise on all sides, problems can often be resolved by the parties sitting down together and negotiating through the details of the case. The Commonwealth will therefore attempt to resolve cases through negotiation and mediation whenever possible. Furthermore, to meet a concern expressed by indigenous people, all activities undertaken by the Commonwealth under the bill will be subject to an improved process for protecting culturally sensitive information.A significant objective of the bill is to strengthen State and Territory heritage protection regimes and to reduce the potential for confusion between the roles of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. State or Territory regimes that meet a set of specified minimum standards will be accredited by the Commonwealth. While some State or Territory regimes may already come near to meeting the minimum standards, in others the move to accreditation will bring with it significant improvements in those regimes.Let me now turn to the detail of key aspects of the legislation.Madam President, the 1984 Act was reviewed by the Hon Elizabeth Evatt AC who reported to the government in 1996. Her report recommended a number of changes to the current heritage protection regime. One important recommendation was that the role of assessing the significance of an area for which protection was being sought should not be undertaken by the same person or body that would make the final decision about whether protection should be afforded or not. In order to implement this recommendation, the Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection will be the primary administrator of the Act, and will undertake a wide range of tasks in support of the Minister who will be the final decision maker in relation to long term protection of areas or objects.The bill applies in the same way to both significant indigenous areas and objects, however, for simplici ty I will just refer to areas. The scheme of protection where a State or Territory has not achieved accreditation is as follows. If an indigenous person has unsuccessfully pursued all possible remedies under an unaccredited State or Territory regime for protection of a significant area, then that person will be able to apply to the Commonwealth for protection of the area. The Commonwealth may provide emergency protection if the area is under immediate threat, and interim protection while the application is being considered. The Minister or the Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection will be able to reject an application that is judged to be frivolous or vexatious.To ensure that all other potential applicants are aware of the application—and to preclude belated applications once an issue has been resolved—the Director will advertise seeking further applications at an early stage in the process. Once all applications have been received, the first step the Commonwealth will take is to facilitate negotiation and/or mediation to try and resolve the situation. Where an agreement is reached, the parties will be able to register the agreement under the new Act.If mediation or negotiation is unsuccessful, the Director will prepare a report for the Minister that includes a finding about whether the area under dispute is significant in accordance with indigenous tradition and whether it is under threat. The Director will have at his or her disposal the means to investigate the veracity of claims, including through the engagement of expert consultants. In addition, the Director will seek submissions from other parties on the likely effects of protecting the area. The findings in the Director's report on significance and threat will be binding on the Minister, and will not require the Minister to view any information that is culturally sensitive.Madam President, this process will rectify a significant flaw in the 1984 Act, namely the need for the Minister to be personally satisfied as to significance and threat. These issues will no longer be matters for the Minister to determine. Accordingly, any judicial review of the Minister's decision on whether or not to protect an area will not require indigenous people to `prove' the issue of significance in public.If the Minister has grounds to believe the Director's findings are flawed through an inadequate process having been undertaken or through new information that has subsequently emerged, then the Minister may appoint an independent reviewer to make further findings, which in turn will bind the Minister.In the interests of efficiency the Minister will be able to delegate many of the operational powers in the Act to the Director, but the Minister will always retain the final decision in relation to making long-term protection orders and the deci sion to accredit a State or Territory regime. The power to issue a seven day emergency protection order in an unaccredited regime will be able to be delegated to specified officers, not only the Director. This will allow people on the spot to assess a possible emergency situation with the benefit of local knowledge. However, as a check on this delegated power, any extension of the seven day emergency protection will have to be approved by the Minister.Consistent with the 1984 Act, the discovery of indigenous human remains in an unaccredited regime will be required to be reported to the Director. Where remains are delivered to the Director he or she will consult with the relevant indigenous community about their appropriate handling.In order to ensure that any of the processes undertaken under the bill do not require indigenous people to unnecessarily reveal confidential indigenous information, such information will be exempted from demands for public release under both the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Archives Act 1983 .Madam President, given that the States and Territories are generally responsible for planning and development decisions in relation to land management, we are prepared to accredit State or Territory regimes that meet the minimum standards in the bill. The incentive for States and Territories to achieve accreditation will come from the Commonwealth absenting itself from involvement in State or Territory decision-making once a State or Territory is accredited, except in cases when protection may be in the national interest.Honourable Senators should note that these standards are a minimum, and they will in no way prevent States or Territories from going further if they wish, or retaining their existing legislation if it already represents best practice. In recognition of the importance of the decision to accredit a State or Territory it will be subject to disallowance by the Parliament. In addition, where an accredited State or Territory changes its legislation in such a way that it no longer meets the standards, the Commonwealth Minister will consult with that State or Territory, and may then revoke the accreditation.In order for a State or Territory to achieve accreditation it will need to include a number of features in its heritage protection legislation. Firstly the State or Territory will need to provide protection of significant indigenous areas and objects, and that protection must be backed up by adequate penalties. Indigenous people must be recognised as the main source of information about the significance of those areas and objects. Secondly, to ensure that indigenous people can speak freely and, if necessary, in confidence under the State or Territory legislation it must provide protection for confidential indigenous information and prevent it from being publicly revealed if such a revelation would cause harm or distress. However, while these restrictions are necessary, other parties must still be treated fairly and be given an opportunity to put their views and be told the reasons for decisions to protect areas or objects.In relation to indigenous human remains, the minimum standards will require State or Territory legislation not only to protect those remains where they are significant to indigenous people, but also ensure that any remains that are found must be reported to the relevant State Minister so they can be dealt with appropriately.Alongside the processes for protection of heritage areas and objects there must be a system whereby other parties can seek approval to undertake activities in relation to such areas or objects. This will ensure that unnecessary delays or Court battles, such as we have seen at Hindmarsh Island, can be avoided. Therefore the minimum standards require that a State or Territory promote negotiated outcomes between those who want to undertake an activity and the indigenous people concerned to protect an area. In addition, the minimum standards require the provision of a process whereby a developer can seek early approval for a proposed activity. This may include relevant indigenous people and an appropriate State authority assessing the proposal and determining whether there are any heritage sites at risk.Once a State or Territory has a legislative system in place reflecting the minimum standards, the Commonwealth Minister will be able to accredit that State or Territory regime for the purposes of the Commonwealth Act.Where a State or Territory has achieved accreditation, all indigenous heritage protection will be dealt with by the State or Territory. However, in rare cases there may be a need for the Commonwealth to step in where, at the State level, a decision not to protect an area reflects the local interests in the case, but does not recognise that the area is one that should be protected in the national interest. Given the significance of such a case it will be handled by the Minister who may facilitate negotiation and require a report to be made by the Director. However, these processes will not be mandatory, given that an accredited State or Territory regime will already have undertaken a thorough assessment of the case. The only requirement on the Minister will be that he or she consult the relevant State or Territory Minister about the case and the consequences of protecting the area in question.Transitional provisions are included in the bill in relation to Part IIA of the 1984 Act which applies only in the State of Victoria. The Victorian Government plans to pass new State indigenous heritage protection legislation, and to ensure that that legislation will be able to operate, Part IIA will be repealed simultaneously with the enactment of the State legislation.In conclusion, I would like to say that reform of indigenous heritage protection legislation is long overdue. The 1984 Act was introduced as a temporary measure only and has presented many difficulties for indigenous people, other interests, and governments administering the Act. I am pleased that we will be able to address these problems through this new more comprehensive legislation. This bill will ensure that a fair and transparent process is established for the protection of indigenous heritage at both the Commonwealth and State levels, that duplication and overlap is diminished and that nationally significant areas can be protected.Debate (on motion by Senator Conroy) adjourned.Bills4049r5504049Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.404910:27:004049Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—It is almost eighty years since an armistice restored peace after the war that the entire world thought would end all wars. Sadly, peace did not last. However the Australian repatriation system, born at the same time, to care for those who returned from the Great War, has not only endured but evolved to meet the ever changing needs of the veteran community.Today, we remain true to the goals of repatriation. More importantly, after eighty years we continue to improve the benefits provided to those Australians whose service deserves our ongoing recognition and practical assistance.This bill contains the most significant expansion of veterans' benefits for many years.From 1 January 1999, eligibility for a Repatriation Health Card—For All Conditions, better known as a Gold Card, will be extended to Australian veterans aged 70 or over, who faced danger from hostile forces of the enemy during World War 2. This will provide these veterans with the certainty and comfort that comes with knowing that their health needs will always be met.Full health care benefits were extended to World War I veterans fifty-five years after the end of that conflict. In providing this further extension of the Gold Card, Australian World War II veterans aged 70 years and over with World War II qualifying service, will receive the same benefit fifty-four years after the end of that war.The criterion on which this extension of eligibility is based, is the "incurred danger" test, formally known as `qualifying service'. This qualifying service must have occurred during the `period of hostilities' as defined in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This covers the period from 3 September 1939 to 29 October 1945, inclusive.Qualifying service is also a criterion for Service Pension. Service pension was introduced in 1936 for those veterans who served in a theatre of war. It was intended to recognise that these veterans faced danger from hostile forces of the enemy, and endured the deprivations, the horror and the hardship of battle.World War 2 veterans with qualifying service are now an average age of 76. Their health care is a very high priority for this Government.This initiative extends to an estimated additional 50,000 veterans a comprehensive range of health care services, including private patient hospital care.Other health services provided through the Gold Card include:. choice of doctor;. pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate;. optical care;. physiotherapy;. dental care;. podiatry care and products; and. chiropractic services.Eligible veterans, that is those aged 70 or over, with World War 2 qualifying service, will be eligible for these benefits regardless of their level of income or assets and irrespective of whether they have war-caused disabilities or conditions. They will join an estimated 260,000 veterans who already have a Gold Card. Of the 50,000 additional veterans expected to become newly eligible for a Gold Card, approximately 17,000 are current holders of a White Card—that is they are only eligible for health treatment for their war-caused disabilities and conditions.This initiative, costing around $500 million over four years, is an important means of recognising the willing sacrifice made by veterans in Australia's time of need and of expressing our profound gratitude for their courage and dedication.Extension of the Gold Card has been a top priority of the Government and also of the Returned & Services League and other ex-service organisations. I am pleased that this initiative fulfils yet another Coalition election commitment and further demonstrates the Government's commitment to providing older Australians with greater security and stability.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be adjourned until the first day of the spring sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills4050r4054050Consideration resumed from 24 June.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The committee is considering the Company Law Review Bill 1997 and amendment No. 37 moved by Senator Murray on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.NaN:00:004050Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I understood that the argument on that amendment to the Company Law Review Bill 1997 had been concluded and that it simply remained for the vote to be taken. I note that the Labor senator carrying the debate, Senator Cook, has just entered the chamber. It was my assumption, Senator Cook, that you intended to vote for amendment No. 37 on revised sheet 951. I thought that was where the matter had been left.22:30:004050Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I can confirm that. I did vote for it. I thought that the chairman at the time—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You were voting against it; it was going to go to the PJC.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I was voting for Democrats amendment No. 37, which is the environmental provision in the Company Law Review Bill 1997 .Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—No. When it was called, the chairman of the committee that the stage was Senator Shane Murphy and I thought that he paused in the calling of the numbers, not because of my vote, but because Senator Harradine had been indecisive. I am not saying he was, but that was the perception. It is just a matter of confirming the record that what Senator Murray said is accurate.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that amendment No. 37 be agreed to.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It was called for the noes, because Senator Harradine was voting for no. If Senator Cook agrees that Senator Harradine was going to vote no, I do not think we will insist on a division.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No. I do not agree that Senator Harradine was going to vote no. What I agree is that it was not clear from the chair.10:31:004050Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Rather than run a division on this basis, may I suggest that it may be appropriate if we check on Senator Harradine's vote. That would be preferable to dragging everyone down. I move:That consideration of the amendment be deferred.Question resolved in the affirmative.10:32:004050Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My amendment No. 38 reads:(38) Schedule 1, item 5, page 185 (after line 31), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) The directors' report must also include an analysis of information reasonably necessary to understand the overall financial position of the company, registered scheme or disclosing entity, including: (a) results of operations (both overall and in key industry and geographical segments); and (b) key strategic initiatives adopted; and (c) major commitments entered into and sources of funding for those commitments; and (d) unusual or infrequent events or transactions; and (e) likely future developments in the business; and (f) trends or events (both internal and external) that have had a significant effect, or are likely to have a significant effect, on the business.Once again, I advise the Senate that in my opinion the matters were fairy broadly discussed yesterday and unless there is doubt or argument concerning the matters at hand, I would be content to move to the vote.On this particular issue it was my impression—and unfortunately the senator is not here—that Senator Harradine had intended to vote for this amendment. Once again, if that is not clear, the Parliamentary Secretary may prefer to defer this particular vote as well.10:33:004051Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I can perhaps help here. We have amendment No. 5 on my circulated list of amendments which goes to the same issue. Initially my reaction was to not vote for the Democrat amendment, but favour my own—not surprisingly. However, the Parliamentary Secretary has given an explanation that the ASX is going to insist on this provision for companies listing on the exchange.In view of that information, it became then my intention to withdraw my amendment and oppose the Democrat amendment on this matter to allow the Australian Stock Exchange to insert this as a provision for companies.However, to make it very plain I will say it now: if for some reason—and I do not say that accusatively—there is a tardiness in bringing about this reform and there is too long a wait before companies start to show these sorts of provisions in their directors' reports, we will be strongly disposed to legislate. In other words, I am signposting now that it is alright to let the ASX go ahead and do as it has proposed. That is a good thing if it does it. But, if it does not work quickly enough or soon enough, at least for the opposition, we will be proposing to legislate to make sure it is law.Amendment not agreed to.10:35:004051Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The next amendments I seek leave to move together would be Nos. 39 and 40. I think those are appropriate together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jacinta Collins)—We have not dealt with amendment No. 41. Is that relevant here?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I ask that 41 be taken separately.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I move:(40) Schedule 1, item 5, page 186 (after line 25), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) the amount and the nature of the remuneration paid to each director and each of the 5 most highly remunerated officers of the company; and (cb) the existence and duration of any service contract relating to the Chief Executive Officer; and (cc) the age and all other listed company directorships of each director; andOnce again, this is a topic which is well-known to all parties in this debate. It has been well covered in the various reports on these issues. The issue of remuneration of directors and senior executives is a particularly important one to many shareholders and to the public at large. It does occasion some embarrassment at times for those who are at the very head of their public companies. But, nevertheless, we subscribed to the view that it is appropriate that this disclosure continues in the existing act. Accordingly, we would strongly recommend the support of Senate for these two amendments.10:37:004051Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We have our own amendment on this matter, amendment No. 6. I now look towards Senator Murray to obtain an indication from him. He has the honour of agreeing here, because it is his amendment, but it might be appropriate if I also move my amendment so that both could be taken at the same time. Both the Democrat and Labor amendments are dealing with essentially the same thing, that executive remuneration should be disclosed.In going through the amendments of the Democrats and comparing those amendments with the amendments that have been circulated in my name, there are a couple of elements that are different. In principle we are agreed, and in principle I suspect that the numbers are in this chamber to make the change in the law. Before addressing the substantive merit of why that change should be made, it might be worthwhile to sort out some of these matters between us.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Cook, perhaps if we do that in relation to the Democrat amendments and then deal with yours separately.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—All right—whatever you rule. I do not favour the Democrat amendment because it seems to me on a plain reading of it that it is not as comprehensive as the change we would seek to make in our amendment. What we are dealing with here is whether company reports to shareholders, which are then open for public examination by anyone in the community, should disclose the remuneration of the top five executives of a corporation. It is a matter of notorious reporting that we now have in Australia many senior executives who are paid in excess of $1 million a year.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Plus options and extras.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Plus a series of options in shares, plus a whole series of other fringe benefits. To calculate the real remuneration of the total package is complex in any case. The contention being put here by the Democrats, shared by us and by the Greens, is that the actual figures of the remuneration of the top five executives of listed corporations in Australia should be reported in the annual report, that all the elements that make up the package should also be reported, and that the principles which a company has arrived at to decide that they are the appropriate levels of remuneration should also be set out. It seems to me, with greatest respect to the Democrat amendment, that that is more comprehensively done in our amendment. That is why I would prefer our amendment.10:40:004052Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will be as brief as possible. Senator Murray is right; this debate has already effectively been had. I did come up with a draft resolution, which I have circulated to people involved in this debate, which would be the government's preferred position. I will quickly outline that. If the Democrat and Labor amendments were to fail, I have foreshadowed that, added to the things that we have already agreed and that the government has blessed in terms of going to the parliamentary committee to inquire into in relation to these corporate governance issues, the Senate would formally request—I will quickly summarise this for the sake of the Hansard —in terms of passing a resolution to do so that the committee on corporations inquire into and report, as part of its inquiry into the Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill, on the enhancement of mandatory disclosures of the remuneration of directors.I have gone on to say that that same working group that is doing the work on MD&As be asked to make a submission. So that would be the parliament asking them—very nicely, because we are not paying them—to do some work on the best way of exposing directors' remuneration. I think Senator Cook has just sparked a good debate about how you do it best. The Labor amendment sits fairly easily with me because it talks about each element of remuneration. That may well be the right way to skin the cat. I am not expert enough to know whether it is. The government believes in transparency and believes in this sort of disclosure. That is why we are very keen to have it looked at seriously.The parliamentary committee on corporations, even though it had a submission saying that we should do this and recommended that we should, did not have it as part of its terms of reference in either of the inquiries into this bill. It was not formally part of its terms of reference because it was not in the bill; it was an add-on. I have always said to people publicly and privately that I would like to see this looked into by a serious inquiry.I go on to say that the committee would look at the best form of disclosure and report on the ASX listing rule requirement—and I differentiate the MD&A thing, which is a best practice under a listing rule, which isn't a requirement; it is not mandatory. And I say look at a listing rule that would make it a requirement to make this disclosure. So it would achieve the same end as the Labor Party amendment because it would apply to all listed companies. It is a matter of whether an ASX listing rule requirement—actually a listing requirement; if you don't do it, you get delisted—would be the best way to achieve enhanced disclosure for listed companies or whether an amendment to the Corporations Law is preferable. So it is saying: can the ASX require it of all listed companies—which is what the Labor Party seeks to do with its amendment—or should it be in the law? So report on that issue, which is the core issue we are really talking about.The committee would also seek the views of small business representatives—I guess we are telling them how to suck eggs by telling the committee to do that; I hope they would do that anyway—in relation to whether enhanced mandatory disclosure should apply to unlisted entities. That would specifically ask them to look at the Democrats' proposal, which I understand would go to all reporting entities—any company in Australia with more than 50 members. Specifically the committee—which I know they would do anyway; even if they didn't, they would receive them anyway—would seek the views of the shareholder and consumer representatives in its deliberations.So that is the idea I am putting on the table. Rather than just talking about it, I have drafted it in a resolution. I think that has been distributed to people interested in the debate. I foreshadow that if both amendments were to fail, I would move that on behalf of the government as a resolution of the Senate. My officers have discussed with the Democrat advisers the concept of putting into this motion those other matters we had agreed to have referred formally so that it was a direction to that committee from the Senate in relation to all the other matters.That is my proposal in relation to directors' remuneration. I indicate that, in any event, we would be voting against the Democrat amendment because I believe the Labor amendment is preferable. In those circumstances, I would prefer the Senate to pass the Labor amendment. I also suggest that Senator Harradine—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—So you are voting for the Labor amendment?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—What I am saying is that we would prefer the Labor amendment.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—This is ridiculous.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, it is not ridiculous, Senator Margetts. My vote will not matter because, if the Labor amendment gets up, the Senate will pass it. If Senator Harradine votes for the Labor amendment it will become the amendment. I will be voting against the Democrats amendment and the Labor Party have indicated that they will be, so the Democrats amendment is likely to fail. The government's preference between the two is the Labor amendment.For the record, I would like to respond to a small point that Senator Conroy made yesterday, and this is an appropriate time to do it. He referred to Stan Wallis and his remuneration. I do not want to misquote you but you said something along the lines that people should know what Mr Wallis earns. I got my officers to ring the Stock Exchange to get a copy of the relevant pages of the annual report of Amcor. On page 38 it shows that Mr Wallis has—and this is a point that Senator Conroy made by interjection just then—373,439 fully paid ordinary shares of $1, another 200,000 partly paid 1c shares, 200,000 partly paid shares of 5c and 400,000 options.I do this to illustrate that we are not standing here saying that we do not want more disclosure; we are saying that there is already disclosure. The government thinks that is good but that there should be a good public debate and a detailed inquiry into that disclos ure, which have not taken place. No-one here can say that there has been an inquiry at any level or by any expert committee in this country about directors' remuneration, at least in the last decade. That is the government's view and I am willing to see that debate.The government believes that the Labor amendment is probably the sort of thing that should happen in Australia. It is a question to us as to whether that should be done through a listing rule requirement or whether it should be done in the Corporations Law. I have an open mind about that and I know the Treasurer does.Just to conclude on Mr Stan Wallis, if you turn to page 58 of Amcor's current annual report, it shows up the break-up of the remuneration of directors and executives. I think it is illustrative of the disclosure we have at the moment. Senator Cook, Senator Murray and Senator Margetts, I have not done you the courtesy of showing you these documents but they are public documents and they are on the ASX and ASC databases. It is the annual report of Amcor; you will have to trust me on that.This is illustrative of where remuneration disclosure is at the moment. It shows that there is one executive in the band between $240,000 and $250,000. One could reasonably assume that that might be Mr Wallis. That is a worthy part of the debate. If you look at the schedule on page 58, which I will also incorporate, there is one executive between $240,000 and $250,000. I may have undersold Mr Wallis, because that is the lowest band. He might earn more than that.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—If you think that is Stan Wallis, you are wrong.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, it is not. I think that might be the tea lady!3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You just actually proved why we need the amendment.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am proving this, Senator Conroy; you and I agree on this, that the way the disclosure is at the moment—and if you go up to a much higher band in the realms of—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Having trouble understanding it?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am. That is a very good point. That is why I will incorporate it in Hansard and that is why you should have a debate about what is the best way to disclose remuneration for shareholders. That is why I am saying we should refer it to a committee and let them have a look at it. You have bands going right up and, if you pick it off, you will see that there are directors up there who earn well in excess of $1 million—between $1.2 million and $1.29 million. Mr Wallis, one would assume, is in that realm.I seek leave to incorporate pages 57, 58 and 38 of the Amcor Limited annual report, together with the covering note from the ASX, who provided this information to me. I thank them for doing so at short notice. I hope that shows that the government is serious about developing this policy. We think the best way to do it is in the way I have described.Leave granted.The document read as follows—DIRECTORS' REPORTSTATUTORY REQUIREMENTSDirectorsDirectors in office at the date of this report:S D M Wallis (Chairman), D B Macfarlane (Managing Director), E A Alexander, D C K Allen, R Cameron, N R Clark, R T Halstead, B T Loton, D E Meiklejohn, G R Ringwood and Z E Switkowski.Miss E A Alexander and Mr R T Halstead retire and, being eligible, offer themselves for re-election at the annual general meeting.The qualifications, experience and special responsibilities of directors are set out on page 15 of this report.No director of the company has received or become entitled to receive a benefit, other than a benefit included in the aggregate amount of directors' remuneration shown in the accounts or consolidated accounts, because of a contract made by the company, its controlled entities or a related body corporate with a director, or with a firm of which a director is a member or with an entity in which a director has a substantial financial interest. INTERESTS OF DIRECTORS IN CONTRACTS OR PROPOSED CONTRACTS WITH THE COMPANYDirectors in full-time employment of the companyExecutive directors of Amcor Limited have variously entered into agreements with the company that provide for benefits on retirement, loans under the scheme approved by shareholders on 19 September 1980, and for the provision of finance to purchase shares issued under the employee share purchase plan approved by shareholders on 29 January 1985, and as amended on 3 September 1987 and 20 October 1988.Directors' interestsDirectors' holdings of investments in Amcor Limited as at the date of this report were:Ordinary shares of $1 eachFully-paidPartly-paid 1 cent (1)Partly-paid 5 cents (1)Options (1)S D M Wallis373,439200,000200,000400,000D B Macfarlane173,348100,000125,000500,000E A Alexander1,35250,000D C K Allen3,000R Cameron6,16950,000N R Clark5,35450,000R T Halstead1,85250,000B T Loton192,74850,000D E Meiklejohn117,642100,000125,000250,000G R Ringwood106,595100,000125,000200,000Z E Switkowski1,36650,000(1) These shares and options were issued pursuant to the Employee Share/Option plan approved by shareholders on 24 October 1985, and as amended on 20 October 1988.Other directorsDirectors of Amcor Limited have entered into agreements with the company for the payment of retiring allowances on retirement as a director. Agreements for the provision of benefits to directors on retirement are made under the provisions of Amcor's Articles of Association. In addition, directors of Amcor Limited have declared their interests in contracts or proposed contracts that may result from their directorships of other corporations, as listed in their personal profiles set out on page 15.Review and results of operationsA review of the operations of the economic entity during the financial year and the results of these operations is contained in pages 16 to 32 of this report.State of affairsThere was no significant change in the state of affairs of the economic entity that occurred during the financial year ended 30 June 1997 other than:. those included in the features of the Year section on page one of this report; and . the issue of 7,100,950 shares (1996 18,498,008 shares) with attached share premium as detailed on page 54 of this report.Principal activitiesThe principal activities of the economic entity and associated companies are set out on page five of this report. There were no significant changes in the nature of the principal activities of the economic entity during the year under review.Financial resultsThe consolidated operating profit of the economic entity for the financial year, after provision for income tax, outside equity interest and before abnormal items, was $243.3 million (1996 $356.0 million).The consolidated operating loss of the economic entity for the financial year, after provision for income tax, outside equity interest and abnormal items, was $80.1 million (1996 profit $338.8 million).DividendsInterimAn interim dividend of 18.0 cents was paid to shareholders on 16 April 1997. It was 70% franked at 36% corporate tax rate and totalling $114.2 million (1996 18.0 cents, 100% franked at 33% corporate tax rate and totalling $111.7 million). FinalA final dividend of 20.0 cents has been declared and is payable on 15 October 1997. It will be 25% franked at 36% corporate tax rate and will total $128.0 million (1996 20.0 cents, 100% franked at 36% corporate tax rate and totalling $126.6 million).Events subsequent to balance dateSince 30 June 1997 to the date of this report no matter or circumstance has arisen (other than those occurring as a result of the normal vicissitudes of business) that, in the opinion of the directors, has significantly affected or may significantly affect the operations of the economic entity, the results of those operations, or the state of affairs of the economic entity in financial years subsequent to 30 June 1997.Since 30 June 1997, the Amcor economic entity has signed agreements to sell the Holfelder corrugated packaging business in Germany and the McKinley paper mill in the US.ConsolidatedAmcor Limited1997 $ million1996 $ million1997 $ million1996 $ millionNOTE 28. AUDITORS' REMUNERATIONAmounts received or due and receivable for audit services by:. Auditors of the Company1.9712.2941.3931.284. KPMG member firms2.9092.640--. Other auditors0.0470.100--Amounts received or due and receivable for other services by:. Auditors of the Company0.8541.2140.7040.596. KPMG member firms0.6930.816--. Other auditors0.0710.093--NOTE 29. REMUNERATION OF DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVESRemuneration of directorsAmounts paid or payable or otherwise made available to directors4.2593.1603.6802.911Number of directors whose remuneration was within the following bands:No.No.$40,000-49,9992250,000-59,9995480,000-89,99911120,000-129,9991-170,000-179,999-1420,000-429,999-1430,000-439,999-1460,000-469,9991-490,000-499,999-1520,000-529,9991-820,000-829,9991-970,000-979,999-11,290,000-1,299,9991-ConsolidatedAmcor Limited$ million 1997 $ million1996 $ million1997 $ million1996 $ million Remuneration of executivesAmounts received or due and receivable by executive officers whose total remuneration exceeds $100,000 (3)(1) 12.919(2) 30.72528.40515.97314.002Number of executive officers whose remuneration was within the following bands*Overseas ExecutivesAll Executives (including Overseas)$No.No.No.No.No.120,001-130,000--1--130,001-140,000--5-5140,001-150,000-2725150,001-160,00014232160,001-170,000-3424170,001-180,000-2714180,001-190,000-61249190,001-200,00018464200,001-210,00017241210,001-220,000-1311220,001-230,000-3432230,001-240,00014-2-240,001-250,000--1--250,001-260,00012313260,001-270,000222-1270,001-280,000-2-1-280,001-290,0001211-290,001-300,000-1312300,001-310,00023-1-310,001-320,000--2--320,001-330,000--2-1330,001-340,00012212340,001-350,000113-2350,001-360,00012-1-360,001-370,000--1-1370,001-380,000-1-1-380,001-390,00022---390,001-400,00012311400,001-410,00022---410,001-420,00011---420,001-430,000-1411430,001-440,00012311440,001-450,000-2221450,001-460,000--1--460,001-470,000-2-2-470,001-480,00011---480,001-490,00011---490,001-500,000--1-1500,001-510,00011--- 510,001-520,00012-1-520,001-530,000-1-1-530,001-540,000-1-1-620,001-630,000--1--630,001-640,000--1--640,001-650,000-1-1-660,001-670,000--1--690,001-700,000--1--720,001-730,000-1-1-740,001-750,000--1-1820,001-830,000-1-1-860,001-870,00011---970,001-980,000--1-11,290,001-1,300,000-1-1-2,970,001-2,980,000--1--3,730,001-3,740,00011---Retirement paymentsRetirement payments to directors of Amcor Limited, being amounts previously approved by shareholders in a general meeting1.059-1.059-(1) Overseas executives are grouped in column (1) and are also included in (2).(2) Covers Amcor Limited and its subsidiaries on a worldwide basis and includes executives of overseas subsidiaries.(3) Includes payments made in respect of retirement or termination of service not included in Retirement Payments below.* Includes executive directors of Amcor Limited also disclosed within "Remuneration of Directors".10:50:004058Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I think the appropriate course of action is for me to withdraw amendments 39 and 40, and to cede the floor to you to continue with the proposal of your own amendment No. 6.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Before we proceed to opposition amendment No. 6, we still have Democrats amendment No. 41, which has actually been moved.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I had understood the Senate to have given me leave to defer consideration of that until such time as we had dealt with the remuneration matters in full, which was 39, 40 and 6.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We can do that now. Is leave granted?Leave granted.10:51:004058Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I would like to talk to the amendments we have been talking about until now.RF4COOKSenator Cook—They were withdrawn.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes, but I would like to put my position. I thought you might like to know where we are voting, Senator Cook.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I am not quibbling with you, I just want—DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—That is okay, but I did not want to go on to the next group. Obviously, people saw that Greens (WA) had a slight amendment to the Democrats amendment 40 because of the issue of requiring the age of director, which we did not think fitted into the public interest requirement. We prefer the opposition's amendment. I wanted to put on the record that it does, hopefully, look as though there may be enough—if Senator Harradine is with us—to support the amendment the government said they would like to support if they were going to vote the way they would like, for some strange reason. I wanted to put on record that, when we are going ahead with amendment No. 6, the Greens (WA) will be voting with the opposition on that.10:53:004059Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I want to clarify this. Senator Margetts does not understand me because I have not made it clear. The government does not support either amendment but of the lesser of the two evils at this stage—and that is not a good way to say it because, as I have said, in principle we do not disagree with what Labor is trying to do; it may just be the way that we are going about it—is the Labor amendment. I would prefer to see it investigated by independent experts, receive advice and then come back here and do what is required. I am advised that has not been done in Australia in the past decade. There has been no detailed parliamentary look at this issue. I am saying that that is the way to proceed. We will not be supporting the Labor amendment.One further matter, in terms of procedure, is that Senator Harradine and I have been having discussions on this and, as his vote will be crucial, I suggest that, if there is going to be a vote on the Labor amendment, we will defer to it to save a division.10:54:004059Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I should perhaps wait for you to call it, but is it now appropriate for me to move my amendment?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Yes, Senator Cook. Perhaps at the same time you could indicate what you intend to do with opposition amendment No. 5.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I seek leave to withdraw opposition amendment No. 5 in view of the remarks I made earlier that the ASX is going to proceed to make this a condition of their listed companies and the remarks I made that, if that does not proceed quickly enough, we are in favour of legislating it. With those remarks I seek leave to withdraw opposition amendment No. 5.Leave granted.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I move:(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 191 (after line 15), after section 300, insert:300A Annual directors' report—specific information to be provided by listed companies (1) The directors' report for a financial year for a company must also include: (a) discussion of broad policy for determining the nature and amount of remuneration of board members and senior executives of the company; and (b) discussion of the relationship between such policy and the company's performance; and (c) details of the nature and amount of each element of the remuneration of each director and each of the 5 named officers of the company receiving the highest remuneration. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.While this amendment appears in the opposition's name, we do not claim pride of authorship exclusively. I acknowledge strongly the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats and the amendment to the Australian Democrats' amendment being foreshadowed by the Greens, which are now in abeyance in favour of this. It is not a matter of our claiming, if I can put it in these terms, `the glory'. This is a widely held view on this side of the chamber.Having said that, I will go to the next point. The parliamentary secretary did us the courtesy this morning of circulating to us the motion that he was proposing which would refer this matter to a parliamentary committee for further inquiry and report. I thank him for that courtesy. I understand the reasons why the government might wish to do that. It is my understanding that the joint parliamentary committee has talked about this matter before on two occasions, but it may well be true that no explicit term of reference has been given and so explicitly they have not been charged to do so. But I understand that they have considered the matter.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—They have not invited public submissions on the matter, though.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—So that is the critical point. Okay. I accept that interjection and let it appear in Hansard . Notwithstanding that, we would want to press this amendment quite strongly.I do not think this is a complicated matter—and I say that, of course, having had a career in industrial relations of some 17 years—when you are talking about disclosing executive remuneration, the principles upon which executive remuneration are being determined, and each element of executive remuneration. I say that perhaps from the arrogance of someone who has spent so long in the field of industrial relations. In any case, for the man and the woman in the street I do not think this is a complicated matter that requires that type of shelving, although I accept the government's view that it is not trying to shelve it. But the effect would be to shelve this thing and get it out of the way for a time.Having explained my position, I will come to the merit of this amendment. We have in Australia a situation in which the wage levels of most people who are in the employed work force are publicly known, either through awards or disclosed terms of agreements. We have a situation where the wage levels of senior executives, many of whom earn in excess of a million dollars, are not publicly known and are reported on only because of some investigative journalist trying to work out what their levels are.The state of the law is such that companies are not compelled to disclose the full extent of executive remuneration; they are obliged only to disclose in what salary bands their executives are placed—and we do not know the full extent of executive remuneration. I say `remuneration' because it is not just a matter of how much money they receive; it is a matter of how many shares they are given in their company, how much access to share options they are given, and how many other fringe benefits make up the total salary package.Taking for the moment the point of view of shareholders, I think shareholders who are the owners of a company are not told what the executives that run that company on behalf of the shareholders receive for doing the job that the shareholders delegate them to do. It should be a basic entitlement, I think, that shareholders should have that information.I am bolstered in that conviction because other countries insist that this information be disclosed. Notably, the United States does. I am bolstered in that conviction as well because some major Australian companies do this voluntarily although they are not compelled by law to do it. I acknowledge them and I respect them for, in fact, pursuing an open and transparent policy on executive remuneration and keeping their shareholders informed, keeping them in the loop. One of the most publicly recognised companies that does this is Westpac. It is a major Australian company. All we are saying is that the law should provide that all listed companies do this.There are a couple of arguments that I would like to put while accepting that the government has acknowledged that it is not opposed to the principle; it is concerned only about how that principle might best be implemented. But I put these arguments to the government expressly because I think it might, if you like, help assuage the caution that it is expressing on this point.The first thing is that, if we look at this situation from the point of view of the Treasurer, we see the figures on wages are running ahead of the figures on the inflation rate. Pretty soon, if my experience in this field is any judge, we will start hearing a clamouring by captains of Australian industry that workers in Australia are getting paid too much and they ought to exercise wage restraint. Without going into whether that is a right or a wrong call, it is morally reprehensible that those calling on people to exercise wage restraint have their own remuneration mysteriously hidden and inaccessible to the public.When I was a minister in the Hawke and Keating governments, and Minister for Industrial Relations during the period 1990 to 1993, through the wages accord with the ACTU we agreed on voluntary wage restraint by unions in this country and kept wages down so that we could grow the economy at a faster pace and, presumably, that would create more jobs. The trade-off was lower wages and more jobs for everyone—an egalitarian trade-off and a laudable one.But what thwarted that at every turn was that we also kept our eye on executive remuneration. The respected consultancy, Cullen Egan Dell, regularly surveyed the level of executive remuneration. The same people who were telling workers to draw in the reins and tighten their belts were getting remuneration at levels two and three times greater than the people they were lecturing. If there was not an example of hypocrisy in that, there is never an example of hypocrisy. It is one thing to say,`Do as I tell you, but do not do as I do.' That was what was happening and no wonder workers on the job were saying, `If we are being told to exercise restraint, why don't those people who run this company do the same?'Looking at the general situation, if anyone wants to preach about wage restraint in the future—and I certainly am not going to be in that camp, but if anyone on the conservative side of politics wishes to do it—they had better make sure that all wages of all employees, because a managing director is no more than that, are known. The same restraint should apply to everyone irrespective of their station so that it is not a hypocritical situation of `Don't do as I do, do as I tell you.' That is an absolute and basic right and entitlement. If things are going to be fair in the work force, that is basic and absolute.The second point I make about this is the extraordinary bases upon which executive remuneration is determined. There are many cases of major public companies in Australia where the senior executives get wage increases or salary package increases at the very time that the value of the shares of those com panies are declining and the value of the companies, in fact, are contracting. In plain language and in plain scrutiny, you would say that these companies are failing while the executives are getting higher rewards for presiding over that situation. It is incredible that that is the case.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—The same as the AIDC.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You have got a bugbear about that, Senator Heffernan. I would advise you—through you, Madam Chairman—to actually find out the facts before you start to want enter into a debate about the AIDC. I am happy to accommodate you any time you want.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—I would be happy to take you on.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I look forward to the occasion. Let us keep with this issue. Shareholders, who are seeing the value of their shares decline while executive remuneration increases, are entitled to know on what basis these decisions are made and washed through meetings of shareholders. What are the criteria by which you access managerial performance and, beyond that, managerial reward? Shareholders are certainly and definitely entitled to know that. This amendment will require that to be reported in the annual report so that there can then be an argument as to whether those executives have met the criteria.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am going to concede this now. You are going to get your amendment.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I was not meaning to talk you into submission.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I know.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I was meaning to put my case, but in view of that I will now yield the floor. Thank you.11:05:004061Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government's position has been put in relation to not supporting this, but I am going to move to the position of not opposing at this stage, because I have put our position in principle. Can I reinforce that? I said to Senator Murray privately that one of the problems with this way of legislating company law is unintended consequence. One of them has been pointed out to me and it is going to require that the company committee report on this anyway.One of the problems with your amendment, which I do not think can be fixed here, is that the terminology is wrong. There is no definition of remuneration in the Corporations Law. The best advice I can get on the run is that the word should actually be `emoluments', because that is what the definition is, and I refer you to section 9 of the Corporations Law. The definition of `emoluments' there is:. . . the amount or value of any money, consideration or benefit . . . Then it goes on to say that it does not include `reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses'. So there is some discussion of all of this and some confusion. My advice is that if you put in this amendment it may not have the desired effect. But it is just an example of not knowing what the effect of it is because it has not been looked at, and the formulation of the words may not achieve the result because it has not been consulted on—you have not had a public inquiry.But we will now allow this to go through. If we can try to fix it up in the other place to make it work we will do so. We have had to do that with an amendment that was made to the Managed Investments Bill 1997 by this place. We have been told by the legal people at the Securities Commission that the amendment we made in relation to the capital adequacy requirements is ineffective because of poor drafting and will have no effect. It is not able to be implemented because of the same problem. It is not an unusual problem; it occurs with lots of legislation. But to speed the debate, because we want this bill through and we want to start the scheme by 1 July, I am going to not to oppose and we can have the vote put now.11:08:004062Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—In view of your explanation, I seek leave to amend further my amendment by removing the word `remuner ation' and replacing it with `emoluments'—or `emolument'.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Whether it is plural or not can probably be adjusted by the chair, but `emolument' would be better at this stage.Leave granted.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I amend my amedment as follows:Paragraph (1)(a), omit "remuneration", substitute "emoluments".Paragraph (a)(c), omit "remuneration" (wherever occuring), substitute "emolument".11:08:004062Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I cannot resist making a small cheap shot by saying that it is good to see that we are able to agree on Labor's amendments even though they were in fact circulated after the running sheet was put together—Senator Cook is not listening to me. It is good to see that the Senate has the ability to do that, and the fact that amendments are circulated late does not mean that they cannot be considered.11:09:004062Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I would like to clarify the definitional issue. Is that the appropriate term that would cover all of what we would refer to in layperson's language as remuneration? Would it include things like long-term incentives? Would that fall within that definition? If you had a package that was tied to the share price, would that all be included? I am getting a nod from your adviser, Senator Campbell, so I will happily defer to the wink and the nod principle.11:10:004062Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I do want to wrap this up. The problem that we have is, if you turn to the law, alphabetically somewhere between `relevant previous law' and `reporting entity' there should be `remuneration'. There is no definition. There is a definition of emoluments. It is the only definition. On the run, the advice is that that might include those things. We are told that it does. This is the problem. You really should say what it does include, because I am sure there are things that we are missing out. One would wonder what an out-of-pocket expense is. You could have a long debate about that. We will not oppose the amendment.Amendment agreed to.11:10:004063Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(42) Schedule 1, item 5, page 197 (after line 27), at the end of section 312, add: (2) Each director and executive officer of a company has an obligation to inform the auditor if the director or executive officer suspects that fraud or other improper conduct involving the company has occurred.I have moved this amendment because, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Democrats, all directors and other management personnel should be obliged to inform the auditor of suspected fraud or other improper conduct regarding the company. This is important to ensure that the auditor is aware of all issues relevant to carrying out the audit and the auditor's review of the company reports. We consistently have an auditing difficulty because there is a conflict of interest. It is on the recommendation of the directors that the shareholders appoint the auditor. So the auditor effectively is reporting about a company when their very contract and their very appointment is dependent upon the people that they may be obliged to criticise. There is also a situation in all auditing where test audits and sample audits are conducted.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I will not oppose and we can have the vote.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Thank you. I will speak very briefly, Parliamentary Secretary. There is no process whereby auditors can audit the entire company. Therefore, they will miss areas of concern. Such a provision in the act would assist auditors in the pursuit of their duties.11:13:004063Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to put on the record that the Greens (WA) support it, ensuring the auditor has all the necessary information to complete a thorough audit.11:13:004063Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Can I say for the record that if this is defeated—and I under stand it may be; I have just been informed that Labor will be opposing this—on the basis that the government is happy to give its blessing for it to go to the JPC, I give it that blessing.Amendment not agreed to.11:13:004063Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator Cook, I request that, when you speak to your next amendment, perhaps you could give me a line as to why you took that course of action. I think that would be courteous. I move:(43) Schedule 1, item 5, page 198 (after line 28), after section 313, insert:313A Audit committees (1) The directors of a listed company must establish and maintain an audit committee with functions that include: (a) assisting the directors of the company to ensure that financial reports comply with the requirements of this Law; and (b) assisting the directors of the company to ensure that the company at all times has a proper system of management and financial controls; and (c) providing a forum for communication between the directors, the senior managers of the company and the auditors of the company. (2) A majority of the members must be persons who are not executive officers of the company. (3) An audit committee must be established and maintained on such a basis that a meeting cannot be held unless there are present at least 2 members who are not executive officers of the company. (4) The chair of an audit committee must be a member who is not the chair of the board of directors of the company.This amendment concerns auditors yet again. It is to do with the question of lodgment of documents. The issues before us are clearly understood. I suggest that it would be appropriate to hear the views of the parliamentary secretary and the opposition and then we can decide whether we need further debate.11:15:004063Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—It fits exactly the same philosophical position as the corporate governance boards and it is something that the joint parliamentary committee should inquire into. If the amendment is defeated it will go to that committee with the government's blessing and support.11:16:004064Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Does the government approve the principle?11:16:004064Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government thinks that audit committees are a very useful and important part of the corporate governance structure of companies.11:16:004064Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We approve the principle. We will support, however, the matter going to the JPC for report and coming back. Senator Murray rightly and fairly asked me to express a view about amendment 42. On amendment 42 we voted for the matter to be referred to the JPC rather than for the amendment to be carried at this stage. We are strongly in sympathy with the purpose of the amendment.There are a couple of elements of the amendment, though, that cause us a little concern—perhaps `concern' is the wrong word; it is more about whether it is angled in the right way to achieve the result. The first part, in respect of amendment 42, is that an executive officer or director would be liable if they possessed information which they did not refer. What an auditor would do other than declare and pass on that information is not clear from the amendment.There is a healthy debate out there as to what the proper role of an auditor is, and we would like to take some time to consider the import of your amendment, Senator Murray, and how best it could be implemented—and not to offend you by rejecting your amendment. Our reason for voting is for concerns of caution and proper application, not opposition to the sentiment or the principle of what you are trying to achieve. That applies to amendment 42; the same goes virtually for amendment 43. We will be supporting it being referred to the JPC as well.11:18:004064Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—In principle the Greens (WA) support the concept of audit committees. However, honourable senators will see that there were some proposed amendments—Greens (WA) amendment No. 2, Democrat amendment 43 and Greens (WA) amendment No. 3 and No.4. The arguments about incentive and auditors not potentially being totally independent and the need for powers to allow the audit committee to point the auditor in the right direction are very important. But we would like to ensure that when the committee looks at this proposed amendment that it also looks at how many are on the committee—our amendment looked at a minimum number; how those committee members are to be elected; and, perhaps more importantly, the duty of the committee to inform the auditor if they suspect fraud or improper conduct. If that is not there, the audit committee may not be as effective as it could be.I ask the parliamentary secretary whether those elements of our concerns could be addressed at the same time as audit committees and corporate governance boards are being considered.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Margetts has asked a question. Perhaps she should repeat it.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—At the time that reference to the audit committee is being considered, along with corporate governance boards, could the concerns that have been expressed by the Greens (WA) by way of our amendments to the Democrat amendment 43 also be looked at? The concerns that we would like clarified are: how many people would be on the committee—that is, a minimum number; how those people are to be elected; and, very importantly, the duty of committee members to inform the auditor if they suspect fraud or improper conduct.11:21:004064Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I apologise for not paying attention; I was trying to solve another problem at the time. The answer to your question is yes.Amendment not agreed to.11:22:004065Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My postponed amendment 37 reads:(37) Schedule 1, item 5, page 185 (line 31), at the end of subsection (1), add: ; and (f) if the entity's operations are subject to any particular and significant environmental regulation under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory—details of the entity's performance in relation to environmental regulation.I wish to deal with three quick items, if I may. Firstly, Parliamentary Secretary, I have been advised that Senator Harradine will support our amendment No. 37. So if you are happy on that basis, we can move to a vote shortly.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I indicate that is our advice as well.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I am just informing you formally that, if you wish to move to a vote, we can. Secondly, amendment No. 41 is still hanging and needs to go to a vote. Thirdly, on the audit committee matter, I think we all understand the issues and we should move to a vote as soon as we can.Amendment agreed to.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Could I have my vote recorded on that for the record.11:23:004065Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Postponed amendment 41 reads:(41) Schedule 1, item 5, page 187 (line 8), after paragraph (g), insert: ; and (h) whether, during the reporting period, any proceedings were instituted against the company for any material breach by the company of the Corporations Law, or trade practices law, and, if so, a summary of the alleged breach and of the company's position in relation to it; and (i) whether, during the reporting period, any proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph (h) were concluded or settled and, if so, the terms of the conclusion or settlement.I will not speak at length on this. Democrat amendment No. 41 arises from the Second Corporate Law Simplification Bill 1996. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities made this recommendation. We agree with the recommendation. It is a very clear and apparent amendment. I do not believe I need to speak to it unless there is argument and debate.11:24:004065Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The amendment requires that the annual report include proceedings instituted against the company and a summary of whether they were concluded or settled. It provides a more comprehensive disclosure and thus transparency. It alerts current and potential investors of the activities of directors. The Greens (WA) will be supporting it.11:24:004065Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We are not opposed terribly to the philosophy; we just really want to get the law right. To that extent, if the amendment were to be lost here, we are very happy for this to go forward for detailed investigation by the parliamentary committee.11:24:004065Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—With all due respect, I do not think it looks like we are getting the law right; it looks like we are going on a wing and a prayer and we are going to be going back and looking at whether or not we got it right in the first place. There seems to be growing evidence of that happening here. We had a similar kind of situation—or perhaps even worse—with the Managed Investments Bill 1997 . I am quite concerned about the process of leaving it to some other amorphous process which may or may not go anywhere—something will happen. But it does seem that we are putting something into legislation and then looking later at what might be the proper way to do it.11:25:004065Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I need to correct the record. These amendments were circulated six weeks ago. They have been examined by the government in full and they arose out of the committee's report in November 1996.11:25:004065Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I agree uncontested.11:26:004066Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We are not disposed to support this, not because we do not agree with the principle but because of some of the detail. I will give one quick example: subparagraph (i) requires the terms of the conclusion of a settlement to be publicly revealed. That is obviously a desirable thing most times, but on some occasions the terms of settlements reached in matters of this nature best succeed if they are kept confidential. There ought to be some sort of recognition of that principle. For that reason, we will oppose this amendment on the guarantee that the government has given that it is referred for further consideration and comes back to us.Amendment not agreed to.11:27:004066Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 207 (after line 16), after section 323D, insert:Division 8—Disclosure by listed companies of information filed overseas323DA Listed companies to disclose information filed overseas (1) A company that discloses information to, or as required by: (a) the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America; or (b) the New York Stock Exchange; or (c) a prescribed securities exchange in a foreign country; must disclose that information in English to the Exchange on the next business day after doing so. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.I think this amendment has been circulated. It is self-explanatory and relates to foreign listings.11:26:004066Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The coalition is opposed to this for the reasons I have already set out. I see what the numbers are going to be on this and I will not be speaking any longer.11:27:004066Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Democrats want it recorded that they support this amendment.11:27:004066Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Greens (WA) obviously support this amendment. We do not think that Australian investors should be disadvantaged in relation to those people from overseas on the same company.Amendment agreed to.11:28:004066Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 220 (line 24) to page 221 (line 2), omit section 352, substitute:352 Documents lodged with ASIC electronically A document may be lodged with ASIC electronically only if: (a) ASIC and the person seeking to lodge it (either on their own behalf or as agent) have agreed, in writing, that it may be lodged electronically; or (b) ASIC has approved, in writing, the electronic lodgement of documents of that kind. The document is taken to be lodged with ASIC if it is lodged in accordance with the agreement or approval (including any requirements of the agreement or approval as to authentication).Of all the amendments to this bill this is by far the most important. I have offered to the opposition the opportunity to add the impact of the Democrat amendment, which is to require that, where information is lodged electronically, the firm is also required to keep a paper copy. The government is prepared to accept that sort of amendment. We can have that provided to the other parties if they want. The opposition have indicated privately that they will not support it.The effect of not passing this amendment will be that the business entry point program of the government will not be able to proceed. We had hoped the program would start on 1 July. The program would allow all businesses in Australia to lodge through one electronic lodgment point all of the forms and information currently required by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Securities Commission—significant paperwork savings to small business. If this amendment is not agreed to, that program will not be able to proceed. It is as simple as that.The government will be forced, unfortunately, to call a division on this. It is something that we cannot live without. This amendment to this law has received the approval of the ministerial council. It was circulated some weeks ago, since that seems to be a debate. I understand that it has been approved for introduction even by the Attorney-General of New South Wales—not that that means he agrees with the policy.If we do not get this legislation in this form it will ensure that the business entry point will not go ahead on 1 July and that the small business community—in fact, every single incorporated entity in Australia, of which there are over one million now—will not receive the significant benefits accruing from being able, for the first time in Australian history—and I think it would probably be unique in the world—to lodge all the forms required by the federal government through one electronic gateway.This amendment is required to facilitate that. If we do not get the amendment in this form, that will fail. Do I have a copy of the one-line amendment or has that just been provided to the Democrats?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jacinta Collins)—That has been circulated.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Okay. I will conclude my remarks.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Campbell, two government amendments numbered 1 have been circulated. The one that I assume we are speaking to has been changed to incorporate `ASIC' rather than `ASC'. Is there an additional amendment to that?11:31:004067Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. This memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 25 June.11:31:004067Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Temporary Chairman, I have got lost with all this. I am assuming that the government has replaced one amendment with the other and I have got two pieces of paper with me. Parliamentary Secretary, is the one that you are referring to—the one we are dealing with right now—the one marked `C:\WINDOWS' on the bottom?11:32:004067Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—To answer Senator Murray's question, it is the one marked `C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\BEP'. There is a little ad for Bill Gates there, I think. It talks about documents lodged with ASIC electronically and about the way that fees are recovered. It is a machinery provision, but we have indicated that we are prepared to amend it to meet the principle that the Democrats have put in here, even though we do not agree with the principle. We think that the whole idea is to get away from paper, chopping down trees and requiring people to store paper. ASIC assures us that it is unnecessary from an investment protection point of view, but we are prepared to do it because there is a transition period here—it is something that we can look at again under further scrutiny. But to get this through we are very happy to facilitate it by basically adding a one-line requirement that companies be required by the law to keep a paper copy.11:33:004067Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Of course I understand the allusions to chopping down trees and so on, but the essential purpose of our amendment is to establish an audit trail and to establish responsibility. That is why a hard copy is necessary. I would certainly be minded to support the government's amendment with the addition of the line the parliamentary secretary proposes. I think you should provide it to us.11:33:004067Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will provide it to the whole world. We are proposing to add a line under subsection (2)—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Are you seeking leave to amend your amendment, Parliamentary Secretary?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am seeking leave to amend my amendment.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I amend my amendment as follows:At the end of the amendment add:(2) Any agreement or approval must provide for a signed copy of the document to be held by the person lodging the document and for the person to make the signed copy of the document available to the ASIC if required.11:35:004068Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have a question. I would like to know if at some point in the future this electronic business entry point will be compulsory.11:35:004068Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I dare say never ever, but the answer is no. I could not help myself there.11:35:004068Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—For the record, the Democrats will support both the amendment to the amendment and the government's amendment as a whole.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It has been amended by leave, Senator Murray, so it is the amended amendment that you are referring to.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to Democrat amendment No. 44.11:36:004068Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I withdraw amendment 44.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to Greens (WA) amendment No. 4.11:36:004068Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Amendment 43 was not moved, so amending an amendment which was not moved is a nonsense.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendment No. 1.11:37:004068Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—We withdraw that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to Democrat amendment No. 1.4068Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I withdraw that amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—What about Democrat amendment No. 2?11:37:004068Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I think it was decided that it is not to be moved.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—What about government amendment No. 2?Amendment (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:(2) Schedule 2, page 336 (after line 20), after item 375, insert:375A Section 1355Repeal the section, substitute:1355 Doing act without payment of feeIf a fee is payable under section 1351 for a matter involving the doing of an act by the Minister or ASIC, the Minister or ASIC may refuse to do that act until: (a) the fee is paid; or (b) if a deposit on account of the fee is required under section 1357—the deposit is paid.11:38:004068Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add: (6) Schedule 6 is taken to have commenced on 3 May 1998.(2) Page 384 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 6—Amendment of the Corporations Law in relation to liability for debts or liabilities of a related body corporate1 After Division 6 of Part 5.7B Insert:Division 6A—Liability of a company for the debts or liabilities of a related body corporate 588YA 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; (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; (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.2 Section 1317HD Repeal 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 omis sion—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.The debate has been extensively held at another time on another bill. It is not my intention, unless the Senate wishes to enter into a lengthy debate on this again, to repeat my earlier remarks.11:38:004069Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—This amendment is the same one we made to the Wallis legislation. When it came back from the House we on our side did not insist. A parliamentary committee is looking at this proposal. It has been referred to the parliamentary committee on a motion by Senator Conroy from the opposition. Because that is there, despite my overwhelming temptation to support you, Senator Murray, I will not today.Amendments not agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.4069Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Bills4069r4084069Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Vanstone:That this bill be now read a second time.11:40:004069Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am speaking in continuation on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 . It began life as a technical bill and there were a minimum number of important amendments put to it. However, events are overtaking the Senate in the sense that the second amending bill to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is unlikely to see the light of day before an election. That is the latest opinion—maybe I am wrong. If that is so, this will be the only time the Senate within this electoral cycle will be able to address the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and it is vital that a number of matters be dealt with, in the view of the various participants in the electoral process.I note in particular the Labor Party's amendment on trusts and I note our own amendments on trusts. As a result of discovering that this bill is our only opportunity, we have brought forward some further amendments which we believe are relevant and important to the continuing reform and improvement of the act. Some of those amendments derive from AEC recommendations, some derive from recommendations which we put in our minority report in June 1997 on the 1996 federal election, and some of them derive from events which we regard as deserving immediate attention.In the second reading debate I wanted to pick up on the issue of truth in advertising. The Australian Democrats have actively campaigned since the early 1980s to introduce truth in political advertising legislation in Australia. I am aware that the Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin, is sympathetic, possibly because he comes from South Australia, where they have had such legislation in place for over a decade. Frankly, it works very effectively. It has not acted to hinder proper political debate and discussion but it has acted to improve the nature of truthfulness in the way political advertising is conducted there.The South Australian legislation has been tested in the full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, where it was found not to impede the implied right of freedom of speech and was therefore held to be constitutionally valid. Given the success of that legislation, the Australian Democrats have consistently urged similar legislation be adopted by the Commonwealth. Former Australian Democrat Senator Michael Macklin was a very strong proponent of this and such a provision did briefly make it into Commonwealth law in 1983—but it was repealed, I think in 1984.From our point of view, we have always thought that is a great pity. As long-term senators in this place know, on every occasion that the electoral act comes up, we take that opportunity to return this to the agenda. I do know that there is some cross-party support amongst various senators for this concept. Accordingly, we will be putting that matter before the chamber again in the debate.I pre-advise Senator Minchin, who at present is in the chamber, that, with regard to the debate, I will attempt to speak very briefly on issues—unless considerable debate is engendered, in which case I will respond. But I think most of the issues would be well understood by the participants, since they are all very familiar with the act. I think a large number of them have been or are members of the JCSEM, as I am at present, and they therefore would be on top of the issues. Senator Minchin, although I do have a fair string of amendments, as you would have identified, I do not intend to make a meal out of it. I therefore pre-advise you accordingly.I have circulated the amendments—some of them over many weeks and others very recently. I apologise now for some of them having been circulated only recently. As I have said to you, it is a consequence of our discovery that this probably will be the only bill on the act to be dealt with prior to the election.The other concern I will put briefly before the Senate in my speech during the second reading debate refers to a submission I made to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) in which I dealt with the further regulation of political parties. It is my belief that that is a vital and critical area. We have prepared some extensive amendments in draft to pursue that agenda. But we recognise that all parties need the opportunity and time to consider them.I have referred my submission to the joint committee for consideration and, therefore, I will not be moving those amendments at this time because I think it would be too difficult and too involved an issue to debate. But I do draw them again to the minister's attention. I hope that all parties and all Independents will look at them with some interest and see whether there is any merit in the ideas we have put before you. I do not intend to do much more now in my speech on the second reading debate. I look forward to the committee stage.11:48:004071Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—There is no greater temptation for political parties to show their worst colours than when it comes to electoral legislation. In this piece of electoral legislation, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 , we can see, serially, advantage being given to incumbents, and disadvantage being dished out to people who are aspirants to political office.I have and will flag a number of Green points of opposition to this legislation. The first is the increase in nomination fees from $250 to $350 in the House of Representatives, and from $500 to $700 in the Senate. That is a monetary barrier being put in the way of candidates standing for office. It makes it more difficult for new candidates who are less likely to be elected.The big parties are aware that electoral funding will see them, by and large, get their nomination moneys returned. But they are very well aware that, for people who want to stand particularly as independents and for the quite large number of small parties around the country, this ends up being a penalty. If you are standing for the Senate on the presumption that you will get 1,000 votes and that 1,000 citizens deserve the right to be able to vote for you, you will have to put up $700 knowing that you will lose it. Incumbent politicians know that this is a good way of keeping out other intending persons from election nomination.Under this legislation, hand in hand with these increases is the requirement for an increase in the number of signatures for independent candidates from six to 50. If the mayor of a rural city wants to stand, she or he no longer has to get only six signatures from other people good and true in the community; they have to traipse around and get 50. I believe that, if a person wants to stand for parliament, they should be able to stand for parliament—and that should be good enough. But, with an increase in the number of signatures that must be obtained from people within the community to endorse your right to stand, this legislation increases by eightfold the difficulty of standing for parliament. Once again, it is making it harder for independents.I do not have to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that, with their placement on ballot papers, independents are discriminated against in a most unfair fashion. Whereas the parties line up for a vote as to where they are placed on the ballot paper, all hoping to get the No. 1 position to take advantage of the donkey vote, the Independents are relegated to last place, whether they like it or not. The parties in this parliament have made this law to keep Independents from having the same chance of electoral advantage that they get; in other words, the incumbents have used their power in parliament to discriminate against intending candidates who are independent. The parties have used the advantage they have to advantage themselves further in the election nominating process or the placement on the ballot process.It is quite unfair that nomination fees are being increased by 40 per cent, and the number of signatures required for Independents to get a valid nomination is being increased by 800 per cent. It is all the worse that this legislation is being brought in on the eve of an election.It is unfortunate that there is not greater clarity of mind in this place and a sense of fairness which says, `Our political opponents who are Independents should not be discriminated against at all, let alone on the eve of an election.' But I do not expect we will see such a sense of fairness coming to the surface.The Greens also oppose the tendency to give out information on electors. People are compelled to be on the electoral role. The legislation intends that, for example, the gender and date of birth of people on the electoral role may be given to health screening and medical research groups. Where does this end? Who has consulted the Australian electorate as to whether they want their gender and date of birth distributed to unknown health screening and medical research groups?If that is not bad enough, this broadening range of information is to be given out to political parties and parliamentarians. Why is that? To give them the drop again on people who are aspirants to parliament but who are not in here; to again weigh the tables in favour of incumbents. It is so that, once unsuspecting electors abide by the law and give the information to the electoral office, that information will be passed on to politicians so that they can approach them with a false sense of familiarity to inveigle them for their vote in a way in which non-parliamentarians cannot. So, again, it is weighing the odds in favour of incumbents against aspirants. It is democratically unsound to support such an unfair process. But it appears it is going to get support in this place.I have flagged legislation in this place to enable the holding of a referendum to amend section 44 of the constitution to enable the 1½ million Australians who are currently prevented by section 44 from standing for parliament because they are employed by the Crown—in other words, because they are public servants—or because they have dual nationality—for example, Australian nationality along with Greek, New Zealand or Chinese nationality—to do so. And that is not going to get the tick. On the eve of an election, were we fair democrats, we would be trying to ensure that we were moving towards giving citizens their rights. So I have moved to have 1½ million Australians who are deprived of a basic democratic right to stand for parliament because of their jobs given that right through referendum. But the government says, `Oh no, we can't do that. It is too late. It would take too long. We want to bring in more comprehensive legislation.' We have more comprehensive legislation before us now and the whole tenor of that more comprehensive legislation, far from increasing the democratic rights of Australians, is to narrow those rights, constrict them, and give advantage to self-seeking politicians who are already in the parliament. But, if there is one thing that I think caps this off, it is the provision in this legislation to abolish the Australian people's right to take what is called `the Langer option'—to repeal section 329A of the act which makes it a formal vote to vote for someone of your choice but to deny your preferences to people you do not like. As we all know, the Langer option, for example, gives somebody who wants to vote for the Democrats, the Greens or an Independent the opportunity to put 1 next to a candidate's name and, if they do not like the big parties, to then put 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, so that none of the big parties get a preference. Or it could be the other way around. At the last election, nearly 50,000 Australians took that option because they were alerted to it by Albert Langer, who was prepared to risk going to jail, and finally pay for his democratic principles by going to jail, because he defied a court order which said, as is in the current act, `That is a valid vote, but you cannot advocate it.'It is worth noting that, because of Albert Langer's stand, the number of people taking this option, which allowed them to escape giving preferences to people they do not like and do not want to give preferences to, increased from some 7,000 or 8,000 in 1993 to 49,000 in 1996. You can guarantee that, were we not on the eve of an election moving to disqualify the votes of people who intelligently take that option, the number could have gone well into the hundreds of thousands this time around.Here is a classic case of the Labor, Liberal and National parties getting together to withdraw a valid voting option from the Australian people because they want to advantage themselves. At a time when more and more Australians find that the two-party system does not hold any advantage or attraction to them and are voting for other options, here we have the big parties getting together and saying, `We will force you to vote for us. We will force you to have the two-party preferred option because we have to shore up the two-party system.'I will point to what is happening in Tasmania at this juncture. There all three parties hold what is called the balance of power, but Labor have decided—curmudgeons, as they are—to stand out of their responsibility on behalf of their voters to take office as a minority government. For the first time in the world, a labor party has said, `We will not take office until we get it totally to ourselves, because we are not able to reflect in office the diversity of views that there are in the electorate.' As a result, the responsible Greens led by Christine Milne in Tasmania, have supported budgets of the conservative Rundle Liberal government in the Tasmanian parliament.What is the response to this in Tasmania where the Hare-Clark system is the fairest voting system of any house of government in Australia? It is for the Labor Party to say, `We will not respond to the electorate's vote; we will not accept the electorate's vote. We will move in to change the voting system. We cannot accept the way the electorate votes for us. We will change the voting system, so that, instead of having five electorates with seven people coming from each electorate into the parliament with candidates needing to win one-eighth of the vote to become representatives, we will change it to five seats of five people. We will raise the bar for candidates from some 12 per cent to some 16 or 17 per cent in the hope that we get rid of the Greens. The people have shown repeatedly that they want the Greens in Tasmanian parliament. The only way we can trample over the democratic wish of the electorate in Tasmania is to change the rules.' It is just the same as us here in the Senate changing the rules to disadvantage those people who want to vote for independents or the smaller parties.The Liberals in Tasmania have responded with a four by seven option. The extraordinary thing is that in Tasmania the Fourth Estate, which you would think would be in favour of supporting democratic principles come hell or high water, are supporting, not those democratic principles, but the Labor Party in its move to try to get rid of the Greens.And they are frank about it. Editorial columns in the Examiner and the Hobart Mercury, Wayne Crawford's column last weekend and the opinion pages of the Hobart Mercury are saying in effect that we have to get the Greens out of there—those voted for validly by the Tasmanian electorate—because big business wants it; that is my interpretation. And the best way to do this is to degrade the best, most democratic system of voting anywhere in Australia.Let me sound a warning to my friends the Democrats in this place. Caving in to this form of restriction of the voters' rights is a presage to pressure from the big parties to change the democratic way in which this Senate is elected. We have heard both the coalition and the Labor Party disparaging the Senate. We have heard the different formulations from both big parties for trammelling the democratic way in which this chamber is elected.What do we have here? The Democrats are not only saying, `We will support the abolition of the Langer option,' which 50,000 Australians deliberately sought out and followed at the last election; they are saying, `It is not strong enough. We want to extend it.' The Democrats are coming in over this tawdry exercise by the big parties and saying, `We want to go further and ensure that we screw down the options of Australians voting in the Senate below the line by denying them the Langer option.'I cannot understand it. If there ever was a defining moment between the Greens and the Democrats, this is it. The Democrats, in saying, `We want to get rid of this democratic option,' are being totally untrue to the name of their party. I do not understand the logic of Senator Murray saying that Labor and the Liberal and National parties have not gone far enough in curbing the right of the very thoughtful voters who deliberately say, `We want to vote Green, Democrat or Independent, but not give our preference to the big parties.' They are moving amendments in here to make sure that those people who want to vote that way for the Senate will have their votes not counted and disqualified. What sort of faith is that in thoughtful Australian voters?The test in this place when it comes to democracy is that we defend it, even if it is to our own disadvantage. I would have thought that in this situation the Democrats would be advantaged by the Langer option. I would have thought that their courageous interpretation here would be that they should go for democracy anyway. It might give them a warm feeling and might be in their interests as a smaller party to support people who want to take the option of voting for independents or small parties and not be forced to cast a preference for the policies of the Labor, National and Liberal parties, because they so often line up the same. If we look at uranium mining, they are all in favour of export of one form or another. If we look at woodchipping, Labor in Tasmania wants to woodchip even further into world heritage forests. Then there is the coalition. If we look at economic rationalism and privatisation when they are in office, we can see why people do not want to give support to the big parties.But here we have the Democrats saying, `The big parties are not going far enough. They are not restricting voters' choice enough. We want to go further.' They part company with the Greens at this juncture. We will be voting against this effort to curtail the proper democratic rights of the Australian people. What we should be doing in here is validating both the Langer option and the right to advocate it. There is a fair deal of gutlessness and self-interest involved in this. Obviously, we do not have the numbers and this will go through.Last night I had a call from a person who follows these matters very thoroughly who did not even know that this matter was before the Senate and the Langer option was about to be trodden under by a combination of the Labor Party, the coalition parties and the Democrats. I cannot do anything more than to express my disapproval. (Time expired)12:08:004074Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—in reply—To sum up the debate, I thank other senators for their contributions. I thank Senator Murray for the indication of his cooperation in the reasonably speedy passage of this legislation. I hope that will be reflected in other parts of the chamber. This bill does contain measures many of which were in a former Labor government bill of 1995. So these issues have been around for several years. It is important, with the prospect of an election in due course, that we get these measures passed into legislation. Most of them are reasonably bipartisan. I note the comments made by Senator Brown. The issues he has raised I guess we can deal with in the committee stage.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4074The bill.12:09:004074Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 22 June 1998.12:10:004074Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be opposing schedule 1 in the following terms:(1) Schedule 1, items 38 to 42, page 10 (line 23) to page 12 (line 8)—to be opposed.This amendment was circulated some weeks, if not months, ago. So I think we are all on top of that one. It relates to the provision of gender and age details. I do not intend to speak at length on this. The government's proposal arises from the main report, the majority report, on the 1996 federal election by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, published in June 1997. I will refer to that throughout this debate.Recommendation 52 of that majority report sought to provide gender, age and salutation details to MPs and registered political parties. The Australian Democrats believe that the provision of electoral information such as the gender and age details of constituents intrudes unnecessarily into the privacy of constituents, given that this information is not necessary for official purposes and would serve no public interest benefit. We believe it is not the Australian Electoral Commission's role or the public's role to provide this level of campaigning detail to sitting members of parliament or their political party.The majority report's recommendations will have the effect of providing public resources to boost incumbency. In addition, the information which this recommendation seeks contravenes the right to privacy by citizens. The Privacy Commissioner has not supported the provision of gender, age and salutation details to members of parliament, and neither do we.00:12:004075Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—This amendment, insofar as it affects the information supplied to members and senators and registered parties, relates only to gender. The question of date of birth being supplied to those categories—members, senators and parties—arises in bill No. 2, which is not before us. This only relates to gender insofar as members and senators are concerned. This was, again, a provision debated back in 1995. We see it as unexceptionable that the entries on the roll supplied by members and senators and parties should indicate whether someone is a male or female. The primary purpose of supplying that information is to enable the appropriate salutation.It is increasingly difficult to identify whether you are communicating with an elector who is a male or female. That information is not a matter of privacy, given that it is reasonably obvious to everyone when you meet a constituent that they are male or female. So it seems to us quite unexceptionable to allow that information to be supplied to members and senators so they can more appropriately and effectively fulfil their responsibilities of communicating accurately with their constituents.12:13:004075Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Why is it increasingly difficult to identify the gender of electors? 12:13:004075Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—In our increasingly multicultural society, there are first names and it is not obvious whether they are male or female. That is increasingly the case. We welcome, of course, the increasingly multicultural nature of society. The parties got around this, as I said, back in 1995, by putting in place computer programs which enable them by and large to identify gender in most cases. So, in a sense, preventing the parties from having access to this has not served whatever purpose it was originally designed for. But given that it is information that it does not make any sense to prevent elected members of parliament from having, we do not understand it. With a whole range of different people now appearing on our electoral roll, it is getting harder for members and senators to know accurately whether they are communicating with a male or female. There seems to be no reason to prevent them knowing that.12:15:004075Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have heard the arguments that have been presented in relation to Senator Murray's proposal. I do assume that there has been a change of view, expressed by Senator Murray on behalf of the Australian Democrats, to what had previously been the position that that party had adopted on this particular issue.Items 38 to 42 of the bill, as I understand it, allow the use of gender and date of birth information for approved medical research and public health screening surveys and, of course, for members, senators and registered political parties. My understanding of the history of this is that these amendments were first proposed in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1995, which lapsed. I do recall that, during that debate, Senator Lees, who I think was handling that for the Australian Democrats at the time, did express effectively only one concern in relation to this particular proposal, which was that the view of the Privacy Commissioner should be ascertained.As I understand this situation, the Privacy Commissioner has indicated that he finds these particular elements of the bill acceptable and is happy with the proposal. To my understanding, the Privacy Commissioner does remain comfortable with the use of this information in this way. If that is not the case, I would certainly like to be informed that that is not the case. I do not know whether Senator Murray is aware of the history, but that was certainly the approach that Senator Lees took at that time. I would also be concerned about the fact that the national breast screening program fell down in Victoria without the use of this information.These are pretty important issues. They do have significant public policy ramifications. Though I hear the arguments that have been mounted, with the position of the Privacy Commissioner being that he remains comfortable with the use of this sort of information in the way that it is proposed in the bill, the opposition would support items 38 to 42 and support the government in that regard.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that schedule 1, items 38 to 42 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.12:19:004076Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 18), after item 64, insert:64A After section 125Insert:125A Review of RegisterAt least once every 3 years after the commencement of this section, the Commission must review the Register of Political Parties and determine whether each political party so registered continues to be an eligible political party.64B Paragraph 126(1)(c)Omit "10 members", substitute "25 members".64C At the end of subsection 126(2)Add:; and (g) be accompanied by evidence of the membership of the party.64D After subsection 126(2)Insert:(2A) The constitution of a party, referred to in paragraph (2)(f), must include the name of the party and procedures for the amendment of the constitution.64E At the end of section 129; and (f) contains a word in the proposed abbreviation which is not included in the name of the party; and (g) includes the whole name of another political party (not being a political party that is related to the party to which the application relates) that is a Parliamentary party or a registered political party. 64F At the end of subparagraph 133(1)(a)(ii)Add ", provided that the abbreviation is either an acronym or a shortened version of the party's name".64G Paragraph 134(1)(b)Omit "3 members", substitute "25 members".64H After subsection 134(3)Insert:(3A) Upon receipt of an application under paragraphs (1)(c), (d) or (e), the Commission must determine whether the party on whose behalf the application has been made continues to be an eligible political party.(2) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 30), after item 67, insert:67A At the end of subsection 136(1)Add:; or (c) the Commission has conducted a review under section 125A and determined that a party has ceased to be an eligible political party.(3) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 2), after item 69, insert:69A Subsection 137(1)After "on reasonable grounds", insert ", including as a result of a review conducted under section 125A,".I would like to begin by apologising to the Senate. These amendments were first circulated two days ago when I realised that the second electoral bill would be unlikely to reach us before the election and I decided to bring these forward and ask for your forbearance. However, most of the issues that I am dealing with under revised sheet 852 are matters which have been dealt with at various other times and in various other forums. In particular, amendments 1 to 3 that I have proposed here relate to remarks I made in my minority report to the 1996 election report.I had said that it was a pity that this section of the report did not deal with measures to ensure the integrity of official party registration with the AEC. We would like to ensure that the requirements in the act for minimum party membership obligations are re-examined and that appropriate protections are provided through the registration process. I have sought here to ensure that the AEC takes a more proactive role than it has in the past in terms of dealing with the matters of registration and the manner in which political parties on the AEC's register are assessed. There are a number of registrations which, in our opinion, are probably nearly defunct. Certainly, it is an area which we think has to be better improved.If you run your eyes down through amendments 1, 2 and 3 you will see that what we have attended to is the commission having to review the register at least once every electoral cycle. Secondly, we believe the act should be improved with regard to section 126—and I presume you all have your acts to hand—in relation to the number of members who should be involved in the application for registration for a new political party. We believe that, at section 126(2), an application for the registration of an eligible political party should be accompanied by evidence of the membership of the party.We have suggested at 64D that the constitution of a party, referred to in paragraph (2)(f), should include the name of the party and procedures for the amendment of the constitution as a bare minimum. At 64E we have suggested that any proposed abbreviation should be attended to where that abbreviation is not included in the name of that party. In that same vein, we have dealt with the question of abbreviations which are an acronym or a shortened version of the party's name.At 64G, paragraph 134(1)(b), we have lifted the number of members who can amend the constitution from three to 25. We think the idea that any three members of a party could amend a constitution is a bit of a worry, given the importance that constitutions have in political parties' lives. At (3A) we have also recommended that the commission must determine `whether the party on whose behalf the application has been made continues to be an eligible political party'. So it is in that vein that we have attempted to sharpen this area of AEC jurisdiction.Minister, if you are of a mind to object to or oppose these amendments, I would ask you—if you do think it is an area which is worthy of review—to perhaps consider referring it to the joint committee as an area which is appropriate for them to look into.12:24:004077Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Senator Murray has pre-empted me. I regret we are not in a position to support the amendments. We have only just received them and the government would want to give due consideration to the implications.The question of striking the right balance in a democracy as to the degree to which the state should regulate political parties is a sensitive one. Authoritarian states have developed the fine art of so regulating political parties that there tends to be only one that ever satisfies the regulations. It is something that has to be done with due care. I would be more than happy to seek to recommend to the joint standing committee that it inquire into the recommendations that Senator Murray has proposed. At this stage we are not in a position to support the amendments.12:25:004077Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I hear what the minister says in relation to a possible reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That might be a useful way of progressing this particular issue.I would actually go further and say to Senator Murray that I share Senator Minchin's concern in relation to the fact that we have not really had an opportunity to look closely at these amendments. The committee would understand there was an expectation that these particular matters would be dealt with in some detail in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . That would still be, as far as the opposition is concerned, a preferred vehicle for dealing with the matters.I say through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to Senator Murray that I do support quite a number of the elements of the amendments that are before the chair. There are some that I do not think I have had an adequate opportunity to consider the implications of. There are at least one or two others that I have some quite serious concerns about, including 64E and 64F.I certainly had intended and would be happy to approach this in very constructive and serious way during debate on the second bill. I want to indicate to Senator Murray that that would be the opposition's preferred approach, regardless of a reference that might occur to the joint standing committee. I believe elements of this could be usefully picked up. I think that Senator Murray is dealing with some issues here that have very great significance not only to registered political parties but also to the electoral process more generally.That is the spirit with which I am now going to say to Senator Murray that it is within that context that I do not find I am able to commit the opposition to support these amendments at the moment. Apart from any prospective reference to the joint standing committee, I think there is a capacity to work these issues through, certainly in the committee stage of the debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2), which is what I had intended to suggest. How that might interface with a prospective reference to the joint standing committee, I do not know.Senator Murray makes the point that there might be some urgency in dealing with some of these issues. That argument might have some force. The opposition certainly would be willing to engage with all interested parties in working some of these issues through. Some of them I certainly think we would be likely to embrace; others I have some serious concerns about; some others I would like to have a closer look at the possibility of what the implications might be. I simply have not had an opportunity to do that. It is within that context—I hope Senator Murray understands—and in that spirit that I indicate the opposition will not be supporting these amendments at this time.Amendments not agreed to.12:30:004078Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens will be opposing schedule 1 in the following terms:(1) Schedule 1, items 38 to 42, page 10 (line 23) to page 12 (line 8)—to be opposed.(2) Schedule 1, item 87, page 19 (lines 7 and 8)—to be opposed.(3) Schedule 1, item 90, page 19 (lines 13 and 14)—to be opposed. To make it clear to the committee, the Greens are opposing three sections of this amending bill which make it more difficult for independents or small parties to establish and field candidates. The first of them is a requirement to increase from six to 50 the number of signatures required for an independent to get a valid nomination for the election. If you look at previous debates you will find that the number six was picked on as a fair requirement for an independent to stand. Suddenly, out of the blue, we are asked to increase that eightfold to 50. It may seem a small point that I am taking umbrage with, but where do we stop it? Could the minister or anybody else who supporting this change please explain—to use the new political parlance—why we have gone from six to 50?What has happened in demography or in the Australian community to suddenly require 50 signatures for an independent to stand rather than six? I can only think it is a fear the government has that there are going to be more independents standing; a concern that there are six Independents in the House of Representatives as it is, as well as two in this place, and that that number might increase. As far as I am concerned, if the voters want to put more independents into parliament, they ought to be facilitated. Clearly, while this is a marginal difference—I do not think it is going to be an absolute impediment to people standing—it is simply making things more difficult for independents.Where is the equivalent added difficulty for the big parties to field candidates? I do not see it here. I see an impost or a barrier being put up to independents nominating for and therefore entering the parliament, and I am opposed to it.12:32:004078Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—These three issues respond to recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that both the number of nominees required and the amount of the nomination fee for candidates be adjusted. With respect to the number of nominees required for a candidate not endorsed by a registered party, we have accepted the recommendation from the com mittee that that be increased from six to 50. On the face of it, I understand Senator Brown's reaction in the sense that it is a big increase. On the other hand it is remarkable that a candidate can nominate with only six nominees.Insofar as the major parties are concerned or any registered political party, the fact is that you only get registration if you have got 500 members, a pre-condition of being registered. You have to have 500 before you can nominate if you are going through the registration process. To require a candidate who is not a member of a registered party to have 50 signatures still means that you have to have one-tenth of the members that a registered party has to have before they can nominate any candidates at all.It is our view that six is anomalously low. Fifty is not an unreasonable requirement if you are to participate in this process. After all, if you cannot get 50 people to sign a nomination form you have got absolutely no chance of getting elected or of even appearing on the radar screen in terms of the election itself. We think it is reasonable that, to be on the ballot paper, you demonstrate that you have the support of at least 50 out of 80,000 voters in a federal seat.So far as the nomination fees are concerned, again we are responding to committee recommendations that there be an increase in the nomination fee for both the Senate and the House of Representatives. These fees have not been adjusted since 1983, I am advised. So it has been 15 years since there has been any adjustment. I have not looked at it closely against the CPI, but I would hazard a guess that in real terms the increases will do no more than maintain the real level of the nomination fee as it was in 1983. Of course, these deposits are refundable if you get a certain percentage of the vote.Again, I put it in the context of participation in this process, and of being party to the election process, that if you cannot raise $350 to nominate for the House of Representatives or $700 for the Senate, then you have absolutely no hope of being considered a halfway reasonably serious candidate for election. It is reasonable for the parliament to regard a campaign where someone cannot even raise that amount as nothing more than a frivolous campaign. It is not an unreasonable amount if you are to mount any sort of campaign for the House of Representatives or the Senate. You would certainly need to be able to raise well in excess of either $350 or $700. Given that if you do attract even a most minimal level of support these deposits are refundable, it seems a reasonable adjustment—after 15 years—of the nomination fees.12:36:004079Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I do not think the minister answered my first question at all. Besides saying that it seems reasonable to increase the number of signatures required for a nomination from six to 50, he has not explained why that is reasonable. Why was it unreasonable to have six nominations? If it was an encouragement to frivolous nominations before, why has that been the practice for so many years? It does not stack up.The minister also has to be aware that while voting is a private matter for Australians, putting your signature to nominations is a public matter. It goes on the public record. It is not as easy as just getting six people or 50 people to sign a nomination. There is no rationale for this. It will raise the bar for people wanting to stand as independents. This is at a time when more people, who are sick of the big parties, are wanting to do just that. And that is why I oppose it.As far as the nomination fees are concerned, what the big party majority is looking at here is raising the impost on small parties who want to field candidates in the 144 seats in the House of Representatives and in each of the eight jurisdictions for the Senate by adding a couple of hundred dollars for each of those across the board. It translates into tens of thousands of dollars. It is a neat way of trying to repress the electorate's mood to invest votes away from the big parties. That is all this is about. We can talk about CPIs and so on. I have always believed that the nomination fee is too high anyway. I am in favour of lowering the barrier, not increasing it. I know I am not going to prevail on this, but I simply have to put the argument and be on the record about it.12:38:004080Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I will not be supporting Senator Brown on this, but I want to make it absolutely clear that it is not for the reasons that he has outlined.We in the Labor Party take the view that, if you cannot find 50 signatures, your chances of seriously contesting a seat are extraordinarily remote. It would be difficult to imagine that any candidate approaching a federal election with anything other than the most frivolous of motives would not be able to find that level of support in the community.I hear what Senator Brown says about the proposed increase in nomination deposits for candidates to the Senate and the House of Representatives. I do not consider an increase from $500 to $700 in the Senate or $250 to $350 in the House of Representatives to be extraordinary increases, given that there has not been an increase in the level of these deposits for some 15 years. The point made by Minister Minchin that CPI increases would have seen these deposits increase by a greater amount than what is being proposed by the joint standing committee—and what is now contained within this bill—is actually valid. I want to say to Senator Brown that the motivation that he might ascribe to the major political parties is not the motivation that moves the opposition to support these provisions of the bill.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that schedule 1, items 87, 90 and 91 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.12:42:004080Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—by leave—I move:(4) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 17), after item 103, insert:103A Paragraphs 193(2)(a), (c), (d) and (e) Omit "another part of the Queen's dominions", substitute "a Commonwealth country".103B At the end of section 193 Add: (4) In this section: Commonwealth country means a political entity, or part of a political entity, that is a member of the international(15) Schedule 2, page 39 (after line 4), after the heading, insert:1AA Subsection 3(1) (subparagraphs (b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the definition of authorized witness ) Omit "another part of the Queen's dominions", substitute "a Commonwealth country".1AB Subsection 3(1) (subparagraph (b)(v) of the definition of authorized witness ) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (v) an Australian citizen. For the purposes of this definition, Commonwealth country means a political entity, or part of a political entity, that is a member of the international organisation known as the Commonwealth of Nations.These government amendments propose the changing of the wording in the act from a reference to `the Queen's dominions' to read `a Commonwealth country' and defining what a Commonwealth country is. We wanted to include this in the bill when it was first presented but there were some legal difficulties. We had to make sure that we had the right description.This whole issue relates to who can witness postal vote applications made from overseas. The act, clearly, had not been changed for some time—I guess we no longer regard ourselves as a Queen's dominion. But there are specific provisions enabling certain officers of other Commonwealth countries to witness postal vote applications made from overseas. We want to ensure that that witnessing can still occur. This is just a technical change to reflect the reality that what were the Queen's dominions are now members of the Commonwealth of Nations. That is all these amendments do.12:43:004080Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I was distracted during the earlier debate but, for the record, I want Senator Brown to know that we did not support him on his amendment 2, but thought he had a reasonable case on amendments 3 and 4, although not necessarily the way he expressed his case. My only question to the minister is: does this now mean that you have raised your flag and you are a raving republican?12:44:004081Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—That will never be the day, I am sorry to confess, Senator Murray. I remain a strong supporter of our current constitutional arrangements, but I am prepared to support the act reflecting the reality that what were the Queen's dominions are now Commonwealth countries.12:44:004081Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I am surprised that this minister has demonstrated even such a small chink of progressive light.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It's out of character.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—It is out of character. But, because he has, I think the opposition really ought to try to reinforce this very small demonstration of movement. We will support him.Amendments agreed to.Progress reported.Miscellaneous408112:45:004081Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I table a document regarding a survey of Jobs Australia members providing employment assistance.Bills4081r5384081Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.12:45:004081Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I do not want to take up too much time of the Senate on this today. Basically the National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 is a sensible arrangement. It seeks to extend the buy-back arrangements for the owners of particular types of firearms banned as a result of the 10 May 1996 meeting of the Australian police ministers. It seeks to extend this to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Norfolk Island and other jurisdictions that have so far not come into play on this. I do, however, want to take one part of this bill and use it as a vehicle to express some concern with respect to the way one part of this legislation and other corollary bills have been implemented, and that is to do with the dealer buyback. This bill before us not only empowers jurisdictions to buy back semi-automatic and all forms of now banned firearms in this country and pay just compensation, but also provides for dealers who had before made an income from selling and servicing this type firearm to be paid just compensation.That is the point I want to come in on because I hope that the people on the islands are going to do better than some of the dealers in some of the other jurisdictions. I want to make a few comments, which I have been sitting on now for the last three months in the hope that I would not have to make them, in respect of my own jurisdiction of South Australia. Everybody in politics who agreed with the police ministers' conference on May 10, 1996 and all the terms that were encapsulated in that, agreed that a speedy buy-back arrangement was necessary to solve this problem. Indeed, once the decision was made by the various parliaments in Australia that there was no longer a place for the widespread ownership of semi-automatic firearms and that a buy-back scheme would be put in place, it was agreed that it needed to be executed expeditiously.I want to make it crystal clear that that, in general, was done. It was done a bit quicker in my state of South Australia because a state election was coming up and the government was concerned about the implications of this. It was done speedily and efficiently. The firearms destruction unit did an excellent job in South Australia. I have no experience of what happened in the other jurisdictions. I took a close interest in South Australia and was very satisfied with the speedy, efficient and fair operation. The terms of compensation were reasonable. However, that is where it stops.I do not blame Senator Vanstone who, I understand, administers this particular piece of legislation. I am not sure whether that is so or not. I understand that it went through the House of Representatives with the Attorney-General so I presume that it would have been under Senator Vanstone up here. I want to alert whichever minister is implementing this legislation to a problem that is developing. It is developing because the buy-back arrangements in South Australia for the dealers over there have been stalled for over seven months. They were a long time being put in place and the government is now starting to cop some of the flak for a bureaucracy that has developed around the accounting firm Price Waterhouse.Seven months ago the dealers who decided that they were going to opt out of the system—in other words, who decided that there was no longer an income for them—made application, as they were entitled to do, for fair and just compensation for their business and, indeed, fair and just compensation for the various parts of the semi-automatic weapons that had been banned. Currently enormous stocks of these items are still in the hands of dealers. I want to reinforce this point to the Senate: it was never the intention of these dealers to get out of the system but it was suggested to them that they would no longer be able to sell this particular type of firearm and that maybe the other interests they had in the firearms trade would not be sufficient for them to have a business that would survive the current climate out there. So they opted to sell all of the various parts and, in some instances, almost wholly completed semi-automatic and, as I understand it, fully automatic firearms.The government then handed to Price Waterhouse the job of making sure that proper compensation was paid. At the first meeting, seven months ago, the bloke from Price Waterhouse who came to South Australia, an officer called Robert Kus, suggested that the whole problem would be solved in a week. It has been said that a week is a long time in politics. It is a long time for Price Waterhouse. The government has appropriated the money—it is sitting there—the community wants these things taken and melted down, the current owners want to hand them over so they can get on with the rest of their lives and Mr Kus flies in and out of Adelaide from one meeting to the next.I do not lightly name an officer and a company in the Senate, but I want to tell them to get on with the job. I want to tell the government that there is a problem. I want to alert the government to the fact that the agency it has picked for this has not understood that this is an urgent matter that needs to be resolved—not only for these people who want to get on with their lives and move into other businesses and retrain or retire or whatever they want to do, but also for me as an average member of the community who, having seen these firearms banned by parliament, wants to see them melted down, off the street, out of circulation, and no longer available out there for someone to break in and screw together a dangerous firearm that may do what was done at Port Arthur. As a consequence of this, I want to tell the Senate here today that I hope the government take my remarks and I hope that they ring Price Waterhouse, speak to this fellow and tell him to get on with his job.My understanding is that the cutting edge of this is the problem of documentation. I am probably going to be told that I do not know what I am talking about, because there are a number of dealers that have a lot of parts that they cannot account for, that they have not got written valuations for, that they have not got receipts for or that they have not got this, that and the other. They had better not use that defence because there are a few dealers who can document everything from the smallest firing pin all the way up and they have not been paid either. I can give the names and addresses of these people because a few of them are mates of mine.I also want to make it pretty crystal clear here that, in the spirit of the buyback, the one smart thing the Howard government did, which we agreed with, was speedy just compensation before tribunals that were independent, that bought certain banned firearms, destroyed them and paid the compensation to the public out there. Had the same process that is being used now with the dealers been taken, then 90 per cent of these things would still be on the street and Mr Kus and his friends would be flying from one state to the next all the time. What the Howard government did—and it was a smart move—was do it quickly, fairly and, where necessary, not get tied up with bureaucratic red tape.Unfortunately, the firearms dealers, at least in my state, have been treated with much less courtesy. I am not blaming the government for it; I am blaming Price Waterhouse. If I am blaming them wrongly, then maybe the government is responsible. I want to see two things out of this. I want to see the government have a very close look at how the dealer buyback is working and to get it working, to get it functioning, to get these things melted and to get them out of circulation so that people can get on with their lives.Over two years ago we made the determination that this is the way we are going to go. Two years and three months later, at least where the dealers are concerned, very little or nothing has happened. I understand that has happened in other jurisdictions as well. It is something the government ought to take on board and sort out. I also suggest that, when this legislation here today is brought in, a much more speedier approach should be developed to sort out every downstream issue of the buyback in the particular jurisdictions that this bill is appropriate to.12:55:004083Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 deals with the question of the Commonwealth providing funds for the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island in implementing the territories surrender and buyback scheme. This bill completes that legislative scheme for buyback.I have noted with interest, as have the officials from the Attorney-General's Department, the comments of Senator Quirke. We do take those comments seriously because I am certainly well aware of Senator Quirke's particular interest and affinity with this area, which I respect. Therefore, we do and should take his comments seriously, and I am sure the officials will do so. I thank Senator Quirke for his contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4083r5064083Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.12:58:004083Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate that the opposition fully supports the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 . The bill will give effect to Australia's obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and will provide a legislative basis for national implementation. We are happy to support the bill. In view of the time and the amount of legislation that is listed for debate in this period for non-controversial business, I am happy to seek leave to have my speech on the second reading of this bill incorporated into Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill enjoys strong bipartisan support. The objective of the CTBT has been pursued by Australian governments for a very long time—that is, a total global ban on nuclear weapons tests and all other nuclear explosions in all environments and for all time. Australia was, of course, the site of 12 British nuclear tests at the Monte Bello Islands, Emu Field and Maralinga in the 1950s. These nuclear explosions and the many so-called `minor trials' have left enduring scars on our land and lingering health concerns for the thousands of Australian and British veterans who participated.Negotiation of the CTBT was a major diplomatic priority for Labor in government as part of our activist approach to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues. This approach was underpinned by both the goal of achieving a nuclear weapon free world and a hard-headed assessment of Australia's security interests.Australia was a central player in this process. Australia's technical experts helped develop the stringent CTBT verification regime and our diplomats made key contributions to the text of the draft treaty, especially article 1 setting out the basic obligations of state parties never to carry out nuclear test explosions or any other nuclear explosion in any environment. India and Pakistan have between them recently conducted no fewer than 11 nuclear tests in the space of little more than two weeks—the most intense burst of nuclear testing since the lead-up to entry into force of the partial test ban treaty, all of 35 years ago.Carried out in total defiance of the overwhelming international consensus against further nuclear testing, the actions of India and Pakistan have attracted strong condemnation, including from both sides of the political mainstream in this country. India's open declaration of a thermonuclear weapon capability and the declared intention of both India and Pakistan to proceed with weaponisation of their nuclear capabilities has sent the most appalling signal to other states interested in acquiring nuclear weapons.All sides of politics in this country have called on India and Pakistan to join the global consensus against nuclear testing and to sign the CTBT without delay.I earnestly hope that both India and Pakistan will soon see the absolute foolishness of their actions; though, for the moment at least, rabid and extreme nationalism appears to be the dominant theme of public expression in both New Delhi and Islamabad. India and Pakistan are no longer so-called nuclear threshold states; they are now self-declared nuclear weapon states. But they should be accorded no respect and they should be accorded no status whatsoever. They should be treated for what they are nuclear pariahs.Efforts to Stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are an area of foreign and strategic policy characterised by strong bipartisan support. As I have said a the beginning of my remarks Labor supports this bill. We look forward to the negotiation of further measures which will both enhance our national security and move the international community towards the objective that we all share: a world free of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles; a world free of the shadow of the mushroom cloud.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4084r4614084Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Alston:That this bill be now read a second time. 13:00:004084Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate our support for the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4084r5114084Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Alston:That this bill be now read a second time.13:02:004084Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate our support for the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4084r5394084Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.13:03:004084Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we do not oppose the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4084r522Billsr5214084Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Newman:That these bills be now read a second time.13:05:004084Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we support the bills. I would like to make a few remarks. Firstly, the bills implement the Willett review of Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing administration. There were four key recommendations of this report entitled the Willett Review: firstly, that there should be a reduction in the maximum investigation time of anti-dumping complaints to 155 days or 175 days in complex cases; secondly, that provisional measures—that is, measures that require the payment in duty terms of the equating price—could be imposed after 60 days of an investigation commencing; thirdly, that a single stage investigation process be undertaken by customs; and, fourthly, that a more stringent approach be adopted to seeking and verifying information from importers.As I said, these bills implement the Willett review, particularly in regard to those recommendations. Whilst supporting the bill, however, we would like to point out that it is essentially Labor's policy that the government's own position is closely matching that which was announced by us three months earlier. There has also been a lengthy period of inaction on the government's part in respect of this issue. Labor will closely monitor implementation to ensure that the new review body, the Trade Measures Review Office, does not become a de facto anti-dumping authority. With those remarks, we support the bills.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4085r4884085Consideration resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4085The bill.13:09:004085Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I was distracted a moment ago in looking at some of the other legislation that is about to come forward. I wanted to make a few comments in respect of the second reading stage. Perhaps I can make them now. Firstly, we support the passage of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . The bill seeks to give legislative effect to customs tariff proposal No. 5, which proposed a reduction on the rate of customs duty payable on aviation gasoline. The bill also seeks to allow the importation of prescribed goods by non-Australian olympic and paralympic family members for both the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games.The definition of `family' is in the hands of the International Olympic Committee, and it is a condition set down by the IOC that this exemption apply in the host country. As the definition has been widened under Mr Juan Antonio Samaranch's presidential term, it is, however, difficult to estimate the financial implications. But, with those reservations, we indicate that we do not oppose the bill.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.4085Bill (on motion by Senator Newman) read a third time.Bills4085r5014085Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Alston:That this bill be now read a second time.13:11:004085Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate that the opposition does not oppose Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . We note that the legislation seeks to reduce the rate of duty on aviation gasoline—commonly called avgas—from 3 July 1997 following a decision by the government not to increase general aviation's contribution to the funding of Airservices Australia derived by means of an excise on avgas. The bill also seeks to correct technical defects identified in the structure of item 11 of the schedule to the act. Two additional technical amendments included clarification to the way crude oil is assessed for excise duty and to delete a reference to item 3, which is no longer current. As I said at the outset, we do not oppose the passage of the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4086r492Billsr510Billsr5124086Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Newman:That these bills be now read a second time.13:13:004086Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we do not oppose the bills.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4086r509Billsr5084086Debate resumed from 23 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.13:15:004086Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I do not intend to take the 20 minutes that is allocated, but I do intend to spend five minutes on some issues relating to tax reform. The Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 is an important piece of legislation, specifically in respect of anti-avoidance provisions. The amendments principally relate to situations where amounts are paid as capital rather than dividends to confer a tax advantage on the person receiving the benefit and the company paying the amount. The legislation deals with matters relating to the capital gains tax, and I think it is important, in the context of tax reform, which this is part of, to deal very briefly with some underlying issues that relate to the current tax reform debate, which is an important debate to have.I take the opportunity to put on record the situation in respect of personal income tax rates that existed when Mr Howard, the current Prime Minister, left office on the defeat of the then Liberal-National Party government in 1983 as compared with the situation that we had in 1996. It has been claimed in the current tax reform debate that no reform in fact took place under a Labor government. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that in 1983, when Labor gained government, the marginal tax rate for people earning between nought and $4,595 was nil; the rate for people earning between $4,595 and $19,500 was 30c in the dollar; for those earning from $19,500 to $35,788 the marginal tax rate was 46c; and for those earning over $35,788 the marginal tax rate was 60c in the dollar.It is not correct for Mr Howard and Mr Costello to claim that there was no significant tax reform. When Labor left office, it had made significant changes to the marginal income tax rates. We have a situation now, as a result of Labor reform, where those earning taxable income between nought and $5,400 have a nil marginal tax rate; those earning between $5,400 and $20,700 have a marginal tax rate of 20c in the dollar; those earning between $20,701 and $38,000 have a marginal tax rate of 34c in the dollar; between $38,001 and $50,000 it is a 43c marginal tax rate; and in excess of $50,000 it is a 47c marginal tax rate. I draw the attention of the chamber to the reduction in the top rate from 60c to 47c and the reduction in the middle range tax rates from 46c to 43c or 34c marginal tax rate. That was very significant reform of the income tax system.I could speak extensively about other aspects of the current tax reform debate. However, in the interests of ensuring that the non-controversial legislation we have before us is passed expeditiously, I will not deal at length with any more issues at this time.The other point that Mr Howard and Mr Costello made strongly prior to their election in 1996 was a firm commitment to no new taxes and no increase in existing taxes. This morning I looked at the list of tax changes in this country since the election of the current government. There is evidence of a tendency to call taxes by other names. We all know about the infamous superannuation surcharge. We have also had a nursing home tax introduced, an accommodation charge for nursing home residents up to $4,380 annually, which is $12 a day. With regard to the infamous superannuation tax, called a surcharge, $500 million a year is expected to be collected.There are a significant number of associated problems that I will not go into today; that would require a 20-minute speech in itself. The private health insurance tax, yet another surcharge, is $500 a year. There are also various customs charges, a reef tax and a drugs tax. So there have been a range of new taxes or increases in existing taxes under this government, and that is a significant breach of the commitment given by the Prime Minister at the last election.I will conclude on this point. There has been no more significant breach in the tax reform debate than the breach of the rock solid commitment given by the Prime Minister that we would never, ever see a goods and services tax—never, ever. I do not think we should miss an opportunity to remind the Australian public about the commitment given by the Prime Minister. Of course, he has followed it up with a new commitment: if a goods and services tax is introduced by the current government, should they be re-elected, we will never, ever see the goods and services tax increase once it is introduced. If the Prime Minister can redefine his commitment that we would never, ever have a goods and services tax, how can we believe his commitment that it will never, ever be increased should it be introduced?Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4087r5424087Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.13:24:004087Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I will make my comments on this legislation, the Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 , briefer than my comments on the bills that we have just dealt with. Firstly, at a personal level I welcome this legislation. In my previous position as parliamentary secretary in the area of primary industries and resources, I could see that this issue of income equalisation schemes was a matter of serious concern to primary producers. The legislation we are debating deals with a new scheme that will be operated by the private sector. Deposits under the new scheme will be deductible in the year made and an amount equal to the deduction will be included in assessable income when the deposit is withdrawn. There would be a cap on the amount that will be subject to this concessional treatment. This change will be useful to operators in the primary sector.I want to make a comment about the primary industry sector. Regrettably, as I think most senators are aware, primary industry producers in this country are low income people. They stand to lose from the never, ever tax, the goods and services tax that this government has foreshadowed and that Mr Howard personally guaranteed would never, ever be introduced. Farmers have low incomes, as I said, and the introduction of the never, ever tax, the goods and services tax, will impact on lower and middle income earners. It is a regressive tax. As low and middle income earners, farmers, as much as other low and middle income earners in this country, will be affected by the regressive nature of a new indirect tax. I certainly hope that they look very closely at any level of support they may choose to give to the introduction of a goods and services tax, or whatever it will be called by this government should it be re-elected.There have been valiant attempts by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to rename the tax. I think on one occasion he referred to it as a broad-based indirect tax, a BIBIT for short. He then referred to it on other occasions as a BOBIT. I think that now it is being rightly referred to as a NET—the never, ever tax. The Prime Minister made a commitment that we would never, ever have a goods and services tax. Yet again I remind the Senate of the Prime Minister's commitment that it would never, ever be increased. If we cannot believe his promise before the last election that such a tax would never, ever be introduced, how are we to believe that, once we have the introduction of a goods and services tax, whatever it is called, it will never, ever be increased?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Never, ever?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Never, ever. This is well illustrated by a list of 23 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development nations. Of the 23 OECD countries that have introduced the never, ever tax, 21 have increased the rate of the never, ever tax and none have reduced it—surprise, surprise. Just to pull out a couple of examples from the list, New Zealand's started at 10 per cent and it is now up to 12.5 per cent. Japan's started at three per cent and it was increased to 5 per cent last May. That may explain some of the problems that the Japanese economy has had. The United Kingdom had started at 10 per cent; it is now at 17.5 per cent.So the never, ever tax that we were never, ever to see or have in this country, according to Mr Howard—and then it would never, ever go up—has gone up in 21 of 23 OECD nations. Leaving aside for a moment the general regressive effects of this new indirect tax, I certainly hope that primary producers around this country will not believe the Prime Minister's assertion that it will never, ever be increased.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4088r4534088Debate resumed from 13 May, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.13:31:004088Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I can indicate on behalf of the opposition that we do not oppose passage of the bill. We do have some reservations about the ultimate impact of this legislation. Indeed, when the legislation was considered by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee we did put in some additional comments. In view of the time, I seek leave to incorporate those comments as a speech on the second reading, and with those reservations we support passage of the bill.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—A number of significant issues were raised in relation to this Bill during the public hearing on 15 May 1998. Some of these issues are still of concern and raise doubts about the value of the scheme.Perhaps the most significant concern involves the numbers of people who are likely to benefit from the scheme who should have continued in the workforce beyond pension age regardless. These people stand to receive a windfall gain for doing what they would have done in any event. According to the joint Departmental submission it is estimated that 60,090 prospective social security pensioner will register for the scheme in 1998-1999 ant that 52,938 or some 88% of these people would have continued working regardless of the scheme. It is further estimated that of the additional 18,869 prospective social security recipients likely to register for the scheme in 1999-2000, 13,403 or over 70% would have deferred retiring in any event. Of the 20,361 expected to defer retirement in 2000-2001, 12,900 or 63% would probably have deferred regardless of the scheme (Submission No.3, Table 2).It was submitted by the Departments that the savings generated by those who changed their behaviour would offset the costs of those who received a bonus for doing what they would have done in any event (Submission No.3, page 5). The truth of this submission would have to depend upon its underlying assumptions, for example the length of time people are likely to defer retirement as a result of the scheme and hence the percentage of their pension entitlement they might expect to receive as a bonus. It still appears that the cost implications of the scheme are far from clear.A further concern involves the likely effects of the scheme upon younger workers. It has been assumed that 30% of those who defer retiring because of the scheme will displace younger workers. In their joint submission the Department concede that there is no hard evidence to support this assumption (Submission No.3, page 7). If the assumption is correct it is an important factor to be taken into account in assessing the scheme. The fact that it is a mere assumption and that the true displacement implications are unknown is also a matter of concern.In summary, both the direct and indirect costs of the scheme appear uncertain. It is something of an experiment, the results of which are unlikely to become apparent for quite some time to come.With these reservations, the Labor Opposition does not oppose passage of the Bill.13:32:004089Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats also will be supporting this bill. We want to ensure that it does get through but, rather than simply indicating that, I think it is important that anybody that does follow parliamentary debates is assured that this legislation has been given a good degree of scrutiny by the Democrats as well as by the broader Community Affairs Legislation Committee. To outline some of the Democrat views on it—as I would have done if we were not pressed for time—I shall save senators the torment of having to hear me speak it if they are willing to grant leave for my speech on the second reading to be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—With this legislation, the Government is seeking to introduce a scheme under which people who defer claiming the Age Pension may be paid a Pension Bonus.The amount of bonus they receive will be determined by the length of time they defer claiming their pension. A person who defers for the maximum of five years stands to receive a bonus payment of around $21,000.The benefit to the Commonwealth, of course, is that the person hasn't been receiving pension payments for that five-year period. Through this scheme, the Government is hoping to save around 18 million dollars in its first full year, rising to over 40 million in subsequent years.As people being to claim their bonuses, however, there will be a cost to government and in the longer term it is expected that the scheme will actually be revenue neutral.As we heard at the Community Affairs inquiry into this legislation, these estimates are based on a number of assumptions.Most notably, the government estimates that of all the people that will claim the bonus, more than 80% would have deferred their retirement to keep working anyway. In other words, the majority of people receiving a bonus under this scheme will actually be getting a windfall gain for no change in their behaviour.As the Department pointed out, however, the savings achieved from those who are encouraged by the scheme to delay their retirement will, in the short to medium term at least, more than offset those costs.Clearly, the level of savings to be gained are dependent on just how accurate the Departmental estimates are of the number of people to take up this scheme and I think we'll all be watching closely to see if those estimates are met.At the Community Affairs Committee, some concerns were expressed that people who wouldn't normally qualify for the pension may end up receiving a bonus payment.The Democrats believe, however, that the means test at the time of claiming the bonus combined with the social security gifting provisions is as rigorous a test as that currently applied to the Age Pension.We also acknowledge that imposing a means test at the time of registration would be unfair as people may not yet have structured their investments for retirement. A For example, someone looking to defer their pension may be reluctant to tie up their money in a long-term "income stream type" investment.Of greater concern to the Democrats is the potential for people to gain unrealistic expectations of the bonus. That is, if not given very clear and very accurate advice by the Department or if people misunderstand the advice they are given, they may find at the end of their deferment period they are not entitled to the payment they thought they were going to get.Given that people might have deferred claiming their pension for up to five years, this is a situation that needs to be avoided at all costs.I note the Department has undertaken that people registering for the scheme will be referred to a Financial Information Service Officer to discuss how the scheme works and, very importantly, how it will apply to their particular circumstances.The Democrats believe this is of the utmost importance. People may totally rearrange their retirement plans in reliance of this scheme and, because of that, it is essential that they have full information to make those decisions on.The Department will also write to people each year reminding them of the rules and I can only hope that those letters will be in `plain English' and will leave people in no doubt as to their entitlements under the scheme.As anyone who has had experience with the social security system knows, a person who doesn't fully understand their obligations for a particular payment or who, for some reason, is prevented from fulfilling those obligations, can often find themselves in great hardship.Under the proposed rules for the pension bonus, at the end of the deferment period, a person or their partner must claim the bonus within 13 weeks. This limit has been set to prevent people from dispersing their assets in order to claim a higher bonus payment.The Democrats can foresee that this requirement could, in some circumstances, lead to injustice. The particular scenario we are concerned about is where one member of a couple is working and accruing the pension bonus. We believe it would be unfair if, following the death of that person, their widow or widower was to miss out on the bonus because, due to their bereavement, they neglected to claim their bonus within 13 weeks.In discussions my office has had with the Minister's office I understand an agreement has been reached whereby the 1 3-week limit will be extended to 26 weeks for people who may find themselves in these circumstances. Can I just take the opportunity to thank the Minister for addressing this issue for us.Finally, as with all other social security payments, there may be the potential for people to manipulate their affairs so as to circumvent the legislative requirements of this scheme in ways that are not yet foreseeable.If this is to occur, it's likely the Government will be coming back to the Parliament with amendments to close any `loopholes'.At this stage, I simply want to signal that, unless there is a particularly convincing reason to the contrary, the Democrats will not be supporting the application of any future amendments to those people who are already registered.When people might be deferring their pensions for up to 5 years, it would be totally unjust to change the rules on them midstream. In conclusion then, the Democrats do have some concerns over the financial impact of this scheme. We recognise, however, the potential savings involved and also the fact that the Government has given undertakings to introduce such a scheme. We will be watching its progress with interest.13:33:004090Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I thank the senators for their comments and for their indications of support for the bill. This is an important social policy reform that the government believes is very valuable in giving choice to older people. Senator Bartlett has raised concerns about the potential for the surviving partners of bonus scheme members who have died missing out on payment due to delays in applying for the bonus. I am happy to be able to address those concerns. I undertake to Senator Bartlett that the secretary of my department will be publishing a Gazette notice pursuant to section 92Q that will extend the time for applying for this group by three months, giving them sixth months to apply.The bill acknowledges that it is in the interests of older Australians, their families, taxpayers, and society generally, that they have the opportunity and encouragement to keep working as long as they wish, and it is a matter of choice. It will maximise their retirement nest egg and it will ensure that their later years are as comfortable as possible. That is why we made an election commitment to deliver a pension bonus scheme. This bill delivers that commitment in full, I am proud to say.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4090r4584090Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time. 13:34:004091Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition does not oppose the bill. Indeed, we support the principle upon which the bill is based, namely, to promote the intergenerational transfer of family farms. We do have some concerns, however, that ultimately the government's proposed scheme will do little to promote the objective. There have been concerns raised that the original estimates by the government that some 10,000 families would be able to take advantage of the scheme have been revised substantially, down now to an estimated 2,100.Further, during consideration of the legislation before the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, a number of witnesses, including the National Farmers Federation and their constituent bodies, claimed that the asset limit of $500,000 was too low and that few farmers would qualify for pensions under the scheme. This may well be the case, but we do not believe that the simple answer is to increase the asset limit, as they have requested. Indeed, it may well negate the primary focus of the scheme which is directed at families in severe hardship.Finally, there have been concerns raised about the taxation and other legal implications of property transfers under the scheme. We urge the government and the Taxation Office to look at those issues to ensure that they do not create potential problems. With those reservations, we indicate that we do not oppose the bill.13:36:004091Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I must say that the government makes it very difficult to be cooperative. Not only do we have to agree to substantial legislation being dealt with as non-controversial, but when we want to cooperate with the government we then discover that the order of business gets changed at the very last moment.BE4NEWMANSenator Newman—At the request of the opposition, I have to say.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Let me then say that, if that is at the request of the opposition, again the Democrats were not advised of this. If you want cooperation, then let us have it, because I believe this is very important legislation. In order to underline the way in which we want to cooperate, as the minister knows I have a number of amendments I wish to move and to make sure that we do not delay the bill, because we do want to make sure it is carried, I would seek leave to incorporate these amendments in my second reading speech rather than moving them in toto.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I don't know what they are.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Senator Forshaw, they have been circulated, I understand.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that if Senator Woodley incorporates them they will not have any effect; they will only be indicative amendments.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I realise that. I am seeking to help the Senate, but if you want me to move them rather than incorporate them—13:37:004091Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—To answer Senator Woodley, the reason we sought leave to change the order of business is that there is one particular bill that is probably going to take about half an hour or so to deal with and we thought we would get the quicker ones away earlier. I was not aware of the point you were going to raise, Senator Woodley, otherwise I would obviously have discussed it with you. But, on the basis that they are simply incorporated in the second reading speech, fine.13:38:004091Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I believe that it is a serious issue and I do want to put some of my thoughts on the record. I am prepared to incorporate my speech, if that would further help the Senate, because I am trying to be cooperative. So I am prepared to incorporate my speech as well as my amendments. I seek leave to have my speech on the second reading and amendments incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Let me begin my contribution today by putting on the record that the Australian Democrats are very pleased to see this legislation introduced into the Federal Parliament.As Senators will be aware, the Democrats have, over the past seven or eight years, actively pursued the issue of farmers' access to welfare payments. We have, on many occasions, moved amendments relating to the exemption of the family farm from various assets tests—most particularly the AUSTUDY assets test—and we were instrumental in establishing two Senate inquiries into the impact of the assets test on farming families.These moves have been based on our belief that a number of social security rules have been, and are still, unfairly discriminating against our farming families.Because of this concern, we welcome the Bill before us today which seeks to rectify the harsh impact the social security `gifting provisions' have on family farmers.The intergenerational transfer of family farms, and the effect this has on a person's entitlement to the Age Pension, has been a concern of the Australian Democrats for a long time now.We have always felt that allowing farmers to hand their farms on through successive generations achieves a number of very desirable outcomes.Firstly, it means the family's accumulated wealth of farming knowledge and experience can be handed on with the property.Secondly, it helps to ensure the viability and structure of many of our farming communities.Thirdly, it allows ageing farmers to retire from the industry with dignity.And finally, it allows the input of new and innovative techniques of farming to be introduced and incorporated into that accumulated expertise.It is for these reasons that the intergenerational transfer of farming properties is, and always has been, an essential component of the Australian farming industry.We have farms in Australia that have been in the same family for five and six generations. Indeed, the attitude of most family farmers is that the property they are working is really only their's to be held on trust for the next generation and the generations after that.Up until now, however, farmers who have handed their properties on to their sons or daughters have paid a high price in terms of their loss of access to the Age Pension. This has come about as a result of the so-called `gifting provisions' which apply to the Pension.These provisions mean that a person who gives away an asset valued in excess of $10,000 is deemed by Centrelink to still hold that asset for the following 5 years and to be earning an income on it.These `gifting provisions' play a valuable role in preventing people deliberately running down their assets in order to qualify for the pension. Retiring farmers, however, are unfairly caught up in the provisions meaning that they are usually precluded from the Age Pension for 5 years after retiring.The bill before us today provides that, for 3 years from the 1 5th of September last year, low income farmers can gift their farm to the younger generation without losing access to the Age Pension or Veterans' Service Pension.The scheme will also be open to those farmers who have transferred their farms in the last 5 years.As I've already said, the Democrats strongly support the overall principle of allowing farmers to retire from farming with dignity by removing the social security penalties that currently apply.Importantly, the proposed scheme will not only provide a window of opportunity for farmers to transfer their farms but it will also serve to emphasis the importance to farming families of succession planning and the need to undertake business planning generally.Having said that, the Democrats do have a number of concerns with this scheme as it's currently proposed.It was originally our intention to seek to address those problems through amendments to the legislation.A letter we received from the Minister, however, stated that the Government has not been able to allocate sufficient time to this bill to allow a full debate.I have to put on the record the fact that I feel this is a very unfortunate position for the Senate to be in given the great importance of this scheme to our farming families.Despite this scheme being announced by the Prime Minister back in September last year, it's taken the Government nine months to bring this legislation before the Senate and we are being asked to pass it within an hour and with no serious debate whatsoever.One of the very important roles of the Senate is to scrutinise each and every piece of legislation that comes before it. This is a role the Democrats take most seriously and we are disappointed that greater time could not have been allocated to this very important piece of legislation.I must say that I was very keen to pursue the amendments I foreshadowed in the Community Affairs Committee report but, at the same time, I recognise the importance of getting this scheme up and running as quickly as possible.Having consulted with the farming bodies who appeared at the Senate inquiry, the Democrats have agreed not to move amendments to allow the Bill to be debated in this lunch time debate. I signal now though that we believe the scheme will need to be amended in the future. Overall, we believe that what should be a very positive scheme is at great risk of being stymied by the restrictive conditions placed on the scheme in order to minimise the cost to the government.At the Senate inquiry we heard evidence from Lifeline in Queensland that it had not found anyone able to qualify for the scheme.We heard similar evidence from a Rural Counsellor in Queensland.And we heard from the National Farmers Federation that it had only been able to find two people that thought they may qualify.That having been said, I would now like to briefly outline some of the specific concerns we have with this Bill.Firstly, the scheme is only to be available for 3 years from the 1 5th of September last year. That was the date that the Prime Minister announced the scheme despite the fact that the Government did not even have draft legislation ready at that stage.What that has meant is that, in reality, the scheme has been effectively non-operational for the past nine months. No applications have been granted and, not surprisingly, rural counsellors are advising people not to transfer their farms until the legislation is passed.So, by the time the scheme is up-and-running nearly a year will have been lost out of that three year window of opportunity.The Democrats support the views of a number of people who appeared before the Senate Committee that the scheme should apply for at least five years. This would allow more people to take advantage of the scheme and also give more notice to other farmers to begin to undertake their succession planning.Our second concern relates to the income test being applied to the scheme. To qualify, the farmer's average income over the past 3 years must be below the maximum pension rate—that is, around $9,000 for single people and $15,000 for couples.The scheme is aimed at farms that are supporting two families but it's very difficult to imagine how an income of $15,000 could have sustained two families for the past three years.The Democrats believe that a more appropriate threshold is that suggested by the National Farmers Federation and the South Australian Farmers Federation—that is, the total amount pensioners can earn before their pension is reduced.So, we would like to see the income test levels raised to around $19,600 for couples and $11,600 for singles.In this regard I was very interested to read a letter that the Federal Member for Maranoa has apparently been sending to his constituents. In that letter, Mr Scott, whose electorate covers many farming properties, says that he supports an increase in the income test to the level the Democrats are now suggesting.Mr Scott is also Minister for Veterans' Affairs and it's expected that around 300 veterans will benefit from this scheme so his views are clearly of great interest.The Democrats are also concerned at the requirement that farmers must have owned the farm being gifted for 15 years or been in farming for at least 20 years.We believe this requirement is too stringent and may lead to inequities. For example, a farmer who has owned his current farm for 14 years and his previous farm for 3 years wouldn't be eligible to transfer his current farm.We believe that an appropriate test would be to simply require that a farmer has been in farming for at least 15 years.Another major concern we have with the proposed scheme is that the value of the farm, net of farm debt, must be not more than $500,000.ABARE figures show that the average net value of all farms is around $1.05m. At the same time however, ABARE has also estimated that in 1996-97 the average broadacre farm had a business profit of negative $1,400.The Democrats believe that the assets limit needs to be significantly increased and that a tapered withdrawal should be put in place rather than the `sudden-death' cut-off that's being proposed.Under the current scheme, a person whose farm is worth $499,000 can be eligible for a full pension but a person whose farm is worth just $2,000 more will qualify for nothing.This will not only lead to injustices but also encourages the use of artificial means of minimising asset levels.The Democrats have incorporated an amendment which will raise the assets limit to $800,000.The Democrats have a number of other concerns with the proposed scheme but I don't have time to run through those in any detail in the remaining time allocated for this bill. I simply conclude by saying that we are very pleased to see the Government at least begin to address this very important issue for family farmers. We feel the scheme is being strangled by restrictions at the moment and we would hope that the Government would look at reviewing the eligibility criteria sometime in the near future.The Democrats will certainly be watching the progress of this scheme over the next six months and will consider pursuing the amendments I have already foreshadowed at a later date. The amendments read as follows—That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (lines 11 to 34), omit subsections (3) and (4), substitute:(3) A person is a qualifying farmer if the person has been involved in farming in Australia for a continuous period of 15 years by: (a) contributing a significant part of his or her labour to farm enterprises; and (b) deriving a significant part of his or her income from farm enterprises.(4) A person is also a qualifying farmer if: (a) the person has been involved in farming in Australia for periods that together add up to 15 years, by: (i) contributing a significant part of his or her labour to farm enterprises; and (ii) deriving a significant part of his or her income from farm enterprises; and (b) the maximum break between periods of farming has not exceeded 6 months; and (c) in the opinion of the Secretary, any break was caused either by: (i) the sale or purchase of successive farms; or (ii) exceptional circumstances.(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 10 (line 21), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(3) Schedule 1, item 14, page 11 (line 2), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(4) Schedule 1, item 14, page 11 (line 5), omit "$500,000", substitute "$800,000".(5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 11 (line 29), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(6) Schedule 1, item 14, page 12 (line 4), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(7) Schedule 1, item 14, page 12 (line 7), omit "$500,000", substitute "$800,000".(8) Schedule 1, item 14, page 17 (line 9), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(9) Schedule 1, item 14, page 18 (line 32), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(10) Schedule 1, item 14, page 20 (lines 19 and 20), omit " maximum basic entitlement ", substitute " multiplied basic rate ".(11) Schedule 1, item 14, page 20 (after line 20), after step 4 of the method statement, insert:Step 4A. Work out under subsection (4A) the person's ordinary income free area for age pension applicable to the person. Multiply that amount by 3 and add it to the person's multiplied basic rate. The result is called the person's maximum basic entitlement .(12) Schedule 1, item 14, page 22 (after line 30), after subsection (4), insert:Person's ordinary income free area for age pension(4A) For the purposes of Step 4A in the Method statement in subsection (1), the income free area for age pension applicable to the person is: (a) if the person was a member of a couple at any time during the 3 years immediately preceding the operative day—the amount that was, on the operative day, the ordinary income free area for a partnered person under Module E of Pension Rate Calculator A in section 1064; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the amount that was, on the operative day, the ordinary income free area for a person who is not a member of a couple under Module E of Pension Rate Calculator A in section 1064.(13) Schedule 2, item 3, page 27 (lines 1 to 24), omit subsections (3) and (4), substitute:(3) A person is a qualifying farmer if the person has been involved in farming in Australia for a continuous period of 15 years by: (a) contributing a significant part of his or her labour to farm enterprises; and (b) deriving a significant part of his or her income from farm enterprises.(4) A person is also a qualifying farmer if: (a) the person has been involved in farming in Australia for periods that together add up to 15 years, by: (i) contributing a significant part of his or her labour to farm enterprises; and (ii) deriving a significant part of his or her income from farm enterprises; and (b) the maximum break between periods of farming has not exceeded 6 months; and (c) in the opinion of the Secretary, any break was caused either by: (i) the sale or purchase of successive farms; or (ii) exceptional circumstances.(14) Schedule 2, item 11, page 31 (line 12), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(15) Schedule 2, item 11, page 31 (line 23), omit "2000", substitute "2002". (16) Schedule 2, item 11, page 31 (line 27), omit "$500,000", substitute "$800,000".(17) Schedule 2, item 11, page 32 (line 17), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(18) Schedule 2, item 11, page 32 (line 27), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(19) Schedule 2, item 11, page 32 (line 30), omit "$500,000", substitute "$800,000".(20) Schedule 2, item 11, page 37 (line 26), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(21) Schedule 2, item 11, page 39 (line 19), omit "2000", substitute "2002".(22) Schedule 2, item 11, page 41 (lines 6 and 7), omit " maximum basic entitlement ", substitute " multiplied basic rate ".(23) Schedule 2, item 11, page 41 (after line 7), after step 4 of the method statement, insert:Step 4A. Work out under subsection (4A) the person's ordinary/adjusted income free area for age service pension applicable to the person. Multiply that amount by 3 and add it to the person's multiplied basic rate. The result is called the person's maximum basic entitlement .(24) Schedule 2, item 11, page 43 (after line 16), after subsection (4), insert:Person's ordinary/adjusted income free area for age service pension(4A) For the purposes of Step 4A in the Method statement in subsection (1), the ordinary/adjusted income free area for age service pension applicable to the person is: (a) if the person was a member of a couple at any time during the 3 years immediately preceding the operative day—the amount that was, on the operative day, the ordinary/adjusted income free area for a partnered person under Module E in Part 2 of Schedule 6; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the amount that was, on the operative day, the ordinary/adjusted income free area for a person who is not a member of a couple under Module E in Part 2 of Schedule 6.13:39:004095West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I do not want to take up much of the time of the Senate but I do want to raise a situation of a constituent I have who will not be eligible for this assistance. However, whilst he is under the age of 65—in fact, he is only 55—he has an illness or a condition that is more commonly found in older people: he has Alzheimer's disease. His wife also has a chronic illness or chronic condition and is not able to work the property.This constituent is currently in a nursing home. If he were 65 years of age, it would be the classic situation and would fit into the intergenerational transfer with no difficulties whatsoever. The farm is valued at $340,000-odd. There is a small amount of debt on it. He has an adult son who would love to work the farm but has a job elsewhere. He does come back and do some work on the farm at weekends and spends a lot of time there. But the family will not be eligible for the intergenerational transfer, by virtue of the fact that the father is only 55 years of age and the mother is in her early 50s.There would probably be only a small number of people that would fall into this category. I am wondering whether it is possible that the government can actually look at finding a way to assist these people, too. We have now managed to get this person classified as being under hardship conditions, for the purposes of nursing home accommodation fees and things like that. But it would be very much more helpful to this family if in fact they were able to do the intergenerational transfer, and then the family might well be able to make other claims.13:41:004095Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I would ask Senator West to contact my office so that I can take up that particular case with her. As a general response, just as in the aged care area there are hardship provisions so also there are hardship provisions for farmers, and so the family may well be entitled to assistance under that scheme. I would suggest in a general sense that that may well deal with some of the people that you are concerned about.I thank senators for their contributions. I know that Senator Woodley was concerned about the asset level and that Senator West is concerned about people who are under the age of eligibility for assistance under this bill. I point out to senators that the operation of this and all other provisions of this bill will be closely monitored by my department and will be subject to a full and open review after 12 months, to ensure that the targeted groups are being reached. I guess senators will be following this up in estimates as well, and so the progress of the legislation and its operation will be under close scrutiny. I thank you all for your contributions.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills4096r3984096Consideration resumed from 29 May.The bill.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Social Security and Veterans Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997 and the amendment No. 1 moved by Senator Bartlett on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The question is that item 5 of schedule 3 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 3, item 6 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Amendments (by Senator Woodley)—by leave—not agreed to:(3) Schedule 3, item 33, page 38 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item, substitute:33 Subsection 9(8) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (8) A pension or annuity is an allocated one if either: (a) the rate of payment of the pension or annuity; or (b) the basis for variations in the rate of payment of the pension or annuity; is not fully defined in the relevant trust deed or contract.(4) Schedule 3, item 35, page 39 (after line 7), before paragraph (1)(a), insert: (aa) if it is an income stream arising from an allocated pension or allocated annuity purchased before 1 July 1992; or(5) Schedule 3, item 35, page 39 (after line 14), at the end of subsection (1), add: Note 2: For allocated pension and allocated annuity , see subsection 9(8).13:46:004096Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—by leave—I move:(2) Schedule 3, item 35, page 40 (lines 5 to 7), omit "exceed the total amount of the payments made under the income stream in the immediately preceding year (the previous total )", substitute "fall below the total amount of the payments made under the income stream in the immediately preceding year (the previous total ), and may not exceed the previous total".(3) Schedule 3, item 35, page 40 (line 17), omit the formula, substitute:(4) Schedule 3, item 35, page 44 (lines 9 to 11), omit "exceed the total amount of the payments made under the income stream in the immediately preceding year (the previous total )", substitute "fall below the total amount of the payments made under the income stream in the immediately preceding year (the previous total ), and may not exceed the previous total".(5) Schedule 3, item 35, page 44 (line 21), omit the formula, substitute:(6) Schedule 3, item 75, page 60 (lines 28 to 30), omit "exceed the total amount of the payments made under the income stream in the immediately preceding year (the previous total )", substitute "fall below the total amount of the payments made under the income stream in the immediately preceding year (the previous total ), and may not exceed the previous total".(7) Schedule 3, item 75, page 61 (line 5), omit the formula, substitute:(8) Schedule 3, item 75, page 65 (lines 1 to 3), omit "exceed the total amount of the payments made under the income stream in the immediately preceding year (the previous total )", substitute "fall below the total amount of the payments made under the income stream in the immediately preceding year (the previous total ), and may not exceed the previous total".(9) Schedule 3, item 75, page 65 (line 13), omit the formula, substitute:13:46:004097Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I have a question that relates to this particular amendment. Is it the intention of the government's bill and the amendments relating to compliant income streams and compliant income stream products be restricted to those which are backed by a capital guaranteed fund?13:46:004097Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer is no.13:46:004097Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—That being the case, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendments.Amendments agreed to.13:48:004097Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I seek leave to have schedule 1, item 3 recommitted.Leave granted.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 3, be agreed to.13:48:004097Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:(1) Subparagraph 18A(2)(c)(iv), omit "urinary or" (wherever occurring).You might recall that there was quite some discussion in relation to the provision that required both faecal and urinary incontinence. There has been some discussion between the government and the opposition, and the comp romise has been reached that a child with faecal incontinence does not also have to have urinary incontinence in order for their carer to be eligible for this particular payment.Amendment agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the request for amendment, as amended, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.13:49:004097Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—by leave—I move:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 13), before "continuous personal care" insert "constant supervision which is substantially greater than that required by a child of the same age who does not have a disability or".(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 22), after subparagraph (c)(ii), insert: (iia) the child needs substantially more assistance with feeding than that required by a child of the same age who does not have a disability;(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 33), at the end of paragraph (c), add: ; (viii) the child requires constant supervision, which is substantially greater than that required by a child of the same age who does not have a disability, to prevent injury to himself or herself, to another person or to property; (ix) any other circumstance which, in the opinion of the Secretary, indicates that the child needs substantially more care or attention than a child of the same age who does not have a disability.I would like to indicate that we will not be pressing these requests; therefore we will be opposing them.13:50:004098Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Democrats would like to indicate that, given the circumstances relating to this legislation, with the pressure of time and the apparent insistence of the Prime Minister on going to an election and other related factors, we will not be insisting on this either. We do believe that it is an important issue that does need further consideration, but we do acknowledge the government's genuine desire to ensure that at least some people are assisted. Following clarification from groups that work with carers indicating that they are willing to accept this course of action, we are happy enough to do likewise.13:50:004098Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I understand that an undertaking on this matter was discussed between the opposition and the government. It would be appreciated by the opposition if the minister could meet that agreed commitment—that is, the review—prior to the vote being put.13:50:004098Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I undertook to give a review. It is standard practice in new policy and we will be doing so.13:51:004098Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I just want to make it very clear that the undertaking was actually that a review be taken after 12 months, focusing in particular on whether any profoundly disabled children are not benefiting from the measure, and that the review be tabled in the Senate.13:51:004098Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The answer is still yes.Requests not agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Bartlett, do you wish to proceed with amendment 6 in respect of schedule 4?13:52:004098Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Certainly, the Democrats do wish to have on the record our opposition to this schedule. I did outline in a fair bit of detail in my speech in the second reading debate the reasons why we do not support it. For those who wish to research that in depth, it is contained in the Hansard of 29 May, which is when we discussed this issue. For those wishing for me to just get on with it, I simply reiterate that we do believe it is not an appropriate measure. It reinforces poverty traps and will make life harder for workers in regional areas, where it is hard enough already, so we do not think it is a good idea.13:52:004098Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—The opposition does believe it is appropriate to take into account the income of those who may have up and down periods because of seasonal work. We do not agree with the Democrats' view that those particular people should be omitted from the income testing and, accordingly, will not be supporting the proposed amendment.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 4 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Amendments (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:(10) Schedule 4, item 2, page 76 (line 31) to page 77 (lines 1 and 2), omit all the words after "on the day", substitute "on which the claim was lodged".(11) Schedule 4, item 2, page 77 (lines 13 and 14), omit all the words after "on the day", substitute "on which the claim was lodged".(12) Schedule 4, item 2, page 77 (line 15), omit the note.(13) Schedule 4, item 2, page 78 (after line 22), after Step 6, insert:Step 6A. If there is a period between one relevant period of seasonal work and another, or between a relevant period of seasonal work and the day on which the claim was lodged, work out the number of weeks in the period (the intervening period ). This is done by dividing the total number of days in the intervening period by 7.Step 6B. If there is more than one intervening period, add together the number of weeks worked out for each intervening period. The result (including any part of a week) is called the person's intervening weeks . Step 6C . Add together the number of seasonal work weeks worked out under Step 6 and the number of intervening weeks (if any) worked out under Step 6B. The result (including any part of a week) is called the person's self-supported weeks .(14) Schedule 4, item 2, page 78 (line 23), omit "seasonal work weeks", substitute "self-supported weeks".(15) Schedule 4, item 2, page 80 (after line 26), after Step 7, insert:Step 7A. If there is a period between one relevant period of seasonal work and another, or between a relevant period of seasonal work and the day on which the claim was lodged, work out the number of weeks in the period (the intervening period ). This is done by dividing the total number of days in the intervening period by 7.Step 7B. If there is more than one intervening period, add together the number of weeks worked out for each intervening period. The result (including any part of a week) is called the person's intervening weeks .Step 7C. Add together the number of seasonal work weeks worked out under Step 7 and the number of intervening weeks (if any) worked out under Step 7B. The result (including any part of a week) is called the person's self-supported weeks .(16) Schedule 4, item 2, page 80 (line 27), omit "seasonal work weeks", substitute "self-supported weeks".(17) Schedule 4, item 2, page 82 (after line 30), after Step 8, insert:Step 8A. If there is a period between one relevant period of seasonal work and another, or between a relevant period of seasonal work and the day on which the claim was lodged, work out the number of weeks in the period (the intervening period ). This is done by dividing the total number of days in the intervening period by 7.Step 8B. If there is more than one intervening period, add together the number of weeks worked out for each intervening period. The result (including any part of a week) is called the partner's intervening weeks .Step 8C. Add together the number of seasonal work weeks worked out under Step 8 and the number of intervening weeks (if any) worked out under Step 8B. The result (including any part of a week) is called the partner's self-supported weeks .(18) Schedule 4, item 2, page 83 (line 1), omit "seasonal work weeks", substitute "self-supported weeks".(19) Schedule 4, item 2, page 83 (line 27) to page 84 (line 21), omit subsections (9) and (10).(20) Schedule 4, page 98 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add:34 ApplicationThe amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to seasonal work engaged in before the commencement of this Schedule.13:53:004099Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 75 (after line 8), after "seasonal work 16A(1)", insert: seasonal work income 16A(1)(2) Schedule 4, item 2, page 76 (after line 6), after the definition of seasonal work , insert: seasonal work income means gross income from seasonal work less amounts necessarily expended in relation to that seasonal work that the person can demonstrate are allowable deductions for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 or the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 , as the case may be.(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 78 (line 3), omit "income", substitute "seasonal work income".(4) Schedule 4, item 2, page 78 (after line 30), at the end of subsection (5), add: Note 3: For seasonal work income see subsection (1).(5) Schedule 4, item 2, page 79 (line 24), omit "income", substitute "seasonal work income".(6) Schedule 4, item 2, page 81 (after line 2), at the end of subsection (6), add: Note 3: For seasonal work income see subsection (1).(7) Schedule 4, item 2, page 82 (line 2), omit "income", substitute "seasonal work income".(8) Schedule 4, item 2, page 83 (after line 8), at the end of subsection (7), add: Note 3: For seasonal work income see subsection (1).These amendments relate to concerns that were raised during debate on the previous occasion whereby the seasonally adjusted figures took into account gross income rather than net income. These amendments give effect to our concern and allow it to apply to net rather than gross income.13:53:004100Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I indicate that the Democrats support this Labor Party amendment as we believe it is a fairer means of assessment than that proposed in the original legislation. I would like to reiterate that we do remain opposed to the imposition of a special preclusion period on seasonal workers. I re-emphasise that it is not just putting them in the same pool—it is over and above existing requirements specifically applying to seasonal workers. We do therefore support these amendments, but wish to emphasise our ongoing opposition to schedule 4.Amendments agreed to.Requests (by Senator Newman)—by leave—agreed to:That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:(10) Item 1 of Schedule 9 is taken to have commenced on 17 December 1997.(2) Page 136 (after line 28), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 9—Amendments relating to mobility allowance Social Security Act 19911 Section 19 (at the end of the definition of vocational training )Add "and, where used in Part 2.21 (Mobility allowance), also includes training known as independent living skills or life skills training".2 Section 1035After "mobility allowance if", insert "the person satisfies the travel test set out in subsection (2) and".3 At the end of paragraph 1035(ba)Add "or".4 At the end of section 1035Add:(2) A person satisfies the travel test mentioned in subsection (1) if the person is required to travel to and from the person's home for the purpose of undertaking: (a) gainful employment; or (b) vocational training; or (c) job search activities; or (d) voluntary work approved by the Secretary for charitable, welfare or community organisations.13:55:004100Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—If I could just say a few brief words—I understand that we are very pressed for time—because I think it is worthwhile putting on the record substantial changes that have occurred in relation to this debate since the last time we debated it in the Senate.Substantial amendments were made by the Opposition on the last occasion to try and extend the benefits that were contained in this bill. But it was very much stated to us, and I think in fact the minister put it on the record in the media immediately afterwards, that if these improvements were insisted upon by the opposition that the government would not allow passage for the bill, and the entire group of carers who might beneficially be affected would miss out entirely.I must confess that we did not think that was a particularly fair and reasonable approach. Certainly we did not want to see that particular group of people—carers who care for profoundly disabled children—miss out. In light of that, we are prepared to back down and compromise on some of our amendments. I am very pleased to see that this bill will proceed and that that particular group of people will benefit.I do still feel some distress and some concern for the group of carers who will miss out because we have been forced to back down from our amendments. I would like to put that concern and a statement of why we have changed our position on the record for the future.13:56:004100Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I will be very quick because I see there is just one bill left to go. I was disappointed, as senators know, that we were not able to deal with it in its entirety last time. I felt it put at risk some of the great benefits of this bill for carers and for older Australians. I have been heartened by the attitude of senators since that time. I thank all senators for agreeing to the compromise that allows us to complete this bill today for the benefit of a lot of Australians.Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to requests.Bill reported with amendments and requests; report adopted.Bills4101r4864101Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—In the 20 seconds available before question time I would like to make the point that, whilst I appreciate it is not the minister's fault, it is not an ideal way to do legislation in such a log jam way. I do hope that we can try to find a better way in the future.Questions Without Notice410141014101Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Newman. When the minister was given the opportunity on Monday to explain why the government's $3.8 million promotion of its youth allowance scheme fails to inform families who earn more than $23,400 that they will have to bear the burden of the cuts to their children's benefits, why did she avoid the issue? Isn't the youth allowance campaign and the minister's answer to my earlier question precisely the sort of thing which is causing so much disenchantment out there in the electorate. Aren't electors fed up with half-truths? Will the minister now come clean and admit that at least 47,650 young Australians will have their benefits either reduced or completely cut under the youth allowance scheme, with their parents being forced to make up the difference? Will the minister explain why their multimillion dollar taxpayer funded publicity campaign completely ignorers these impacts?4101Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—It is very good of Senator Neal to ask me that question. I am delighted to have the opportunity to once again talk about the multitude of benefits that come from the introduction of the youth allowance on 1 July. Perhaps Senator Neal has not seen the article that appeared in the Australian yesterday reporting on a study which has been done by Professor Bob Birrell. I do hope that senators take the trouble to have a look at this because it outlines the generosity that this government is introducing for students.The study says that the youth allowance will actually significantly improve eligibility for student financial assistance when compared to the current arrangements for Austudy which we inherited from Labor. That is one of the greatest benefits of youth allowance. For example, the parental means test that senators opposite were so quick to criticise is substantially more generous than it was under Austudy. We believe that the young unemployed should not be treated more generously than students; they should be treated the same. Under youth allowance they are being treated the same. It is wrong—and most Australians believe it is wrong—to pay young people more to be unemployed than to be students.The youth allowance parental means test is actually far more generous than is the old parental means test for Austudy. I will give you some figures, Senator, because clearly, after all this time, you still need a bit of education on it. Currently, under Austudy, for one 18-year-old student living at home, income support cuts out when their parents' income is over $37,643. After 1 July, under youth allowance, for one young person living at home, the parental income level will be boosted by nearly $4,000 to $41,579. For an 18-year-old student living away from home under Austudy, the current limit of parental income is $47,079. Under youth allowance, that parental income level increases substantially by nearly $12,000 to $58,791 if they are receiving maximum rent assistance.These figures are undisputable. They confirm that youth allowance is more generous than the existing Austudy scheme. While it is targeted to those who are most in need, it will result in increased numbers of students receiving assistance. That is what Professor Birrell's assessment is all about: that there will, over time, be a lot more students studying in one form or another in Australia to acquire greater skills. You know, Senator—honourable senators all know—that one of the great tragedies, particularly in rural and regional Australia, is young people without any skills that they can sell to get a job. The opportunity to convince an employer that they will be a useful and effective employee is currently denied to lots of young people. In a very important way this will empower young people and help them to get work.This is a fair scheme treating all young people the same. I cannot imagine why the opposition is still trying to run a scare campaign—as they are obviously trying to do.I understand that their friends in the CPSU are, in fact, planning to use the introduction of the youth allowance as part of the industrial campaign they currently have with the management of Centrelink. What a sad thing it is when a union, helped by their friends in the ALP, uses young people and their families in a scare campaign to achieve their own industrial ends. That is a disgrace.4102Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister acknowledge that she and her government have a duty to warn everyone who is affected by the introduction of the youth allowance, not just those who benefit? Minister, are you going to discharge this responsibility?4102Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—The government has never run away from the fact that most young people will not be affected. Something like 150,000 young people will be considerably better off. About 40,000 or thereabouts will have payments reduced or cancelled because their families are above those income levels—those high income levels by Australian standards.B36NEALSenator Neal—Yes, above $23,500—BE4Senator NEWMAN—No, Senator, your Austudy means test was incorporated into youth allowance, but it cuts out later than your Austudy means test. If you are really concerned about young people and families wanting to know the facts, we have put all that detail on the web site. Clearly you have not gone and had a look. That is empowering people to know. It is also on the end of a telephone line, because the call centres are there to help people too. Young people have had forms and information available to them for a month or two. The people in Centrelink are there to help them. (Time expired)41024102Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question without notice is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for the Environment. Will the minister inform the Senate of the government's plans to nominate the Greater Blue Mountains area for world heritage listing? Will the listing involve any additional management responsibilities for the Commonwealth and how has the government met its obligations to financially support other world heritage properties around Australia?4102Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Perchance, yes, I did bring the nomination documents. The Howard government is very proud to be nominating the Greater Blue Mountains area for world heritage listing and we are proud of the way in which we have done it, Senator Schacht, which starkly contrasts with your way. It has been done through a cooperative process whereby we have worked constructively with the New South Wales government, supported—RF4COOKSenator Cook—A Labor government.BH4Senator HILL—A Labor government, yes Senator Cook. You couldn't believe that could you? We have worked constructively with the New South Wales government, supported by local community groups and in particular by the local federal member, Mr Kerry Bartlett. I would particularly like to mention him because he has been a strong advocate for this particular process.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—The Barry Morris memorial national park.BH4Senator HILL—That is right, Senator, the old way of Labor was confrontation, coercion, turn world heritage into a misery. Our approach is entirely different. We worked cooperatively with the Tasmanian government for the listing of the sub-Antarctic islands. We are working cooperatively with the Western Australia government in relation to the Bungle Bungle Ranges in the Purnululu National Park. We worked constructively with the New South Wales government in relation to the Blue Mountains—an entirely different approach, but something of which we are very proud.All Australians, I think, will appreciate the Blue Mountains. They recognise the ancient landforms, they recognise the spectacular gorges and cliffs, but they may not all recognise that it is an unique place in relation to its flora. It is supposedly the best single global example of the range of characteristics of the eucalypt still existing in an extensive natural landscape, something that is unique and something that at least on this side of the chamber, we appreciate.We also make mention of the unique cultural values of the Greater Blue Mountains area. Aboriginal people have left a rich legacy of their occupation in the region over thousands of years of occupation and their distinctive art rock is one way in which that is remembered.This will join some 13 other world heritage areas which Australia proudly proclaims and it is expected that it will be accepted before the Sydney Olympics and therefore it will enhance the tourist attraction of the Blue Mountains during that vitally important period for our country.In answer to another part of the honourable senator's question, the responsibility for basically managing the park will remain with the New South Wales government. They have accepted that. If there are additional costs coming out of the world heritage listing, they will be shared between the Commonwealth and the state.On the subject of costs and commitment to world heritage, again it is easy to see a stark difference in approach between this government and its predecessor. We are putting a lot more money into world heritage management in this country: this year, $15.8 million as opposed to Labor's $10 million in its last year—up 50 per cent, Senator Faulkner, on what was Labor's contribution.Look at particular areas: Fraser Island in Queensland, we are putting in three times as much as Labor did; Shark Bay, four times as much as Labor did; Lord Howe Island, seven times as much as Labor did; The central eastern rain forest reserves, 7½ times. It demonstrates this government's commitment to world heritage: putting money behind it, demonstrating the priority and the importance of this area and, as I said, starkly contrasting with the neglect of the former Labor government.41034103Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Could the minister tell me whether it is true that young people who do not return their application form for youth allowance by 1 July will have their benefits cut? Is it also true that the government's inept, dishonest, multimillion dollar publicity campaign fails to even mention this requirement? Is it further true that 45,000 young people have not yet returned their forms? Who does the minister blame for this shambles? Who is today's scapegoat?4103Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Isn't it fascinating! They are so determined to try to tarnish a really big positive for the government. They will say anything, they will do anything, they will niggle along. They have had this debate in here over many months. We have had two bills go through the parliament. They are not prepared to stop them but they are prepared to niggle and be mean spirited and make it sound somehow as though there is something nasty in the woodpile. The youth allowance is not something nasty in the woodpile, and you know it very well. Of course people are asked by Centrelink to fill in forms under the legislation—whatever the legislation; any of the social security legislation. If you do not do as Social Security is entitled to ask you under the law, can you expect the taxpayer to help you with income support? I can tell you that there are forms and forms and, with some forms that you are asked to send back, if you do not send them back you will be left in the financial situation you are in now. For instance, as a student you would not be getting rent assistance to go with it unless that form came back.4104Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in my question I said that your advertising campaign does not let people know of this requirement. Are you prepared to give a guarantee to those who do not meet the deadline, and their families, that they will not suffer a cut in benefits simply from not returning the form on time?4104Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—Oh, it is tiring, isn't it! Obviously Senator Gibbs does not realise that the young people she is talking about are people who are already on benefits with Social Security and they have had correspondence from Centrelink advising them of their potential entitlements and advising them of time lines for sending information back to Centrelink. If they choose not to apply for benefits, am I to tell them that they have got to have them? Is that what you are saying? The taxpayer has got—Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—No, the information is available to them as to where they get more information. In every way, for example putting the web site number on all the newspaper advertisements, by writing to them and giving them a call centre number that they can ring that is dedicated just to young people it would be fair to say that we are doing our utmost to make sure they know their entitlements but it is up to them as to whether they claim them.41044104Macdonald, Sen SandySenator SANDY MACDONALDCX5NSWNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Minister, the Australian government has demonstrated a continuing commitment to the funding of the arts. This has been appropriate and particularly successful in rural and regional areas. Are you aware of any alternative arts policy proposals? What would be the impact on Australia's cultural life and identity if these were implemented?4104Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I thank Senator Sandy Macdonald for that question. The arts are an integral part of Australian society. They not only contribute to people's opportunities for creativity but also provide innumerable opportunities for people to enjoy the better things in life to appreciate the aesthetic qualities of many art forms. In fact, in one year in Australia, there are about 16 million attendances at 280 publicly funded museums and art galleries. More people visit museums than attend sporting functions. About 83 per cent of the adult population are involved in some form of cultural activity. A recent survey shows that 88 per cent of Australians believe that museums, theatres and orchestras make the community a better place to live.There are something in excess of 250,000 people employed in the cultural industries. It is a $5 billion industry. It is crucial to a progressive and outward looking society. Nothing is surer than the fact that this government is very much committed to moving away from those Sydneycentric policies that the crowd on the other side have espoused for so long and directing arts funding much more to regional and rural Australia. That is why we have had a $7.5 million regional arts fund. That is why we have provided additional funding for touring for Playing Australia, which is the performing arts touring association; and for Visions, which is the visual arts equivalent; and for festivals to regional areas. We have provided funds for Australia's cultural network for emerging artists. In other words, in regional and rural areas we recognise that the arts and cultural activities are often the most important single community gathering in its main centre.There are a couple of other parties around that deserve to be put under the spotlight. Of course, Labor to date has no policies at all on the arts. All we have seen out of Hobart and elsewhere is a bit of carping at the edges. But, basically, it has come up with absolutely nothing.One Nation, however, deserves a mention because at least it has had the courage to get out there and say that it would slash the arts to ribbons. It wanted to take $80 million out of the arts in Queensland.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Why did you give them preferences in Queensland?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator!LD4Senator ALSTON—It wanted to take $80 million out of the arts in Queensland alone. Of course, that would threaten the existence of the Cairns Regional Arts Gallery and the $17.5 million expansion of the Townsville Museum of Tropical Queensland.It is extraordinary that, against this sort of cultural philistinism that is going on up north, we have had such a deathly silence from the Labor Party. Mr Beazley has been very busy running around, telling the most outrageous lies about postal services and telecommunications services. It is quite clear that Labor's strategy is to try to drum up as much discontent and disaffection with mainstream politics as possible. In other words, Labor's real agenda is to drive people into the arms of Hanson. That is what it is trying to do; that is what it is doing. It is not interested in getting out and supporting us in arguing for the arts. If you are fair dinkum, why wouldn't you want to get out there and support funding for the arts?You have said nothing at all about it, because you want to pander to Hansonism. That is what you want. This is very clever stuff: whip up a bit of discontent, get out there and scare the pants off them, watch them go away from us, watch them go to Hanson. That is what you want to see, isn't it. You want to see the Hanson vote maximised, because you think that will leave you as the last one standing. You think that will maximise the Labor vote by taking votes away from us, don't you? That is your strategy—not a skerrick of principle, not an ounce of interest in the arts or any cultural activities. (Time expired)Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in the chamber is totally unacceptable.41054105Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the minister aware of cases where, because of Centrelink computer stuff-ups, payments have not registered in people's bank accounts, and some banks are charging people extra fees as a result? Can the minister guarantee that, where this occurs as a result of Centrelink error—and the minister has admitted that there have been many errors—Centrelink will compensate people for the full value of the extra bank fees and charges they incur as a result of those Centrelink errors?4105Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I do not take very kindly to that question. Senators might like to why I object to the tone of the question.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Too hard!BE4Senator NEWMAN—No, it is not because it is too hard, Senator. It is because you are not being considerate of the people who are working in Centrelink to introduce a new and better system. You are very ready to go out and run the CPSU's campaign. The way in which questions have been coming from the opposition over the last few days may have served the interests of the CPSU. But they do not serve the majority of the staff who have been working under difficult circumstances over the last month to get a new system—and you did not introduce it; you had a decrepit system—that will be very much better for the customers of Centrelink. Eventually it also will be very much better for the staff. But many of them have been working long hours, overtime, to get the glitches out of the IT system and make sure that the customers who have not had optimal service do get it.As far as the detail of what has been paid into bank accounts or not paid, I cannot answer that specifically here, but I have certainly already told the Senate that there have been some people who have not been paid and there were some people who have been overpaid. That is the situation. I cannot give you more detail than that.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—You've been telling them since Monday.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Thank you, Senator Patterson. I have been telling you since Monday. Maybe Senator Murphy was not in the chamber or he was not paying attention. You are canvassing old ground, Senator, and I think that, really, the worst part of your question is that you are slurring really good, decent Australians who are working hard to look after and improve customer service in Centrelink, and I say shame on you.4106Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister, in answer to an earlier question, I think, said that, with the new system, people had to fill out forms and have them back in time, otherwise they would not get their payments. Minister, what I asked you was: why shouldn't those people who suffer new fees and charges as a result of errors in the system be compensated? Why shouldn't they receive those costs back as a compensation from Centrelink and from the government? If you are not aware of those matters, would you at least undertake to investigate them?4106Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I already said that. The law will be applied exactly as it was when your government was applying it—no worse, no better.41064106Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister concerned about a survey conducted by Jobs Australia on the experiences of its FLEX 3 providers in the new Job Network? Is the minister aware that the results of this survey are universally damning in every area of the operation of this new system, showing a shortage of referrals, high levels of concern among job seekers, problems accessing the national database, confusion amongst employers and problems with the job seeker classification index? When will the minister concede that these problems are the government's fault and responsibility, and instigate an urgent review of the new system?4106Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—And I ask the question: when will the Democrats stop relying on misleading reports? After all, this report was released by the Democrats—and that shows the bias of it. Would you believe that it was released by the Democrats? That is what the article said. It said it was going to be tabled by the Democrats.Mr David Thompson, the CEO of Jobs Australia, was involved in setting up the consultation that went with the job seeker classification instrument, which is an essential part of the Job Network program. At the time, when he was involved with these consultations, he said that the JSCI was significantly better than previous instruments—those most in need are identified and get access. That is what he said about the Job Network when he was involved in that consultation. He is now saying that this very program which he said was very good is now in disarray.Let us have a look at some of the facts. The community organisation that Mr Thompson claims to represent have already lodged around 17,000 vacancies. They have placed thousands of people in jobs, and I am happy to report that they have had over 31,000 intensive assistance referrals; that is the FLEX 3 that Senator Stott Despoja is referring to—intensive assistance for the long-term unemployed who are, after all, the most difficult cases and the ones that we want to see fixed. There have been over 31,000 referrals through these groups, and Senator Stott Despoja is trying to tell us that this is in disarray, that this report is something to be believed.The credibility of this report has already been undermined before its release. In fact, I am advised that several of the members of Jobs Australia are very angry at Mr Thompson's remarks because they know that this is working and that people who are most in need—those in the FLEX 3 category—are being referred. Despite the opposition's claims and those claims by the Democrats, Centrelink is on track to achieve referrals of intensive assistance of 125,000 people by the end of June. Up to yesterday, 118,000 of these referrals had been made. We are well on track to that 125,000 referral target. This is a system that is working, and this is a report which cannot be believed.4106Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister—Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you are not helping anybody, and you are disrupting question time.3I6Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Firstly, is the minister seriously suggesting that it was okay and responsible for his government to award these people tenders and contracts, but now he does not trust them when they are reporting on the difficulties, and the positive aspects that some may be experiencing, with the Job Network? Secondly, is the minister honestly suggesting that he repudiates and rejects this all-round survey of FLEX 1 and FLEX 3 providers' experiences? I am wondering whether the minister will tell the Senate what it will take for this government to implement a review of this new system which has got established problems. When will you set about fixing them? Or are you going to wait until a quarter of these job agencies fail, as predicted by Paul Fitzgerald; or will it be when half fail; or, perhaps, the whole lot pack up? Minister, will you or will you not instigate a review into this flawed system?4107Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Senator Stott Despoja well knows that during the estimates committee hearings this was well canvassed and that there are review mechanisms in place which the government will be taking up in due course. We are being asked to look at a report which was not released to the government. This report was not brought to the government. I have tried to get a copy of it today—I could not. In fact, when you look at the article, you see that it is to be tabled by the Australian Democrats. Since when have the Australian Democrats been in government? If this man was dinkum, if these people were dinkum, they would come to the government and say, `These are the problems.' But, instead, they go to the Democrats, and they are trying to run a line not even their own members believe in.This is a system where over 40 per cent of the jobs placed have gone to the long-term unemployed—the intensive assistance that Senator Stott Despoja has been referring to. Employers are using the free vacancy service which I mentioned the other day—the 131715 number. Over 20 per cent of vacancies have been lodged in that manner. This Job Network is working. (Time expired)41074107Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Social Security. Can the minister confirm advice given by Centrelink that many construction workers will now be deemed to be seasonal workers and as such will be required to wait for a much longer period before they become eligible for job search allowance? Is it true that the construction worker who earns $35,000 over a 26-week period and is then laid off at the completion of the job, would be precluded from accessing job search allowance for a period of 24 weeks? Is it also true that, prior to the government's new privatised employment arrangements, construction workers became entitled to unemployment benefits on termination? What has the government got against construction workers?4107Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I think perhaps the most succinct way of answering that question is to point out to the senator that that legislation has just passed through the Senate with the support of his own party.41074107Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill. I refer the minister to a decision which the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority not to assess the construction of a $4 million tonne per annum iron ore ship loading facility at Kwinana. Apparently issues such as fugitive dust from rolling stock and conveyors, vibration from ore trains and noise from ore tippers and reclaimers are not in the EPA's view environmentally significant to the local community. If, as has been reported, some of the infrastructure associated with this facility will be funded by the Commonwealth, I ask: will the Commonwealth government require an environmental statement of this project, and if not, why not?4107Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I understand the Kwinana export facility is a project at Cockburn Sound that was recently referred to the Western Australian EPA and, as the honourable senator said, the EPA determined that the project did not require formal environmental assessment, but the decision is the subject of appeal under the WA processes.I have been able to get hold of a news release of the Environmental Protection Agency which indicates that the environmental considerations in this instance can be adequately managed under part 5 of the Western Australian Environmental Protection Act, via the works approval and licensing systems.As far as I have been able to determine, the project does not involve Commonwealth funding or decision. My department has therefore advised that the project has not been designated by any Commonwealth agency or minister under the Commonwealth EPIP Act. From the information I have received, there appears to be no basis for Commonwealth action in relation to this matter as it concerns the environmental assessment.In concluding, it does seem to be an excellent project in terms of building the infrastructure of Western Australia in a way that will expand exports and create more jobs and economic opportunity. I do commend the Western Australian government for its initiative in building this waterfront infrastructure that can further strengthen the future of the great state of Western Australia.4108Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Since the Commonwealth has dumped export approvals for iron ore, and given that new environmental legislation only involves the Commonwealth in issues of national significance, what happens when, as in this case, the states fail to properly assess development proposals?4108Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—As I recall, it was the Labor Party that dumped the requirement for export of iron ore. With regard to the more substantial issue, the honourable senator has a different position to us. We at least respect the federation and recognise that it is possible for state governments to manage environmental matters safely and sensibly.In this instance it is a state issue. It looks as if it is being properly dealt with by the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia and it is doing its job. Just because the outcome does not suit Senator Margetts, does not mean that it is an incorrect outcome.41084108Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Can the minister confirm that 85 per cent of all cars are bought and sold as second-hand cars? Can the minister also confirm that second- hand cars are not subject to sales tax under the existing sales tax system? Can the minister confirm that under a GST payable on the dealer's mark-up, the most likely method to be adopted in Australia, luxury new cars will cost less, while the average used car will cost hundreds of dollars more? How does the minister justify tax reform that takes 45 per cent luxury sales tax off a new Mercedes and replaces it with a 10 per cent GST, making it $16,192 cheaper, while slugging ordinary Australians—many of whom will only ever buy second-hand cars—more?4108Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Hogg has re-entered the debate on tax reform and tax changes. Let me tell you this, Senator Hogg: we said it once but we will say time and again—we are after a fairer and more equitable tax system, a system which will tackle the problems of the very high personal marginal income tax rates. We are giving particular focus to families. We are considering the introduction of a broad based indirect tax. Unlike the Labor Party, we believe that Australia needs major tax reform. We need a fairer and more equitable tax system. We need a tax system which can bring this country into the next millennium. That is what we are about.When this tax reform package is announced, I am sure that you, like the rest of the Australian community, will welcome a government that is prepared to introduce a fairer tax system. That is what we are doing. We wait with eager expectation, Senator Hogg, for what the Labor Party proposes to do on tax reform. We remember after the 1993 election—my colleagues here may remember that—that the `L-A-W law' tax cuts were dumped. You went to the election on the `L-A-W law' tax cuts on income, and you dumped them.Senator Hogg interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Hogg has noted that the Labor Party raised sales tax after the 1993 election. Thank you, Senator Hogg, for reminding me of that. He is still calling out. He is probably asking me to comment on the increase in the excise tax on fuel which the Labor Party raised after the 1993 election, too. It was extraordinary. The community are interested in tax reform and are looking forward to the government bringing out its tax reform package, but are looking with dismay at the Labor Party because they remember what the Labor Party did in 1993. Let me remind you once again. You dumped the `L-A-W law' tax cuts on income. That was your promise, and you dumped them. Then, without mentioning it during the election, you came in and I think in your first budget you raised sales taxes, virtually across-the-board. Then you tackled fuel taxes, and you raised those as well.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should not be directing your remarks directly to the senator.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I have been provoked by the Labor Party. I am just noting what the Labor Party did when they were in government. The community are interested, I would think. Seeing the issue of tax reform has been raised, we can look at the sorts of policies that alternative governments have followed. Your record on tax reform is dreadful. Not only that; you left open a tax system which had many loopholes which were exploited and which made the paying of tax for some people optional. You only have to mention in this regard Senator Cook's favourite loophole, the R&D syndicates. That is what the Labor Party left to us when they came to government. Tax reform is about encouraging people to save, to invest and to create jobs—(Time expired)4109Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Minister, you failed to answer any part of the question in respect of second-hand cars and what would happen under a GST. Minister, would you also confirm, while trying to have a shot at that first part, that when you worked for a minister under the Fraser government the highest marginal rate was 60c in the dollar?4109Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Seeing you have raised the issue of personal income tax, I remind you that you promised in 1993, `L-A-W law', to cut personal income tax. Then you came into government and you dumped that promise. That is precisely what you did. So, the Labor Party is showing no leadership on tax reform. The Labor Party will just have to wait nervously. The rest of the community are waiting with great interest for the comprehensive tax reform package which this country needs.Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—I had better sit down because Senator Jacinta Collins is back on the interjection list.41094109Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is directed to the minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Minister, tonight the Prime Minister will be on a desperate mission to shore up his government by visiting Wondai, a major pork producing region in Queensland. Is the government aware that the pork industry has suffered a $62 million drop in income since the advent of cheap imports? Does the government agree that the study from the University of Queensland which found a significant relationship between imports and the drop in domestic prices? Will the government introduce a temporary tariff, as allowed under article 6 of the WTO, whilst the Productivity Commission conducts its inquiry to give relief to this valuable industry?4109Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The government has been conscious of the intensifying pressure on pig producers for a long time and is keen to help to ensure the long-term viability and profitability of Australia's pig industry. To address the situation, the government under Minister Anderson has implemented a range of initiatives, including the $10 million pork industry development package in November 1997 and has recently announced a $9 million enhanced assistance package. These initiatives aim to improve the international competitiveness of the pig industry, better enabling it to meet import competition and take advantage of export opportunities.The key elements of the $9 package are: the $8 million pig meat processing grants program, which will provide investment grants to specialist pig meat processors to upgrade plant and equipment to export standard; a $1 million pig industry national component under FarmBis directed at improving producers' risk management skills and encouraging best practice in production and marketing; fast tracking of a number of high priority projects under the national pig industry development program, including a benchmarking study of the entire pork production processing and supply chain; a study of short to medium export opportunities focusing on Asia and high level trade missions to key markets to expand exports opportunities for Australian pig meat; and revised national pig industry development package guidelines to improve industry access to project funding under the NPIDP.Together, these government initiatives provide an excellent opportunity for all industry sectors to work together to improve industry competitiveness and develop export market opportunities. They also complement the range of government assistance already available to all rural producers.The government has acted on the industry's concerns regarding product labelling, with legislation presently before the parliament. Other significant actions are the government's recent introduction of a general safeguard mechanism and the designation of the Productivity Commission as the agency responsible for conducting inquiries into claims of serious injury to domestic industries due to increased imports. The commission's first inquiry will focus on the pig industry. This action complements the government's new anti-dumping, countervailing legislation, which reduces the total investigation period for dumping inquiries to 155 days. Provisional relief can now be received after 60 days.Finally, with regard to the question of tariffs, this has been well canvassed but let me point out that, with the current value of our dollar compared to the Canadian dollar, it has been equivalent—if you want to look at that figure—to a 20 per cent tariff as compared to what it was 12 months ago. I would also point out that we export about five times as much of our primary industries to Canada as we import from that country. If you, Senator, want to put at risk that export which has been worked on in many countries throughout the world, so be it.4110Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I thank you, Minister, particularly for the last part of your answer, which did get to my question; the first part we knew already. I hope that the Prime Minister is going to tell the Wondai pork producers a little more than you have given us because I do not think that will satisfy them. Minister, the problem is that the Productivity Commission, as you have pointed out, will take 155 days before it hands down its report. By then there will be little left of the pig industry. The Queensland university study has already established that the pork industry has suffered serious injury. That is a solid basis for immediate action.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order. He should be asking a question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is very close to debating the issue, Senator. I think you should come to the point of your supplementary question.HX5Senator WOODLEY—I am sorry that the government is so sensitive. Minister, is not an industry that has lost $62 million in the last 12 months suffering serious injury?4110Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Yes, it is suffering serious injury and the government recognises it. Just to correct a statement you made—and this is becoming common in this place; statements are made that are incorrect—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You ought to know; you make most of them.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner. cease interjecting.KI4Senator PARER—If you had listened to the answer I gave you would have noticed that I said the anti-dumping, countervailing legislation reduces the total investigation period for dumping inquiries to 155 days but provisional relief can be provided after 60 days. I think the senator should be corrected.41104110Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm claims by the Premier of Victoria, Mr Kennett, that the federal government has promised the Victorian government $50 million for the development of Federation Square in the heart of Melbourne? Has a decision been made in relation to this matter? If so, will the $50 million be made available from the federation fund? Has the minister's attention been drawn to the strong concerns expressed both by the National Trust and by the Anglican church to that part of the project which constitutes an act of architectural vandalism against St Paul's Cathedral?Senator Schacht interjecting —4111Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—No, but it will go from Alice Springs to Darwin, Senator Schacht, and it will go because this government is pushing it and putting public money into it, which is more than Labor ever did. All Labor ever did was promise and walk away from it—promise before the election and walk away from it after the election. That is the difference between this government, a government of action, and Labor, a government of talk.Senator Ray's question raises issues. When decisions are made in relation to the federation fund they are announced. There has been no announcement in this instance and, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a decision has not been made. I am not personally aware of the National Trust's views on this but I will find out.4111Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Will the minister concede that the granting of funds under the federation fund basically rely on approaches by state governments and that it is not open to submissions from other organisations? How does the government then take into account the views of other organisations, such as those expressed by the Anglican church and the National Trust, when they want to put some countervailing opinion before the federal government makes a decision? How do they get their views across? To what extent does the government take into account whether the provision of funds will be in compliance with the Commonwealth's national building code?4111Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—Obviously we will take into account the views of third parties. If this were a view expressed by the National Trust, that would be taken very seriously. We are great supporters of the National Trust. That input can be either through the minister responsible for the arts or through myself or through the Prime Minister. As Senator Ray knows, most of these decisions are ultimately made by cabinet. Certainly, in nearly all instances, they have come from the states because we put out the call to the states. But the decisions are not simply made on the basis of the state bid; all relevant matters are taken into account.41114111Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone. There have been a number of reports in the media regarding the Spanish residency of Mr Christopher Skase and the opposition comments on what steps the Australian government should now take. Will the minister inform the Senate of the latest developments and of the government's response to opposition proposals?4111Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Synon for the question. As I am advised, the Spanish government has informed Mr Skase that he is not eligible for Spanish identity documents. However, as I am advised, the Spanish government have not get made a decision in relation to Mr Skase's residency application or extension. That decision, of course, is a matter entirely for Spanish authorities. I am not going to provide some running commentary on what might be the case under way in Spain because the process by which Spain deals with this application is, quite appropriately, a matter for Spanish authorities.I would, however, caution everyone that a decision by the Spanish government to refuse Mr Skase's residency application—should that happen—would not mean the automatic return of Mr Skase to Australia. The opportunity to secure the direct return of Mr Skase to Australia may well have been lost when Labor's extradition bid failed.I point out, though, that the Spanish decision to indicate that Mr Skase is ineligible for Spanish identity documents compares very favourably with Labor's decision to give Mr Skase a new 10-year Australian passport—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Which he never used.7E4Senator VANSTONE—which they should not have done and which Senator Bolkus cannot claim was not used. I am aware that Senator Bolkus, the would-be Attorney General, keeps saying, `Look, you should reopen the extradition matter.' This is his favourite theme. Whenever he wants a bit of publicity, he runs out and says, `Reopen the Skase extradition.' He said it in 1997; he has said it a number of times this year—that is all he ever says.The opportunity to do that is not consistent with this government's advice. It is not consistent with advice given to the previous government. It certainly was not the previous Attorney-General Mr Lavarch's view. The extradition has been heard; it is settled, and my advice is it cannot be reopened.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—What about the new charges? What does the Spanish government have to say about it?7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus interjects, `What about the new charges? What about the new charges?' like a stuck record, as if he knew anything about it. But the new charges relate to the same conduct. Therefore, a re-extradition process on that conduct has been heard and it has been settled.Senator Bolkus goes out and falsely raises hope in the Australian community for his own political advantage—not in any informed way, just for his own political advantage—to mislead the Australian people. Ask yourself: if the extradition proceedings could be reopened, why didn't Labor reopen them themselves? It is strange. Why didn't they reopen them? I will tell you why: Labor had two pieces of legal advice in 1995 making it clear that that was not an option. Nothing, in a factual sense, has changed since then.Senator Bolkus says he has urgent, oral, expert legal advice. This government is in possession of advice that is written and prepared on a considered basis. It is clear and it is unambiguous. It is stated that a new extradition request would not succeed if it related to the same conduct. Senator Bolkus is yet again out in the media, seeking to get himself a little bit of publicity.Furthermore, Senator Bolkus, as a former minister for immigration and as an alternative Attorney-General, does not appear to understand the difference between extradition and deportation. These are quite separate matters. But Senator Bolkus does not seem to have a grip on it, so he goes out there and further confuses the issue. He has been caught out before meddling in this matter. That is why he is the first senator to be censured by the House of Representatives, the first non-minister to be censured in this place for peddling—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Ha, ha!7E4Senator VANSTONE—I see Senator Faulkner laughs; he thinks it is funny. Senator Faulkner thinks it is funny that someone would peddle confidential Federal Court documents. He has no respect for the processes of the law.4112Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The Labor Party's handling of the Skase matter whilst in government and in opposition has been, to put it kindly, inept. How does the government's handling of the issue compare with the opposition's attempts at sabotaging our well directed strategy?4112Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—That is a very astute supplementary question from Senator Synon. Under Labor, Skase got away. Under Labor, the extradition failed. Under Labor, a new passport was given. What has happened under this government? This government cancelled Mr Skase's passport. We negotiated with the Spanish government and we have taken that passport back. That has clearly caused difficulties for Mr Skase, something that the previous government never thought of doing.Senator Bolkus should be aware of the sensitivities in relation to this matter after his censure by both houses. In view of the sensitivities and the complexities of these matters, the best contribution Senator Bolkus could make would be to keep his mouth shut and let the law enforcement authorities do what they can to clean up Labor's mess.41124112Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Minister, will you acknowledge that Australians in rural and remote areas pay more for goods and services—such as food, electricity and petrol—than Australians living in urban areas? Isn't it true that the government's proposed GST will mean that these Australians will pay even more for goods and services than they do now? Will you also acknowledge that they will pay a disproportionately higher amount of tax than their city counterparts? What action does the government propose to take to protect country Australians from this discriminatory tax?4113Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The one thing we can do to protect them above all else is to make sure that Labor never gets its hands on regional Australia. The fact is that they know they were totally and utterly neglected by Labor in 13 years.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—You got your reward last time. They have not forgotten that. They know you could not give a damn for regional Australia. They also know that they have suffered under high personal income tax rates for far too long.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are interjections that have got absolutely nothing to do with the question; even they are disorderly, and this is certainly disorderly.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—We're just trying to help him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are not helping anyone. You are disrupting question time and I am inclined to think it is wilful.LD4Senator ALSTON—You can't even help yourself, son. One thing they really do want is recognition that the personal income tax rates are far too high; that there ought to be some relief and some recognition of the fact that they run small businesses in many instances which have suffered from crippling red tape, which we have endeavoured to resolve; that they do need a nest egg in their retirement, and we have allowed them rollover relief; and that they do need concessions from provisional uplift factor, and we have given them those. There are a whole range of other ways in which we have been very significantly of benefit to people in rural and regional Australia. I do not have to remind you about what we have done.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Senator Schacht, they know you voted against that regional telecommunications infrastructure fund. They know you did. They cannot understand why because they want more of it. They just simply cannot believe it. I tell you what: they are very relieved that you are No. 5 on the ticket. They are only a bit disappointed it was one further slot down. But they know that at five there is very little chance of you being back here, so in one respect they think there is a bit more of a glimmer of hope that, if we do come up with other initiatives comparable with that fund, they might somehow get some support from the other side of the chamber. Rural and regional Australia is very much wanting to ensure that it gets a fair deal. It will from this government, but it will not from anyone else.4113Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I cannot understand your answer because you did not at least confirm that those Australians in rural and remote areas do pay higher prices for goods and services. Will you at least confirm that that is true and that they will pay a higher overall amount of GST than those in urban areas? Could you please answer that question instead of avoiding it.4113Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I know your strategy is basically to try to scare people in the bush. But I tell you there is one thing that will really frighten the pants off them and that is to be reminded that your shadow Treasurer—whether he survives after the election is another matter—the current shadow Treasurer, believes in property inheritance taxes, additional surcharge on income tax and higher payroll tax. This is just the sort of thing they have been looking for in the bush. They will really welcome the opportunity to vote on that when they get a chance in coming months. They certainly find it absolutely extraordinary. But I suppose one thing they will get some comfort from is that Mr Beazley supported the consumption tax some years ago and they know he really has not changed his view. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous41144114The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I wish to inform senators, and I am sure they will be pleased to know, that Your Future, Your Say , an educational resource kit on the constitution for senior secondary students produced by the Parliamentary Education Office in conjunction with Ryebuck Media and Educational Media Australia, was this morning announced as joint winner in the secondary category of the Australian Publishers' Association national awards. There were 13 short-listed nominations. I am sure all senators would join with me in congratulating the Parliamentary Education Office on this success.Honourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice4114411415:02:004114Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—On 25 May Senator Bartlett asked me a question in relation to acid sulfate soils and in response I undertook to put together an information package for him on Commonwealth activity in this area over recent years. I have that information now and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard .Leave granted.The documents read as follows—In Answer to the question from Senator Bartlett of 25 May 1998 regarding acid sulfate soils:Under Australia's Constitution, responsibility for land management issues including the management of acid sulfate soils primarily lies with the State, Territory and local levels of government. Nonetheless the Commonwealth has directed resources to this issue.A National Working party on Acid Sulfate Soils was established by the Commonwealth/State Ministerial Councils responsible for agriculture and resource management, the environment, and fisheries and aquaculture to develop a national strategy for acid sulfate soils.The strategy aims to improve the management and use of acid sulfate soils in Australia, and conse quently protect and improve land and water quality in coastal Flood plains and embayments. The Working party has finalised a draft strategy, which is expected to be released for public comment in the near future.CSIRO appropriation funding is allocated to priority research programs in consultation with its sector advisory committees which represent major users of its research.CSIRO has contributed approximately $1.3 million to acid sulfate soil research since 1992. Peak funding was provided in 94/95 at $400 thousand per year. CSIRO effort in the area has always been small and significant external earnings have not materialised. CSIRO Land & Water acid sulfate soil research effort was redirected in late 1997. Current research efforts are centred on an alliance with the Queensland Department of Natural Resources (QDNR) studying acid sulfate soil in South East Queensland. A CSIRO soil hydrologist has been transferred from Canberra to Brisbane work with a QDNR group. This work is funded by the Sugar Research and Development Corporation and the CRC for Sustainable Sugar Production, with $67,000 per year of appropriation dollars from CSIRO Land & Water.The Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO) were involved in a National Landcare Program funded acid sulfate soil project in South East Queensland in 1997-98, contributing $370,000 of their own funds to the project. Their contribution included drilling and describing the sediments and providing that information to the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and the local landcare group involved in the project.They have also just completed work in 1997-98 for Environment Australia on the Australian Coastal Atlas. The $23,412 contract was for electronic maps of acid sulfate soils for Australia produced by various methods of estimation and a report assessing the status of these methodologies ($16,912 for the report and $6,500 for the maps).In addition a number of projects have been funded through the Natural Heritage Trust.Over the years 1995-96 to 1997-98 Coastcare provided $62,650 for community based projects to investigate the impacts of acid sulfate soils on waterways in Queensland and New South Wales.In 1997-98 the National Landcare Program provided $734,615 for projects to map, monitor, manage, rehabilitate and plan for areas affected by acid sulfate soils in Queensland and New South Wales. One of the projects, "Recognition and Management of Acid Sulfate Soils", includes the production of a quarterly newsletter through the New South Wales Department of Agriculture called ASSAY. The purpose of ASSAY is to disseminate current information on the nature of the problem and initiatives to address it.Waterwatch Australia addresses the problem of acid sulfate soils wherever there are acid sulfate soils and Waterwatch activities occurring in the same place. Specifically this is much of the northern NSW and QLD coasts and potentially the NT coast. Waterwatch projects in these regions address the acid sulfate soil problem by raising community awareness, monitoring acidity of the waterways and recording and publicising fish kills caused by acid peaks after rain events.The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) routinely includes reference to acid sulfate soil issues in advice to applicants seeking information on environmental assessment of devel opment proposals—particularly those involving coastal structures. The widespread extent of acid sulfate soils on the Queensland coast has been recognised by the Authority for some time and is being addressed through the impact assessment process implemented by the Authority.In 1996 Environment Australia provided funding for a publication on acid sulfate soils, prepared by Jes Sammut, School of Geography, University of New South Wales and Rebecca Lines-Kelly, acid sulfate soils information officer Wollongbar Agricultural Institute. The booklet, with the title "An introduction to acid sulfate soils", was launched by Senator Robert Hill in May 1996. The purpose of the booklet is to increase awareness of the acid sulfate soils issue and its impact on coastal resources.COASTCARE PROJECTS RELATED TO ACID SULFATE SOILS1995-96—QueenslandNo.GroupTitleDescriptionGrant717014NE Albert Landcare Group GCCCMonitoring Health in Acid Sulfate Contaminated Waterwayssee below$14,8001996-97—New South Wales96022NSW Farmers Port Macquarie Oyster BranchInvestigations of the impact of acid sulfate soils on the water quality of Limeburners CreeksMonitoring water quality of Limeburner Creek to determine the presence of pollutants, particularly Acid Sulfate Soils.$5,1501996-97—Queensland717152NE Albert Landcare GroupMonitoring Biota Health in Acid Sulfate Contaminated Waterwayssee below$22,000 1997-98—Queensland717178NE Albert Landcare Group Inc.Monitoring Biota Health in Acid Sulfate Contaminated WaterwaysThis project will monitor the impacts of acid sulfate soils in the Hotham Creek and Pimpama River, two important designated fish habitats of Moreton Bay that are periodically affected by acid discharges. The data generated will provide a platform for the management of acid sulfate soils and their impacts. Volunteers will receive training and experience in monitoring, and community education will be an important component of the project.$20,700State Project No.Project NameProponent97/98State ProgramRM61797Acid Leachate and Water Table AssessmentNSW Agriculture23825NSWNLPHC65797Acid Sulfate Soil/Water Rehabilitation via Floodgate ManagementHastings Estuary Management Committee29000NSWNLPDD70797Acid Sulfate Strategic Plan for Port StephensPort Stephens Council16407NSWNLP 979246Acid Sulfate/Wastewater Irrigability/Stratigraph ic Mapping Logan-CoomeraGold Coast City Council, NE Albert Landcare Group134000QueenslandNLPMN148297Extension of Community Planning for Acid Sulfate SoilsManning Catchment Management Committee40832NSWNLPCL147897Managing Acid Sulfate Soils in NSW CanelandsNSW Sugar Milling Cooperative Ltd10652NSWNLP972576Measuring Acid and Nutrient Export in Pimpama Sub CatchmentsDepartment of Natural Resources120000QueenslandNRCMN148897Monitoring Acid Sulfate Drainage to Improve Effluent ManagementOxley Island Drainage Union Inc12175NSWNLPMN61997Pasture and Soil Management On Acid Sulfate SoilsNSW Agriculture19915NSWNLPDD44894Recognition and Management of Acid Sulfate SoilsNSW Agriculture39310NSWNLP952134Risk Mapping Acid Sulfate Soils in South East QueenslandDepartment of Natural Resources120000QueenslandNLP972712Statewide Acid Sulfate Soils Information, Extension and CoordinationDepartment of Natural Resources56440QueenslandNLPDD9095Strategic Catchment Planning for NSW Acid Sulfate SoilsDepartment of Land and Water Conservation58051NSWNLPDD72297Testing for Acid Sulfate Soils in NSW CanelandsNSW Sugar Milling Cooperative Ltd54008NSWNLPNATIONAL ACID SULFATE SOILS STRATEGY ISSUES. The draft National Strategy for Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) aims to:1) improve the management and use of ASS in Australia and thereby protect and improve land and water quality in coastal flood plains and embayments; and2) assist governments, industry and the community in identifying and undertaking their roles in managing ASS. . To achieve those aims, the National Strategy establishes four principal objectives:1) identify and define ASS in Australia;2) minimise disturbance of ASS;3) control future disturbance of ASS to mitigate adverse impacts; and4) rehabilitate disturbed ASS and acid drainage.. The Strategy makes some recommendations in relation to the Natural Heritage Trust NHT), including the inclusion of ASS management in Commonwealth/State NHT Partnership Agreements and funding of catalytic rehabilitation projects.. The Strategy also recommends the development of a program of incentives for investment in rehabilitation of ASS areas which would include:- tax deductibility of 150 per cent for environmental works of community benefit;- water quality incentive payments sourced from the community, fishing licenses, levies on tourist operators, etc;- exemption from rates from land managed solely for environmental purposes, with the costs shared between local, State and Commonwealth governments;- catalytic funding for on-ground works;- environmental levies imposed by local councils on development applications to support local environmental rehabilitation projects; and- in a limited number of cases, purchase and reservation of land for environmental use .. apart from very limited resources for acquisition of land to add to the national reserve system, the NHT does not fund land acquisition.411815:03:004118Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman), to questions without notice asked by Senators Neal and Gibbs today, relating to the youth allowance.I must say it astonishes me that, despite the obvious concern in the community about the introduction of a youth allowance and the fact that this government has chosen to spend $3.8 million worth of taxpayers money on promoting the benefits of the youth allowance as this government sees it, the government has not seen fit to inform some people. There are some 48,000 young people who will be worse off. The government has not informed these people that they will be adversely affected.Senator Newman gave me the rather glib response that these people can look it up on the Internet; that they can find out all this information that the government have not bothered to tell them about with their $3.8 million promotional strategy—their TV ads—on the Internet. The difficulty is that the families of young adults who are unemployed and who are adversely affected by this legislation—as I said, 48,000 of them—have incomes as low as $23,400. Some senators in this chamber, who are earning well in excess of four times that figure, may not understand the position. But such a family of two older adults and at least one adult child over the age of 18 years is in pretty dire financial circumstances. They seem to fail to understand that a family earning $23,400 is not only unlikely to own a computer which is connected to the Internet, but almost certainly does not.These are struggling and battling families. By dismissing them so out of hand with the nod of a head, the minister seems to fail to understand that this is not a flippant issue. This is not something that she should take lightly. The fact is that these struggling families on just over $23,000 cannot afford a computer and certainly would not have access to the Internet to look up and find out that they are going to lose somewhere around $87 a week because of a decision made by this government.It is all right to spend $3.8 million on telling those people who are better off—and there are some people who are better off, and that is fine. As an opposition, we supported those aspects of the bill. But it is very unfair and we believe a complete shirking of responsibility by this government not to accept that at the same time they must advise people that they will lose out.Also, it is very important to note that those families who do not lodge their forms by 1 July may well lose benefit. When the matter was raised by Senator Gibbs, once again Senator Newman responded in the sort of glib and offhanded manner that she often does. Senator Newman seems to believe that the dire financial circumstances of families that are not very well off, who are struggling, who are on incomes of less than a quarter of hers—I would say a lot less—as well as their concerns and their troubles, are trivial. But they are not. Just because you are one of those families who is only earning just over $23,000 does not mean that your concerns and your problems are any less important than the important matters that Senator Newman concerns herself with.It shows that this government have not learnt the lessons of Queensland. They have not learnt that the community are sick and tired of them spending large amounts of public money on self-promotion in anticipation of an election while at the same time failing to be truthful about the negative things they have done, and the negatives are going to be affecting these very low income families that I have already mentioned. There are 48,000 young people who will be worse off because of this legislation, and it is about time that this government came clean and admitted it. (Time expired)15:08:004119Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—The Australian Labor Party have a colossal hide taking note on this matter given their record over 13 years and what they did for youth over that time in terms of allowances and jobs. Let us look back to the record of the Keating government on youth unemployment.Senator Mackay interjecting—O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Would you like to keep interjecting on this point? It was 27 per cent when you came into office. What was it when you left?Senator Mackay interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Mackay! Senator Tierney, please address the chair.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—It was 35 per cent when you left office.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Tierney, you are not addressing the chair.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Wow! What a terrific record the ALP have—and they have the terrific hide to get up on this issue to talk about the youth of this country. You should hang your head in shame.Let us have a look at what you were doing with allowances during that time. You come in here critical of what we have done. It is a pity Senator Neal has left the chamber. We will not worry about accuracy, will we, Senator Neal? The figure that you quoted on disadvantaged people was 50 per cent out, and you did not mention that 137,000 people are better off under this system. Why are they better off? They are better off because we have replaced the old system of five allowances with one common youth allowance.Let me tell the Senate and the people of Australia what was wrong with your old system. People on the employment, education and training committee—a number are here today—realise what was wrong with it because we carried out a major study on Austudy and took advice from students and young people right around Australia at that time. They told us that, if you were at university and on Austudy, you were better off if you went off Austudy and went onto the dole, that you could pick up a higher rate and a whole lot of extra benefits if you did that. Under the Labor government there was no incentive to study; people preferred to lie on the beach. And you left it that way for 13 years.We are not cutting money from the common youth allowance; we are putting another $25 million into the common youth allowance. They have gone a bit quiet over there at the moment—and no wonder—because this is a much superior scheme. Not only can the students who are on Austudy now get more money; there is no incentive for them to go on unemployment benefits, and they can pick up things like rent assistance which they could not pick up before. In other words, we have created a seamless web system. It does not matter whether you are on unemployment benefits or whether you are on some sort of benefit because you are studying; you can actually move between the two without being penalised—and they used to penalise them.People complained time and time again that, when they switched from one system to the other under the Labor government, they would have to pay money back and were fined because when they moved between two systems the computers were in two different departments and, of course, they did not speak to each other. We have administered the new youth allowance system through one computing system. It is a seamless web. They go from one to the other—from training to unemployment or unemployment into train ing—because it is a common youth allowance.This is a superior system. This is a system which the Labor Party and the people opposite probably wish they had implemented. This government has implemented it. It has put more money into it. It has benefited a greater number of people. Under this system, students and the unemployed, in very large numbers, are much better off. It is time the Labor Party recognised that. It is time they recognised not only the failure of the arrangements they had for youth but also their total failure to the youth of this country in allowing such a high level of unemployment.What are their policies to correct this? They got up here today and criticised the youth allowance. What are they going to do? What is your system? I invite future speakers to tell us what Labor policy is in this area. Are you going to keep the common youth allowance, or are you going to go back to your old system and disadvantage those who want to study and better themselves? I invite the next Labor speaker to tell me what their policy is. Are you going to keep up this high level of expenditure that we have implemented under this Howard government initiative?15:12:004120Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Is it not interesting that Senator Tierney spent the large proportion of this contribution to the taking note debate today on Labor—on what Labor have done and what he thinks Labor should do. The reason Senator Tierney had to spend so much time of his contribution on what Labor are doing is that the Liberal Party have done so little for young people during their term of government that we are now faced with a situation where over 47,000 young people are going to come away from the common youth allowance worse off.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—That is the wrong figure. You are 50 per cent out!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Tierney! You had your go.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—After 1 July, they will come away with a reduced benefit. This technical aspect of the act and the way that the government are proposing to apply the parental income cut-off demonstrates the poison contained within the rhetoric of this government. This government continually present a positive image of a very flawed policy. The bottom line is that it cuts the funding to youth in this country; it is a reduction. We know this because they keep crowing about the budget surplus. They keep telling us that this is the solution to the youth problems of this country, that this is the solution to youth unemployment. This expenditure cut, which will result in 48,000 young Australians being worse off, is the outcome of this government's overall fiscal policies. This is an example of how they care.The best clue to when this government has something to hide is how often they repeat their glib statements. Today we saw Senator Newman continually responding to these questions by saying what a fantastic, positive thing the common youth allowance is. What is the other good indicator that the government is ripping off the young people of this country? They spend money on a very slick advertising campaign. That is always a very good signal that they are on their back foot in a policy sense and that they are doing the wrong thing—they come up with a cute slogan and a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to sell it.Given that we have those two things well and truly exposed in this forum and out in the public, let us look at the substance of the issue. Let us look at this campaign and how they are selling their message to young people. We have heard already that the public campaign funded by taxpayers' dollars only tells people about the good aspects of this thing, about the gains for some people and about the families that are going to have more funding coming in as a result. It does not say a word about the ones that will lose. They come up with this lovely response, `It's on the Internet.' Great! Fantastic! How many young people have access to the Internet? If you are a student you are probably in the best position. Let us look at the statistics if you are not: 19 per cent of Australian families earning under $44,000 have access to the Internet. How many who earn over $80,000 have access to the Internet? Sixty-three per cent. We know that Internet access in this country is linked to socioeconomic status—how much money your parents earn. So it is an inverse contradiction to stand up and say that parents who earn more will get less support but at the same time those who will subsequently lose can only find out about it on the Internet.What is the logic behind that? Forty-two per cent of young Australians between the ages of 18 and 24 have access to the Internet, but 30 per cent of those are still at school. Add that to the socioeconomic breakdown of Internet access and you have a very dismal picture of how this government communicates with those that it needs to. Too bad if it does not want to tell the bad side of the story. Too bad if it undertakes a narrow multi-million dollar positive campaign in the lead up to a federal election. Never mind about those who are going to lose. Not only are they going to lose that money but they are not going to be able to find out about it. The more heavily the government's communications policy with young people relies on the Internet the more at fault they are for not considering directly the implications of access and equity to the Internet. That goes straight to the Slartybardfast of this place—Senator Alston and his very regressive policies with respect to Internet access.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I rise on a point of order. That is not an appropriate way to describe Senator Alston. I ask Senator Lundy to withdraw it and use his appropriate title.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am not sure what it means. If it is at all offensive, I ask the Senator to withdraw.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—It does not matter; she should address him by his right title.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—I will provide an explanation of the character Slartybardfast. He is from a Douglas Adams's novel called The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy . He is a character known for having slept for many millennia during a critical period of the universe's development and suddenly waking up to find the projects upon which he worked before he went to sleep had well and truly bypassed him leaving him in a state of com plete irrelevancy in the context of his current work. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is not offensive, but I would appreciate it if you used the appropriate title for the minister.15:19:004121Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—I have listened patiently to Senator Lundy tell us that the Liberal Party has done nothing for the youth of Australia and criticise Senator Newman for saying what good news the youth allowance is. Senator Lundy, after you hear what I am going to say, I would expect you to get a bell and rush around Parliament House saying, `The youth allowance is here. This is the best thing that has ever happened to Australian youth.' I assure you, Senator Lundy, the news is all good and very positive.Let us look at what the youth allowance does for the youth of Australia. This is not a savings measure. By introducing the youth allowance the government is helping young people by making income support arrangements simpler and more flexible. The youth allowance actually replaces five payments with one and reduces 13 different rates of payment to five. Customers will no longer be cancelled and have to reclaim different payments for minor changes in circumstances. All of these are very good and positive things, Senator Lundy, and I am sure you are already sending your staff to get that bell.The youth allowance will be more effective in responding to the changing labour market by taking into account the full range of training and employment activities available for young people. In addition, the youth allowance removes disincentives to study caused by differences in income support arrangements for young people under 21 years of age. For younger students in particular it creates a real incentive to complete year 12 or equivalent qualifications before they look for work. That is a very good thing because we all know that the people who do not complete year 12 are more likely by a factor of some 2½ to go onto long-term unemployment benefits. The youth allowance reinforces the government's message that families should support young people until they have achieved financial independence.What I would like to concentrate on more than anything else is the advantages of the youth allowance for regional Australia. Coming from a regional area, I have a particular interest in regional Australia. Students and young Australians from rural and regional areas will be the big winners under the youth allowance. For the first time, students will be able to access rent assistance up to $74.80 per fortnight. This is currently available only to the young unemployed. Young people from remote areas will benefit from an extra $17.50 per fortnight by way of a remote area allowance. People under 18 years of age living away from home for study or training purposes will have further gains, with their payments boosted to $265.50 per fortnight to bring them in line with the over 18-year-olds.The parental means test that is being applied is aimed at helping low income families and in particular low income families in regional areas, which I am sure is a policy Senator Lundy would have to agree with. For the first time young people in the bush will no longer have a financial disincentive to study or to go into some form of skills acquisition. They will have real incentive to further their career opportunities, incentives which never existed during the 13 dismal years when the ALP was in government.There is no doubt from looking at the comparative policies of the previous Labor government and the enlightened and positive policies for young people under the Liberal-National coalition government that the ALP would rather see young Australians on the dole than in education or training to improve their career prospects. I think the ALP should tell the 153,750 young Australians who will get more money under this scheme why they think it is wrong to give incentives to young people to take up education or training to improve their chances of getting a job. That, I am sure you will agree, Senator Lundy, is all good news. (Time expired)15:24:004122Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I want to take note of the same answer, but mainly I want to dwell on the north-west coast of Tasmania where I live. The youth unemployment figure for the north-west coast is 40 per cent. It is one of the highest— probably the highest—youth unemployment figure anywhere in Australia. Also, up there we have fewer young people staying at school till year 12. In the area where I live it has been very difficult to get young people to stay on and complete their education. There are a lot of reasons for that. A lot of the reasons are to do with the families there. We need to educate the families to encourage their children to stay on at school.That 40 per cent youth unemployment up there is going to be an enormous burden on those families from Burnie who will be losing their jobs within the next few months. Some of those families are going to find it very difficult because the children will be an extra burden on top of losing their jobs. I believe $50 million has been cut out of the student support service.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Five hundred.FY5Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMAN—Five hundred million has been cut out of the youth support service, which means 125,000 places. On the north-west coast of Tasmania where I am it is very difficult.In the minority report that the Labor Party and the Democrats brought down a point was made about children who flee the system because they have experienced difficulty within the education system for years. Having been a teacher, I have taught a lot of those children and on the north-west coast they do not very often go beyond year 10.There are a lot of reasons why those young people opt out of education, but we need to look at how the families will continue to support them when they do come out. Their reason for coming out often is that they are not academically minded and the school system does not provide anything to encourage them to stay on.One of my other concerns is that, with the influx of students into the secondary system, I am not sure that the colleges in my area will cope. I know they will do their best. If there are extra students staying on, then we need to look at how the colleges are best going to be helped cope with that influx. I am concerned that the resources will not be there to adequately address the needs of these young people who are not academics and who are forced to stay on in the system till year 12 without actually gaining very much. Where I live that is difficult. There are no training programs there either and, with the closure of the Burnie mill, there will be fewer. It is not going to be easy up there.The north-west coast is considered in Tasmanian terms—I know not in terms of Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland—an isolated area. Young people who have to move away from there to find work will have difficulty. Their families will find it difficult and stressful—not to let them go—to not know where their children are going and what support mechanisms are in place in other areas. I would like to see us have another look at this youth allowance, particularly in rural and remote areas. As an island state, Tasmania is again disadvantaged. Let us have another look at the youth allowance and how we can best use it to help some of these young people.15:29:004123Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I want to speak about some of the things that have been mentioned by members on the other side and correct a few things. Senator Lundy made the statement that 48,000 young people were going to be worse off. The opposition keep repeating those sorts of figures and they are not right. There will be 33,000 young people who will receive less.Senator Denman—and I know she is concerned about young people on the north-west coast of Tasmania—failed to mention when saying that young people in that area do not stay on after year 10 the reasons why. One of the reasons we developed a culture of young people not staying on after year 10 was that it was better for them and easier for them to go on the dole, to take unemployment benefits, than it was to stay at school. There was no incentive. Young people used to say to me, `Why should I stay at school when I can get more money on unemployment benefits?' For 13 years Labor left that system in place.Also, because two different departments administered the scheme, when young people moved between receiving unemployment benefits and Austudy and back again because their circumstances changed, they were sometimes in receipt of overpayments. They were then chased up. As Senator Tierney said, there was not a seamless relationship between those allowances. We have streamlined it, making it easier for young people to understand the situation they are in. They are less likely to be in receipt of overpayments and, therefore, less likely to be in trouble in relation to overpayments.Senator Denman did not talk about the fact that we have increased the number of apprenticeships. In 1995 there were 138,000 apprenticeships under Labor. We now have 182,000 apprenticeships. That goes towards meeting the needs of some of those students who do not want to go on to years 11 and 12 at school and those who, after years 11 and 12, do not want to go on to tertiary education and would like to seek training in another form through an apprenticeship. We have the schools to work program: $21 million to encourage and assist young people move from school to work. That program did not exist under Labor. We have an Australian Student Traineeship Foundation: $25 million has been allocated to the foundation to improve young people's access to work after they leave school. We also have the jobs pathway program. They are all initiatives of this government in the last 2½ years to assist young people.Professor Bob Birrell in his study entitled `Equity implications of the new youth allowance for higher education students' states that the youth allowance will actually significantly improve eligibility for student financial assistance compared to the current arrangements under the Labor Party's Austudy. The parental means test that senators opposite were so quick to criticise is substantially more generous under the youth allowance arrangements.As I said before, we believe that young unemployed should not be treated more generously than students. It is something that the community has asked us about over and over. The student community has been asking over and over, `Why are we discriminated against?' We argue that they should be treated the same—and the youth allowance does just that. It is wrong to pay young people more to be unemployed than to be students. As I said before, the youth allowance parental means test is actually far more generous than the old parental means test for Austudy. There are other benefits under the new youth allowance scheme. For example, students will gain from access to rent assistance of up to $75 per fortnight for the very first time. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations412415:33:004124Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Earlier today Senator Abetz claimed that my defence in the matter of obstructing traffic on a road leading into the Tarkine Wilderness in Tasmania two years ago was funded—5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—There's no such place as the Tarkine Wilderness, and you know it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—He claimed that my defence was funded by tax deductible donations to the Tasmanian Conservation Trust. I was in the Tarkine protest against a destructive road being bulldozed through the heart of that wilderness—which Senator Calvert has just given recognition to—by the Labor and Liberal parties, or the Liberal government on this occasion, causing massive environmental problems for that beautiful wilderness which the Premier of Tasmania, in his former capacity as minister for forests, had eulogised for its mystique.I was brought before the Burnie Magistrates Court and I was fined some $300 for peacefully obstructing the machinery moving in on that beautiful wilderness. However, I wish to put to rest the lie that Senator Abetz brought before this Senate for the second time. I will correct that by saying that I wish to put to rest the misinformation—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The misformation brought before this Senate for the second time. He knows what he is doing in his un- Christian fashion. I not only paid for my defence; I also paid the fine involved. I also spent two periods in gaol—11 days and five days; and I am proud to have done so—with the environmentalists who tried to stand up for a tiny piece of this planet being injured by the type of political philosophy that Senator Abetz peddles.Documents41244124412410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 50 of 1997-98—Performance Audit—Restructuring of Meat and Livestock Statutory Organisations.Committees412441244124Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Chapman)—by leave—agreed to:That at the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Friday, 26 June 1998 from 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. for the purpose of taking evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Exposure Draft Bills under the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program.Bills4124s1644124Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Mackay:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)15:39:004124Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Job security is a vital and fundamental issue for all Australians, so is the security of workers' earnings. The Employment Security Bill 1998 [No. 2] , which will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law, will protect the rights and entitlements of employees. The bill was introduced into the Senate on 26 May 1998 by Senator Mackay and was subsequently introduced into the House of Representatives on 1 June by the Hon. Bob McMullan, shadow minister for industrial relations.The aim of this bill is to put an end to the Patrick style scams where companies seek to avoid their legal obligations to their employees by manipulating company law. In 1993 Australia became a signatory to ILO convention No. 173, a convention designed to provide minimum protection for worker entitlements in insolvent situations. This longstanding recognition of the need to protect the accrued entitlements of Australian workers remains unsupported by legislation even though 8,000 companies and 5,000 businesses fail each year.Unions have over many years sought to have workers' entitlements given priority in insolvent situations. Deliberate scams by companies are a more recent phenomenon. When an insolvent company goes into liquidation an administrator is appointed to distribute what is left of the assets of the business amongst its creditors. The first substantial call upon the remainder of an insolvent company's assets are the secured creditors, in effect banks and lending institutions. Workers lose not only their jobs but also their accrued means of supporting and keeping intact their lives and those of their families during the crisis period following the sudden loss of employment.The executive of the ACTU in February this year called upon the federal government to take responsibility for the personal and financial tragedy that has been inflicted upon workers and their families because of the unreasonable operation of current company insolvency laws and corporate scams. In May 1998 the ACTU executive condemned the current government for its ideological attacks on workers and their unions. One of the key issues addressed was the protection of workers' accumulated entitlements in circumstances of employer insolvency.The International Labour Conference of the ILO in 1991 released a report entitled Protection of workers' claims in the event of the insolvency of their employer. This report shows that, across the globe, the protection of the entitlements of workers upon the insolvency of a company is difficult to achieve without requisite legislative change. From 1966 onwards, employers in Brazil have been bound to deposit in a bank account opened in each employee's name a sum equivalent to eight per cent of the employee's monthly salary. However, this protects only end of service payments and not entitlements owing.In Japan, where employees often invest their savings in the firm where they work, an act adopted in 1975 requires the enterprise to adopt necessary measures to protect the money invested. In December 1998 the Australian Law Reform Commission report No. 45 entitled General insolvency inquiry recommended that the interests of employees would best be protected by the creation of a wage earner protection fund. Such a fund would ensure that employees were paid in every insolvency. This is what the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 seeks to resolve. Measures can be undertaken to protect the entitlements of workers, and that is what this bill proposes.I will briefly address the changes to legislation proposed by the Australian Labor Party and what these improvements will mean for Australian workers. Firstly, the Workplace Relations Act 1996 would be amended. A new section, 170JI, would allow the commission, when it found that an employee had been unlawfully or unfairly dismissed and should be reinstated, to make the reinstatement order against companies that were related to the direct employer.This provision would therefore ensure that companies could not use the Patrick's corporate scam to leave their workers without any effective remedy against unfair and unlawful termination. Further, a new section 178A would allow employees to claim accrued legal entitlements against a related company of their direct employer in certain circumstances, as the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996 does. Secondly, the Corporations Act would be amended through new division 6A which would provide that, where a company was in receivership, the court could make an order requiring a related company to pay the debts of the other company, including accrued entitlements to employees. Through section 1317HD of the Corporations Law, it would give creditors the right to bring proceedings for the recovery of debts against directors of companies acting in contravention of the Corporations Law.As the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) has stated in the other chamber, any government genuinely concerned with security would take these bills out. This is an opportunity for the current government to make the rhetoric of security a reality. Together with the wage guarantee fund legislation that has been proposed by the Member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio), this legislation constitutes a package to advance security for Australian families in the face of the challenges of a modern economy.The Patrick scam, however, is not the only example where employers have done a bunk with their employees' entitlements in the case of insolvency. One recent example that comes to mind is the Cobar mine dispute, which was mentioned by Senator Mackay in her speech during the second reading debate. It is estimated that the Cobar workers are owed between $10 million and $12 million in entitlements. Workers at the now insolvent South Grafton abattoir have $3 million in leave entitlements, severance and redundancy payments owing to them.In March of this year, 157 employees in two nursing homes in Rockhampton and Yeppoon lost their jobs and were subsequently informed that their employment related entitlements of $1.4 million were almost certainly lost because of the insolvency of their employers. At around the same time, 153 workers at the Woodlawn mine near Goulburn lost $6 million in accumulated lawful entitlements. That is a lot of money that has been taken out of the pockets of workers in this country. In fact, more than 800 workers have lost almost $20 million in entitlements by a variety of scams being employed by employers to avoid their responsibility in the payment of these moneys and entitlements to their employees—moneys and entitlements that rightfully belong to those employees; moneys that have been held in trusts by companies, including accrued annual leave entitlements, accrued long service leave entitlements, and accrued leave entitlements generally; moneys that many could argue have been stolen out of the pockets of workers by the mistrust of companies who were trusted with, or given trusteeship over, those moneys, in a situation where those companies have defaulted.As is clearly demonstrated, the problems of insolvencies and the loss of workers' entitlements are serious issues that need to be addressed. I have recently had some discussions with some of my former colleagues from the AMWU. They have been able to detail to me a number of other cases, some of which I will discuss today.In Western Australia Gibbney Graphics, a state based organisation in Perth, which operated under the graphic arts award, closed its doors in 1991, while the directors of the company allegedly were sailing around the Greek Islands, enjoying the benefits and the fruits of the profits produced by employees of that company. The company was declared insolvent, yet the directors tripped off to the other side of the world, swanning around the Mediterranean, spending the annual leave, long service leave, superannuation, tax payments, health fund contributions and union contributions of their workers. This money, which amounted to over $400,000 in accrued entitlements, was not forwarded by the employers and to this day has never been seen by the former employees. Some individual workers are still owed amounts up to $30,000. These figures do not include interest on the moneys owed, so those amounts today would be significantly higher.The case was put before a Western Australian industrial magistrate who in 1994 concluded that wages, which include all entitlements, be awarded to the former employees of Gibbney Graphics at a total of $414,624.80. I do know that my Senate colleague Senator Sherry was very interested in the Gibbney Graphics case, dealing as it did with superannuation. This case apparently was a catalyst for changes to superannuation legislation to make employers accountable for contributions. The Gibbney Graphics matter was referred to the company fraud squad of the Western Australia police, and no conclusion was ever reached. The case was terminated in January of this year as being too difficult and too expensive for those involved to continue with.When the Lachlan Valley Food Processors in Cowra, New South Wales, closed their doors in March 1997, 22 employees lost three weeks in pay and accrued entitlements. The owner of the company had problems securing funds and for three weeks his work force of 22 employees, in good faith, worked for no pay, promised by the employer that `Next week, things will be all right.' But that was not so. The company director owed the local council $1 million, with a further $3 million owed to local growers. It was the council that brought in the creditors, locking the gates on the processing plant and on the hopes and happiness of 22 local townspeople and their families.In all, these workers lost the three weeks pay owing to them and their annual leave. What is even more disheartening is that the employers had not passed on any of the employees' superannuation contributions or their payroll deducted union dues. When the time came to divide up the assets—and it is not hard to guess what happened—the council and other creditors were paid first. The workers, to this day, still have not reached a settlement, but the council has kindly informed them that they will be lucky to get 10 cents out of every dollar that they are owed.This is a real tragedy for a town like Cowra. Unemployment is running at an unacceptably high level and the local townspeople are desperate, relieved when an opportunity for employment such as this one opens up. Yet, ultimately, they were let down, and, in all probability, let down by their own council. The people of Cowra were taken advantage of, and, once again, are resigned to bleak employment prospects in their town—like everyone else in rural and regional Australia. These examples go to show that, time and time again, workers are the ones who pay the most when companies go insolvent.There are other methods, however, of ensuring that workers obtain the entitlements owing to them when the loss of their employment is out of their hands. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has discussed the pooling of employees' entitlements. One example is to collect the entitlements into a central fund. One of the other options within this scheme is to develop a mechanism whereby employees would be allowed to access funds in existing redundancy accounts for the purposes of taking paid leave. In times of downturn, whether it be seasonal or economic, actual redundancies could be avoided by using this sort of scheme. These funds would be ideally suited to the labour hire industries, but could be utilised in other industries.One of the most important factors here is that, in the event of receivership or liquidation of a company, those employee entitlements would be guaranteed, as they would be out of the control of the business concerned. These funds could well lead to an improvement in entitlements such as redundancy, as there would be no cap, and additional items such as paid training leave.There are some schemes of this nature currently in existence, and they certainly provide positive examples for Australian workers. In my state of New South Wales, the New South Wales Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1974 commenced on 1 February 1975, establishing a portable long service leave payment scheme for building and construction workers. On 1 July 1986, the Building Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 prescribed that funding would come from a 0.5 per cent levy on the total cost of the building and construction work. In March 1993, the levy was suspended until 30 June 1997 as the scheme was funded from interest on investment and surplus funds. As of 1 July 1997, a 0.2 per cent levy has been imposed.A similar scheme is in operation in Victoria for the building and construction industry. It operates on a surplus, requiring no levy or contributions from employers or employees. Importantly, a national redundancy trust was established in the building and construction industry. The Australian Construction Industry Redundancy Trust, or ACIRT as it is commonly known, requires employers to contri bute, on average, $40 per week on behalf of each employee. Employees are able to access their funds upon termination with their employer. There are similar schemes operating in New South Wales and Victoria. INCOLINK in Victoria also provides free ambulance and personal accident insurance for all of their members. A scheme that carries over unused sick leave entitlements from one employer to the other has also been established.These schemes have six major advantages. The first is the total portability of entitlements, and that these entitlements are guaranteed to be paid out to the employees in the instance of a company collapsing. Further, financial benefits are generated through the funds to be reinvested back into the industry and into worker training. Also, the pooling of entitlements could lead to improvements of the actual entitlements themselves, and there is a minimum cost as the funds potentially become self-sufficient. In addition to these advantages, workers could also be provided with additional paid leave through the funds. In all, the pooling of entitlements can only be of benefit to the Australian work force, particularly the labour hire and manufacturing industries.Workers have the right to be protected from the Patrick type scams that have shaken the Australian work force. This bill gives the parliament the opportunity to ensure security for all Australian workers, particularly against unscrupulous employers like Patrick, Cobar Mines and their ilk. The government can join with the Australian Labor Party to protect the entitlements of our workers and to show the Australian community that they are committed to job and income security by supporting this bill.16:00:004128Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—As was just pointed out by Senator George Campbell, the Employment Security Bill 1998 [No. 2] goes to the very heart of job security and the courses of action that have for some time been available to some unscrupulous employers which enable them to get away with not paying workers their genuine entitlements. I suppose it took the likes of Patrick's—the scumbags that they are—to bring this to public attention and focus on the fact that a course of action needed to be taken.It was interesting how the government suddenly found $250 million to sack 2,000 workers from the waterfront. Interestingly enough, as was pointed out before, they did not find any money for the likes of the workers from Cobar or Woodlawn. There have been many cases of employers taking this course of action. I found myself involved with at least two or three cases in my former role as secretary of the timber workers union. Employers just shut up shop by putting their company into voluntary liquidation or receivership, which makes it very difficult for employers, many of whom are small employers.Another point is the unfair dismissal laws that this government has sought to bring in, and the impact on small employers. This further removes something that people do not take for granted. Workers' employment conditions and security of employment are things that they rightly deserve and which ought to prevail in this country.That is not the only course of action taken by some employers concerning job security. I listened with interest—although I do not know whether I should say that—to Senator Eric Abetz last night when he talked about the Wesley Vale pulp mill, the pulp mill at Burnie and the potential magnesite mine. Some companies turn to imports rather than manufacturing in this country and the maintenance of manufacturing jobs.A very good example of this is Amcor which has chosen—at least at this point in time—to close the operations of the Burnie pulp mill in October this year. Those jobs will be lost because pulp will be imported primarily from forests in Indonesia or Thailand, or perhaps both. This will cost jobs in my state and ultimately will lead to a loss in jobs elsewhere in the country. Senator Abetz seemed to be either defending Chris Miles or lobbying for votes for pre-selection in the Senate.Senator Calvert interjecting—FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I do not know where Senator Calvert will end up on the ticket. He might need to make a speech during the adjournment debate tonight for the few votes that still remain down on the north-west coast. Senator Abetz talked about the Wesley Vale pulp mill and how it was the Labor Party's and the Greens' fault that it was sunk, et cetera.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—It was.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—The reality about the jobs that Senator Calvert claims it cost is that his former Premier, Robin Gray, had the sole responsibility for the loss of any pulp mill in northern Tasmania. He changed the environmental guidelines; those that the Commonwealth had agreed to and those where the Commonwealth said that, if the guidelines as set by the Tasmanian government at the time were achieved by the company, they would not interfere.There was a meeting between North Broken Hill and Premier Robin Gray that led to an amendment that significantly weakened those pulp mill emission guidelines. That led to the intervention of the Commonwealth government.If Senator Abetz is looking for someone to blame regarding the cost of jobs and employment security, he should look no further than to his old colleague—although I know they did not get on too well together—the former Premier, Robin Gray. Senator Abetz gave the impression that somehow, if we had had the Wesley Vale pulp mill, that would have saved the jobs at Burnie. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we had the pulp mill at Wesley Vale, the jobs at Burnie would have gone a long time ago, and we would have had significantly fewer jobs some time ago.When this government came to office in March 1996, I can recall the now Prime Minister, John Howard, accusing the then Prime Minister prior to the election of being the king of export woodchips or the export woodchip champion of the world. That is very important in terms of job security and job creation. During the two years that this government has been in power there has been a 40 per cent increase in the export of woodchips. There has been a significant decline in employment and manufacturing of forest based products in this country and in my state.Senator Abetz was congratulating Mr Miles. When we left office in 1996, the unemployment rate in the electorate of Braddon was 11 per cent. According to Senator Abetz, Mr Miles has made that much better. If `much better' is increasing unemployment in Braddon, I am not so sure that the people agree. It now stands at 14 per cent. If Senator Abetz wants to defend his colleague, he at least ought to defend him on grounds—albeit there are very few and, in fact, I cannot think of any—that he can be defended on.Employment is not one of them and employment security is not one of them. When the workers were down at the gates of the Burnie pulp and paper mill defending their employment rights, it was none other than Chris Miles who went down there and said, `Go back to work. You blokes should go back to work.'This is the same Chris Miles who allowed his Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, Warren Truss, when the announcement of the closure of the Burnie pulp mill was made, to say: `It's the conditions and the rorts of those workers.' I think he said, `Those workers at the Burnie pulp mill made the MUA and the maritime workers look like a Sunday school picnic.' Did Chris Miles get up and defend them? No. So I say again to Senator Abetz: when you come to talk about a magnasite mine that you say Chris Miles is defending so stoutly and the possibilities of employment that it might generate, why have you not gone up to the current state Premier, Mr Rundle, and said: `Premier, why have you done a deal with Christine Milne to lock up the very area that one of the magnasite mine deposits lies in?'Indeed, why hasn't Chris Miles done it? It is in his electorate? If he is so keen for job security and employment generation—the unemployment rate in Braddon has gone from 11 per cent in 1996 to 14 per cent today—why hasn't he taken up these issues up with the Premier? Why hasn't Senator Abetz gone to the coalition partners, Rundle and Milne, and said: `Listen, we want this magnasite mine'? Labor is on the record as saying that we will support the magnasite mine. There are two sites, but one of them has been locked up by an agreement between the Premier Tony Rundle and Greens leader Christine Milne, and there is a Hansard record of that. That matter was debated in the state parliament last year. Chris Miles chaired his meeting the other week with the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer. They flew over the very place, but they did not fly down and talk to Tony Rundle to see what they could do about it.There are a range of areas that this bill will cover. But probably more important is what this government ought to be doing in terms of industry development. It has done nothing. Some workers came up here this week from the pulp mill along with their union representatives and had meetings with various people, including the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. They put a proposition to the government, as they did to the opposition, and the Democrats and the Greens and Senator Harradine. The Prime Minister vacillated, at best. He gave no commitment—albeit he said he would consider their proposition with regard to making sure we had a more level playing field in the forest products industry so we could create the 15,000 to 25,000 jobs that he and his minister so proudly announced would result from the regional forest agreements coming into force. I can recall the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson, saying that we would get 1,000 jobs in Tasmania as a result of the signing of the RFA. I will tell you what the score is right now: 25 new jobs, 600 old ones gone. What has the government done with regard to timber industry policy and development? Zip. Except that we have seen a 40 per cent increase in export woodchips, it has done nothing.The Prime Minister had an opportunity this week to give some indication that they were prepared to do something. Senator Abetz, when I again asked a question on employment security—what did the government do when the pulp mill closure was announced?—said, `They sent down a cabinet delegation.' Who was it? The Minister for Social Security, Senator Newman, and the Minister for Fi nance and Administration, Mr Fahey! What did they want to talk about? `How we can give you a few bucks in the hip-pocket to get you on unemployment.' Really! That is a great step forward. When they were confronted by the people down there they thought: `Dear, oh dear. We will have to go back and rethink this. We will make another announcement.' I want to know where it is. We haven't got it. The Prime Minister told the guys the other day: `We will make an announcement in 10 days time.' I will watch for that with great interest.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—With bated breath.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Yes, at least. It is interesting to consider what the coalition have achieved and how their arguments are applied to legislation such as has been proposed by the opposition to bring at least some measures forward to apply to employment security. If you look at what they wanted to do in terms of unfair dismissal laws and in the waterfront area it may be unfortunate that at the end of the day the conspiracy case may never take place. I am sure that conspiracy case would have gone to the full extent of the government and ended up squarely in the Prime Minister's office. I am sure that is why we have heard very little from the government of late on that issue. Peter Reith seems to have almost slipped off the map—Mr Insignificant, Mr Unsighted.There are many areas where employers have taken the opportunity to use very low acts to avoid their responsibilities to employees. I can remember one, in particular, in Tasmania, where a former member of a state Liberal government had a saw milling operation and just shut up shop. The guys were left wondering where they would get their pay from. I represented all 17 of them at the creditors meeting. They went into voluntary liquidation. The people who owned the place, the likes of Vince Smith, former Liberal member of government, made sure that their shareholdings were sufficient to outvote all of the other creditors, including the workers. That is the step they took.Those workers all had families. Probably none of them earned more than $26,000 a year and they had to survive. They all prob ably had car payments to make and mortgages to repay. Not only did they not get the courtesy of being paid, they did not even get the courtesy of being notified of what was taking place. Did Vince Smith lose any money? Hardly. Did the other people who owned the place in partnership lose any money? Hardly. But the creditors did, despite the fact that the laws then in place said the workers had to be paid, as did the Industrial Relations Commission. Ultimately they did get some money, some many months later. It just shows how much this type of legislation is needed and how important it is to do whatever we can to ensure that there is a fair system both for workers and for employers.There was another example where a plant closed. The people did not get paid; they went on the dole. We chased the money for a period of time and the person who was put in charge by the receivers decided that he would reoperate the plant. He asked the guys on the dole if they would come back and work for nothing. He then said, `You will work for nothing and when I have sufficient wood products sold and I make a profit you will get paid.' Of course, the union was not made aware of this at the time because the blokes probably felt they had little option. They too probably had families—most of them did. There were about 23 of them. Not all of them took up that option—I am only talking about nine people—but there they were thinking that maybe there was an opportunity for them. The unscrupulous grub not only got them to work for nix while they were being paid the dole but sold the timber and never paid them.They are the sorts of things that we should not tolerate in this country. They are the sorts of things that this bill will go, in part way, to fixing. I commend the bill to the Senate. I hope that I will see the likes of Senator Eric Abetz and maybe some other government senators standing up to speak in support of this on the basis that it is a very important part of security for workers in this country.16:19:004131Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—The background to this bill, the Employment Security Bill 1998 [No. 2] , is that it has been introduced into both houses of parliament by the ALP. It proposes amend ments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Corporations Law with a view to providing a greater range of remedies to employees whose entitlements are affected as a result of corporate restructuring. Senator Murphy's contribution was, I suppose fairly predictably, long on rhetoric. He did not really look at the bill in any great detail, but it is appropriate that the bill be considered in its particulars.Proposed section 170JI would empower the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or the Federal Court to order that a body corporate related to the employer is deemed to be the employer for the purpose of a reinstatement order. The practical effect of the proposed provision would be that the related body corporate assumes liabilities and debts that are the same as those of the employer under the contracts of employment between the employer and the employees. I just want to go on to talk about section 178 before I come back to that section.Proposed section 178A would apply to the situation where a group company, the related body corporate, contracts with another company in the same corporate group for the provision of services, including labour hire services, and the employees of the latter company are employed under an award, order of the commission, certified agreement or Australian workplace agreement. In the case where the latter company defaults on the payment of entitlements to its employees, whether by insolvency or otherwise, proposed section 178A would make the related body corporate liable for the payment of legal entitlements of employees of an insolvent company, being entitlements related to the contract between the head group company and the labour hire company.During my contribution this afternoon I want to put on the record the effect of what is being proposed so that I can put my comments in context. Clearly, without more, both provisions may be invalid on the basis that they either impose a tax or affect the acquisition of property on other than just terms. This is because the provisions—and I particularly refer to proposed section 178A—would require a company with no relevant, pre- existing liability to pay an amount of money to employees of another company. Proposed section 170JI would require the related company to remunerate employees to which it would, but for an order under section 170JI, have absolutely no other liability.The constitutional difficulties may be able to be overcome or even minimised if the provisions are actually able to be restructured so that the liability attaches to the related company, as a result of some very specific proven action and involvement with the management of the employer. But, as these sections are currently constructed, one could only have the gravest doubt that they would pass the test of constitutionality or that they would not fall foul of the requirement—a requirement that I am sure all senators support—that no entity, no company or no individual suffers an acquisition of property on other than just terms.There is yet another proposed section that I think might run into some difficulties. It may, in fact, be redundant. That involves the proposed amendments to the Corporations Law. It proposes that directors can be sued in respect of unpaid wages. I can understand how that might present itself to those sitting on the opposite side as an easy solution, but, of course, it ignores the fact that there is already in the Corporations Law provision for directors of corporations to be personally liable if they trade a corporation while it is insolvent. The test of insolvency is and remains—so far as I am aware and has been for many years—whether a company is able to pay its debts as and when they fall due.In the situation of a company that would wilfully continue to trade and incur a liability to pay wages, knowing that it could not meet those wages, that will give rise to an action against directors that will render them personally liable in respect of those undertakings on behalf of the company. Clearly, what usually happens is that if directors become aware that a corporation is in difficulty and either may not or is not likely to be able to pay all its debts as and when they fall due, including wages, it is usually put into provisional liquidation or a receiver or manager is appointed. This is orthodox law; there is nothing startling or new about it. I would say, prior to this debate progressing much further, that there may well be reason to consider that at least that amendment is redundant, even if it does not suffer from the same apparent constitutional defects as the other two sections may.Senator Murphy talked about what is behind all this, and it is a reasonable thing to bring up in a debate such as this—that is, the issue of job security, which I want to come to in a moment. But I will finish what I wanted to say in my remarks on the bill. The bill proposes amendments to the Workplace Relations Act and the Corporations Law relating to corporate restructures that affect the employment of employees but which may involve liability of other legal entities. That is really the first point that we have to get our heads around.The issue of ensuring entitlements of employees in a case where an employer has engaged in corporate restructuring is, in fact, a very complex one. I can say, as an entirely personal matter, that those who have tried to wrestle with this bill have my personal sympathy because it is a very complex issue to address, and any solution certainly must not be based on a knee-jerk response to a particular factual situation. I think that is really what we have here. There has been predictable outrage by those who sit opposite as to some recent events that I will come to and one has to be very careful that, in trying to address a particular situation according to a point of view that might be taken, you do not—to use that dreadful cliche—overreach and throw the baby out with the bath water. The government's advice is very clearly that the proposed amendments to the act are of doubtful constitutionality. This, if nothing else, underscores the need for very careful consideration of the issues.I should also say that the Corporations Law already contains provisions that allow a liquidator to undo preferential transactions involving related parties in the period leading to the winding-up of a company. Therefore, if a company is proven to be engaged in sham transactions in order to wrongfully terminate the employment of its work force, appropriate remedies already exist.I might say, in a gesture of a true bipartisan approach to this, that it is worth looking at whether or not you have already got the remedies. I certainly do restate, on behalf of the government, a commitment to finding a solution to the issue of protecting the entitlement of employees on employer insolvency, but I do caution against any haste or overreaching in respect of this matter.As I said before, I do understand that this bill has come before the Senate as a reaction to what is said to be anxiety about job security. I do take issue with the fact that job security has been something that has pervaded the consciousness of all Australians in the sort of way that publicity may have suggested. A range of evidence shows that job insecurity is not increasing under the current government. Survey data collected by the Roy Morgan Research Centre and published in the Bulletin magazine on a regular basis over the past 23 years show that perceptions of job security have not varied dramatically over the entire period, except during Labor's recession of the early 1990s—that was `the recession we had to have'—when they plunged to an historical low. I hope I have time to come back to the data behind these statements.It is true there was a fall in perceptions of job security in the latest survey data collected by the Roy Morgan Research Centre, but the specific job security question was asked in the context of a series of questions that directly related to the waterfront and certainly not the work force in general. Other data tell a similar story. In the survey by Clemenger in March last year, which Mr McMullan, the shadow minister in the other place, is so fond of quoting, the issue of job security did not even rate as one of the top 40 issues of concern amongst Australians. A survey by AGB McNair which was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 October 1997 also showed a low level of job insecurity.Interestingly enough, data from the 1995 Australian workplace industrial relations survey shows that union members were more likely to feel insecure than non-union members, regardless of their occupation or the sector in which they worked. A recent Australian Bureau of Statistics survey result showing a tenfold increase in casual full-time employment in New South Wales since 1991 is not representative of casual employment at the national level. In fact, the most recent ABS data that I have been able to turn up—the 1997 data—showed that the number of casuals as a proportion of all employees has fallen slightly compared with the previous year. In any event, many workers are choosing to take casual employment to suit their lifestyle flexibilities and the higher hourly earnings received as casuals.It is not all bad news for casuals, particularly for women, who sometimes find that that flexibility is an absolute godsend if they are looking after children, or indeed looking after other family members such as elderly relatives. The growth in casual and part-time employment is also a generational and international trend. It has more to do with the growth of service industries and the changing complexion of the labour force than it does industrial relations legislation, no matter how much it is reviled.The best way to help Australian workers to feel more secure in their jobs is for their workplaces to become more productive and profitable. The Workplace Relations Act gives employers and employees the opportunity to reach agreements at their workplace which will enhance productivity and ultimately improve job security because there will be more for everyone. All the opposition can offer is a return to the centralised system of the past with its one size fits all awards and centralised wage fixing, and its dismal productivity growth and declining real wages. I can understand that that is a model that many in the opposition feel comfortable with, but it has been proven not to work.I wanted to relate my comments on job security to the stevedoring levy bills which were introduced into the Senate yesterday. The stevedoring levy arrangements are but one element of the government's reform initiatives to promote improved performance across the industry. They are not aimed at any particular employer or group of employees. The stevedoring levy is intended to fund the costs of redundancies arising from restructuring required to meet the government's seven benchmark objectives.The promotion of industry wide reform to achieve international benchmarks is quite different from the circumstances where an individual enterprise is closed due to commercial or other considerations surrounding that particular business. As to the wider question of employee entitlements in the case of employer insolvency, which is a matter of concern, this was raised with the relevant state ministers at the last meeting of the Labour Ministers' Council on 1 May this year. It was agreed to review the issues involved and to consider the matter further at the next council meeting.The government believes that it is inappropriate to take a direct role in assisting restructuring by facilitating access to funding for the cost of redundancies arising from genuine reforms required to achieve its benchmark objectives, which are aimed at improving stevedoring performance to internationally competitive standards. The new stevedoring levy will apply to the stevedoring of containers and vehicles in Australia to be paid by the stevedoring company. Both major stevedores, Patrick and P&O Ports, which handle about 95 per cent of Australia's container trade, have agreed to absorb the levy into their existing structure of charges, so there is no overall increase in cost to shippers. As reforms are implemented over time, stevedoring costs can be expected to progressively diminish.These arrangements are to facilitate reform across the stevedoring industry and are not aimed at any particular employer or group of employees. The government believes that the promotion of industry wide reform to achieve these benchmarks is different from the circumstances where an individual enterprise, like the Cobar mines that has been mentioned this afternoon, is closed due to commercial or other considerations surrounding that particular business. Australian stevedores are operating viable businesses, providing an income stream that gives the industry itself the capacity to repay the funds provided by the government's redundancy funding arrange ments, ensuring the cost is to be borne by the stevedoring industry and not the Australian taxpayer. Indeed, the reforms will enable the industry to pay them.As to the wider question of employee entitlements in the case of insolvency, at the last meeting of the Labour Ministers Council, as I said, it was agreed to review the issue and to consider some of the difficult issues relating to that that I spoke about a little earlier. Labor is threatening the redundancy payments of MUA members who have already voted to accept a negotiated settlement of the waterfront dispute. It is irresponsible not to allow these well thought out and well structured reforms to proceed.The opposition is now in the position of threatening these people's future because it is refusing to vote for the bill in the Senate. Now that a settlement brokered by the MUA has been overwhelmingly supported by the rank and file, it is absurd that there be any attempt at all to scuttle it.I want to conclude my comments on Cobar. Security—which is really the issue that we are dealing with—grows out of a productive workplace and a strong economy. This is something that was noted by the former Governor of the Reserve Bank—a great friend to Labor—Mr Bernie Fraser, who was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying:The shift away from centralised wage bargaining towards enterprise arrangements reflects the commonsense notion that giving employees and employers more control over wages, conditions and work practices in their own workplaces is good for productive growth.I urge those on the other side to pass the levy.16:38:004134Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The Employment Security Bill 1998 [No. 2] has clearly been born from the Patrick-MUA struggle on the waterfront. This situation was a particularly glaring example of the government's out and out attack on workers and the ability of workers to get together and bargain collectively. It is symptomatic of the broader philosophical and ideological agenda that has affected millions of Australians and their job security—whether or not Senator Coonan and others will recognise that—and their standards of living.I would like to refer to a few of the points that Senator Coonan mentioned in her presentation. Senator Coonan talked about a general international trend. Well, don't we know it. What we are seeing is a race to the bottom. We are seeing large corporations playing off one host country against the other in the race to the bottom. They are playing them off in terms of wages and conditions, environmental standards, rights for indigenous people, corporate rates—the ability of large corporations to be able to avoid tax—and so on. They can play off one country against the other. Australia is putting its hand up to get international investment—especially from large corporations. We think the way to do this is to be in there in the race for the bottom in terms of lowest standards.Senator Coonan also mentioned that people are choosing to perform casual work—a casualisation of the work force. I do not actually think that is the case. I stand to be corrected if there are firm statistics that show that people are choosing to work at night or at odd hours or are choosing to work for one or two hours for only normal rates. I would question whether casual work forces get substantially increased hourly rates. You would only need to ask Comcar drivers what the additional, magnificent extra money is for casual workers compared to full time. I believe it is about $1 or $2 an hour—whoopy-do! For that you lose various holiday entitlements, sick leave, et cetera, and the surety of knowing that you have a job each week when you need to pay the bills.We see this trend of the general undermining of workers' rights and job security. But before I go on to that, I forgot to mention that Senator Coonan said that this bill could not be supported in terms of its dubious constitutionality. Wouldn't it have been nice if the government had applied the principle of constitutionality to its own Wik 10-point plan. If they base their support for a bill on constitutionality, would they have put up a bill like the Wik 10-point plan? I think not. What they tend to do is put a bill up which they have been advised on a number of fronts is likely to be knocked out under the constitution and then blame the High Court when it eventually tells them so. Attack the High Court—what a nice way of running a government.Let us get back to the undermining of workers' rights and job security. The general agenda of this government in industrial relations—under the Workplace Relations Act—is enterprise bargaining. The so-called flexibility has led to more contract work, to outsourcing and to the detriment of job security and, I argue strongly, to the detriment of lifestyle and to the detriment of families which this government has stood up on so many occasions saying they support. How do you plan for family and houses and holidays if you boss is constantly breathing down your neck waving a one-way contract. What do I mean when I say a one-way contract? I mean a contract which is not enforceable from the side of the workers.We have heard on many occasions that there are remedies that employers can access immediately. They can sack people, they can change their conditions, they can require certain conditions, and now we know that they are going on to the 20 allowable instruments. However, there is nothing in reality which gives remedy in the case of bosses who do not keep their side of the contract. So what we are doing is creating a whole lot of people who do not have certainty themselves but have the certainty of knowing that they have a one-way contract that many of them have been forced to sign. Many of those people are also threatened with the non-renewal of the contract if they do not keep their side of the bargain even if their employer does not keep their side of the contract that they have signed.We have a one-eyed emphasis on competition policy and concepts such as productivity and international competitiveness. This is part of the whole process of globalisation. Everything we do—all of our laws and all of our local economic policies—has to be geared towards the needs of international investors. It is a very large version of the cargo cult. I believe we are creating classes of people who may either be overworked or unemployed. This creates stresses which have real social, economic and health costs.In this process we see the government systematically attacking a range of groups—those groups that they think might be vulnerable. The government were hoping to divide groups so that they fought against each other. They were finding groups to blame. It was a very convenient scenario to set up workers on the waterfront as being somehow to blame for the situation other workers found themselves in. That was the general idea of bringing out the false figures on waterfront workers—the hours they worked and what they got paid for on a crane. The idea was to link into people's own feelings of insecurity—the working poor; those people who are struggling to survive—and say, `We would like to divert your concern and anger from the government and the policies that are creating this growing class of working poor onto a group of workers whom we believe are getting too much.' That was the process—divide and rule in Australia. Many people saw through this, I am pleased to say.We have had massive government involvement in the whole situation. The government's role in the Patrick scandal is one of the most staggering things that I have seen in the history of government in Australia. This government is in cohorts with a company which has the single aim of destroying a collective body. This conspiracy has occurred without a care in the world for the concept of job security. I believe the government have been boasting to people in business and overseas that they will create a situation of greater flexibility—by that they mean greater job insecurity within Australia. As evidence of their involvement, the Prime Minister has been exposed as supporting the interventionist strategy proposed by Patrick. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business is up to his eyeballs strategising to break the back of the union that is bucking their particular plans. We have the government promising to pay the redundancy. Did that get organised overnight? We have the government financing the destruction of job security and the right to collectively bargain. Many people believe it is an inappropriate role for government.I wonder if the government thinks it is an acceptable defence to a charge of insolvent trading or cheating persons in their dealings with a company for directors to claim that they hoped the parliament would vote funds to make up their creditors' losses? If that was an acceptable defence, there would be a few other companies lining up to do the same.How does this deep involvement sit with the ministerial code of conduct? Maybe the government would like to explain whether the ministerial code of conduct allows ministers of the Crown to become involved in breaches of their own law—and pretty new law at that. Even if it did, how would that bind the Governor-General to maintain in office persons acting in breach of the law?In light of the fact that we have recently debated the Company Law Review Bill 1997 , this private senator's bill is rather timely. Half the legal situation is clear. It is clear that the MUA have dropped the legal proceedings against Patrick as part of the deal. What is not clear is why the government has not pursued a prosecution against Patrick. There are many criminal options that the Director of Public Prosecutions could have taken. He could have pursued options under the Corporations Law, the common law or the New South Wales crimes act. But no effect has been put into this option. That would indicate one of two things: either, first, there is a hole in the current law so there is no legal avenue for the Director of Public Prosecutions to pursue or, secondly, there is an absolute lack of political will on the government's part. I suspect it is the latter, and this is quite congruent with the entire involvement of the government in this affair.Indeed, I wonder whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has even been handed all the documents in the government's possession in relation to the stripping of assets from the Patrick labour hire companies so that whether charges can be laid in respect of offences such as the above can be examined. If not, why not? I wonder whether the New South Wales Attorney-General, the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions or the New South Wales police sought documents related to the asset stripping of the Patrick labour hire companies in relation to possible offences under state law. If this is the reason for the government not pursuing Patrick's prosecution, how can the government be so blase about failing to amend the law as it stands, leaving the loophole open for any other company to undermine their workers' wages and entitlements?The Asian meltdown and the potential implementation of a GST adds fuel to the fire. Jobs and entitlements are severely under threat and the government seem to be absolutely ignorant of what they are doing. In either scenario the same message comes out. The government are not interested in workers. They are not interested in providing any kind of job, wage or entitlements security.This bill may not be the answer to these significant problems. It is obviously a vehicle by which the opposition can make these points to the government and I am not suggesting that anyone is expecting it to go anywhere. The Greens (WA) support the principle that we need to address and provide certainty over the problems that were so clearly highlighted in the MUA dispute. We are talking about the rights of people in Australia to bargain collectively. We are talking about the right for everyday workers to have some form of security, to know where they stand and where they can go for help and to be able to stand up with other people if they have problems in their workplace—if they are treated unfairly. That is not unreasonable. The Greens (WA) have been very concerned about this area, and, apart from technicalities, we have not seen a reasonable response from the government.16:52:004137O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—I was not expecting to get the call quite as early as this, but I am stuck with it so I may as well say now what I had intended to say. The Employment Security Bill 1998 [No. 2] before the chamber is an interesting bill. It is a bill that was presented by Senator Mackay. I understand the motives that she has in presenting the bill, though I have a few difficulties with what is being presented. I make these comments as somebody who in a former life had been involved in the winding up or the receivership of literally hundreds of companies in which frequently one would find employees the victims of corporate collapse.There is no doubt that, every time a company becomes insolvent, workers are losers—every time—for the simple reason that workers lose their jobs. That is a fact. There is no way in an economy like ours that you can prevent that happening. A hallmark of our economy is the fact that it allows for failure. When companies fail, the workers are not the only people who lose. There are other creditors as well. I should point out that sometimes the workers are not creditors, but there are people who are creditors—secured creditors, unsecured creditors and so on. They all lose.Every time a company collapses, a large number of people are affected. My concern is that sometimes one can go too far in attempting to protect one group of creditors or another group of creditors. I know in making these comments that they are as much addressed to another bill in another place as to this bill, but you cannot look at corporate insolvency without looking at the situation in its entirety, and that does require a mature approach to the subject.I have regard to the comments made by Senator Mackay on 26 May in her second reading speech on this bill. She said that the effect of this bill would be that, where an employee has been unlawfully or unfairly dismissed and should be reinstated, it would be possible to make a reinstatement order against companies that are related to the direct employer. The effect of this in corporate terms is very simple. You would take all of the companies in a group and effectively treat them as one employer. That is the effect of the proposal in the bill. There are a few exceptions to that, I accept that, but that is the general thrust of the bill: to treat all the companies in a group as a single employer so that people who are sacked from one company could be reinstated to another company within the group. I see Senator Cooney sitting on the other side of the chamber. I think Senator Cooney would accept that that is the general thrust of this bill.The problem is: if you do that, there is no point in having a group. There is no point in a group setting up separate operating divisions—some companies to handle salary and staff, some to handle wage earning staff, some to handle one part of an operation and some to handle another. That is why groups are set up. The reason why groups are set up in that fashion is very simple—to minimise risk. It allows a parent company to say when one part of the group starts to lose money, `We are going to abandon that operation,' without necessarily incurring liability to other companies within the group. That is very important.One of the consequences of this bill would be to increase the number of companies that are put into liquidation or under administration because, although Senator Mackay's intentions are laudable and certainly laudable from a trade union point of view, she forgot the provisions relating to trading a company while insolvent, which are contained in the Corporations Law. Those provisions are quite onerous. They are onerous because if a director allows a company to trade from a point when he or she knows that that company is unable to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due—and that includes liabilities to employees—then that company director is personally liable for the money.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—But these are moneys that you are holding in trust.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I hear Senator Campbell say it is moneys you hold in trust. It all depends what moneys we are talking about, Senator Campbell.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Long service leave, annual leave.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Let me just address that because it all depends what moneys are in question. If we are talking about superannuation contributions, then I believe the money is held on a fiduciary basis.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Long service leave, annual leave, accrued entitlements.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Campbell, look—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Please address your remarks through the chair, Senator.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Mr Acting Deputy President, I am sorry. Senator Campbell is distracting for one of the few moments in his life where it is actually interesting to listen to him. Senator Campbell is saying that all these moneys should be held on trust. Senator Campbell fails to understand that, in the case of a corporate insolvency, liabilities like long service leave and so on are priority debts in the winding up. In other words, an employee who is owed money for unpaid long service, holidays, et cetera has a priority over every unsecured creditor in the company. They do not have a priority over secured creditors, but they have priority over unsecured creditors. There is a very good reason why this is done.Senator George Campbell interjecting—EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Campbell wants to raise the issue of employees' long service leave entitlements. In that case, let us deal with the issue of employees' long service leave entitlements. When the meatworks in Grafton was closed down, the sole concern of a former member of the House of Representatives, who is now a minister in the current New South Wales government, was to see the meatworks sold, knowing full well that nothing would flow to those workers as a result of the sale. So much for the concern of the Hon. Harry Woods.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—What has that to do with the issue?EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Campbell wants to resort to screaming and yelling because he cannot win his point. The bottom line is the Labor Party in New South Wales had absolutely no interest in ensuring that those people got their unpaid holiday and long service leave entitlements. The only interest Mr Harry Woods had in that matter was to see the meatworks sold so that he could say that he saved the people of the valley.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—You are stealing workers' money and you should admit it!EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator George Campbell interjects that workers' money was stolen. I agree that in that case workers' money was stolen. But this is the seminal point: when it became apparent that workers' money had been stolen because the companies in that group were involved in a shady reconstruction, what did Mr Harry Woods do? He did absolutely nothing. In fact, he railed against my colleague in the other place the Hon. Ian Causley, saying that Mr Causley was putting the sale of the meatworks at risk. That is what Mr Woods said in the New South Wales parliament. He said that my colleague in the other place the Hon. Ian Causley put those jobs at risk. That is absolute and utter fabrication. But that goes to show the truth about what happened.For the record, as a result of the resolute actions of the honourable member for Page, the whole administration of and deed of arrangement in relation to the meatworks are now under review by an independent investigating accountant. I believe the outcome of that will be such that those people who would have received nothing under the scheme backed by Harry Woods will now receive all their unpaid long service and holiday leave entitlements. The Labor Party has gone silent. The hypocrisy of the Labor government in New South Wales in this regard is clear for everybody to see.I was not going to raise this matter but, since Senator George Campbell wants to talk about stealing employees' entitlements, let us look at another corporate reconstruction. I think this corporate reconstruction will be of profound interest to Senator George Campbell because it relates, in fact, to a person—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Not a piggery?EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Yes, it relates to a person who had a piggery. This case was heard in the Industrial Relations Court of Australia. The case is Kenneth Purdue v. Brown and Hatton Group Pty Ltd. This case resulted from the fact that a number of people who were employees of a piggery in New South Wales—the Parkville Pig Stud Pty Ltd—were sacked and informed that the company ownership had changed. Who informed them that they had been sacked because the company ownership had changed? The person who admits that he attended the piggery on the day in question is a Mr Al Constantinidis. Honourable senators may know who Al Constantinidis is but, for those who do not know who Al Constantinidis is, Al Constantinidis was at the time the accountant to the former Prime Minister, Mr Paul Keating.In evidence before the court—in fact, this was evidence before the Hon. Mr Justice Wilcox—it was conceded that Mr Purdue and Mr Jackson were both employed at the piggery for some years before June 1994, Mr Purdue from September 1989 and Mr Jackson from June 1988. The group is one of three respondents in this case. I should just point out that the respondents are Brown and Hatton Group Pty Ltd, Brown and Hatton Rural Pty Ltd and Parkville Pig Stud Pty Ltd. According to the judgment of Mr Justice Wilcox:At 11 May 1993, Group was the registered proprietor of the land on which the piggery was conducted. On that date it contracted to sell the land to Parkville, together with the livestock and the plant and equipment used for the conduct of the piggery. The contract was completed one year later, on 11 May 1994. The Memorandum of Transfer was dated that day but not registered until 29 August 1994.The reason these matters came to a head is that Mr Purdue complained that he had, in fact, been underpaid by the former employers. Of course, he had been underpaid by the companies associated with the former Prime Minister.Mr Justice Wilcox went on to say:Achilles Constantinidis was a director of each of the Brown and Hatton companies and also Parkville.So they would be related companies under Senator Mackay's bill.He was absent from Australia from late May until late June. Shortly after his return, on 28 June, he visited the piggery. He met Mr Kellow and resolved the issue of underpayment of wages raised by Mr Purdue. After that meeting, he addressed a gathering of the employees. He informed them that the wages issue had been resolved, that the piggery had a `new owner' and their employment would cease on Thursday, 30 June. On behalf of the new owner, he offered to re-employ all the staff as casuals.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—So did Chris Corrigan copy Paul Keating?EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I think Mr Corrigan may have copied Mr Keating. This is what Mr Justice Wilcox said:The men consulted together and informed Mr Constantinidis that they would accept the offer.Mr Justice Wilcox went on to say:On Thursday, 30 June, about lunch time, Mr Finlay asked each of the employees to sign an employment application form. . . . They contained no particulars of the employment.I think some of the shop stewards on the other side of the chamber might be pretty horrified that the forms contained no particulars of the employment.Mr Justice Wilcox went on to say:Mr Purdue, Mr Jackson and Mr Ellison were unwilling to sign the forms until they were completed. At the conclusion of work that day, Mr Finlay told the three men their services were no longer required.This was the conduct of the companies associated with the former Prime Minister.For the record, what was the outcome of the case? This case was before the Industrial Relations Court for the simple reason that Mr Constantinidis was opposing the order which had been made for the reinstatement of these people. An order had been made for reinstatement. I will quote what Mr Justice Wilcox decided because I think it is very interesting. He decided:Unfortunately for Mr Purdue and Mr Jackson, however, harshness is immaterial. Section 170DE of the Act does not apply to this case. It is common ground in the evidence that Mr Constantinidis' offer, on behalf of Parkville, was for casual employment. Accordingly, it is necessary to apply regulation 30B (1) (d) of the Industrial Relations Regulations. This paragraph excludes from the operation of subdivisions B, C and D of Division 3 of part VIA of the Act "a casual employee engaged for a short period within the meaning of subregulation (3)". Subregulation (3) says that, for the purposes of paragraph (d), a casual employee is taken to be engaged for a short period unless the employee is engaged by a particular employer on a regular and systematic basis during a period of six months and had an expectation of continuation.Mr Justice Wilcox concluded:I regret that I am compelled to conclude that Mr Purdue and Mr Jackson have no remedy in relation to their termination of employment. They have been good, long-term employees. They lost their permanent employment because of an event over which they had no control.Doesn't that sound very much like all the circumstances that we heard from the other side as describing the situation on the waterfront? I think Senator Abetz is absolutely correct. Mr Corrigan must have been an astute student of politics because Mr Corrigan based his reconstruction, in fact—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—On the Keating model!EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Yes, on the Keating model. I will tell you why Senator Mackay brings this bill in now. The reason is that she knew when she was in the caucus, when the Labor Party was sitting on the government benches, there was no way this bill would get up in caucus because the Prime Minister of the day was in it up to his armpits. That is why this comes in as a private senator's bill, because she probably tried to bowl it up to her colleagues and affiliates—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—I wasn't here!9L6O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—You weren't here, Senator Mackay. I apologise—she wasn't here.Senator Abetz interjecting—EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—Senator Abetz interjects that she probably is not here now. I think that is a pretty apt observation. Were the union officials on the other side of the chamber arguing when they were in government that this sort of situation should not occur? Were the union officials arguing for these legislative changes when they had control of the Department of Industrial Relations and when they had their person there in the ministry? The answer is no. Why were they not arguing for these legislative changes? The reason that they were not arguing for these legislative changes was that, at that point in time, there had been only one employer of note who had restructured a company to put off all the permanents, re-employed them as casuals and been able to sack them arbitrarily and, within the evidence of the case before the court, harshly. There was only one employer who, on record, was seen to do that and that, of course, was the previous Prime Minister. That is why these legislative changes before the chamber today never saw the light of day when the Labor Party was in government. They never saw the light of day because the previous Prime Minister would never have allowed it. He knew he was guilty and I think he probably took the view that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.Here it is, exposed in all its glory—the Keating model for industrial relations reform; the Keating model for how to deal with your employees: when you are not happy with them, slough the company off somewhere else, sack the employees, have the same person who sacks them offer to rehire them but make them all casuals and reduce their rate of pay because they are now casuals and not permanents. This is what we heard from the other side and this is what he did. He reduced their rate of pay but, because they were casuals, when they were harshly and unconscionably terminated they had no right of remedy because it had been taken away from them by a slick lawyer's trick—and the slick lawyer's trick was perpetrated by the previous Prime Minister.17:12:004141Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Employment Security Bill 1998 [No. 2] before us seeks to deal with a very important issue, indeed an issue that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has termed `the single most important issue facing Australians'—that of employment and job security. Unfortunately, while this government has been talking a lot about the importance of employment and so-called job security, it has failed to deliver both; that is, any job creation mechanisms and job security to many hundreds of thousands of Australians who seek work and deserve work.I agree with some of the comments by Senator Sue Mackay in her second reading speech to this bill where she deals specifically with the Patrick dispute, and endorse her comment:The image of masked security guards and savage dogs is an image foreign to Australians and it is an image that will not be easily forgotten by the Australian community.The Australian Democrats share that concern and are outraged at the way the employees were dealt with in that situation. The general purpose of this bill is to seek to stop situations—scams is the word that was used, I believe, by members of the opposition—where companies are avoiding their legal obligations to employees, and it is a worthy and a commendable objective. Indeed, it is an objective that has been pursued by the Democrats on other occasions. I know that my colleague Senator Andrew Murray has moved amendments previously to the package of Wallis reforms, specifically to the Corporations Law, in an attempt to prevent the kinds of corporate restructurings that were designed for the very purpose of hurting workers.That amendment to the Corporations Law, I remember, had the support of the ALP initially but, I believe, in order to get the Wallis reforms through it had to be dropped. For the purposes of speeding up the process of financial deregulation, that particular amendment was dropped, which is unfortunate. It goes to show that the Democrats and, specifically, Senator Andrew Murray, have pursued this matter in another form.We support the concept of this bill and the sentiments behind it. The sustained high levels of unemployment in Australia over many years now have seen extremely adverse effects on job security and, of course, deleterious relations in some cases between employers and employees.It is no secret that continuing or sustained levels of high unemployment translate into high rates of increased job insecurity, while those lucky enough to find employment in the extremely tough Australian labour market are faced with increasing demands to work harder and for longer hours, as companies downsize and force their employees to do work which previously may have been carried out by more than one person. This kind of insecurity, this job culture or corporate culture that we are creating, has seriously disadvantaged all participants in the labour market.Young people specifically find it increasingly difficulty to find work in this kind of market. Then they are further disadvantaged by cuts to the education system—the very area where people are expected to develop, maintain and redevelop their skills so that they can have a better shot in the labour market—and that makes it increasingly difficult for those young people even to begin to compete for jobs.Mature age workers, on the other hand, who also have felt the brunt of structural reform in our work environment, find themselves redundant at 45, being forced to retire because suddenly their jobs no longer exist. We are witnessing the wholesale shedding of vast intellectual capital because this government has not delivered on its promise—a No. 1 promise, a so-called core promise: to create new employment opportunities.This pattern is evidenced throughout the world. Yet, for Australians, the threat of unemployment now carries with it even greater risks. Instead of developing effective job creation strategies, this government has simply decided that to create jobs it will rely on economic growth. I suppose that is why we saw not one job creation strategy in the most recent budget. Certainly we are not seeing additional amounts being put into labour market programs and other job creating mechanisms and opportunities for skill development.Organisations such as the Committee for Economic Development of Australia have questioned this kind of hands-off approach, the notion that you should not have any kind of intervention in the economy. Instead, they have advocated—along with the Democrats—greater investment in human capital. This requires increases in funding to education and to research and development, which is another area that has been cut and slashed under this government.The government has withdrawn funding from previously existing labour market programs and remaining job creation strategies, such as the highly successful new enterprise incentive scheme. That is a scheme which encourages and assists people of all ages, including unemployed young people, to start up their own small business. That scheme suffered a funding cut in the budget of around $8 million. In total, there has been a reduction in funding of around $25.5 million. This has been done despite the fact that every new business this scheme helps to create provides significant returns to society and the economy through encouraging innovation and active participation in the community and reducing the burden on the social security system.The other big strategy that the government has relied upon is not job creation but the complete replacement of the old service oriented employment system with a competitive market. Rather than create jobs, the government hopes that, by introducing desperation into the mix of employment agencies, those agencies somehow suddenly will discover new jobs—overlooking the fact that fundamental changes have occurred in our work force with certain traditional jobs, entry level jobs, having disappeared and there being the need for us to start investing in new areas, new technologies and sustainable industries. So, remembering that there is this problem of there not being enough jobs out there, we have to actively invest and participate in job creation.The chamber would be well aware of the concerns of the Australian Democrats and many others with the new system—this new market based system of job assistance. These concerns are echoed through the parliament and through the community generally. I tabled today a survey that outlined specific problems with the FLEX 3 providers—those people who are providing case management, the most intensive assistance available. Those private job providers listed in this survey some of the concerns they had with this new system. Because there are so many problems that exist—and this survey I found comprehensive and universally damning of the new system—and because of our high levels of unemployment in this country, we call on the government to have a review into that system.We have called for that review because this is really one time in Australia's history where workers have every reason to feel insecure about jobs. Should a worker be so unfortunate as to be made redundant through the actions of an unscrupulous employer, they face enormous difficulties in finding alternative employment. The life of a job seeker, while it has never been easy, has been made all the more difficult under this federal government. The new stricter eligibility criteria imposed under Job Network has excluded 400,000 people from receiving job assistance—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—People are finding jobs.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—and they are people who previously would have been eligible for help. I will take that interjection, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think Senator Abetz just said that people were finding jobs. I find that an extraordinary assertion, looking at current unemployment figures and looking at youth unemployment figures—Senator Abetz interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—which have not gone down. Specifically, youth unemployment figures are going up. Certainly in my state of South Australia, which has an unemployment rate of 10.4 per cent across the board, we do not feel as though the unemployment rate is going down. If we want to talk about some of the jobs that have been created under this government, let us look at the increased casualisation of the work force. Let us look at the fact that the majority of jobs that are being created, those few that are—and there are not so many being created under this government, I am afraid—are not full-time, sustainable jobs.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—They are full-time jobs.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I cannot wait for Senator Abetz's speech because I want to hear this rebutted. The jobs that are being created are increasingly casual part-time jobs. That is a statistic that is irrefutable. So I look forward to hearing some counter arguments from Senator Abetz. No, better still: why doesn't Senator Abetz go out into the community and try telling those people—those workers who are feeling pretty insecure about their jobs, those unemployed people who really are feeling pretty insecure about the prospect of ever getting a job—how easy it is? Perhaps he could give us a list of all the jobs that have been created under this government. Perhaps he could explain to us why participation rates are changing. Perhaps he could explain why youth unemployment is always on the rise.So the life of a job seeker—and I do not think any side of parliament would dispute this—has never been easy, and it has just been made harder. Not only have those 400,000 people been excluded by this eligibility criterion; there are migrants who have been in Australia for less than two years who are experiencing particular difficulties in accessing much needed benefits; there are spouses; there are young people aged between 16 and 18 who do not qualify for the common youth allowance. I wonder how secure a lot of those people are feeling in today's workplace.Although the government has been at considerable pains to assure job seekers that agencies will provide assistance to those ineligible for FLEX 1, 2 or 3, this has not been the case. Job seekers are either being told that they cannot receive assistance as basic as, say, preparation of their resume applications or that they will have to pay up to $70 to receive such assistance. I am sure many of us in this chamber have heard stories from a range of providers that some people are being charged in order to get a service that was previously free, previously available to people under the old CES. An unemployed person paying $70 for help with the preparation of their resume application is just astounding.Only today, we have seen another move from the government to disqualify another group of job seekers from some form of assistance, and that is the particular plan to cut unemployment benefits for seasonal workers through measures in the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997 , which will actually hit rural and regional job seekers in particular—something I am sure that Senator Bill Heffernan is particularly concerned about. I know that my colleague Senator Andrew Bartlett was concerned about many of these rural workers losing their unemployment benefits through this legislation. We have put on record a number of times now, through comments in this chamber, our disappointment that this legislation will be supported by the opposition. While it is commendable to see those who have instigated this legislation today supporting job security in this form, we wish they would extend that concern to people in those rural forms of work. The Democrats would also like to see the ALP review their decision to retain Job Network should they come into office.This government has made a series of lofty promises and expansive claims in relation to employment. The Democrats would quite happily like to see these promises come into effect. Not only are we very keen for economic growth but we also recognise that there are a number of other measures that governments have to undertake in order to get not only economic growth but the unemployment rate down.Review and reform of Job Network is one of those things that is urgently required. It is not good enough for the government to state that the problems being suffered will be solved in time, that perhaps two months into its operation is too early to call for a review. Criticism of this Job Network was raised much earlier than this; it has been raised all along. It was raised before the system was so-called `up and running', and it has been raised by a variety of sectors, not just the opposition parties, in the parliament. This is not simply some partisan political move.I was astounded today that when confronted with the statistics and the evidence in the survey conducted by Jobs Australia, formerly Skillshare, which was universally damning of this government's Job Network program, the minister criticised the people who participated in the survey and dared to adversely reflect on a member of the community, David Thompson, former head of Skillshare, as if he had somehow tainted the results. This was not a survey prepared or conducted by the Democrats, simply tabled by the Democrats; it was a survey conducted by people whom I note that this government was prepared to give money to—they were successful tenderers, this is the irony of it. These people are not interested in stuffing up this system; they want it to work. Their livelihood, their survival, their business depends on it—as do the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Australians who are keen to get referrals, who are keen to get their resumes prepared, who are keen to get offers of work and to get out and work. I thought it was amazing that Minister Ellison just completely bypassed all of those realities and thought, `Okay, we will criticise the source.' He thought he could score a cheap point off the Democrats. But we were not the source. The irony of it is that he trusted these people enough to award them a contract, but then did not trust their comments. But he—and I understand Dr Kemp did similarly—pointed out some of the positive comments in the survey. We acknowledge that there are some positive comments, and he used them. So it is okay when it is positive, but when it reflected adversely on the system of course it was, `This is Democrat propaganda.'The government must do more to create employment opportunities and more to assist those seeking work, especially in the case of young Australians and, of course, those mature age employees who have lost their jobs. This bill may ameliorate some of the insecurity felt by many workers, but until the unemployment rate is brought down and job seekers feel that they have got a real chance of finding work, those in work will continue to suffer from the insecurity which pervades the Australian labour market.17:27:004144Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My colleagues this afternoon have put very forcefully and clearly the arguments in support of the private senator's bill brought forward by my colleague Senator Mackay. It was not my intention to participate in this debate, but I was, however, drawn into it by listening to the comments of Senator O'Chee a few moments ago. I heard him relate some of the history of the situation that occurred late last year at the South Grafton meatworks when the jobs of almost 300 employees were terminated when the company went into liquidation. Those employees were left stranded a week or two before Christmas without being paid out any of their entitlements.What disturbed me was the misinformation, the deliberate distortion and, if I was allowed to say the word, `lies'—I would say it, but I am not supposed to say it—that were put forward by Senator O'Chee. What made it worse was the hypocritical attack that he launched against Mr Harry Woods, the state member for Clarence. But then I thought to myself, `Why is Senator O'Chee doing this?' He is doing it for two reasons: firstly, because he is clearly ashamed of the conduct of his colleague from the other place Mr Causley, the federal member for Page, who did absolutely nothing to assist those workers at that time; and, secondly, to try to cloak himself and his colleague Mr Causley as if they were the saviours of the workers at South Grafton meatworks. Nothing could be further from the truth.I wanted to take a few moments to put the truth on the record, as I did initially on 4 March this year. I have to say that I was one of the first people to raise in this parliament the circumstances that had occurred in the South Grafton meatworks. I did not hear Senator O'Chee or any other member of the government jumping up and down complaining about the plight of these workers at South Grafton. No, they all sat over there silently while I made my remarks. Of course, they were prepared to jump up and attack the MUA and support those disgusting, illegal tactics of Mr Corrigan and Patrick when they sacked overnight 2,000 workers on the waterfront. I never heard either Mr Causley or Senator O'Chee's colleagues in the National Farmers Federation standing up for the rights of the workers at South Grafton meatworks, or indeed for the rights of the meat producers and the farmers and the other companies in Grafton that were seriously affected by the closure of those meatworks.I raised this issue in the Senate on 4 March. Senator O'Chee and Mr Causley did not raise the issue until I had done so in the parliament. What I raised on that day was the fact that there had been restructuring of companies within the Gilbertson group, the group of companies that owned the South Grafton meatworks, to ensure that, whilst the assets of the company, namely, the meatworks and the associated infrastructure, were owned by one corporate entity, the employees were employed by another. What happened was that there was no asset backing for the employer of the employees. When the company went into liquidation and the bank took steps to recover its debts. There was no money available to pay out employees' entitlements.It was Mr Harry Woods, the state member for Clarence, and the meatworkers union that took up the issue. They wrote to the Prime Minister, they wrote to Mr Anderson, they tried to have meetings with Mr Causley, and they were treated with contempt. Mr Anderson said, `Well, if you worked a bit harder, if you did not take so much sick leave, maybe the company wouldn't have gone broke.' That was his initial reaction. Mr Causley's reaction was that he felt a bit sorry for the workers but he could not agree that their entitlements should come before the bank's, because that might cause some problems in the banking system in this country and stop investment in enterprises. He was not in favour of the workers' rights being looked after, as this bill seeks to do, to give them some degree of priority. That is money that those workers have already earned, and that should be banked and should be available for them to access when they leave.Today we have Senator O'Chee saying that he and his colleague Mr Causley took up the cause of the workers at South Grafton. Nothing could be further from the truth. Others, including Harry Woods, had already asked that these issues—suspected fraud and other illegal activities by the Gilbertson group, the Gilbertson brothers, who were directors of those companies—be referred to the Australian Securities Commission. That action had already been undertaken by Harry Woods. It was Harry Woods who worked tirelessly over the Christmas-new year period, in conjunction with the New South Wales government, to enable finance to become available and to enable certain charges to be put on hold so that those meatworks could be reopened. They were reopened last month, with a significant number of the previous employees obtaining their jobs back under a new employer. But we are still chasing their entitlements, and we will continue to do it.There is a lot more to the story to come out as it unravels and as the trail of illegal activities is followed through. I am not going to sit here in this parliament and have people like Senator O'Chee and Mr Causley stand up and claim credit for looking after workers, when they did completely the opposite. Senator O'Chee should come into this parliament and apologise for misleading the Senate. He had better do it soon, because he is not going to have an opportunity in a few weeks time when he loses his seat.17:35:004146Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—In my comments on the so-called employment security bill, the Employment Security Bill 1998 [No.2], I wish to expose the duplicity with which Labor approaches this issue, their failure in 13 years of government and our success in two short years. The bill has been introduced by a Labor senator who told journalists in recent times that she had lately developed an interest in economic issues. That is something which is of interest and which I note. Could I encourage the honourable senator to develop that interest and finesse it somewhat to ensure that she does not introduce bills like this one.The bill has a number of difficulties. The first one is that it has doubtful constitutionality in relation to the proposed amendments to the Workplace Relations Act.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—What about the Wik bill? You claim it is constitutional.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I will take up the interjection. If there is something that the workers of this country want, especially in regional areas, it is for the Wik legislation to be passed. I suggest to those opposite that, if they were following some of the interaction between High Court judges and counsel in the latest native title case before the High Court, they would see that our view in relation to the constitutionality of the Wik legislation may be somewhat stronger than that asserted by the would-be government opposite. So first we have got the constitutionality difficulty.Secondly, in relation to the changes being proposed to the Corporations Law, the Corporations Law already contains provisions that allow a liquidator to undo preferential transactions involving related parties in the period leading to the winding-up of a company. In short, appropriate remedies already exist.If the Labor Party had done the proper research into the legislation they are propos ing they would have realised this. But what have they done? As a cheap political stunt they whacked together a bill and raced it in here without bothering to check on the constitutionality of the bill, let alone as to whether the Corporations Law needed to be amended. The remedy they want in this bill already exists. That indicates that they did not do their research. It is, I would submit, somewhat embarrassing to them, unless the only reason they introduced it was as a cheap political stunt.The Labor Party's approach in this matter is somewhat breathtaking. Their brazen approach is astounding. I look opposite and I see the cheery face of Senator George Campbell, who interjected profusely during Senator O'Chee's contribution. He wants to talk, and to interject, on the issue of job security. Senator O'Chee mentioned the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating. I am going to mention the former Prime Minister Paul Keating as well. Do you know what he said about Senator Campbell? He said that he was responsible for the loss of 100,000 jobs. It was not me saying that—it was not a Liberal Party person asserting that—but the former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He acknowledges that Senator Campbell was responsible for the loss of 100,000 jobs.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—What's this got to do with the bill?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—And Senator Mackay says: `What has this got do with the bill?' Your bill is called the `Employment Security Bill'; that's the title of it. And he cost the job security of 100,000 Australians. They have the audacity to come in here portraying themselves as somehow being interested in employment security. That is what hangs around Senator Campbell's neck.In relation to a former Labor minister, remember when the Labor Party brought in their unfair dismissal laws? They were going to look after the workers. Guess which politician fell foul of that law? The first politician that fell foul of that law was a Labor minister, Con Sciacca. That is their sort of record. The Labor Party are big on rhetoric, but they never deliver when it comes to employment security. Under Labor we had unemployment at one million, over 10 per cent. But it is coming down. It is now at about the eight per cent mark. So we have had a considerable decline. You want to talk about employment security, but the best employment security you can give anybody is a job. You can talk about it as much as you like but when you have hanging around your neck the jobs of 100,000 workers, when you have hanging around your neck the sort of behaviour that Mr Sciacca, a former Labor minister, was engaged in, when you have hanging around your neck the sackings that the former Prime Minister's companies were involved in, it is somewhat disingenuous of Labor to come in here and talk about employment security.I was particularly fascinated by the contribution of our colleague from Tasmania, Senator Murphy, which mentioned my name on a fairly regular basis. I have to say to you in all modesty that I think that was the only good part about his speech—when he happened to mention my name. But apart from that, it was so typical of the trade union rhetoric—long on wind but very short on substance. In short, it was a very inept performance. I think all senators in this place know, especially those on the other side, that if there is one senator who has a terrible track record in relation to staff in his office, it may well be none other than Senator Murphy himself—a terrible track record.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You want to watch out, Eric; people are going to start looking at you.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—You know exactly what I am talking about, Senator Mackay. I won't take it any further, but you know what I am talking about.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Sleaze.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—No, absolutely not.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I am sure that it is contrary to the standing orders for a senator to make a personal reflection on another senator and secondly to impugn their character in the way that Senator Abetz has done. While I am sure that Senator Murphy will have his chance to settle the score, I ask you to withdraw the remark.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Your point of order is sustained. Senator Abetz, I think you will have to withdraw. You cannot do that.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—What can I not comment on?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is a reflection on another senator.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—That his track record in keeping staff is not a good one? Is that unparliamentary? If so, I withdraw it, but I would be interested in a ruling on it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The ruling that I give, Senator Abetz, is that there is an imputation against the reputation of a senator.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—All right. I withdraw that. But honourable senators know quite clearly what I am referring to. When it comes to job security, especially in my home state of Tasmania, the people of Tasmania know—and that is what Senator Murphy was seeking to allude to in his comments when he was attacking me—that the passenger vehicle equalisation scheme has provided job security to many people in the tourism industry. Further, the freight equalisation scheme, another Liberal initiative, has provided good employment security. In relation to the timber industry and the workers that Senator Murphy allegedly represented as a trade union official prior to his entry into this place, he spoke against our woodchip proposals, which secured mammoth numbers of jobs in our home state. We have introduced the regional forest agreement in Tasmania. Today we introduced and passed the anti-dumping legislation, which especially you, Mr Acting Deputy President, worked so hard on, as did all your other Liberal colleagues. They are the sorts of things that provide real employment security to the workers of this country. It is not bringing bits of paper into this place; what they are really interested in is a track record of providing employment security.Chris Miles, the member for Braddon, has been very proactive in his pro-job stance, whereas Senator Murphy stands condemned because each time he stands up in this place to talk about the timber industry in our home state of Tasmania he denigrates it. Each time he denigrates it he undermines confidence and thereby prejudices the workers in that industry and the communities and families that rely on the incomes generated by those workers.In relation to employment security, it is of interest to have a look at what the statistics tell us. It is very telling that, under the Labor Party, the statistics in relation to present job safety declined markedly. In the period from 1975 to 1997, where was the lowest point? Under the Labor government. When it came to power, present job security was at 79 per cent. It declined to 65 per cent in November 1992. It is now back at 77 per cent. We hear chants of unemployment, but guess when the highest rating for that was? Under Labor in November 1992. Yet the Labor Party have the audacity to come in here and give us these gratuitous lectures in relation to employment security when it is their own track record. I know three years ago, according to the shadow Treasurer (Mr Gareth Evans) is not within the lifetime of most Australians, but the fact is that only three short years ago, or a bit longer than that, Labor produced the worst ever employment security figures in this country.When we come to employment security, it is also interesting to note that data from 1995 tell us that union members were more likely to feel insecure than non-union members, regardless of the occupation or sector. Why is it that trade union members should feel so insecure in their jobs? There are two possible reasons. The first is that the trade union movement deliberately misinforms the workers to make them feel insecure. The second is that the trade union leadership of this country is so very hopeless that the trade union members do not believe that they will be looked after in an appropriate way by the trade union leadership.Why is it that people in the non-union work force feel so secure about their jobs? It is a terrible reflection on the former trade union leaders sitting opposite and it is a terrible reflection on the trade union leaders of today, who only seek the trade union leadership positions because they think it will allow them to somehow get into the parliament and get an increase in salary along the way.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Guard dogs and thugs; that's your approach.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I think that is a self-description by Senator Campbell and it ought to go down in Hansard . Employment security is clearly the most important issue for our fellow Australians. It is a recurring issue that, thank goodness, is on the decline because workers are feeling more secure about their employment. Let us look at the genesis of this legislation. Did the Labor Party rush in with legislation of this nature when the unfair sackings that Senator O'Chee detailed to this Senate were highlighted by former Senator Michael Baume in this place? No, the Labor Party saw no need to look after farm workers. When other similar schemes arose, there was no need. When did the need arise? Only when the Maritime Union of Australia came under some challenge. That is what this legislation exposes about the Australian Labor Party. The Maritime Union of Australia has prejudiced more jobs in this country, destroyed more jobs in this country and bankrupted more small businesses in this country than any other union in this country, yet the Labor Party runs to its defence.Pig workers in the companies of the former Prime Minister (Mr Keating) are not worthy of protection by this legislation. People who might be earning $20,000 or $30,000 per annum are not worthy of protection according to these former trade unionists opposite, but the waterfront workers, who earn in excess of $70,000 a year, are worthy of this sort of legislation.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—They were protected because they had got their jobs.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—That is what exposes the Australian Labor Party's duplicity in trying to bring in this sort of legislation. The stories about rorts on the waterfront are absolutely legend, be it the pilfering, be it the nick off, be it the double-header, be it the five weeks annual leave, be it the 27.5 per cent leave loading for long service leave as well as annual leave or be it the seven-hour shifts which do not really include seven hours work but only 6½ hours work. The list goes on and on and the Labor Party remain in deathly silence when they are confronted with the facts.They are the workers, the people, that the Labor Party are running to defend. They are the people they are running to defend, not the workers on a pig farm or elsewhere. No, they were not worthy of protection but their mates in the Maritime Union of Australia were.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—What about the ladies who worked in the Lodge?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Ian Campbell raises another good example of the duplicity of the Australian Labor Party when he deals with the dismissal of the help that former Prime Minister Keating had at the Lodge. I thought I had gone through quite a lengthy list—albeit, I only had to sit in my office for two minutes to work out the list that I used—and here is another senator able to add to the list. The Labor Party record is atrocious. In this game your actions speak a lot louder than your words, and the Labor Party's records, both personal and as a government, have been absolutely and utterly appalling.This country needs waterfront reform. It needs it desperately. The Labor Party know it, but they were the prisoners of the maritime union of this country and refused to do anything about it.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—And you lost.AW5CARRSenator Carr—And you lost.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I hope, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the Hansard reporters record that Senator Carr and Senator George Campbell, the two extreme left-wingers in this Senate, have proudly said that the government has lost in relation to the MUA because I do not believe them—that that is the case. But, if it were to be the case, every other single worker in this country employed in the rural industries, employed in the manufacturing industries, employed—FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I understand that it is a breach of the standing orders for a senator to come into this chamber and deliberately mislead the Senate. I put to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that Senator Abetz did exactly that in his contribution with regard to a statement he made.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Is it a debating point rather than a point of order?FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Is it a breach of the standing orders or not for a senator to deliberately mislead the Senate?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is it a debating point? If you are referring to the comment made earlier in the speech, I ordered that to be withdrawn.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—You did, but that is not the comment I am talking about.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Otherwise it is just a debating point.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—My point of order is that Senator Abetz deliberately came in here and misled the Senate when he said that the woodchip regulations that had been employed by this government—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—had created enormous amounts of jobs.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Sit down! Senator Abetz, continue.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to ask Senator Abetz to withdraw that.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No. There is no point of order. It was a debating point. Senator Abetz, continue.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—On the basis of that performance, Mr Acting Deputy President, you really have to wonder where Senator Murphy has been. But having said that, and given that complete and utter waste of time by Senator Murphy, I say Senator Murphy knows full well that the people of Tasmania, the workers that he formally represented as president of the CFMEU—FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—I still do.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—And he still does—and I hope you declare your interest on each occasion when there is such a vote. But that aside, when this government's actions were ratified by the Senate the car horns in the townships around Tasmania started blowing in celebration of the wonderful effort of this government, because the people were delighted that the moves to defeat our woodchip regulations were defeated.Senator Murphy, can I simply say to you that this legislation was a political stunt, constitutionally unsound; in relation to the Corporations Law, unnecessary; and, given the Labor Party's appalling performance in relation to employment security, highly duplicitous. I am sure that the people of Australia will say at the end of the day that the actions of this government in creating jobs speak a lot louder in relation to the issue of job security than the Labor Party running in here, after 13 years of abysmal failure, to try to pass this legislation.17:58:004150Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—in reply—I would like to thank all honourable senators for their contributions to what has been a very useful debate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Are you speaking to the motion or closing the debate?9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I am closing the debate. I am the mover. I am closing the debate. I would like to thank all honourable senators for their contributions in relation to the bill. I think some of them have been very thoughtful. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Senator Margetts and others in relation to this.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I would have thought, under standing orders, that if another senator is seeking the call—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You weren't.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—You weren't.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I was on my feet. Mr Acting Deputy President, if a senator is going to close the debate and another senator is seeking the call, I understand that—under standing orders and Senate Practice —as I had indicated to you, the senator who was going to close the debate would yield and the other senator would be given the call.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: the point of order by Senator Campbell is quite correct for the simple reason that the standing orders provide that any senator may speak for up to 20 minutes on a bill, provided that senator has not spoken before. The standing orders also provide that the senator who moved the reading of the bill may close the debate, but that is not a right of pre-emption. Therefore, any other senator who seeks the call must have priority.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It was not clear, Senator Campbell, whether you were actually seeking the call. I went to the other side, presuming the debate was going to continue. I got advice from the clerk and he felt that it was not obvious that you were seeking the call.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: is it the case, I put to you, that if another senator is seeking the call, then the person who is going to close the debate does not get the call but the other person gets the call? I want a ruling on this.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is correct, Senator Campbell. But it was not clear to the chair at the time when I called the senator that she intended to close the debate.C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I advised the chair—UNKNOWNOpposition senatorsOpposition senators—You're in the wrong seat!C16HEFFERNANSenator Heffernan—On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: given that I—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sorry, Senator, the time allotted for the consideration of general business and orders of the day having expired, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents.Business41504150Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That consideration of general business orders of the day relating to government documents and consideration of committee reports and government responses not be proceeded with today.4151Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of consideration of government business for the remainder of today be as follows: No. 2, Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 ; No. 4, Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998; and No. 3, the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 .Committees415141514151Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Ferguson)—by leave—agreed to:That the committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 8 pm till 11 pm, to take evidence on the following programs in the Department of the Treasury:1.1 Domestic economy.1.2 International economy.1.3 StructuralNotices415141514151Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that Friday, 26 June 1998, is the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, (ii) that torture is a global problem inflicted by some police and security forces as a repressive tool and perpetuated by the global trade in weapons of torture, (iii) that Amnesty International has documented cases since 1990 showing that electric shock torture and ill treatment have been carried out in prisons, detention centres and police stations in at least 50 countries including Algeria, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Lebanon, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United States of America, Yugoslavia, Vietnam and Zaire, (iv) the increasing trade in weapons of torture and the growth in more than 100 companies that trade in modern stun technology and electro-shock weapons since 1990, and (v) that many refugee applicants in Australia have suffered from the trauma of torture but are still subjected to the Government's policy of mandatory, non-reviewable detention; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) work internationally and bilaterally to end torture through gaining state accession and implementation to the Convention against Torture, (ii) actively pursue a strong Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture with a strong investigative mechanism, (iii) support measures to end the trade in weapons of torture, particularly ensuring that Australian companies have no role in the production, transfer or sale of weapons of torture, and (iv) ensure that policies in relation to refugee applicants are reviewed to show proper concern for the physical, psychological and social difficulties faced by these survivors of torture.Bills4151r4244151Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and No. 8 made by the Senate, agreeing to Senate amendment No. 7 with an amendment, and requesting the concurrence of the Senate in respect of the amendment made by the House of Representatives.House of Representatives message—(7) Schedule 2, page 87 (after line 13), after item 120, insert: 120A At the end of subsection 784(2)Add: ; and (e) if the licence applied for is a licence to operate a managed investment scheme or schemes, the applicant meets the requirements of subsection (2A), and any additional requirements determined by the ASIC under subsection (2B). 120B After subsection 784(2)Insert:(2A) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(e), the ASIC must be satisfied that the value of the net tangible assets of the applicant is and will be maintained at a minimum of $50,000 or, where the value of all scheme property is greater than $10,000,000, an amount equal to 0.5% of those assets shown in the latest accounts of the scheme lodged with the ASIC, up to a maximum of $5,000,000.(2B) The ASIC may determine additional requirements for the purpose of paragraph (2)(e), including, but not limited to, a requirement that scheme property be held by an agent in particular circumstances.(2C) In this section: net tangible assets means the total tangible assets of the applicant, including any guarantee approved by the ASIC, less any adjusted liabilities as shown in the latest accounts of the scheme lodged with the ASIC.(2D) The ASIC, or a member of the ASIC, may exempt an applicant from the requirements of subsection (2A). This power may not be delegated. The ASIC is to provide details of any exemptions granted under this section in its annual report.Amendment amended by omitting "the scheme" and substituting "the applicant" in proposed subsection (2C) inserted by proposed item 120B.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the message be considered in committee of the whole immediately.18:04:004152Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—Can the minister briefly explain the purpose of the amendment?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Do you want to be in committee and do it in committee?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Generally, Senator Murray, the questions are taken in the committee stage.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is going to take two seconds.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Mr Acting Deputy President, I would just like confirmation. As I understand it, it is a language change. Is that correct?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It changes one word, yes.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:04:004152Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That the committee agrees to the amendment made by the House of Representatives.I think Senator Carr is going to ask me what word it changes. It omits the word `scheme' and changes it to the word `applicant'.Question resolved in the affirmative.Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills4152Message received from the House of Representatives returning the following bill without amendment: Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Bills4152Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill:Company Law Review Bill 1997Committees4152415241524152O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I table additional information received from the Tasmanian Department of Community and Health Services relating to the committee's consideration of the Health Legislation Amendment (Health Care Agreements) Bill 1998 .Bills4152r4084152Consideration resumed.18:06:004152Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—by leave—I move:(5) Schedule 1, page 21 (before line 17), before item 103, insert:103C Subsection 200D(4) Omit "close", substitute "are declared under subsection 176(1)".103D Subsection 200D(5) Omit "close", substitute "are declared under subsection 176(2)".(18) Schedule 2, page 43 (after line 29), after item 19, insert:19A Subsection 73B(4) Omit "close", substitute "are declared under subsection 176(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 ".19B Subsection 73B(5) Omit "close", substitute "are declared under subsection 176(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 ".These two amendments are extremely technical and are a consequence of an amendment in this bill which introduces a 24-hour period between the close of nominations and the declaration of nominations. There were a couple of editing oversights. These amendments will restore the 48-hour period from the declaration of nominations until pre-polling can commence for a Senate election, and a 24-hour period from the declaration to pre-polling for the House of Representatives. Those time frames are essentially for the printing and preparation of ballot papers, et cetera. They are technical and I would not have thought aroused any opposition.18:08:004153Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition supports government amendments 5 and 18. As I understand it from the minister, we are speaking here of a drafting error in the bill. I appreciate what the minister has indicated to the committee, and accept that explanation.Amendments agreed to.18:09:004153Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(4) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 2), after item 111, insert:111A After section 216Insert: 216A Notice of disendorsement or expulsion to be displayedIf, after a request has been made in respect of a candidate under section 169: (a) that candidate is disendorsed by, or expelled from, the registered political party whose name is to be printed adjacent to the name of the candidate in accordance with subsection 214(1) or (2); and (b) the registered officer of the registered political party which endorsed the candidate informs the Australian Electoral Officer for that State or Territory that the candidate has been disendorsed by, or expelled from, the party;the Australian Electoral Officer for that State or Territory must cause a poster notifying electors of the disendorsement or expulsion of the candidate to be displayed: (c) in the case of a candidate for the House of Representatives—at each polling booth in the Division for which the candidate has nominated; or (d) in the case of a candidate for the Senate—at each polling booth in that State or Territory.This amendment concerns the notice of disendorsement or expulsion to be displayed, and relates to points made in the report to the inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 federal election—the JCCEM June 1997 report. What we had to say was as follows.As every participant in the political process knows, it is a vibrant and sometimes dramatically changing environment. There is a problem with persons being official registered by the AEC as nominated candidates but either deliberately or unavoidably—and I think in most cases it is unavoidably—misleading the electorate as to their party allegiance. That occurs when a person who has been accepted as an official candidate is disendorsed and expelled from a party prior to the election but after the AEC acceptance of the nomination.That, I believe, is an unfortunate consequence because there are—and we must accept that is the case—many voters who are very tribal, who will vote for their political party—whether it be Democrats or Greens or Labor or Liberal—on the basis of seeing that party attachment next to a candidate's name. If a person has been disendorsed or expelled, that can lead to a problem.The consequence of this amendment simply is that if a candidate is disendorsed by or expelled from a registered political party and the registered officer of the registered political party informs the Australian Electoral Officer for that state or territory that the candidate has been disendorsed by or expelled from a registered political party, then that officer must cause a notice to be displayed—in the case of a candidate for the House of Representatives, at each polling booth in the division for which the candidate has nominated or in the case of a candidate for the Senate, at each polling booth in that state or territory.The people who have been in politics in Australia longer than I have will tell me whether a person on a Senate ticket has ever been disendorsed or expelled in that manner, but it certainly happened in the House of Representatives. I recognise it might be a fairly big exercise for the AEC in the Senate, but all I am thinking of is a simple A4 sheet of paper with large writing on it which would be positioned in the polling booth. In the case of a House of Representatives candidate, it would obviously only be in the electorate which is being contested.I think the result of such an amendment would be to maintain the integrity and validity of the electoral process. There would be less chance of the electorate being misled that the particular candidate on the ballot paper was a member of the party when they were not. I think that is as clear as I can make it.18:13:004154Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The government has had a good look at this amendment and regrets to say that it cannot support it. I appreciate the sentiment. Our party had the most recent experience of this with the disendorsed candidate for the seat of Oxley nevertheless appearing on the ballot paper as a Liberal candidate. One of the consequences of having names of parties appearing on ballot papers—something I was not all that sure about when it was first mooted—is that you then have the situation of what happens when they are disendorsed. I am not suggesting that we should have another think about whether names or labels should be on the ballot paper, but that is one of the consequences.We do not think it is appropriate to place the onus on the Electoral Commission to have to put up posters declaring the disendorsement all over the electorate, and indeed all over the state if we are talking about a Senate candidate. We do not think that is an appropriate responsibility to statutorily apply to the Electoral Commission. If it is mandatory, it leaves open the possibility that, if it does not occur in one or two booths or the posters are ripped down or something, it could be grounds for some sort of appeal against the result. We think it opens avenues for litigation, and it is not something that we feel very confident about.I think the responsibility lies with the party that has taken what is a fairly drastic step—as I know because it is one that we had to take—by disendorsing a candidate in the middle of campaign. While there is an incentive on the party to ensure that voters in that electorate know that `X' is no longer the endorsed candidate of that party, it is an appropriate responsibility for the party concerned to have to carry out, but not for the authority running the election. On balance, we do not support the amendment.18:15:004154Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Minister, has the AEC provided any advice on the logistics of this particular proposal of Senator Murray's?18:15:004154Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—We have consulted the AEC, of course. As a matter of practicality they do not support this amendment. They believe it is potentially unworkable and could give rise to litigation if for any reason even just one polling booth missed out on the posters. They believe it could create significant administrative problems for them, particularly if the disendorsement occurred close to polling day when the AEC has enormous responsibilities and administrative issues to deal with. To be required statutorily to undertake this obligation would cause them significant administrative difficulties. Certain ly their advice to me is that they think it would be a retrograde step.18:16:004155Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I hear what the minister says in answer to my question, but I also understand what Senator Murray is trying to achieve through this particular amendment. One of the weaknesses of the amendment is that although Senator Murray outlined to the committee his view of what would be required, I do not believe that the amendment he has moved necessarily reflects those sorts of constraints. There is a genuine weakness there. I hear with interest what the minister has told the committee in relation to the view of the AEC.On the evidence that is available to me, I cannot support this amendment in this form. It is, however, a matter that does require some further consideration. This might be something that needs to be looked at a little more closely and exhaustively than we will have an opportunity to do through this committee stage debate, appreciating the logistical issues that have been raised with the minister by the Australian Electoral Commission. Given the spirit of what Senator Murray is trying to achieve, with further consideration there may be a way to deal with this more effectively. I am concerned about agreeing to the amendment in this form and on the run in the committee stage. I am concerned about the advice of the AEC and about some of the constraints that Senator Murray mentions. The spirit in which it is presented is not actually reflected in the amendment before the chair. It might be something that is worth giving further consideration to and perhaps getting some further advice at a later stage on how the spirit of what Senator Murray is trying to achieve might be met within the legislation.Amendment not agreed to.18:19:004155Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I appreciated both the minister's and the opposition leader's response on that because there were some practical points there. Possibly one way to deal with it would be for parties themselves to be permitted to put the appropriate material in polling booths to specifications laid out and approved by the AEC. That might be one way of doing it. Perhaps that is something you could consider more fully when you are able to, possibly even for ERAB 2, the next bill.I move:(2) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 2), after item 111, insert:111A After section 220 Insert:220A Distribution of how-to-vote cards on polling day (1) A person must not distribute how-to-vote cards on polling day unless the card has been registered under section 220C. Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months. (2) Subsection (1) does not limit subsections 194(1), 200E(8), 226(2A), 226A(8), 227(8) and 234(3). (3) For the purposes of this section, how-to-vote cards are taken to be distributed if they are left in such a position and in such circumstances as to indicate that they are intended to be available for collection by members of the public who are in a public place. (4) In this section, how-to-vote card means any card, handbill or pamphlet: (a) containing any representation of a ballot-paper or portion of a ballot-paper; or (b) containing any representation apparently intended to represent a ballot-paper or portion of a ballot-paper; or (c) having on it any directions or suggestions (whether express or implied) in relation to the casting of votes.220B Printing etc false information (1) Any person who: (a) prints, publishes or distributes any how-to-vote card, electoral advertisement or notice intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of a vote; or (b) prints, publishes or distributes any how-to-vote card, electoral advertisement or notice containing any untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of a vote; or (c) prints, publishes or distributes any how-to-vote card, electoral advertisement or notice using: (i) the name, an abbreviation or acronym of the name or a derivative of the name of a registered political party (or a name or abbreviation resembling such a name, abbreviation, acronym or derivative) in a way that is intended or likely to mislead any elector, or (ii) the word "Independent" and the name or an abbreviation or acronym of the name or a derivative of the name of a registered political party in a way that suggests or indicates an affiliation with that party, is liable: (d) if the person is a corporation—to a penalty not exceeding 50 penalty units; or (e) in any other case—to a penalty not exceeding 10 penalty units or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months, or both. (2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the printing, publishing or distributing of any how-to-vote card, not otherwise illegal, which contains instructions for any particular candidate or candidates, provided those instructions are not intended or likely to mislead any elector in or in relation to the casting of a vote. (3) Subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) does not apply in a case where the word "Independent" is included in the name of a registered political party. (4) In this section, how-to-vote card has the same meaning as in section 220A.220C Registration of how-to-vote cards (1) For the purposes of section 220A, an application may be made, in accordance with the regulations, to the Electoral Commissioner for the registration of how-to-vote cards for a particular election . (2) An application must be made during the period commencing on the day on which nominations for the election close and ending on the day that is 8 days before the polling day for the election, or during such other period as is fixed by the writs for the election . (3) An application may be made to the Electoral Commissioner (after the issue of the writ and before the day of nomination) for preliminary advice on whether a how- to-vote card may be registered, even though the material is incomplete. (4) An application must contain a draft or sample of the how-to-vote card. (5) The Electoral Commissioner may allow the draft or sample to be altered or replaced before agreeing to registration. (6) The Electoral Commissioner must register the electoral material if satisfied that registration is not prohibited by this section and must issue a certificate of registration in respect of the draft or sample of the how-to-vote card. (7) The Electoral Commissioner may refuse to register the how-to-vote card if the application for registration was not made in accordance with this section. (8) The Electoral Commissioner must not register the how-to-vote card if it appears to the Commissioner: (a) in the case of material that contains directions or suggestions (whether express or implied) as to how to vote in accordance with the ticket of a political party, group of candidates or candidate, that: (i) the party is not registered under Part XI or the group has not made a request under section 168; or (ii) the application was not made by the registered agent, principal agent, by the candidates in the group or their agent or by the candidate or the candidate's agent (respectively); (b) in the case of material that contains any representation or indication (whether express or implied) that any candidate is a member of, or pursues or supports any or all of the objects or platform (whether with or without modification) of, a particular political party or group of candidates, that: (i) the party is not registered under Part XI; (ii) the group has not made a request under section 168; or (iii) the application was not endorsed in writing by the registered agent or by the other candidates in the group or their agent ; (c) in the case of material that contains directions or suggestions (whether express or implied) as to how to vote in accordance with the ticket of a political party or group of candidates in respect of a Division, that: (i) the party or group has not endorsed a candidate for the Division; or (ii) the material directs or suggests that a candidate not endorsed by it should be given the first preference vote; (d) in the case of material that contains directions or suggestions (whether express or implied) as to how to vote in accordance with the ticket of a political party or group of candidates in respect of a Senate election, that: (i) the party or group has not endorsed a candidate for the election ; or (ii) the material directs or suggests that a candidate or candidates not endorsed by it should be given the first or highest preference or preferences; (e) in the case of material that contains directions or suggestions (whether express or implied) as to how to vote in accordance with the ticket of a candidate in respect of a Division or Senate election, that: (i) the candidate is not a candidate for that Division; or (ii) the candidate is not a candidate in that election ; (f) that the material is intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of a vote, because of the use, in the material, of any matter suggesting or indicating party, group or independent candidate affiliation; or (g) that the material contains words that are obscene or offensive. (9) Registration may be unconditional or subject to conditions specified in the certificate of registration. (10) A certificate signed by the Electoral Commissioner and certifying that specified material was or was not registered on a specified day or during a specified period is admissible in proceedings for an offence under section 220A and is prima facie evidence of the matters certified. (11) Electoral material is taken to be registered in accordance with this section even though the material contains some differences from the draft or sample in respect of which the certificate of registration was issued, provided the material is substantially the same as the draft or sample. (12) Registration of electoral material is not a defence to a prosecution for an offence under section 220B. (13) In this section, how-to-vote card has the same meaning as in section 220A.220D Presiding officers to collect how-to-vote cards Each presiding officer is responsible for collecting a sample of each how-to-vote card distributed outside each polling place, for the purposes of research and analysis by the Electoral Commission.I do not seek to speak to this at length. This amendment has been circulated for a number of weeks so all parties have had the opportunity to see it. Again it arises from views we expressed in our minority report to the inquiry into the 1996 election. We think that the how-to-vote position is still less than satisfactory and we have sought to clean it up. Rules and regulations controlling the distribution of how-to-vote material vary between states and the Commonwealth. The Tasmanian Electoral Act, for instance, bans the distribution of how-to-vote cards on polling day. Section 246 of that act provides that it is an offence to do a number of things. How-to-vote cards in that state can be distributed prior to polling day. In the Tasmanian act a person is not permitted to canvass for votes or attempt to sway voters within 100 metres of a polling place.The New South Wales State Electoral Office issues guidelines relating to how-to-vote cards. The system of registration in New South Wales seeks to restrict the possibility of bogus how-to-vote cards being issued on polling days and the penalties for breaches are outlined in that act. The issue of how-to-vote cards is probably one of the worst areas where the Commonwealth system is stretched somewhat.The Australian Democrats have favoured aspects of law as it stands in Tasmania and in New South Wales, which may sound like a contradiction since one bans it and the other does not. We think that they have addressed this issue better than the current act does.You have had the opportunity to study the amendment, Minister, and I am sure you have some response, as does the opposition. Rather than take excessive amounts of time, it would be better for me to hear what you have to say than for me to put the case further, unless I have to.18:22:004158Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The Democrats have a long history—predating Senator Murray—of having great concern, for some reason, about how-to-vote cards. In my more cynical moments I wonder whether it has something to do with the fact that the Democrats have fewer people available to hand out how-to-vote cards, but I am sure that is not right. I do think how-to-vote cards are a legitimate part of Australian democracy, that it is right and proper for the parties to feel free to have their supporters indicate to their voters how they believe they should complete their ballot paper and that minimal restrictions should be placed on the exercise of that democratic freedom.Senator Murray raised the question of bogus how-to-vote cards. The Electoral Commission has just very wisely sent out to parties advice on the law relating to bogus cards and made the point that false how-to-vote cards can amount to a breach of existing provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which would attract very severe penalties. So the law already provides for a practice which should be abhorred.We are not in a position to support this amendment. We do not believe that there are any good, proper and valid reasons in relation to current electoral law and practice to require the very significant step of a registration procedure for how-to-vote cards and the consequential creation of an offence of handing out how-to-vote cards which are not registered. I as a democrat—with a small `d'—have some difficulty with people being prosecuted, arrested or whatever simply because they exercise a freedom to hand out a piece of paper which has not be registered.The Electoral Commission advises me that the New South Wales scheme, on which this appears to be modelled, is not all plain sailing. There are difficulties there. Again it opens up avenues for litigation as to whether cards are properly registered or not and appeals against registration. There are loopholes in the amendment. As proposed, 22OC(11)—obviously by design—gives a fairly significant loophole which then puts the Electoral Commission into a difficult situation as to whether something is registered and whether it can be handed out and creates difficulties on polling day. Polling day is difficult enough without the sorts of difficulties that this scheme might propose. This scheme does not deal with what is still a substantial number of votes cast using postal, pre-poll and mobile voting where how-to-vote cards are used. This scheme does not touch on those, so you have that anomaly.We are all very conscious of the Democrats' views on how-to-vote cards. We have consistently resisted—for what we believe are good and democratic reasons—the extent to which the Democrats have sought to either ban them or regulate them and will, I regret to say, Senator Murray, continue to do so.18:26:004158Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—This amendment moved by Senator Murray is not supported by the opposition. I do believe that some of the existing provisions in the act, such as section 329(1), really do go to this issue if properly applied. That section reads:A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, any matter or thing that is likely to mislead or deceive an elector in relation to the casting of a vote.It seems to me that that section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act already prohibits the distribution of misleading or deceptive material. I accept Senator Murray's motivations in that that is what he is attempting to do, but I think those current provisions of the act achieve that in a less cumbersome way.I am concerned that this proposal would be pretty much a bureaucratic nightmare. I think it would be very difficult to administer. The proposals in Senator Murray's subsection 220C(11) which allow for material to contain some differences from the draft sample would also very soon become open to abuse and difficult to interpret.I also do not want to mislead you, Senator Murray. I think one ought to be pretty frank in these debates. The Labor Party has a view that the distribution of how-to-vote cards in an election campaign on polling day is a very important part of the political process. I do not resile from that and I know that you know that that is our position. We believe that the right of political parties to undertake that form of activity to advise those people who go to a polling booth who want to vote for the political party of their choice and to provide that voting information is an important part of the democratic process. If I did not say that to you, I would not be being entirely frank. It is also for that reason that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment and the subsequent amendments that you might be proceeding with if this one fails.18:29:004159Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support this amendment in so far as the Tasmanian system of not having how-to-vote cards on polling day is inherent in it. The Tasmanian state election days are a real pleasure as against the federal election days. You do not have people running the gauntlet to get into a polling booth. You do not have strained faced people in voter hats brandishing wads of how-to-vote cards tripping people up as they try to get up the path to the schoolhouse. Instead of that, as Senator Mackay knows, there is a relaxed atmosphere. People go to the polling place having looked at the newspaper in the morning or having gotten their how-to-vote pamphlet out of the letter box. They know how they are going to vote and, in a compulsory voting system, they are allowed to do so in peace.I can tell you, Senator Faulkner, that it is much better for the parties who are trying to get the last minute advantage at enormous expense to the peptic acid output to be playing tennis. The Tasmanian experience is a great one. I ask those people opposed to it to come down and have a look at the next polling day in Tasmania. I support the Democrats' move on this.Amendment not agreed to.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 19:30:004159Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 17), after item 103, insert:103A Paragraph 194(1)(g)Repeal the paragraph.103B Subsection 200E(8)Repeal the subsection.(2) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 2), after item 111, insert:111A After section 220Insert:220A No distribution of how-to-vote cards on polling day(1) A person must not distribute how-to-vote cards on polling day. Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months.(2) In this section, how-to-vote card means any card, handbill or pamphlet: (a) containing any representation of a ballot-paper or portion of a ballot-paper; or (b) containing any representation apparently intended to represent a ballot-paper or portion of a ballot-paper; or (c) having on it any directions or suggestions (whether express or implied) in relation to the casting of votes.(3) Schedule 1, item 113, page 23 (line 17), omit "The literature may include how-to-vote cards.".(4) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 4), after item 115, insert:115A Subsection 226A(8)Omit "including how-to-vote cards,".115B Subparagraph 227(8)(a)(ii)Repeal the subparagraph.(5) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 29), after item 119, insert:119A Subsection 234(3)Omit "(which may be, or include, a how-to-vote card)".Just before the suspension of the sitting I was amused somewhat by a remark of Senator Brown's. I had an image of the average Australian voter turning up on a warm election day dressed in thongs, singlet and shorts and being identified by their headgear. I think Senator Brown mentioned a boater, which sounded appropriately Liberal. I then tried to fit each party with a hat. The National Party, I thought, would probably have battered Akubras. I was not sure about the Labor Party, but I decided on caps for them. I thought the Greens would probably have sensible straw hats with singlets, thongs and shorts.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Certainly the Labor Party would not have boaters on.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I am quite sure—that is what amused me. Then I struggled with the Democrats. Eventually I decided that, because we have had so many teachers in our ranks, it might be a mortarboard. That is, perhaps, the alternative to having how-to-vote cards. That is enough minor hilarity from me.We have had the arguments and discussion about these matters before and I do not need to speak any further to them. 19:32:004160Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I do find these quite appalling and obnoxious proposals, particularly coming from a party that calls itself the Australian Democrats. They are proposing amendments which could result in the imprisonment of Australian citizens who dare to hand out how-to-vote cards on polling days suggesting how voters might fill in a ballot paper.This is one of the most appalling provisions I have ever seen come before this parliament. I am very surprised that Senator Murray would put himself in a position of proposing that ordinary Australians who wish to inform or exercise their democratic right to inform other voters how they think they might wish to fill out a ballot paper on polling day could end up in gaol for six months. I do not know that I need to say more. I really am very disappointed that Senator Murray would propose such an appalling and obnoxious provision. The government completely opposes it.19:33:004160Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What an extraordinary outburst. Senator Minchin's own party supports there being no how-to-vote cards in Tasmania on polling day. As I said before the dinner break, one of the great things about state polling days in Tasmania where people are not allowed to hand out how-to-vote cards—but people are well informed because their how-to-vote cards arrive in the mail or they clip out the how-to-vote slips in the newspaper on the Saturday morning—is that people can go to vote in peace. They do not have to run the gauntlet and face every party jostling to shove how-to-vote cards in their faces as they go up the school path to cast their votes. It is a tried and true alternative to the high pressure and sometimes pretty unseemly way in which citizens are allowed to approach the ballot box when voting.As you know, Mr Temporary Chairman, being a Tasmanian, there is a very different ambience on polling day for state elections, and some of those have been hard fought elections with high tension in the air. Come polling day, people can go to the polls at their leisure without that frantic last-minute effort by all and sundry to try to convince them they should vote in some other way than the way they have decided to vote. The advantage here is, of course, that that information would be available in booths. I think it is a very civilised amendment that has been put forward by the Democrats.19:35:004160Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I think the minister made a telling point, frankly, and I seek leave to amend the amendment before the Senate.Leave granted.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—With regard to subsection 220A (1) in amendment No. 2, I ask that the words `or imprisonment for 6 months' in the second line be deleted from the amendment.19:36:004160Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I am surprised that Senator Murray found Senator Minchin so persuasive—JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—That is not very surprising.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Why? I never find you persuasive, I must say. To use the headgear analogy, Senator Murray, if I were to vote for this, I suspect my party would firmly place a dunce's cap on my head—that is, if I was left with my head still attached some where between the level of my chin and my shoulder blades.I have got to say, as I think I indicated before the break, Senator Murray, that the Labor Party has a clear and consistent position in relation to this. We do think this is a very important part of political activity in the federal electoral process in this country. We consider it a very important right of political parties and political candidates to be able to provide advice on election day through the mechanism of providing a how-to-vote card to electors in relation to voting information. We also consider it an important democratic right of electors to either take that information if they care to or reject it if they care to at the polling booth.As I have indicated previously, the opposition will not be supporting these amendments, even though we ought to acknowledge that Senator Murray has somewhat modified his position in the course of debate on this particular amendment.Amendments not agreed to.19:38:004161Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—by leave—I move:(6) Schedule 1, item 117, page 24 (lines 14 and 15), omit "or such longer time as the Electoral Commissioner, before the end of that period, directs in writing".(17) Schedule 2, item 11, page 42 (lines 10 and 11), omit "or such longer time as the Electoral Commissioner, before the end of that period, directs in writing".These amendments, again, are just to correct technical errors that occurred when drafting the bill. The amendments correct a drafting error. The words to be deleted should not have been included in the first place. There was no intention to provide the Electoral Commissioner with a discretion to extend the 13-day cut-off for postal votes received in the mail. This issue is about the receipt of declaration votes forwarded by a divisional returning officer or an Australian returning officer to the relevant DRO. As I recollect, it concerns the case where there is an interruption to the process of dispatching postal votes from a divisional returning officer to the Electoral Commission, so it ensures those postal voters are not disenfranchised. There was a technical error which these amendments correct.19:39:004161Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The minister has indicated that this was a drafting error. I consider these to be technical amendments. Obviously, these amendments will be supported by the opposition.Amendments agreed to.19:40:004161Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 9), after item 120, insert:120A After subsection 239(1)Insert:(1A) The numbers referred to in paragraph (1)(b) are to be consecutive numbers, without the repetition of any number.(2) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 29), after item 124, insert:124A At the end of paragraph 268(1)(b)Add "without the repetition of any number".(3) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 1), after item 125, insert:125A At the end of paragraph 268(1)(c)Add "without the repetition of any number".125B Subparagraph 270(1)(b)(i)Omit "or numbers that with changes to no more than 3 of them would be in such a sequence", substitute "without the repetition of any number".125C Subparagraph 270(1)(b)(ii)Omit "or numbers that with changes to no more than 2 of them would be in such a sequence", substitute "without the repetition of any number".125D Paragraph 270(1)(f)After "1", insert "without the repetition of any number".As I was listening to the Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin, I was wishing that I had spotted the drafting error in the earlier amendment.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—Any time you need my help.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I am very glad the minister picked it up and admonished me appropriately. We are dealing here with what I think have become colloquially known as the Langer amendments and the Langer issue. The introduction of sections 270(2), 329(3) and 329A of the Electoral Act was intended to protect people who made an inadvertent error in casting their vote. Unfortunately, the beneficial effect of these sections was undermined by the deleterious effects, as we consider them, of special pleadings. As an increasing number of citizens wilfully defied the law by encouraging voters to use a form of optional preferential voting using these sections in the Electoral Act, the AEC has been obliged to launch injunctions and/or prosecutions during an election period. That is plainly unsatisfactory.At the 1996 federal election, 48,979 exhausted votes of the House of Representatives were saved from informality by section 270. As the Senate knows from the bill, the government has moved to correct that problem in the House of Representatives, but our view is that we retain a problem in the Senate. I did have some correspondence with the minister in April this year about this matter and, with the minister's permission, I will refer to parts of that letter which are fairly straightforward. The letter states:I sought clarification from the AEC as to the practical implication should an elector complete their ballot paper along the lines of 1,2,3,4,4,4,4, etc. The AEC was able to confirm that this would be an invalid vote as a result of the new provisions.Section 270 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 allows for certain votes with non-consecutive numbers to be formal. The provision to delete part (2) of section 270, contained in the Bill, will remove that availability in elections for candidates in the House of Representatives.It should be noted that there is an additional provision contained in the Bill to require numbers to be consecutive, without the repetition of any number .Later on in the letter, these remarks were made:With regard to optional preferential voting in Senate elections. It is true to suggest that the availability is still there to exercise an optional preferential vote. However, the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in section 270(1) require no less than 90% of the boxes to be completed. Also, the national average, as reported by the AEC, in terms of electors that exercise the option to vote above the line exceeds, 95%.As a result, the incidence of `optional preferential voting' occurring in Senate elections is very low. The Government, therefore, does not believe that amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 are necessary in that context.I do not know whether the minister still holds that view because, prior to Mr Langer starting his campaign, the same was true of the House of Representatives—the instance was quite low there, too. Recently, in Queensland, we have seen examples where styles of voting like that can produce consequences which are not necessarily desirable. The problem of non-informal voting was first addressed in changes to the Electoral Act in around 1983-84.In my view, the house is now adequately covered by the effects of repealing section 329(3) and 329A, and adding a new item to section 240. That addresses the Langer challenge of encouraging a 1, 2, 3, 3, 3 voting method for the House of Representatives and removing any recourse to optional preferential voting. However, there is no corresponding amendment for the Senate similar in effect to the new 240(2). This, in conjunction with the repeal of section 329(3), leaves it open for any person who wishes to copy the Langer approach to advocate, for example, in a Senate election a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and then 7 all the way down to No. 30 vote for the Senate.We, as a party, are supporters of the fully preferential system of voting, and I have understood the minister to say previously that that is the government's position as well. Perhaps the minister could clarify that for the Senate.If the Senate is not similarly treated, we think there could again be a campaign in the coming election on this same basis. That campaign could be adopted by a particular political party, as an example, not just by a particular activist. We accept that the history of the incidence of optional preferential voting having been low in the Senate is true, but we do not necessarily accept that that could always be so.We think it is undesirable as well, Minister, in terms of consistency of practice, for there to be a different system for the House of Representatives compared with that of the Senate. Surely the two houses should be dealt with in exactly the same way in the method of voting.Because of that, I would urge the government and the opposition to give support to these amendments. I would urge the government to reconsider its view that this is unnecessary in the Senate—on the grounds of consistency; on the grounds of the precedent which you believe should be avoided in terms of Mr Langer's activism; on the grounds of a belief that we have, that I think you may have and that the Labor Party may have on a fully preferential system of voting; and on the grounds that there is a very real possibility of this system you are outlining becoming very active in the coming election in the Senate practice. Those are the reasons I have moved these amendments. I urge the Senate to give them favourable consideration.19:48:004163Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I will indicate the government's view and then Senator Brown and others may wish to comment. In this bill, as I understand it, we are, certainly with the opposition's support, seeking to restore, with respect to the House of Representatives, the basic underlying principle of the Electoral Act; that is, we have full preferential voting in Australia for the House of Representatives—a system I have always strongly supported and which I and the government believe was being undermined by the provisions that effectively allowed optional preferential or de facto first-past-the-post voting in the House of Representatives, and which then led to the ridiculous situation where people were guilty of an offence if they advocated voting in a way which was formal under the act.We have dealt with that, and I appreciate both the support of the opposition and the Democrats in correcting that situation in the House of Representatives by restoring full preferential voting and then removing any need for anything to do with the so-called Langer provisions. We are quite open and honest and strong about our support for full preferential voting for the House of Representatives.I think Senator Murray in his normal way does present a degree of logic in his argument. But I do think the Senate is different; it has a different voting system. The fact is that, with the introduction of one-in-the-box voting since, I think, the early 1980s, well over 90 per cent of voters now do vote one in the box for the Senate. Around five per cent of votes are cast below the line.The Electoral Act—and I think this may come as a surprise even to many politicians—does contain so-called savings provisions for below-the-line voting where there are nine or more candidates for the Senate. The intention is to ensure that honest mistakes in voting below the line do not automatically render the vote invalid and, thus, effectively disenfranchise that Senate vote.In the case of the Senate you are typically dealing with many, many more candidates and many more boxes to number, and genuine and honest mistakes can be made. The provisions in the Electoral Act are not wide open; it is a restricted savings provision. But, given that we are dealing with so few below-the-line votes—as I say, around five per cent—there is not really any reliable guide to how many of those might be made informal by Senator Murray's proposals. But, even if it is only one or two per cent, as would be the Electoral Commission's observation on this, I do not think it is appropriate to go down this path without a proven case.It may be that the Democrats or others can convince the government and the opposition that there is a case, but we are not in a position to accept these amendments on the basis of the evidence before us. We think the Senate is different in that there is nothing like the degree of difficulty that we face in the House of Representatives. The fact is that around 90-plus per cent do vote one in the box anyway. Because you are dealing with so many candidates, we think, on balance, it is reasonable to maintain the savings provisions for those who do vote below the line in the Senate. I do not think our minds are necessarily closed on this. I think Senator Murray puts a good case in logic. But the government is not in a position at this stage to support these sorts of amendments.19:52:004164Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—If I can interpret that. The government believes that it is advantaged by getting rid of optional preferential voting in the House of Representatives and forcing people to make a preference, if they have voted for the smaller parties or for one or other of the big parties—but not in the Senate, where it is likely there would be a disbenefit to the big parties. Due to the complicated nature of voting below the line, a lot of people would make mistakes and votes therefore would be lost which otherwise would pass on as preferences to the big parties. That is how I read that.I find myself at a loss to believe that, in a compulsory voting system where there has been provision for optional preferential voting—even though it had been made illegal to advocate it—we are now having the parliament, and it seems all parties except the Greens, taking this position in the wake of citizens saying, `That is an option we want.' When it became clear to the big parties that they might be disadvantaged by people who feel they want to vote for Independents, the Greens or the Democrats but not be forced to vote for `the lesser of two evils', as they saw the ALP or the coalition, when it was organised to let people know that that option was available, that led to action which sees us in here, ostensibly on the eve of an election, closing that option to Australian citizens, to Australian voters. There was never any action before, but as soon as it threatens the big parties—Bang!—in comes the legislation to cut off that option.I believe that in a compulsory voting system where you can be fined and can potentially end up in jail, you ought to have the choice of optional preferential. But here we have got, not for any clear democratic reason but because of the disadvantages to the big parties, legislation which says, `You can't do that any more.' It was okay when it was there to pick up or to validate votes where people had made a mistake on their ballot paper. But when intelligent citizens said, `We want this option because it suits our view of how we should vote,' and indicated that they were going to do it in droves, in comes the legislation to say, `We will cut that off because that is not good for the big parties.'It is not the only amendment we are seeing in this legislation because of something that does not advantage the big parties. As I said earlier in the day, the last people who will get a voice on an issue like this are the Independents. It is not to the advantage, generally, of the big parties to make it easy for Independents to either stand for parliament or to be voted for. The big parties use their numbers in the parliament to ensure the passage of legislation that will help them. I think many Australians, if they knew that the `Langer option' which got such publicity at the last elections was being clobbered here tonight—and the Democrats want to actually clobber it in both houses—would feel like clobbering some of the people in here themselves.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Don't encourage them.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Murray, you say, `Don't encourage them,' but I think people ought to know that their democratic rights are being trammelled by this legislation going through here in what appears to be the last few days before there is an election.In 1993, some 7,000 or 8,000 people voted 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, or 1, 2, 2, 2, 2 or 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 or in other ways which did not serially number all the positions on the House of Representatives voting papers. But they were valid votes; they were counted. Albert Langer—he is a philosopher and activist in Melbourne—and some others decided last election, in 1996, that people had a right to know in a compulsory voting system, particularly when they did not want to vote for some of the options on the paper, that they could vote 1, 2 and then 3, 3, 3, 3 for all the rest if they wanted to. This meant that, if they were voting 1 and 2 for two small parties, their preferences were there and were counted. But, if they did not like the rest of the people from the parties represented, they gave them all the same preference—3, 3, 3 across the board—and no preference was allocated. What it means, in short, is that people had the option of voting for Independents, Greens or Democrats or some other small party and were not forced to show a preference for the big parties, whom it must be assumed they abhorred.The problem was that, in the Electoral Act as it stood, while it was legal to vote in this fashion, it was illegal to advocate that you vote in this fashion. As a result, Albert Langer was instructed by a court that he must desist from telling citizens that they had this valid option available to them. He, being the democrat that he was, did not desist and ended up in jail for quite a period because he was telling people their voting rights whereas the electoral legislation said you could not. We had that extraordinary position where he ended up in jail for advocating a perfectly valid option.Because of his activities and those of his associates, the number of votes cast in the optional preferential fashion, `the Langer option', soared from some 7,000 votes to nearly 50,000 at the last election—that is for the House of Representatives, let alone the Senate. We can assume from that that, had things stayed as they were or had we done the reasonable thing—and that is remove the restriction on being able to advocate the Langer option—there may have been some hundreds of thousands of people taking that option at the next election.That was enough to bring sweat to the brow of every big party—and, as it turns out, Democrat—psephologist or party strategist. Their attitude is, `Give the people that option and they will take it, and we are not going to be advantaged,' although I understand that the Democrats are saying that they have simply decided that optional preferential voting should not be allowed. I am not sure why that decision has been made, but that is party policy.The same cannot be said for the big parties. They have entertained this option in the past because it advantaged them. Now, suddenly, scores of thousands of people all over the country are saying, `Hey, there is an option that gets me out of having to decide between the two economic rationalist parties, who so often line up together and do not give us an option. We will take it, because we do not want to have to decide which is the lesser of two evils.' So we have got this legislation before us. What I find extraordinary is that the Democrats are going one step further and saying that not only should we take this right away from voters for the House of Representatives but we should take it away for the Senate as well. This is not a good night for democracy and not a good night for voters' options.It is unfortunate that the media has not taken this up with much more gusto. The fourth estate should be watching democratic rights like hawks, and this should have been flagged much more in the media. For some reason or other it has not. We are essentially voting here on this extraordinarily important democratic principle tonight as to whether this nation should have optional preferential voting in a compulsory voting system, and nobody out there knows about it. I think many people are going to feel defrauded by this process. They have had no input into it because they had no warning and no knowledge that it is happening.I, for one, feel very aggrieved on their behalf. I feel that this ought to have been the subject of much greater public debate. I know there have been committee hearings and so on, but essentially this is flying past without the debate it deserves. So I stand opposed to the Democrat amendments on this occasion and I stand opposed to the abolition of optional preferential voting, which is what is occurring here.20:02:004165Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Currently, of course, the provisions of the act in relation to below the line voting for the Senate mean that electors must number at least I think it is 90 per cent of the squares on the ballot paper with no more than three errors. My concern at the amendment that Senator Murray has moved is simply that you have got a situation where, if this amendment were to be agreed with, you would effectively eliminate, as I understand it, the option to make errors below the line. The result of that would be an increase in the number of informal votes.I hear what Senator Brown says when he talks about the motivations of the major political parties. For my part, I say that I do want to see the formal vote maximised. I think that is important. I acknowledge that we have a full preferential voting system in this country, and it is one that I want to support and defend. I do not think it is improper for the parliament to be looking at eliminating the potential for optional preferential voting when that is not in accord with the letter of or the spirit of our electoral system in this country.The Labor Party has accepted that, if someone advocates such a course of action, we certainly do not want to see an individual thrown in gaol in that circumstance, which, as Senator Brown rightly points out, is what occurred in relation to Mr Langer. But I would be very concerned that, I am sure inadvertently, what Senator Murray is proposing is going to mean that you will have more informal votes for the Senate. That is something that I think would be a most unfortunate consequence of this amendment. I am prepared to hear and take the AEC's advice on these sorts of issues. The view of the AEC in relation to complex amendments like this is worth serious consideration on the part of the committee.I suppose the fundamental issue at the end of the day is whether we should be in the business of protecting the integrity of our full preferential voting system. That is the view of the parliament and has been the view of the parliament for very many years. I am willing to lend the Labor Party's voice, the opposition's voice, to protecting that. I am also not willing to support proposals that might have the impact of seeing the informal vote increased for one house of the Australian parliament, in this case the Senate, where we are giving consideration to the scrutiny of votes for Senate elections.It is for those reasons that I do not support the Democrats' amendments. We have a proposition here that may be proposed with all the best will in the world, but it is not going to have the impact that Senator Murray wants it to have. In fact, the consequences of the committee accepting this amendment will be far-reaching and serious ones that will in crease, probably quite dramatically, the number of informal votes cast in Senate elections. I do not think that is acceptable. That would be a most intolerable situation. So, while I assume that the Australian Democrat proposal is moved in the spirit of ensuring the protection of a full preferential voting system, I do not believe that would be the effect and impact of the amendments. It is not for any other reasons but for those reasons that the opposition will not support the amendments that Senator Murray has moved on behalf of the Australian Democrats.20:08:004166Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I do not want to unnecessarily prolong the debate, but I think it is appropriate to speak further on behalf of the Democrats, in support of Senator Murray's amendments, and also to further outline the Democrats' position on the other issues that this schedule and these amendments deal with in relation to removing the ability for de facto optional preferential voting to be done in the lower house and to respond to some of the slightly uncharitable comments that Senator Brown has made about the Democrats.Regardless of whether any individual party or person supports optional preferential voting or compulsory preferential voting, I find it a bit strange that the Democrats should be given extra criticism for simply trying to be consistent and ensuring that the principle of compulsory preferential voting, if we are going to apply that principle accurately in the lower house, should also apply as accurately as possible in the upper house. That is obviously what my colleague Senator Murray's amendments aim to ensure.It is important to emphasise in relation to this issue that the parliament never chose to introduce optional preferential voting. If the parliament had wanted optional preferential voting it would have introduced amendments to the act to clearly produce very simple, straightforward optional preferential voting such as currently operates at state level in my own state of Queensland, which we saw utilised to some significant impact just a couple of weeks ago. I would suggest to Senator Brown in terms of this approach that, if he genuinely supports optional preferential voting, the so-called Langer approach is an incredibly clumsy way to try to have optional preferential voting. It would be better and more appropriate for him to move amendments to the act to have straightforward, simple optional preferential voting such as exists in Queensland and, I think, in New South Wales at the moment.The reasons why the Democrats do not support optional preferential voting is that we believe it is not fully democratic. I know Senator Minchin is a famous proponent of voluntary voting, but we support compulsory voting because we think it is important that people are urged and required as strongly as possible to exercise their democratic responsibility. Similarly with compulsory voting—that once they actually get to vote they exercise that responsibility as fully as possible. Senator Brown has accused the Democrats of restricting voter choice by supporting the removal of the clause that enabled the Langer vote to occur. In fact, we are not restricting voter choice; we are ensuring that voters express their full choice. I think that is an important point to make.The optional preferential system is a de facto first past the post system. The first past the post system is one of the poorest democratic systems that operate around the globe and is one of the worst ways of representing a clear indication of the voters' beliefs and the voters' choices. The Democrats believe that moving towards a system that provides a less clear and less complete indication of the voters' choice is not the best way to go. Again, if we do as a parliament believe it is the best way to go we should simply introduce an amendment to bring in proper optional preferential voting, nice and clear and simple, rather than do it this backdoor way. It is a poor way of having optional preferential voting.Clearly, the extraordinary position—I would agree with Senator Brown and other speakers—of Albert Langer ending up in gaol advocating a vote that was a legal and formal vote is ridiculous. It is for precisely that reason that the Democrats and all other parties here are supporting the removal of this provision—so that we do not have that ridiculous situation occurring again. It is a shame that we have slightly weakened the opportunity for people who do make an honest mistake to have their votes still counted, but nonetheless the price that we were having to pay for that was having a de facto optional preferential voting system. I re-emphasise the point I have made that that is a less democratic system from the Democrats' viewpoint, and that is why we think the suggestion that somehow it is an affront to the name of the Australian Democrats to ensure compulsory preferential voting is a bit of a non-sequitur, frankly.The other danger with optional preferential voting, and a constant source of frustration and irritation to the Democrats, is the myth that gets put around by the larger parties that a vote for smaller party, a vote for an independent, is a wasted vote—`You have to put your No. 1 straight against us or you are risking electing someone else.' That, quite clearly and demonstrably, is a load of rubbish under a compulsory preferential system, but it does have a degree of truth and a degree of plausibility under an optional preferential system. It allows the larger parties to give credence to the myth that a vote for a smaller party, a vote for an independent, a vote for somebody who you are not sure will win, may end up being a wasted vote.We saw a number of people who did just plump for a single `1' in the Queensland election. It varied a fair bit between electorates, but my understanding is that it got up to 20 or 25 per cent in some areas. I would suggest, without having done a full and complete analysis of all the ballot papers in every electorate, that that had quite a significant impact on the outcome. We may well have had a different person as premier in Queensland over the next few years if we had compulsory preferential voting.Obviously, that indicates that it would have benefited the coalition parties to have had compulsory preferential voting in Queensland at the recent election. I suppose it shows how noble and non-self-serving they are that they did not choose to amend the Electoral Act while they had the chance and thus put themselves in that situation. It also shows that to suggest that somehow this is all purely to advantage the larger parties—whilst I am sure that does happen from time to time—is a bit of a flawed analysis in this circumstance. Obviously if it would advantage one large party, as I believe it would have done in Queensland, it would have been a significant disadvantage to the other larger party in Queensland, the Australian Labor Party, at the last election. This would perhaps vary from circumstance to circumstance.It is something that I think will be particularly important in relation to the other party, which unfortunately is rather larger in Queensland than one would like at the moment. It is a bit of a shame to me, having come from Queensland and having just got over having to listen to many years of Queenslander jokes about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the former Premier, turning the clock back 100 years and one hour, that suddenly all those jokes are reappearing again at a great rate of knots. I guess that is the price you pay.It would be particularly important in relation to the One Nation party at the next federal election if they were to have the opportunity to advocate an optional preferential vote and not nail their colours to the mast in relation to which party they were supporting, as they tried to avoid doing in the Queensland election. They had a variety of different how-to-vote cards depending on what day of the week it was. I think that would leave them much more scope to carry out some of the underhanded activities that they have already demonstrated they are so capable of. It is for that reason as well that it is important not to provide extra leeway for parties such as One Nation, as I believe the move towards an optional preferential voting set-up would do.There are any number of reasons, whether you are looking at specific Queensland circumstances or at our broader democratic principles about ensuring people fully outline their choice of who they want to govern them in full order of their preferences. It is an important principle here. It is also important to emphasise that, if we do want to have a debate about optional versus compulsory, we should do it directly with specific amend ments that suggest it rather than defend a backdoor way of having optional preferential voting by maintaining this sort of Langer style of voting that exists currently in the act.It is certainly not a threat to the Democrats to have a Langer style of voting in there, and I am not sure it is terribly much of a threat to us to have compulsory preferential voting. It is a matter of basic principles. All parties operate under the same system and shape themselves according to the system that is there. But, again, it is important to emphasise that an optional vote and a de facto first-past-the-post vote do give a lot more scope for larger parties to frighten people away from experimenting with other options while still being able to pull their full vote back across. Anything that gives people pause towards shifting away from voting for the two traditional parties that have failed Australia for so long is something that should be avoided.20:18:004168Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I would point out for the record that, on the question of informal voting, which Senator Faulkner raised, the percentage of formal votes above the line for the major parties, as he knows and the AEC can confirm, is around 97 per cent. So the danger of informal voting affects the three per cent that vote for the major parties who would vote below the line. Since I do not regard that three per cent as all duffers, the number of those who would add to the informal voting numbers is likely to be relatively small. However, we cannot test that proposition until the system is changed. There is the potential in the coming election for One Nation, for instance, to adopt the Langer method of below the line voting. It will not affect us, but whether it would affect either of the major contestants I do not know. However, I recognise the numbers.Amendments not agreed to.20:20:004168Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Australian Greens oppose schedule 1, item 121, page 26 (lines 10 to 13). This is the other side to the coin, the Democrats having moved to ensure that the optional preferential option was not there for below the line voting in the Senate. On behalf of the Australian Greens, I am opposing the government's effort to ban the Langer option for House of Representatives voting—to ban optional preferential voting. The effect of it will be: let us not gaol the people who advocate this form of voting, let us instead invalidate the vote that people would have made had the option remained on the books.As I said earlier, we are seeing the banning of this option simply because it has become a threat to the big parties in the House of Representatives. That is no way for democratic intent to be handled. We would not be in this position if the parliament believed that intelligent voters should have the option of making a choice without being forced to give preferences to parties they equally abhor.At the last election, 49,000 Australians voted for some parties of their choice but used the Langer option to refuse to show a preference mainly for one or other of the big parties. That is 40,000 plus people who deliberately sought this option out when they knew it was available and used it. It is much different from the situation in Queensland, where some people might have chosen optional preferential because they inadvertently did not know that they were wasting their vote, as Senator Bartlett was explaining. It is different from the 7,000 or so folk who apparently, at federal elections, make a mistake on their ballot paper. These 40,000 Australians said, `Now that I know this option is there, I want to take it.' That was a very deliberated vote by citizens of this country.We have tonight Labor, the coalition and the Democrats saying, `We are going to block off that option to you. We know that each of you deliberately wants to vote to leave out the big parties, and we are not going to allow you to do it.' That is all there is to it; that is what it is about. This does not advantage the big parties, so it is not going to be left as part of the options for Australian voters going to the ballot box. That is the worst of reasons for bringing in an amendment like this.People did not only vote with their feet using this option at the last elections; they voted very much with their brains. If no-one else, those 40,000 voters would be very upset to know that the parliament is about to take that option from them for political reasons.20:24:004169Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I have previously referred to the government's commitment to ensuring that our electoral act is one dedicated fully to the preservation of full preferential voting. That is why these provisions are in there. They received bipartisan support in the joint standing committee and the government has picked up those recommendations.The opposition, as the coalition was then, did not feel at all supportive of the provisions which the Labor Party had put in, which Senator Bartlett said quite rightly was a backdoor method of bringing in optional preferential voting. This system was, prima facie, full preferential and optional preferential votes were counted as formal but you were not allowed to advocate voting in that way. It was really a dog's breakfast of a situation which these provisions correct.People will be free to advocate voting 1 and then 2, 2, 2. They will not be put in gaol for doing so, but people who vote that way will not be casting a formal vote. I think this does restore what has always been the great Australian tradition of full preferential voting. It is an electoral system of which most Australians and most Australian politicians have been very proud. As Senator Bartlett said, certainly when I am overseas I am proud to support our full preferential voting system in those countries that have first past the post, which I do think is a very unfortunate system of voting. It is quite wrong for members of parliament to be elected with what might be as low as 30 per cent of the vote, which is what first past the post or optional preferential voting can give you.Every member of parliament in Australia should be proud that we have devised the full preferential voting system. It does work well. It does ensure that you are elected only if you clearly have a majority of the voters in your electorate supporting you directly or indirectly, and there can be no question about the legitimacy of the people elected and their mandate to represent their electorates. We are delighted to have this opportunity to restore full preferential voting to the Australian electoral system. We therefore oppose Senator Brown's amendment.20:26:004170Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I just make the point again that what had been evolving here was a very specific option to both optional preferential voting and full preferential voting. That was a deliberate option for those voters who wanted to have optional preferential voting. That was taken by their filling in all boxes while making it clear that they did not extend their preferences to all parties.That is different from the Queensland situation. That is a refinement of full preferential voting in a system which has compulsory voting. We are one of only four countries in the world that have compulsory voting. I think that it is because of compulsory voting that this option should have remained. Those people made it clear by the tens of thousands that they were prepared to take the optional preferential course. They showed that they did it deliberately because they were filling out all the numbers on the boxes. They were going 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3.But all other parties except the Greens are saying, `We are not going to allow that option to those many thousands of people who have deliberately sought it and found that that is the best option for them and have indicated, by the way they fill in all the boxes on the ballot paper, that they are deliberately determined not to extend their preferences to all parties.' It was a beautiful refinement of the compulsory preferential system and it has been taken away here tonight—without due consideration or, worse still, for pure political reasons—from those voters of Australia.20:28:004170Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will not go on terribly much but it is appropriate to respond to a small degree in relation to this issue. I recognise that by doing this the Senate in committee is cutting off the option that 49,000-odd thousand people chose to use at the last federal election. What those people also chose to do—I imagine in the very large majority of cases—was to opt out of the ultimate choice in having a say about who would represent them in their electorate and in the parliament.Whilst I recognise it was clearly their choice to do that, it is something that the Democrats believe in, in the same way that we believe that people should be required to exercise their choice and, if you like, be compelled to exercise their choice through compulsory voting. They should be compelled to fully demonstrate that choice through compulsory preferential voting—full preferential voting—and not opt out of having a full say in who would represent them.Again, I would suggest that rather than the current system—the Langer type vote—being a refinement of optional preferential voting, it really is quite an accidental and bizarre distortion of optional preferential voting. It is a sort of Frankenstein's monster version, I would suggest, of optional preferential voting. If people want to have that system—and I acknowledge that some people believe that is a better approach—then they should simply introduce straightforward optional preferential voting.20:30:004170Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—No, it is not an opting out. It is a very deliberate protest vote against the lack of option offered by the big parties. But opting for the other alternatives—DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Not voting is a protest.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Bartlett says not voting is a protest. He might add that informal voting is a protest. It cannot be seen as such. It is not measured as such. The Langer option gives a very clear measure. Last election 40,000 people said, `I do not want to be forced to make a choice between the old parties.' The fear is that at the next election it might be 400,000 people saying that. That is why it is being moved against. It is so wrong.It is not an opting out. It is a very deliberated, intelligent way of casting a vote to give a very strong message to the big, old political parties. And because that message is being heard, that option is being taken away.20:31:004170Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Let me outline what the opposition's position is on this particular amendment that has been sponsored by Senator Brown. We have here, properly enough, a fundamental difference in attitude in the committee about support for, or otherwise, or opposition to, the full preferential voting system that we have federal elections in this country. It just happens that, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, we support that system. We support it strongly. I appreciate that Senator Brown might not. I respect those who hold different points of view. Senator Brown is saying to us that there is a way to impose optional preferential voting, and support for Senator Brown's amendment is the way to do it. Of course, that would really be a backdoor method of changing our full preferential voting system.It is fair enough to have a debate about the respective merits of the system. As far as the opposition is concerned, we support full preferential voting in federal elections. Senator Minchin made it clear on behalf of the government that apparently the government does too. I can only say that if we are to have a debate about the respective merits of the system, I suspect it would be better to have a pretty frank one out in the open and in a more forthright way. At the end of the day—and Senator Brown correctly makes the point—if we do not have the change to the act, then you can cast an optional preferential vote. That is not the intention of the act. The intention is that we not only have but respect the integrity of our full preferential system. I do not think this is the best way for those who do support optional preferential voting to see a change. I think it would be much better to have the debate out in the open and the benefits or alleged disbenefits of the various systems could be debated more openly and thoroughly. That is my view.I accept that Senator Brown has a different view in relation to the respective merits of the system. But, as far as the Labor Party is concerned in federal elections, we do support the full preferential voting system. I am not entirely sure that there is any great partisan advantage to our party in that regard. Some may think there is; some may disagree. I suspect that that can vary a lot depending on the nature of the election campaign. I suspect it varies a lot depending on whether the respective major political parties are in government or in opposition, and a whole range of other factors. But, at the end of the day, the principle we support in federal elections is a full preferential system. If you have a change, it would be better to have a change more generally, more openly, more frankly in the appropriate forum about the respective merits of the voting system.I make that substantive point to Senator Brown that this is very much a backdoor method of effectively seeing voting in an optional preferential manner become a formal vote. That is not what our electoral system currently is about and a debate to change them could be had very much more frankly in a very different way if it was the view of some that there ought to be a change. While it is the view of some—and I acknowledge that and I defend their right to argue their case—it is not the view of the Labor Party and that is why we will be opposing the amendment that Senator Brown has moved.20:36:004171Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am not changing the system; you and the other components of this place are changing the system. That is why we have these amendments here. I say, `Do not bring them in.' You say, `We want them.' My amendment simply is to oppose these amendments, and I take your point exactly: go out into the public and debate this if you want to change it.You said that that debate has not been had. Let us have it before we deal with these amendments. That is why I am opposing them. Let us have some logic here. If that is the argument—and I agree with it—let us have this full public debate before we take away this option which Australians have enjoyed at recent elections. I am not the one wanting to change this. The Labor Party, the coalition and the Democrats want to change this without, as you have said, the due public debate.20:38:004171Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This is my final contribution. I am sure that senators have better things to do than watch Senator Brown and I bicker all night along. To finally respond to a couple of other points that he has made, I think it is important to re-emphasise that the parliament did not choose initially to go for an optional preferential voting system. That was not the intention of the original amendments to the act. I am quite happy to listen to and engage in the debate that Senator Faulkner is talking about as to whether or not we should have an optional system such as in Queensland. That is fine, but let us deal with it specifically as up-front optional preferential voting, not as a backdoor method.I think it is also important to emphasise that informal votes can be measured as protest votes in certain circumstances. Probably one of the better arguments for optional preferential voting is that under a system such as in Queensland at the moment it is virtually impossible to accidentally vote informal. It is very damn hard, so you can pretty clearly measure most of the informals as a protest vote. People not voting is a pretty clear message that they cannot even be bothered to have a say. I think that sends a message to all of us in the same way as does deliberately voting informal and casting the message that they have no faith in any of us here.I suppose that it is possible that some people might not have any faith in any of the political parties or any of the candidates. If we really wanted to measure people's level of disaffection and non-interest in politics and in the job that all of us do, we would move to a voluntary voting system as some advocate. The Democrats strongly oppose that, as I understand do the Greens and others, and I hope they continue to do so.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that schedule 1, item 121 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.20:40:004172Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—by leave—I move:(7) Schedule 1, item 136, page 32 (lines 25 to 32), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) if subparagraph (b)(ii) applies—count each ballot-paper of an excluded candidate to whichever of the first or second ranked candidates is earlier in the order of preference expressed on the ballot-paper. (8) Schedule 1, page 33 (after line 11), after item 136, insert:136A Subsection 274(8) Repeal the subsection.(9) Schedule 1, item 138, page 33 (lines 24 and 25), omit the item, substitute:138 Subsection 274(11) Repeal the subsection.This again is an amendment that really should have been in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 when it was first circulated, but the requirement for the amendment was overlooked.This simply is consequential on the debate we have just had. It removes references in the Electoral Act to exhausted votes, which were those votes which were not fully preferential but remained formal. There will not be any such thing in the new scheme, so there is no need for a reference to exhausted votes. These amendments simply delete those references.Amendments agreed to.20:41:004172Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I advise the Senate that I am withdrawing Democrats amendment No. 5 on sheet 852.20:41:004172Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—by leave—I move:(10) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 7), after item 141, insert:141A Subsection 287(1) (definition of financial controller ) Omit "associated".(11) Schedule 1, page 35 (after line 5), after item 146, insert:146A After subsection 316(3)Insert: (3A) If: (a) an authorised officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is capable of producing documents or other things, or giving evidence, relating to whether an entity is, or was at a particular time, an associated entity; and (b) the person is, or has at any time been, the financial controller or an officer of the entity; the authorised officer may, by notice served personally or by post on the person, require the person: (c) to produce, within the period and in the manner specified in the notice, such documents or other things as are specified in the notice; or (d) to appear, at a time and place specified in the notice, before the authorised officer to give evidence, whether orally or in writing, and to produce the documents or other things specified in the notice. The notice must not require the person to produce documents, or to appear, until after the end of the period of 14 days beginning on the day on which the notice was received, and must set out the person's right to request a review under subsection (3B). (3B) A person who is given a notice under subsection (3A) may request that the Electoral Commission review the decision to issue the notice. The request must be: (a) in writing; and (b) given to the Electoral Commission during the period of 14 days beginning on the day on which the notice was received. (3C) The Electoral Commission must: (a) review the decision as soon as practicable after receiving a request under subsection (3B); and (b) affirm, vary or set aside the decision; and (c) notify the person in writing of its decision on the review. (3D) If a person requests a review of a decision, the person is not taken to have refused or failed to comply with the notice to which the review relates at any time before the Electoral Commission has notified the person of its decision on the review.146B Subsections 316(4), (5) and (6) Omit "or (3)", substitute ", (3) or (3A)".These amendments relate to associated entities. They pick up the recommendation flowing from the Electoral Commission's funding and disclosure report following the last federal election, where the commission made certain remarks about its responsibilities with regard to associated entities, a concept relatively recently introduced into the public funding and disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act.Their purpose is to enable a person authorised by the Electoral Commission to serve a notice upon officers of an organisation requiring them to produce specific documents and to attend at a specific time and place for the purpose of ascertaining whether that organisation has a financial disclosure obligation as an associated entity. We think these are appropriate powers to give to the Electoral Commission to ensure that any organisation that the commission suspects may be an associated entity can be brought within the system. We are fully supportive of the recommendation made to us by the commission and therefore commend the amendment.20:43:004173Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I do not want to speak at length to these amendments though they do begin to come to grips with a very important issue, the issue of the Greenfields Foundation, on which I will be moving amendments on behalf of the opposition at a later stage in the committee's debate. This small move sponsored by the government is not opposed by the opposition. It is a small move in the right direction, but it is a totally inadequate measure to deal with the issue that has been exposed by the opposition over recent months—that is, the use of the Greenfields Foundation by the Liberal Party to breach the spirit of the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in order to launder huge amounts of money to the benefit of the Liberal Party and for the source of those funds not to be disclosed to the Australian public. That is an unacceptable situation. The opposition is moving to close that apparent loophole in the Commonwealth Electoral Act that has been so unfortunately exploited by the Liberal Party.I will confine my comments on the Greenfields Foundation to the opposition amendments I am sponsoring. I hope the government has seen the good sense of the opposition amendments. Even at this late stage there may be a change of view on the part of the government in relation to the significance of closing this apparent loophole in the act. No doubt we will hear some more from the minister about that at a later stage. This particular amendment is a small venture on the part of the government to move a small distance to begin to deal with this issue. I consider it not more than that. Nevertheless, it is worthy of support—but totally inadequate to deal with the very serious situation of the manipulation by the Liberal Party of the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The absolutely essential task that this committee has is to stop the Greenfields rort once and for all.20:46:004174Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I commend the government for bringing this amendment forward. The Australian Democrats will be supporting it. If the minister was completely beholden to partisan interests he would probably have not brought it forward. He has appropriately recognised that there is a problem which needs addressing and this is a helpful step on the road towards that. I concur with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that it probably does not go far enough. Nevertheless, you should get recognition for what you have done. I was in the estimates committee when the issue was raised. You indicated then that you would deal with it. You have taken early and quick action to do so. I wish that were so for every problem that every minister faced. Whilst the Leader of the Opposition may be a little grudging, I do recognise that this is an important contribution to greater transparency and I thank you for it.Amendments agreed to.20:48:004174Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2, (line 2), omit "This Act commences on the 28th", substitute "Subject to subsection (2), this Act commences on the".(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 3), add: (2) Items 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 141A, 146A and 146B of Schedule 1 commence on the 28th day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 5), omit "Each", substitute "Subject to section 2, each".I do not want to be accused of revealing information which I do not have relating to the election date, but these amendments do seek to ensure that provisions in this bill which are important with respect to the next election become effective on the day after the act receives royal assent and not on the 28th day after the act receives royal assent. I would hope that this act can receive such assent fairly soon, but in the event that the Prime Minister should exercise his prerogative to call an election within 28 days after that assent we would not want to be in a situation where the parliament has expressed the view that these amendments should be made but not be able to give them effect. I have no idea what is in the Prime Minister's mind on that matter, but I do commend these amendments to ensure that those election related provisions identified can take effect immediately.Amendments agreed to.20:49:004174Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I seek leave to move opposition amendments 1 to 5 together but ask that they be put separately if there are some different views in the committee in relation to them.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 7), after item 141, insert:141A Subsection 287(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of associated entity )Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties.This amendment replaces amendment (2) on sheet 974-Revised(R2) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 7), after item 141A, insert:141B Subsection 305(1)Omit "during that disclosure period", substitute "at any time".141C Paragraph 305(1)(a)After "person" (first occurring), insert "during that disclosure period".141D After subsection 305B(3)Insert:(3A) The return must also set out the relevant details of all gifts received by the person at any time, being gifts used to make gifts the whole or part of which were used to make gifts totalling $1,500 or more in a financial year to the same registered political party or the same State branch of a registered political party and the amount or value of each of which is equal to or exceeds $1,000.(3B) Relevant details for the purpose of subsection (3A), in relation to a gift, are: (a) the amount or value of the gift; and (b) the date on which the gift was made; and (c) in the case of a gift made on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association, other than a registered industrial organisation: (i) the name of the association; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; and (d) in the case of a gift purportedly made out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation: (i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the funds of the foundation; and (ii) the title or other description of the trust fund or the name of the foundation, as the case requires; and (e) in any other case—the name and address of the person who made the gift.(3) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 7), after item 141D, insert:141E After section 306Insert:306A Certain loans not to be received(1) It is unlawful for a political party or a State branch of a political party or a person acting on behalf of a political party or a State branch of a political party to receive a loan from a person or entity other than a financial institution unless the loan is made in accordance with subsection (3).(2) It is unlawful for a candidate or a member of a group or a person acting on behalf of a candidate or group to receive a loan from a person or entity other than a financial institution unless the loan is made in accordance with subsection (3).(3) The receiver of the loan must keep a record of the following: (a) the terms and conditions of the loan; (b) if the loan was received from a registered industrial organisation other than a financial institution: (i) the name of the organisation; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the organisation; (c) if the loan was received from an unincorporated association: (i) the name of the organisation or association; and (ii) the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association or organisation; (d) if the loan was paid out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation: (i) the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or of the foundation; and (ii) the title or other description of the trust fund, or the name of the foundation as the case requires; or (e) in any other case—the name and address of the person or organisation.(4) For the purpose of subsection (2), a person who is a candidate in an election is taken to remain a candidate for 30 days after the polling day in the election.(5) For the purpose of subsection (2), persons who constituted a group in an election are taken to continue to constitute the same group for 30 days after the polling day in the election.(6) Where a person receives a loan that, by virtue of this section, it is unlawful for the person to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the loan is payable by that person to the Commonwealth and may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against: (a) in the case of a loan to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party: (i) if the party or branch, as the case may be is a body corporate—the party or branch, as the case may be; or (ii) in any other case—the agent of the party or branch, as the case may be; or (b) in any other case—the candidate or a member of the group or the agent of the candidate or of the group, as the case may be.(7) In this section: financial institution means an entity which carries on a business that consists of, or includes, the provision of financial services or financial products and which is: (a) a bank; or (b) a credit union; or (c) a building society; or (d) any other entity registered under the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Codes as a special service provider.Note: See section 111AZB of the Corporations Law for the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Codes.(4) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 12), after item 142, insert:142A Subsection 314AA(1) (definition of amount )After "gift", insert ", loan or".(5) Schedule 1, page 35 (after line 3), after item 145, insert:145A After paragraph 314AC(3)(b)Insert: (ba) if the sum was received as a result of a loan—the information required to be kept under subsection 306A(3), or the name of the financial institution, as the case requires; orThe issue of the Greenfields Foundation is a very important one. This is a matter that has been exposed by the opposition. We have a situation where the Liberal Party of Australia have received a $4.65 million loan from the Greenfields Foundation. That is a blatant attempt on the part of the Liberal Party to sidestep the public disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. This loan from the Greenfields Foundation breaches the spirit of the act. This is an opportunity to ensure that this apparent loophole is closed. The Liberal Party had a $10 million debt to the National Australia Bank, which gave them financial backing for the 1996 election campaign. The Liberal Party's returns to the AEC for the 1995-96 financial year listed their debt to the NAB at $6,762,763. For the 1996-97 financial year the debt to the NAB had been reduced to $158,305, but for the same year a new lender was listed for the first time—the Greenfields Foundation, to which the Liberal Party owed $4,650,000.I am afraid that the Liberal Party does have a long history of exploiting apparent loopholes in the Commonwealth Electoral Act to launder money from undisclosed sources. We have been able to expose that, while the trustees of the Greenfields Foundation do not appear to be current officials of the Liberal Party, they certainly appear to share an uncanny number of contacts with the Free Enterprise Foundation. The Greenfields Foundation shares two of the three trustees with the Free Enterprise Foundation; namely, Mr Tony Bandle and Sir John Atwell, a former Liberal Party president.The 1996-97 disclosure shows the Free Enterprise Foundation, an associated entity, having a postal address at GPO Box 292, Canberra, ACT. However, the trustees of the Free Enterprise Foundation have a postal address c/- Post Office Box 52, Deakin West, ACT. This postal address was also used by the Free Enterprise Foundation itself in 1995-96. It is now used by the Greenfields Foundation and the same postal address is used by Bandle McAneney and Co. That is a company that has been a signatory on Liberal Party cheques. The Free Enterprise Foundation telephone contact on their return is for Bandle McAneney and Co., chartered accountants in Deakin. Stephen McAneney is the third trustee for the Greenfields Foundation.The situation in the act is that all donations over $1,500 to political parties must be disclosed. But, because the Greenfields Foundation money at $4.65 million was in the form of a loan to the Liberal Party, the source of the money—the Greenfields Foundation—does not need to be disclosed to the AEC under the act. A loan to a political party in itself is not a problem; the problem arises from the fact that the Greenfields Foundation can collect substantial donations from sources which remain anonymous for the purposes of funding disclosure. This will remain the case until the AEC determines the Greenfields Foundation to be an associated entity. Then you get a situation where that money is just forwarded to the Liberal Party in the form of a loan.We do not know when the loan will be repaid. We do not know how it will be repaid. We do not know how the funding is secured. We do not know what special arrangements exist in relation to the interest rates for the loan or other arrangements in financing of the loan. We do know that the Liberal Party have made a payment of $100,000 to the Greenfields Foundation. The money may not have been a repayment; we do not know. It might have been a grant to set up the foundation. If it is a repayment on a loan, it is at a very lucrative rate indeed of about 2½ per cent. I do not think this could ever be described as a loan on a commercial basis.As I have indicated for a long period of time—I have made many contributions in this chamber about this very serious situation—the Liberal Party are exploiting an apparent loophole in the electoral act so they can receive moneys through a loan which they may never have to repay. They might never intend to repay it. I suspect they have absolutely no intention of ever repaying this loan.Section 287 of the electoral act defines an associated entity as one which is either controlled by a political party or operates wholly or mainly for the benefit of a political party. The electoral act also requires an associated entity to lodge an annual return, including details of all gifts of more than $1,500 received during the financial year. You have to specify the details of the donor. Greenfields have not lodged such a return. We await responses in relation to our suggestions to the Australian Electoral Commission that Greenfields be required to furnish such a return. We await also the outcome of the AEC's regular audit of the Liberal Party to perhaps throw some more light on this issue.The amendments now before the committee close this loophole that has been exploited by the government through the Greenfields Foundation. The government has proposed some amendments. While those amendments, which have been accepted, do adequately broaden the investigative powers of the AEC for pursuing suspected associated entities, they do not go to the issue of closing the loophole. That is what the amendments that are now before the committee do. They tighten the definition of `associated entity'. They close the loophole in the event of the loan being forgiven and ultimately becoming a gift and they prevent loans being received from anyone other than a registered financial institution unless certain information such as terms and conditions of the loans are provided. I commend to the committee those objectives that the opposition has.Our first amendment goes to the definition of `associated entity'. It is our belief that we still need to pursue a tighter definition of `associated entity'. The Greenfields Foundation currently gets around the definition `operates wholly or mainly for the benefit of one or more registered political parties' by saying that the foundation will also be making significant contributions to unspecified charities.It could mean anyone. It could be the Sydney Institute, the National Farmers Federation or the Business Council of Australia—who knows? It could be any other conservative organisation. If that were the case, this money could be indirectly channelled into even more pro-government, pro-coalition advertising and campaigning. But, even if they do donate to charitable institutions or organisations, as they claim to do, the sums of money given to the odd charity could be very paltry sums of money. One example is, of course, the $2,000 we know about which was given to the Guide Dogs Association and the Royal New South Wales Institute for Deaf and Blind Children by that other laundering machine of the Liberal Party, the Free Enterprise Foundation.Let us acknowledge that it is a good thing if some very small donations have been made to those charities but, while that is happening, the Liberal Party is benefiting by millions and millions of dollars. Our amendment alters the definition to read:(b) operates wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties.It is stronger. We believe that would close that aspect of the loophole that exists in relation to the Greenfields Foundation.I am confining my remarks to ALP amendment No. 1, which is before the chair at the moment. I acknowledge that the AEC have some difficulties. They have told us they have got difficulties with the ambiguities of the current definition as some organisations dispute, they actually challenge, the current definition. But I have to say that, if there are current concerns with the existing definition, our amendments will not make those concerns any worse. The definition is discretionary for the AEC—it has got to be discretionary for the AEC.Perhaps it is true that say that, if it is any more definitive or prescriptive, there will still be problems with rorters like the Greenfields Foundation trying to get around it. But we are not only proposing that tightening. The opposition is also very serious about closing the loophole in the event of a loan being forgiven and ultimately becoming a gift. That is another way to get around the spirit of the Electoral Act. It appears that that is something only the Liberal Party is motivated to do.We think that it is essential that the act be amended to change the disclosure periods so that, in the event that the Greenfields loan is forgiven—and thus becomes a gift—its donors must still be disclosed even if the gift is outside the same disclosure period as the original donations. It is our assumption that the Greenfields loan is one that is interest free or has a nominally very low interest rate. As I have said, it could not possibly be at a commercial interest rate. It is a loan that will ultimately be forgiven. That loan would then become a gift. This is an issue that the committee must address tonight. (Time expired)21:04:004178Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Debate on this bill is already taking considerably longer than we hoped, so I am not going to prolong it by speaking at length on these opposition amendments. We do oppose them.We believe that the current and amended regime is sufficient to ensure that any abuse of the associated entity provisions will be discovered. We have, as I said, already agreed to amend the bill to provide the Electoral Commission with greater powers to ensure that all bodies which could be associated entities are discovered. We have full auditing of the political parties to ensure that any loans which are not in fact loans but gifts are discovered. There is no evidence whatsoever that what transpired between Greenfields and the Liberal Party is anything other than what it is. But, if it is, then that will be discovered and exposed by virtue of the audit which is currently taking place. Any attempt by a body not to register as an associated entity will be discovered by the powers that we tonight granted to the Electoral Commission.We think there are drafting problems with the ALP amendments. We do not agree with the change to the definition. We think that it would leave the commission in a very difficult position if they have got to decide what on earth `significant extent' really means. We think it puts them in a very invidious position, whereas the current definition is workable and will ensure that any associated entities are brought within the terms of the act.We also have some difficulty with the amendment to 141B, substituting for disclosure period `at any time'. The disclosure period provisions work perfectly adequately. There is no evidence that there is any difficulty there. The expression `at any time' could result in these provisions having a retrospective effect which we could not possibly support. Section 141E about trying to regulate loans to political parties seems, in our view, to be an extraordinary sledgehammer to crack a nut and, again, could involve extraordinary administrative problems. Also, on our advice, there could be real difficulties when a party is granted credit by the use of credit card. That may not be allowable under these provisions.We think these amendments are not adequately thought through. They are a gross overreaction. They are just part of a Labor Party political stunt to exploit what they see as a difficulty with the Greenfields loan which, as I said, will be exposed if it is not a loan by the audit that is currently being carried out. I advise the Senate that we cannot support these amendments.21:07:004178Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I think this amendment is one of the better examples of the benefits of a competitive political system and of the estimates process. I sat in the estimates and watched the fairly formidable team of Senators Faulkner and Ray addressing this matter with a minister who was able to keep both his good temper and his resilience in the face of that team. The fact is that the issue at hand is very serious. It is an issue of accountability. It is an issue of openness. What every Australian wants, whether they are from the extreme right to the far left, is a more open system where we can be sure that whatever moneys go to political parties come from people whom we can identify and in a manner which is open and above board. That sort of thing induces more trust in our system rather than less.I cannot comment on whether there were any drafting problems with Labor's approach. I cannot identify any, and I think the minister's remarks are fairly generalised. Frankly, if there are drafting problems, I am sure the expert advisers can assist in attending to them. Minister, I must advise you—and you would expect nothing else from my party on issues such as these—that we will indeed be supporting the Labor Party on this particular amendment.21:09:004179Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—So will we. Transparency here is so vital. I am not waiting for the minister to give us the results of an inquiry into the Greenfields Foundation. We should have had the information readily available, but it is not available. There is trickery going on here to try to hide money going through to the Liberal Party. It could happen to any other party, but it is a blight on our political system.Everything that can be done needs to be done to discover any source of sizeable donations or benefits going to political parties because there are always strings attached. Corporations, in particular, do not make donations to political parties of whatever hue without expecting a result. There has been in the last decade in particular very good moves in this country to make sure there is openness about the money flowing into political party coffers. Whenever you make such measures, people will resort to trickery and/or fraudulent means to try to hide their intent of gaining advantage through money or other benefits being offered to political parties. Of course, when a wealthy interest gains advantage through donating to a political entity, other citizens lose out. That has to always be remembered. The wealthy are enormously advantaged in being able to put money into political party coffers to the disbenefit of everybody else. If you do not keep a stringent watch on that, you are going to be in trouble.In February this year, I visited a number of European democracies as well as Mexico to talk with the Greens there. I was surprised to find that in all those places public funding of political parties does not stop with election campaigns; it goes on every year according to the number of votes received at the previous election. I thought, `Crikey, Australians wouldn't stand for that.'The reason given for this—and this is the case in France, Belgium, Germany and Mexico—is that it is an offset to the political favours that come from the corporate sector, in particular, in being able to influence political parties through donations. When political parties are being funded from the public purse, they can go about their business without being under such influence. I expect that the best system of the lot would be for public funding with a complete ban on donations to political parties, but I am not foolish enough to think that, with the vested interests there are abroad in our society and with the benefits that political parties gain from donations made to them, such an idea would get any backing outside perhaps the Greens in this place.So I support the Labor amendments. I think they are extremely important. Senator Minchin has a worry about somebody getting some credit on their credit card and falling foul of these amendments. I do not think it would be very difficult at all to fix that up. Transparency in the public interest weighs much more heavily in favour of these amendments than does the concern of the minister's.21:13:004179Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—In relation to opposition amendment No. 2 that I moved, we believe there certainly is a need to amend the act to change the disclosure period so that, in the event that the Greenfields loan is forgiven and therefore it becomes a gift, its donors must still be disclosed. We have made the assumption in relation to this loan from the Greenfields Foundation, based on all the evidence available to us, that this is either an interest free loan or a loan at some nominal, very low interest rate—certainly, not at a commercial interest rate—and it is a loan that we think, therefore, is ultimately likely to be forgiven. If that is the case, then that loan becomes simply a gift to the Liberal Party. Under section 305 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, where persons have made donations to a political party, the required return only has to include details of gifts received by that person from other donors if they were received during the same disclosure period. Greenfields would accept donations from persons who wished to donate secretly to the Liberal Party and then it would make a loan to the Liberals. The loan might provide for interest, but actual payment of that interest might not be required until a future date which would be at least 30 days past the next election. When the due date arrives, Greenfields forgives both the interest and the debt—but at this stage, of course, the gift has been made. If however Greenfields has received no further donations during the next disclosure period, then the return which it lodges after the following election need give no information about the original donors.Our amendments address this very important issue. Our amendments ensure that the donors to Greenfields must still be disclosed, even if the donations were made outside the same disclosure period as the loan became a gift.I understand that the manager is keen to report progress on this matter. In my usual cooperative way, as a result of that, I will just sit down.Progress reported.Bills4180r518Billsr5164180Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That these bills be now read a second time.21:18:004180Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 now have finally come for debate in the Senate. We in the Senate have been waiting for some time to debate this legislation because we are able to tell the government now in so many different ways `We told you so' when contemplating the way it has mangled and messed itself up so dreadfully through the handling of waterfront reform in this country.Right now we have a Minister for Industrial Relations and waterfront reform, Mr Reith, who has suffered one of the most ignominious political defeats in the long history of this Australian parliament. He deserves every criticism for the way in which this matter has come to conclusion. He has been utterly defeated and his credibility destroyed with the way he has handled this matter.Yesterday in the House of Representatives, letters and other material were tabled, which have not been refuted by the government, which show that, as early as April last year, this government was involved in a conspiracy to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia. The government has denied that on innumerable occasions, despite mounting evidence both being presented by the Labor Party through estimates committee processes and through documents tabled in this parliament—documents which the Senate forced to be tabled—and being leaked to the opposition in documents from others who obviously are concerned about the way the government has handled this issue.Yesterday not only did we finally prove that the Minister for Industrial Relations and waterfront reform had been misleading parliament about his knowledge of what had been going on and the government's plans, but also we discovered that this reached into the very office of the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Howard). Further, we have had no public denial or refutation from the Prime Minister that the material tabled by the Labor Party in the House of Representatives yesterday is other than absolutely correct.The document to which I want to draw the Senate's attention is a letter dated 21 April 1997, on the letterhead of the Prime Minister of Australia, with John Howard's signature very copiously, floridly written thereon. We might use that old saying, `He has put his good old John Hancock on this letter'—that saying having come from one of the signatories of the American Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, who had a very florid signature. Every since then, people have said, `Put your John Hancock here.' Here on this letter the Prime Minister has put `John Howard' in very florid writing. Not only does this letter have his signature, but there is a PS underneath in his own handwriting—and I will come to that in a moment.The letter is addressed to Mr Sharp, the now disgraced former minister for transport who had to resign over the travel rorts affair—travel rorts, with this government accusing the seamen, the Maritime Union and the waterfront workers of Australia of rorting through their work practices. This former minister had to resign because he had been caught rorting his travel arrangements and travel entitlements in Australia.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Oops!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—As Senator Conroy said, `Oops!' He had to go; he deserved to go as well. Now he is retiring from parliament because John Howard apparently would not give him a promise that, if the government was unfortunately re-elected in the forthcoming election, he would be entitled to return to the ministry. Even John Howard realised that, with the damage of so many of his ministers being caught in the rorts affair, it would be impossible for Mr Sharp to return, even though Mr Sharp thought that only a short time in the sin bin would be enough for him to be able to then return after the next election. The letter is addressed:My dear Minister—that is Mr Sharp.I refer to our recent discussion on maritime reform. I support the interventionist strategy you have outlined. It would be appreciated if you and the Minister for Industrial Relations could proceed expeditiously to establish a contingency planning group. Funding issues will be addressed by Cabinet in due course. ERC has been informed of the need to provide funding for this purpose.I will be writing separately to you about shipping reform issues.This letter has been copied to the Treasurer, the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Minister for Finance. All the central core agencies in the federal government were told by the Prime Minister that you are in on the planning, you have to provide the funds for the planning of this interventionist program and, with the other material tabled yesterday by the opposition, we see that was to sack all the MUA workers employed by Patrick. Then the letter is signed `Yours sincerely (John Howard)' in very florid handwriting, as I said. But then underneath, in the Prime Minister's own handwriting:P.S. As discussed with Peter Reith today, we need to build the economic case.So this was not a letter that a secretary ran in and slipped in for the Prime Minister to sign with 500 other thank you letters, Christmas cards or whatever. Not only did the Prime Minister read and sign this letter but he took the trouble to annotate and add a further direction, an interest from himself. He said, `we need to build the economic case.' So the Prime Minister is as guilty as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business in being involved in the conspiracy to sack 1,400 Australian workers, and that planning went back to April of last year.Up until yesterday, how many countless times did the Prime Minister and Mr Reith deny that they had any involvement in this campaign to aid and abet the Patrick company in sacking their 1,400 workers? Of course we now know that, quite rightly, under the law of this land, the MUA has got a conspiracy case against Mr Reith, Mr Corrigan and others associated. And won't a lot of us wait for the day that Mr Reith, Mr Corrigan and others have to give evidence under oath in the court to explain how they were involved in preparing this dastardly plan to sack 1,400 Australian workers?So we deal with this bill in circumstances the likes of which this government never thought they would have to face; that is, they were not able to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia through their secret planning, through their corporate devices of shelf companies, of shifting assets, and, therefore, saying the companies were broke and they could sack the workers. They thought they would have a significant victory in being able to destroy the MUA.Who will ever forget those scenes on television, captured on the floor of the House of Representatives, when it was announced that the workers had been sacked? There is the Prime Minister of Australia grinning, smiling and slapping the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business on the back, saying, `Congratulations, Peter. You have sacked 1,400 workers; what an achievement.' That vision created shock waves in the Australian community because ordinary Australian workers realised, if it was the MUA and waterside workers today, it could be them tomorrow.That is the industrial relations policy of this government—fear and intimidation against ordinary working Australians. That is something the Labor Party in the forthcoming election campaign will never let this coalition government forget. They cheered on the sacking of ordinary Australians. Fortunately, the Australian people were able to see that disgusting spectacle on that day in the parliament of Australia. That was associated with those awful scenes of security people with balaclavas and dogs in the middle of the night, and the creation of a despicable lockout of ordinary Australian workers from their workplace. That is how this government believes ordinary Australians should be treated—disgusting scenes, scenes that some of us thought would never occur in Australia again in this century. After the early episodes of this century, we thought the lockout and that sort of industrial intimidation was no longer part of the Australian culture. But, oh no, Mr Reith and Mr Howard wanted to bring this back.Never forget, in the last 10 to 15 years, whether he was leader of the opposition in the 1980s, whether he was shadow minister for industrial relations, Mr Howard always had this view that you had to attack Australian workers, that the present industrial relations arrangements, which most ordinary Australians welcomed, where the right of employers and employees to collectively bargain, to establish awards that guarantee decent living conditions for all Australians, had to go in the name of labour market flexibility. In Mr Howard's terms, `labour market flexibility' means the right to sack and destroy ordinary Australians' working conditions.The Labor Party is more than happy to take this issue on and explain why that is not the Australian way and also that it is a stupid way to go economically to treat Australian workers as though they have to be intimidated and cowered into submission to receive less wages for their valued work.We have a number of amendments that we will move. One of them that I particularly want to speak to as a senator from South Australia is an amendment to exempt Sealands from the levy that is being imposed in this bill to raise the money for the redundancy package. In South Australia, Sealands has the major operation in Port Adelaide.I have to say that I find it extraordinary that this company has to pay this levy. It is because the government wishes to punish it, I believe. Why? Because, when Mr Reith and Mr Howard were at the height of their intimidatory activities and their rhetoric against the MUA, Sealands in South Australia would not have a bar of it. We had the spokesman for that company explaining that they had good industrial relations with their workers. They were able to negotiate decent outcomes and were able to run a productive waterfront in South Australia. Of course, that is not the image that this government wanted to have portrayed to the Australian people. They wanted to have an image that the MUA was unproductive and uncooperative everywhere in Australia. So Sealands have to be one of the victims of their industrial atrocity, of the sackings. The Patrick's workers in South Australia got sacked as well and Sealands, by not going along with the rhetoric that this government wanted, now has to be punished by paying the levy.We in South Australia are getting sick of this government particularly punishing South Australia. Earlier this week we had the most bizarre scene of all, where a prime minister stood up and endorsed a railway line from Melbourne to Darwin. This is against his own policy last year, at the time of the South Australian state election, of endorsing and making a contribution of $100 million to building the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. Now we have the Prime Minister endorsing a private sector project with no feasibility study other than a line on a map that seems to zigzag through every country town in western New South Wales and Queensland where there was a National Party or Liberal Party electorate under threat from the One Nation Party. South Australia is now in uproar over this decision and even the conservative paper, the Adelaide Advertiser, has gone berserk—I might say very pleasantly berserk, in my view—in pointing out the humbug and hypocrisy of the Prime Minister on this issue.Couple that with Sealands, which got the contract some years ago to run the major part of the South Australian waterfront, now being punished because they are running a productive wharf and cannot be exempt because this minister, this government, this Prime Minister, want to punish them. We will move the amendment, and I trust there are enough sensible senators to understand that Sealands should not be punished because they run good industrial relations.The next amendment aims to exempt Tasmania from paying the levy on the domestic trade across Bass Strait. We believe this is a very necessary amendment. Why should Tasmania be punished because of the industrial mayhem this government wishes to impose on the waterfront? I hope the government has some form of answer as to accepting an amendment or arrangement to exempt Tasmania. Just as I will look forward to campaigning in South Australia against this government in the forthcoming election campaign on how they have treated Sealands, if they do not accept the amendment, and on how they have treated us over the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line, I look forward to campaigning in Tasmania, if we do not get this exemption through, on how this government has treated Tasmania.Earlier this year, before the waterfront dispute flared in its full, awful glory, I visited Burnie. The waterfront workers there were employed by the Patrick company. I was taken around by the manager of Patrick and shown how that wharf was working extremely productively. There was no complaint from the Patrick management about the cooperation they were receiving from the waterside workers, members of the MUA, on the Burnie wharf. They said, `It is working very well and there is cooperation to ensure that every day the ship loaded with the paper produced by the Burnie mill leaves for Melbourne to keep those customers happy and the mill in employment.'ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—And they got sacked.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—They got sacked, for no other reason than they were members of the MUA. It is extraordinary. They got sacked not because they were not productive, not because the company complained—they got sacked because they had next to their name `member of the Maritime Union of Australia'. Most of us pointed out, and it has been pointed out by other commentators, that this is contrary to the government's own industrial relations legislation, which said that you could not be sacked for being a member of a union. This is the legislation this minister and this Prime Minister put through the parliament in 1996, that you could not be sacked purely because you were a member of a union. But this minister and this government broke their own law. I suppose that is part of the conspiracy case that we would all like to see take place in respect of this minister, other members of the government and Mr Corrigan—that they were willing to break their own law in their ideological obsession to destroy the MUA.It is an enjoyable occasion to be here tonight speaking on this bill, in the sense that we have seen the defeat of this ideological campaign. We have seen the destruction of the credibility of the minister, who set out to destroy the MUA. In the settlement now announced in negotiations between Patrick company and the MUA, the MUA is still on the waterfront and still with its membership. The negotiated settlement means appropriate numbers of redundancies, which clearly could have been achieved by sensible cooperation before the lockout occurred, before the dogs were set loose and the balaclava wearing security people were set loose at midnight on the wharves.The union never said at any stage they were not willing to talk about a better and more productive waterfront. They wanted to do it in a cooperative way. This minister has been utterly defeated. He is going to have to bear that defeat for the rest of his political career, and so he should. We are going to remind him on every occasion we get that he was defeated by the enormous effort of ordinary workers in Australia, who right across Australia rose up and said, `This is unfair.' With the support of the community we are not going to allow shonky companies, a shonky government using illegal and intimidatory means to destroy the jobs of all workers. This is a magnificent victory, not just for the MUA and all its members; it is a magnificent victory for all ordinary workers in Australia. That is why we are very pleased in one sense to be here tonight—to acknowledge that victory and the defeat of the government. (Time expired)21:39:004184Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I must begin by not agreeing with Senator Schacht on one line that he used at the end. That is that for me there is no victory when several hundred workers are going to lose their jobs regardless of the deal.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—The victory was the defeat of the minister.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I understand what you meant in terms of a political victory, but we are looking at a bill here, the Stevedoring (Collection) Bill 1998, which is about recovering some ground for hundreds of workers who have lost their jobs.Senator Schacht was quite right to look back on the extraordinary events that we have seen over the past four months. How things can change in just four months in politics. This bill was introduced by a gloating minister, the Minister for Workplace Relations (Mr Reith), just before Easter, the day after 200 waterside workers were sacked by the Patrick Stevedoring Group. It struck me as passing strange at the time that on the one hand Mr Reith was professing that he had no prior knowledge of the actions by Patrick, yet within six hours of the workers being sacked these bills were drafted and presented to the House of Representatives. We are continually told by ministers how difficult it is to deal with amendments before them which they have seen for days and weeks, but this took six hours.Over the months since, more and more information has come forward about the government's role in the appalling conduct by Patrick Stevedoring in sacking all its workers because they belonged to an union. We find out that very early on senior officials in the bureaucracy were advising the government of strategies to sack the whole work force on the wharves. Earlier this week further documents revealed that in April 1997 the federal government discussed the sacking of the waterfront work force, a year before it actually happened.The public needs to get to the bottom of the government's involvement in this. To do that the minister should comply with the Senate's return to order demanding all documents held by the government in respect of the dispute. I remind the Senate that the government argued that it could not comply with that order because the matter was sub judice. It argued that way despite advice from the Clerk of the Senate that that was not necessarily a good argument. But even if it were a good argument on the part of the government, the approval of the waterfront deal by MUA members in Sydney and Melbourne this week will apparently see the withdrawal of all legal action. Therefore, no sub judice argument will then arise. Naturally, it is appropriate that the Senate should again raise the issue when the status of legal proceedings becomes a little clearer, that is, the issue of the return to order.I expect that the government has heaved a huge sigh of relief that, despite the belligerence of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the minister over the last six months, a peace deal has been done which will end the conspiracy proceedings in the Federal Court. As an Australian parliamentarian and as an Australian, the last thing I wanted to see was my government dragged through the courts on a conspiracy charge.The MUA has already succeeded in getting 10 judges, including six of the seven High Court judges, to agree with its legal interpretation of the laws guaranteeing freedom of association and that there was an arguable case for the common law tort of conspiracy that has embroiled Lang Corporation, the Patrick Stevedoring Group, Chris Corrigan and the government in the case. I have little doubt that the MUA, if it had won the case, could have collected up to $400 million of taxpayers' money in compensation, money that the government put at risk, not to mention placing Minister Reith and others under the glare of a bunch of very eminent QCs in the courtroom. As I said, while Minister Reith has lambasted the MUA for these past two years he must be pleased that, despite his calls for a holy Liberal war on Australians at the waterfront, peace does look like breaking out.But back to the bills. What in April 1998 was a face-saving public funding of waterfront sackings by legislation is today an essential funding plank for the Patrick peace deal. As I said, how things can change in four months. The bill is now essential to underpin the restructuring of Patrick Stevedoring, which will result in substantial efficiency improvements. As the government has indicated, it regards that as the benefit it has got out of this strife we have been put through.As a result, I think we have to commend the MUA and Patrick—who are both very tough characters, I think everyone would acknowledge—on finally coming to this agreement. It is worth noting that, despite regular fireworks, the MUA and the maritime companies have been working towards a more efficient work force for 15 years. In that time, the waterfront work force has declined from around 10,000 to 3,000—somehow that 7,000 reduction gets forgotten in these things—with the cooperation of the union and the employers. This reform process was most accelerated under the auspices of the Waterfront Industry Reform Authority from 1989 to 1992, when 4,500 workers left the industry and productivity rose significantly. This productivity improvement declined in 1993 but it has improved again since. In previous speeches before the Senate on these matters I have indicated how the port authority in my own state of Western Australia has praised the doubling of productivity on the Fremantle wharves, for instance. That is not to say that our wharves are necessarily outstanding examples of productivity; some of them are not. They do need continual attention by management, workers and regulators to get them up to speed.Australia's bulk handling ports, which incidentally are all staffed by MUA workers, particularly those grain ports, are amongst the best in the world, a point conceded by the Productivity Commission and even the farmers. It is strange that a union which is condemned for its work practices on one side of the equation, the container side, is never or seldom praised for its genuine performance on bulk handling. That one-eyed, biased approach to the problem is what has disturbed me most. We think the waterfront has come a long way, but we recognise that it still could do a lot better. The Democrats are supporters of negotiated productivity improvements on the waterfront. We do not take umbrage at workers being well paid. We do believe that restrictive work practices should be reformed, but this method of doing so generated our absolute rejection.I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who have achieved reform and change on the waterfront over the last decade. Listening to some of the protagonists on the aggressive side, you would think nothing had happened in waterfront reform. The reluctance of the government, of some of the businesses and of some of the financial markets to give the previous government and the workers of Australia any credit at all for the hard yards already achieved on waterfront reform is part of the reason they are facing such a backlash from so many Australians. Australians of whatever political complexion just do not like unfairness. The government lost the public relations battle because Australians thought that that was a fundamentally unfair and partisan action that it took.For some of the market commentators, whom we should describe as the zealot economic rationalists, no reform is ever enough. In the last decades, millions or certainly hundreds of thousands of jobs have gone from Australia. But that was not enough; it is never enough. Those sorts of zealot economic rationalists have an insatiable appetite for human bodies, for people who formerly had jobs and no longer do. The competition policy, launched under the previous government, has knocked out thousands more jobs. This government has added 27,000 Public Service jobs and 23,000 Telstra jobs to the scrap heap of economic reform. If there is a message that came out of the Queensland election that is a good one, it is that enough is enough; stop producing this insecurity.I found the gloating over the illegal sacking of 2,000 waterfront workers a few days before Easter quite nauseating. But it was not just politicians; the money markets loved the retrenchment so much that the Lang Corporation shares went through the roof, just as the BHP shares soared the day they announced they were pulling out of Newcastle. That is a reminder for us all—those people who think that market morality is wonderful—that the market has no morals. It is up to the political and business leaders of the country to recognise that and to guard against excessive worship of the market. It is no wonder that people do not feel that their jobs are secure in this country.With regard to these bills, I am not very keen on government subsidising companies to get rid of their work force. I think jobs should be preserved wherever they can be. But I am conscious that the waterfront peace deal does depend on this bill, so the Democrats will be supporting it. As you would be aware if you have looked at your tables, we have circulated a few amendments. I have difficulty with the prospect that efficient stevedores should be forced to pay for the restructuring of less efficient stevedores.I am advised from the committee hearings that there are two national stevedoring companies, P&O and Patrick, with between 90 and 95 per cent of the market. There is one very strong regional stevedoring company, which is Sealand, and there are five or six small business stevedores in Australia. The one involved in this dispute was Patrick. P&O apparently intends to take advantage of the funds, so they are well on the same path. But Sealand in Adelaide, through cooperative industrial relations negotiation, have apparently reached the highest productivity of any Australian port. So why should they pay for the Patrick restructuring? They had nothing to do with the dispute.I understand they do not believe they will benefit from the fund, but they will incur the cost which is imposed through this bill, the levy on each container. Although there is no legal obligation on them not to do so, that is not supposed to be passed on, and both P&O and Patrick have said they will not pass it on. A competitor that did not participate in all this sort of thing is going to end up with a levy that they are likely to have to absorb. Why should new stevedoring companies—my small business stevedores, as I call them—who have just started operations and who might have new equipment and already high levels of productivity be forced to pay the levy? What benefit will there be for them in that?I will quote from a letter that I got from Robert Strang, the Managing Director of Strang Stevedoring, which is a small business stevedore that commenced operations in Melbourne in August 1996. I asked permission to quote from this letter. This is that quote:The proposed imposition of costs on those stevedoring companies not drawing on the funds provided would directly benefit our competitors and at the same time impose commercial constraints and unacceptable costs and financial burden on our company for which we get no benefits whatsoever.That is an unequivocal rejection of this approach. I hope that the government will think carefully about the equity of imposing a new business cost on a small business company that will never benefit from it. It is quite appropriate for the government to impose a levy on those companies which are prepared to accept it and will benefit from it. But, as for those small business participants which were on the sidelines of this dispute, I think it is an inequitable principle for them to be subject to the cost.I am quite concerned about the level of accountability for the up to $400 million—I think it is $400 million—of public money affected over 10 years by this bill. I will be moving an amendment to improve the accountability of the minister back to parliament for management of the restructuring fund. I am hopeful that the minister will see fit to respond favourably to that because I am quite sure that he does want this fund to be managed as professionally and in as accountable a manner as possible.Probably what I am most concerned about is that the government's obsession with the MUA and the price of waterfront labour ignores some of the issues that contribute to Australia's waterfront inefficiencies. The Productivity Commission, in its report on waterfront reform, also pointed out that waterfront costs in Australia were high, not just because of the cost of labour but because of the cost of port charges and fees, and because of the lack of competition between stevedoring companies. If you are to address productivity in this area, there are three areas to look at. One is the port authority, which you might describe as the landlord; the second is the stevedoring operation, which you could describe as capital if you wished; and the third component is labour. All the emphasis on labour to an extent has resulted in insufficient attention being paid to the capital and landlord sides of the equation.Until the Treasurer (Mr Costello) spotted the political opportunity, the government had not extended its reform agenda to look seriously at these issues, particularly the duopoly between Patrick and P&O that exists in many ports. I would remind the Senate that of Australia's 46 ports there are 16 monopolies and nine duopolies. It really makes you wonder how serious the government was about achieving serious waterfront reform if they had failed to really construct an agenda and an attack on the other two-thirds of the productivity agenda. Quite frankly, by encouraging an employer to breach the government's own Workplace Relations Act and to carry out a shonky corporate restructuring, I think unfortunately the government diminished its credibility in attacking what was a problem and what did need to be addressed. Waterfront reform was important to address. The route that the government took has set it back somewhat rather than advancing it as it should have been.The events of the last four months show that there is no substitute for negotiation and managed progress on waterfront reform. There is no benefit in a crash through approach. There are no quick fixes or easy solutions, and plenty of hard work is ahead for all players and regulators to achieve a better waterfront. The Workplace Relations Act did provide an opportunity for the government to advance its reform of the waterfront but I am afraid that the route it chose and the manner in which it handled it has just resulted in massive opposition, not only from the political parties within the parliament but from Australians as a whole. I hope that what has been learnt out of this lesson is that jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.21:57:004187Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The government's stated aim in introducing the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 is to underpin proposed administrative arrangements to pay workers who are made redundant on the waterfront, particularly employees of Patrick Stevedoring. Discussion of this legislation is inevitably surrounded and has been dominated by the actions of Patrick in sacking its entire 1,400 work force nationwide with the active knowledge, planning and support of the current government. The issue was handled, or I should say mishandled, on a day-to-day basis by the Reith-Corrigan partnership.The bill sets a maximum rate of levy at $20 per container and $10 per vehicle. Initial rates are set at $12 per container and $6 per vehicle. The money is to underpin a fund to provide monies for alleged waterfront reform.Should the entire industry be required to fund primarily one company, Patrick, particularly when it contrived through illegal strategy a company restructuring to deliberately declare itself bankrupt while effectively still maintaining substantial business assets? Independent analysis of the Patrick group made by a firm of accountants, Price Waterhouse, in late 1996 valued the Patrick group, consistent with the so-called sale price in September 1997, at $315 million. Liabilities to Patrick employees illegally sacked, such as accrued leave entitlements and severance pay, were in the order of $125 million.A contrived bankruptcy was entered into to asset strip a healthy series of companies, leaving no moneys for entitlements and no work for their employees. And the solution? Pass the bill on to the stevedoring industry and, in turn, on to the general public. Pauline Hanson's proposed two per cent loans scheme—recently condemned by the Treasurer, Mr Costello—pales in comparison with this government's underwritten, no interest loan scheme.We have assurances in the speech of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith, that the costs cannot be passed on to consumers. How can this be guaranteed? The reality is, if costs go up as a result of a new charge, fee, levy, surcharge—that is the latest government buzzword—or whatever inventive name this government chooses to use, they will be passed on by the operators in higher end charges which the consumer will pay.This approach particularly hits my home state of Tasmania. As an island region, where all containers and vehicles move in and out by sea, this will mean millions of dollars in extra costs a year. Apparently Mr Reith, realising his mistake, has now decided to exempt certain aspects of freight containers and vehicles into Tasmania, and I would like to see that in the legislation. But perhaps, while he is here, he and Mr Howard might like to resolve our problems permanently by adding a bridge to their latest $9 billion rail extravaganza. Burnie and Tasmania could certainly do with it.The justification is made that the MUA monopoly must be broken. What about the port monopoly and the stevedoring oligopoly? What about the other monopolies and special arrangements in our economy: chemists, newsagents and pharmacists? What about benchmark objectives across a range of other industries to drive down their costs to consumers? An interesting new principle was also announced by Minister Reith—that of reducing wages and salaries on the waterfront down to the community norm. That is an interesting new approach from any government, particularly from this government that as recently as yesterday, in debate on corporations reform, was bitterly resisting Labor's requirement that executive salaries should be disclosed to shareholders—only the owners of a company. The truth is this is a government of moral bankruptcy and double standards. The truth is this government entered into a conspiracy with Patrick to sack to its workers unlawfully because they were members of a union, the Maritime Union of Australia, in contravention of Mr Reith's own Workplace Relations Act 1996.There was extensive legal action surrounding the Reith-Corrigan conspiracy. I do not intend to go into this in any great detail. The legal outcome—not once, not twice, but three times—speaks for itself: from the initial interlocutory orders of Justice North, to the 3-nil decision of the Federal Court, and finally to the 6-1 decision of the High Court. Ten of the 11 most distinguished legal officials in Australia ruled in favour of the union, the MUA—not Patrick, not the government, but the MUA. This whole issue is best summarised by the Federal Court's decision, which stated:As individuals, each member of the Bench, like all sensible Australians, is in favour of an efficient waterfront. . . . The business of the Court is legality. Just as it is not unknown in human affairs for a noble objective to be pursued by ignoble means, so it sometimes happens that desirable ends are pursued by unlawful means. If the point is taken before them, courts have to rule on the legality of the means, whatever view individual judges may have about the desirability of the end. This is one aspect of the rule of law, a societal value that is at the heart of our system of government. It follows that this judgment should be seen only as a judgment about legal issues, not a view about the social, economic and political arguments concerning waterfront management that have dominated the media during the last couple of weeks.Fortunately, the Australian people recognised the moral bankruptcy of this government's approach. This statement exemplifies all that was wrong with Patrick and the Reith-Howard Liberal government's approach. This government believed that the end justified the means. The only true bankruptcy in this dispute is this government's moral bankruptcy.Briefly, on my home town of Burnie: Patrick in Burnie had already well passed the productivity benchmarks set by Minister Reith. Only a week before the illegal sackings took place it achieved a crane rate of 32 per hour.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Thirty-two per hour?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Thirty-two per hour, Senator Schacht. The benchmark set by the government of a crane rate of 25 per hour has been regularly exceeded in Burnie. What was their reward? The sack.I pose this series of questions to the Senate. Who said to this nation before the last election, `Be relaxed and comfortable'? Who said, `not one worker's wages or conditions will be cut'? Who now trumpets security, stability and safety, at least until he saw the results of the recent Queensland state election? The man who trumpets all of this is the Prime Minister, Mr Howard.The truth is the only security Burnie and Australian maritime workers received from Mr Howard was security guards waiting to escort them off their workplace after being illegally sacked. Yet if Mr Howard is confronted by questions about his moral integrity he quivers, he pouts, he shakes with indignation. This legislation and the events surrounding it were based on the morally bankrupt principle that the end justifies the means. It was inspired by a pathological hatred of the MUA. It was implemented by the Corrigan-Reith duo. If the events were not so serious, they would go down as the Laurel and Hardy of Australian industrial relations history. You confront Mr Howard with the truth of his position, you confront Mr Howard with his moral bankruptcy, he will look at you in the eye and say, `Never, ever.' And that says it all.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am inclined to give Senator Sherry a fair degree of latitude, but is it entirely parliamentary to accuse a minister of the Crown of being morally bankrupt?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—I think it is impugning motives. Senator Sherry, I would ask you to moderate your language.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I have concluded, thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President.NaN:00:004189O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I rise to speak on Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and to indicate that I will be moving a second reading amendment. Firstly, I would say that the bill we have before us tonight came from an ill-conceived plan developed by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith).LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I rise on a point of order. I understood Senator O'Brien to imply that he is about to move an amendment. I would simply like to know whether it has been circulated.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I understand it is being circulated. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. It is a second reading amendment.This plan, which was also developed in consultation with the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, was endorsed by the Prime Minister. It was a plan with one purpose: the destruction of the MUA. I am not sure whether the member for Hume was entirely in the game plan or whether he had some misguided view that this was purely a plan to reform the waterfront. But I am sure that that was not the view held by the member for Flinders. His aim clearly was, has always been and has been enunciated by him in various ways many times, the destruction of the Maritime Union of Australia.Mr Reith and Mr Howard assumed that, once they had effectively orchestrated the sacking of 2,000 workers employed by Patrick's, the only recourse available to those workers through the courts would be damages. The plan made provision for such an outcome with a crude redundancy plan, and that is the plan that is set out in the original bill that was put before the House of Representatives. Of course, they were wrong. The government forgot that justice and fair play might have had some bearing on this matter. But the Federal Court and the High Court had different views and the workers were therefore, rightly, reinstated. As I said, the original redundancy plan was crude; frankly, the original bill was crude. The government is admitting that by proposing amendments in this place.The original bill allowed money to be paid out for anything directly or indirectly related to waterfront reform, and it provided for the definition of what was and what was not waterfront reform to be determined by the minister or his delegate. It was clearly designed to enable the damages costs to be covered off. It also provided for any related costs associated with the Reith-Howard plan to be paid out. It was a plan designed for Mr Corrigan. And it would have picked up the NFF costs on the way through as well, or at least James Ferguson hoped it would. It was a plan designed in such a way that, while Chris Corrigan and Peter Scanlan were the big financial winners, it would be left to the rest of the stevedoring industry to pick up most of the tab—so Mr Corrigan would have all his costs covered but he would only have to pay part of the bill. The rest would be paid by P&O, which did not like this activist strategy, Strangs, Sealand, Brambles and the rest of the industry which were not in on the game at any stage. This would have been a handsome reward for Chris Corrigan for delivering to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business the scalp of the Secretary of the MUA, John Coombs.However, as we now know, the Reith-Howard plan has gone badly wrong. It has cost this government dearly and all but ended Mr Reith's leadership plans. I do not think you have to be a real political pundit to know that Mr Reith is not running second to the Treasurer anymore—he is out of the race altogether. With the passing of every day more information about how the government went about this unlawful conspiracy is being revealed, and we saw some more two days ago in the House of Representatives. Let me assure the government that there is a lot more to come.Now we have a properly negotiated settlement that is clearly in the interests of all parties on the Australian waterfront, and I believe it has been signed off subject to a provision that the agreement is subject to the ACCC ceasing to pursue action against the MUA. So, basically, we are now where we should have been and could have been at the start of this process—that is, if it were not for the obsession of Mr Reith and the Prime Minister to smash the MUA.We will have to amend the government's bill tonight or tomorrow morning to ensure that this crude weapon, designed to overcome a damages claim, is transformed into a proper instrument of reform—a properly restructured and targeted redundancy package, and that is exactly what the opposition amendments are designed to do.Mr Reith said that the ALP would vote for this bill because the MUA would tell us to. The fact is that the government proposed this bill because Chris Corrigan said it had to. The government is pursuing this bill because it is doing what Chris Corrigan wants and demands. In the Senate inquiry into this bill it was made clear by the MUA—and not contradicted by Mr Corrigan; in fact, I think he affirmed it in my recollection—that last year there were 217 redundancies offered up by the MUA in negotiations with Patrick's relating to only Webb Dock and Port Botany and none of the other ports. So, in discussions about two of the many ports in which Patrick's was involved, 217 redundancies were on the table.But apparently Mr Corrigan said, `Patrick's doesn't have the money to pay the redundancies.' One wonders, given the nature of the discussions that were going on, whether Patrick's had a view that they should not have to pay their own money, that they had a promise on the table at that stage that, whatever happened, in the end the government would pay. So Patrick's were negotiating with the MUA in bad faith at that time because they had this government in the bag for their sinister and un-Australian bottom-of-the-harbour asset stripping sacking plan.What of the question of savings? What of the question of the money that industry and farmers are supposed to save out of the restructure of the waterfront? That has been the basis of the government's argument justifying public moneys being spent on this plan. What did Mr Corrigan say on the 7.30 Report tonight? He said, `We might have to pass the money on, but that will depend on competitive pressures.' So Patrick's will probably be forced to pass some of the savings on to customers. Hardly the sort of commitment that this government would have wanted from Mr Corrigan today, given what it has said would be the outcome of this plan. It has been talked up as if we would get massive savings which would be passed on to manufacturers and farmers and the community. The co-conspirator, Mr Corrigan, made it clear tonight that, at the end of the day, he sees the savings in the pockets of Patrick's, the Lang Corporation, himself and other shareholders rather than in the community, unless competitive pressures force some of those savings to be passed on.What of the question of the undertaking not to pass on the cost of the levy? Mr Reith told the public at the press conference just before Easter that he had in writing from Patrick's and from P&O an undertaking that these costs would not be passed on. One thing that we established at the hearings last Monday week, from both P&O and Patrick's, is that neither had given a commitment in writing to this government not to pass on the cost of the levy. So the government has a promise from Mr Corrigan. With respect, Mr Corrigan has not necessarily been good at negotiating in good faith, given what was happening with the Maritime Union before Christmas and what has been clearly exposed as his ability to be fast and loose with the truth.So we have, at best, a verbal undertaking from the officers of Patrick's and P&O—a verbal undertaking not to pass these costs on and no commitment at all, apparently, to pass on a substantial amount of any savings that arise from this reform to the community. This is what we are getting from this package.We have had so much hiding of detail and obfuscation on this matter, and the avoidance of answering direct questions, that it is important that the Senate put on the public record and carry a resolution which will detail what it expects in relation to the proper accounting for the expenditure of public funds. In this case we need to be absolutely certain that those public funds are spent properly on redundancies and on the administrative costs of those redundancies only; that those redundancies are in accordance with the undertakings given in writing to the government; and that those undertakings are observed.The families of the waterside workers and their friends and their communities have been under great pressure during this dispute and have suffered a great deal unnecessarily as a result of this conspiracy. It is time we dealt with this matter properly. I do not believe that the Labor Party will vote for just any bill. It will be voting for a bill that is fair, that does not require Patrick's competitors to pay their bills when clearly Patrick's are on the record as saying that they are not necessarily passing the benefits of this reform on to the community unless they are forced to by competition—and we cannot be really confident that they will so be forced. We want to be sure that there is an absolute guarantee that none of Patrick's competitors are forced to pay their costs, while Patrick's get away scot free. I move:At the end of the motion, add "and that the Senate:(a) notes the use of public funds to facilitate the payment of redundancies on the waterfront; and(b) reaffirms the principle, stated previously in resolutions of 9 December 1971, 23 October 1974, 18 September 1980, 4 June 1984 and 29 May 1997, that there are no areas in connection with the expenditure of public funds where any person has a discretion to withhold details or explanations from the Parliament or its committees unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise; and(c) reminds the Government of the Senate's expectation that the operations of the Maritime Industry Finance Company (MIFCo), supported by Commonwealth guarantee, will be transparent and accountable to the Parliament".22:21:004191Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—It must be that time of the session when everybody is getting tired because I was assuming that everybody would speak for their full 20 minutes. I have just discovered that my colleague Senator Brown is also in that situation. So I think the minister will be next after me tonight.The Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 put in place a scheme to establish and fund the Maritime Industry Finance Company, or MIFCo, to establish a loan facility from financial institutions of up to $250 million to pay stevedoring employees sums equal to their redundancy entitlements. Funds are to be raised over time by a levy on the loading and unloading of containers and vehicles in Australia. The passage of these bills is problematic for the Greens (WA), given that they were integral to the government's involvement in the entire Patrick's debacle. These bills were first tabled in the House of Representatives only hours after Patrick's Operations Pty Ltd terminated labour supply agreements with the four Patrick employment companies, which employed approximately 1,400 workers who were members of the Maritime Union of Australia. What a coincidence!My first reaction at the time of the introduction of these bills was to oppose them given their part in the outrageous conspiracy to deny 1,400 workers their livelihood purely because they happened to be members of a union. Things have changed in recent times and now, given the finalisation of a negotiated agreement between the Maritime Union of Australia and Patrick, it appears that the passage of these bills is essential to ensure that the 400 or so workers who will lose their jobs will have access to redundancy and related payments.There are valid concerns about the bills themselves. I understand that both the Australian Democrats and the ALP have amendments to correct most of these problems. They relate to such issues as the tightening up of the definition of payments that can be made through this fund to ensure that they are used for only valid redundancy and related payments. They relate to providing an opt-out provision to give stevedoring companies which do not wish to use the fund to pay for redundancies to avoid paying the levy. They relate to limiting the levy to international containers only to avoid potential problems with the Bass Strait trade and trade to Australian territories such as Norfolk Island. They relate to tightening up the provisions relating to parliamentary scrutiny of the scheme.It is my understanding that the ACTU and the MUA have indicated that, if amendments that address these concerns are successful, they will support the passage of the bills. Given that these organisations are representative of the people most affected, I would certainly not be advocating a support at any costs approach. We will also support the passage of these bills subject to the amendments also being passed.We are at an extraordinary period in Australia's history. We are, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, in a period of unprecedented economic and social change. We are in a period when many people feel frightened and many people feel insecure, and within our society there are those who would manipulate the fear and insecurity to their own ends. I believe that this government and Patrick tried to use that feeling to try to break the organised workplace that was the waterfront in Australia.The community got together. When people go through a life threatening experience, I guess they see the light before their eyes. I guess that, when some people saw this extraordinary period of Australia's history, they saw their own lives reflected in that and they banded together. They banded together because they saw that it was not a dispute about the MUA; it was a dispute about the rights of people in their workplace to bargain collectively and to support each other for a fair go. So many people in Australia believed that that was what it was about.It was not the court case in the end. If the community was not there, then the time that it took for those decisions to be made in the court case might have meant that things would have happened too quickly, that it would have been too late. So it was not simply about the law and it was not simply about legal justice; it was about people—and even governments—abusing laws and it was about people making sure that they themselves were not going to be the next in line.We will be looking at the committee stage carefully to see what real will there is within the government to come to an outcome which is acceptable to the majority of the community, remembering that the Senate is a representative body of a wide range of people. I have mentioned in the past that at the waterfront there were people from all walks of life. There were MUA members, families, friends, church representatives, Aboriginal people, environmentalists, non-unionists, people who had small businesses and unemployed people. They were all there. I am hoping that the government is beginning to heed that message as well. I will be looking carefully at the outcome of the committee stage to make sure that we move a little closer to something that is better in the future.These bills are not an answer to anything. These bills contain a measure that perhaps should not ever have had to happen in the first place. The Greens (WA) will be looking to make sure that in the future we can revisit the situation that has led to this awful crisis coming up in the first place and we will be looking at the role that governments have played in manipulating industrial relations situations to their own end and also the way the legislation that we set up and was pushed through in 1996 with the vote of the Democrats at the time was used by the government in such a way. So in the end I think we as a parliament have to sort out what we did in 1996 and find out if there needs to be changes to that legislation and, if so, we need to make those changes so that we do end up with a fairer workplace in Australia.22:29:004193Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to make a point in the closing moments of the debate on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 now that Senator Mackay is here. There is a concept behind these bills that we all agree with, but it is a concept that needs to be put into regular language, as has been stated by previous speakers. The important thing is that earlier in the day Senator Mackay introduced a bill identical in concept to this legislation and her bill was opposed by the government members. It seems extraordinary that the government should now be agreeing with the very concepts that they opposed when Senator Mackay was speaking to the Employment Security Bill 1998 [No. 2] that she introduced into the Senate. I will not continue tonight beyond saying that we owe a duty to all workers.Debate interrupted.Adjournment419310000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.419322:30:004193Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—When each of us comes to this place, we accept that we have a responsibility to represent the interests of our constituencies, whether it is a House of Representatives electorate or, in the case of this chamber, the state from which we have been chosen. The member for Oxley acknowledged this point a year and a half ago when she said:As far as I am concerned, all I am doing is representing fairly the views of the great majority of my constituents. This is part of my responsibility to the people of Oxley.Very clearly, the most potent way in which we represent that part of Australia from which we come is to become involved in the parliamentary process: to serve on committees in areas of concern to our constituents, to take part in the debates on legislation and, importantly, to vote on the bills. This is particularly so in the case of Independents who, not constrained by party processes, perhaps have a unique opportunity to speak, to reflect an individual view and to try to amend legislation.Let us have a look at how the Independent member for Oxley has become involved in the parliamentary process, enabling her to fairly represent `the views of the great majority' of her constituents. Most of us recall with great clarity her views on immigration and the need for a tightening of the immigration laws. In fact, she went further, when she said that immigration must be halted so that our dole queues are not added to. Surely, then, she would have wanted to contribute to this government's changes which effectively tighten migrants' entry requirements and extend the waiting period for migrants to receive social security payments. No, she did not. She took no part in the debate. She moved no amendments to reflect her public concerns and, when the vote was taken, she was nowhere to be seen.Working for the dole is another issue that has attracted the interest of the member for Oxley. In fact, she has frequently called for the introduction of work for the dole programs for our young people, particularly those in regional areas. She said that work for the dole `has the potential to restore hope for many of the 100,000 young unemployed'. So, when an opportunity arose to speak on this government's legislation to create work for the dole programs, to go on the parliamentary record, did she add her voice to those in the government who were voting for it? No, she did not—not in the debate—and, when the vote was taken, she was nowhere to be seen. Thank goodness on this occasion the young unemployed of Oxley did not suffer from her absence: there are a number of successful work for the dole projects in the Oxley electorate.Small business is the backbone of Australia. It is the incubator for jobs and wealth creation on the farms and in the suburbs. Not surprisingly, the member for Oxley claims to stand up for small business, which surely means just that: standing up, speaking out, `representing fairly the views of the great majority' of her constituents. In fact, she said she wants to see small business encouraged and provided with the incentives to employ more Australians, especially young people. She said that the government must do all it can to help reduce interest rates for business. Of course, the government has. Interest rates are at the lowest level for 30 years. So, when the government put forward legislation to help small business and exempt the smallest businesses from the unfair dismissal laws, was the air above the member for Oxley's seat filled with the resonance of her supportive comments on this important policy initiative? No, it was not—not in the debate. Again, when the vote was taken, she was nowhere to be seen. So much for the small business concerns of those Oxley constituents.Native title and the complications that have arisen from the claims that now effectively lock up much of regional Australia are issues of concern to all of us. On this occasion, the member for Oxley has agreed. In fact, she went further when she said:One Nation will continue to fight to abolish the nonsense and inequity that is native title.She said she will work to dismantle it. But, if the member for Oxley really cared about cleaning up the native title mess that was left by the previous government, she would surely have been in the thick of the parliamentary debate. She would have been in the chamber moving amendments on the 10-point plan, speaking out publicly. But she was not. There were no amendments. When the vote was taken—twice on this occasion—she was nowhere to be seen.So, when the votes are taken, when the opportunity comes to stand up in the other place and really be counted on the record, she is not seen. She is not seen on work for the dole, she is not seen on immigration and she is not seen on small business. She is not seen in any of those important policy debates. These are the pieces of legislation which have changed Australia's approach to these important policy areas. In fact, the member for Oxley has been `not present' for 143 of the 209 substantive votes that have been taken since she arrived in Canberra and, on the day she was sworn in, said:I will be concentrating on Oxley, not Canberra.Strangely true. She has been absent for almost three-quarters of the House of Representatives votes since she was elected, but in the process she has curiously managed to notch up enough overnight stays in Canberra to currently top the list of backbench members who have claimed the Canberra travelling allowance. Why, you may ask. How can it be that the member for Oxley, who describes the rest of us as `self-serving politicians', could have been spending so much time in Canberra? Could it be that parliament is irrelevant to her ultimate objective?What we do know is that the member for Oxley was not in Canberra on committee business because, unlike other Independents, she serves on not one single parliamentary committee so she can put forward the views of her constituents and take part in the policy process. Not on Aboriginal affairs. Not on employment, education and training. Not on primary industries. Not on family and community affairs. Most importantly, not on law and order. She is nowhere to be seen. So why, you might ask, has she claimed almost $14,000 in cash and tax-free for her overnight Canberra accommodation for the final six months of last year alone? That is a question for her supporters to answer and resolve in their minds.In May 1997, the member for Oxley said that the answer to problems similar to those concerns could be found amongst the people who have sat in this place year after year and have achieved so little, but the reality is that the member for Oxley will not be able to change one single law on one single issue in this place until she starts to participate in this parliament by speaking out, by moving amendments, by taking part in the parliamentary process and, most importantly, by being here to vote. In so clearly failing to do so on issues that she claims to represent as being the views of her electorate, the majority of her constituents, she bears the burden of her own criticisms. She is hoisted on her own petard. She is a politician who fails to do her duty in representing the thousands of people in Oxley who sent her to this place to represent their views, to put fairly, as she said, the views of the great majority of the constituents of Oxley.So when it counts in this parliament—before her peers, on the record for Australia and in the votes on the issues that count for this nation—where is the member for Oxley? She is nowhere to be seen on the issues that count. If, as she claims, she really wants to address the issues at the heart of this nation's problems—and that is what she says when she recruits members to her party—she must start by fulfilling her responsibilities as the elected member for Oxley and come to this parliament as the member for Oxley and take part in the policy process, join the committees, move the amendments, speak out on the issues that count in the parliamentary debate and, most importantly, turn up for the divisions. She must get her name on the public record as representing her constituents on what really counts. (Time expired)419522:40:004195Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Tonight I would like to speak about what, to me, is further evidence of the activities of a group of insidious, unscrupulous employers who are operating in a Patrick-like manner to undermine the wages and conditions of a group of workers in this country. These actions have become all the more common since this government was elected because people now believe that the political climate is favourable to crooks and shysters stealing workers' money and entitlements. They believe they have the support of the government—a government which sees this as a legitimate means of conducting industrial warfare against employees.In the case I am mentioning tonight, we see the discredited Patrick's strategy of attempting to remove a unionised work force in the meat industry. This example is of Mr Rashad Aziz, who lives in Melbourne and whose company, Rashad Aziz Investments, owns an abattoir at Mount Schank, about 15 kilometres south of Mount Gambier in South Australia. Since the purchasing of the business by Mr Aziz in 1991, the meatworkers union members have consistently had difficulty enforcing awards and ensuring that legitimate entitlements were paid by that company. What we have seen in subsequent enterprise agreements is attempts being made to undermine the wages and conditions of workers employed by Mr Aziz. Approximately two years ago, employment of AMIEU members at the abattoir was transferred from an employing company—that is, the Mount Gambier Meat Processing Pty Ltd—to other companies controlled by Mr Aziz, who then argued that the enterprise agreement that had been signed by that company no longer applied and that those members of the union were no longer entitled to enjoy the benefits of that enterprise agreement.This company has been engaged in a number of protracted disputes. On one occasion, a dispute involved some $250,000 worth of back pay. On 21 May, the Federal Court took the view that, although the company transferred the operations of this company to four subsidiary companies—the Mt Schank Meat Processing Pty Ltd, Quality Meat Packing Pty Ltd, South East Services Pty Ltd and Select Meat Exports Pty Ltd—the employer was still subject to his legal obligations to meet the entitlements due to workers employed at that abattoir. That left open a further claim for some $400,000 in back pay.On 1 June administrators were appointed to Mt Schank Meat Processing Pty Ltd, which is the employer of the AMIEU members. On Monday of this week, the company's employment was terminated by those administrators. The associated companies have notified vacancies to Centrelink, which is a government agency still, and have commenced interviewing new staff to work at the abattoir. No prizes for guessing that the criterion is that they be non-union members. This is clearly an example of workers being asked to undertake employment which was formerly held by union members and at wages and conditions that are substantially lower—in fact, some $200 a week lower, which would leave a base rate of $420 a week for the workers.This is an outrageous attempt to use industrial and corporate laws, as they currently exist, to allow unscrupulous employers to steal from their employees in a manner which ought be condemned by this parliament. Workers ought to be protected by this parliament against the actions of such employers. In the meat industry this is becoming all too common.In the case of Wodonga Meats, Wodonga, a similar pattern has emerged with a principal, a Mr John McPhee, who employed labour at the Wodonga Abattoir. The kill there was undertaken for McPhee Meatpacking Pty Ltd, owned by Mr John McPhee and ANSCO. Wodonga Meats went broke in May 1996, owing some $2.8 million to workers in ac crued entitlements, not including redundancy payments. Millions more were owed to other creditors. McPhee Meatpacking went into receivership in July 1996.On 2 April 1998, in the Wangaratta Magistrates Court, Mr John McPhee received a 12-month suspended gaol sentence and a $30,000 fine, after pleading guilty to more than 30 charges of dishonest use of company funds, and he was ordered to pay a total of $103,870.50 restitution to the liquidators of McPhee Meatpacking Pty Ltd. One of the charges referred to the purchase of 12 racehorses for $23,350, paid for by a Wodonga Meats cheque, and written into the books as 56 cattle brought for slaughtering at the Blainey Abattoir in New South Wales—also owned by Mr McPhee.The charges were brought against McPhee by the ASC. They originally included 33 Victorian charges: 17 of false accounting, 16 of theft; and 48 Commonwealth charges: 16 of failing to act honestly as a director, 16 of improper use of his position as a director to obtain benefit for another, and 16 of false accounting. He pleaded guilty to 17 charges of false accounting and 16 of failing to act honestly as a director.Wodonga Abattoir has reopened since Wodonga Meats and McPhee Meatpacking, the original company, went broke. Another company of which McPhee is director continues to own the land on which the meatworks is situated and, of course, still operates. The company that now operates the abattoir has two of McPhee's trusted former employees as directors, and a labour hire firm employs the labour. John McPhee is believed to still be in full control of the entire operation. He attends the works on a daily basis and continues to exercise the authority of an employer over the people employed to work there.So we have a case where, even when unscrupulous employers are discovered and convicted in courts, they are still able to operate—and to operate in a manner which suggests to me that they are not fit and proper persons to actually function in the meat industry. To me, this is a corrupt practice, a practice which this parliament ought to pay attention to.I noticed today that we debated a particular bill by Senator Mackay which would address some of these issues in terms of employment security of workers employed by these unscrupulous employers who are, in fact, undermining not just the living conditions of workers employed in their particular enterprises, but also I think the legitimate actions of proper employers who do pay wages and conditions, who do meet their legal obligations and, of course, who do conduct their business in a fair manner. In so doing, I think the unfair advantage that the unscrupulous and, I think in this case, the criminal are taking over other employers in the industry who do engage in ethical business practices ought be condemned and, as I say, action ought to be taken by this parliament.We have a similar case at Grafton. The South Grafton Abattoir was operated by R.J. Gilbertson (Queensland) Pty Ltd. However the land, plant, buildings and equipment are owned by R.J. Gilbertson Pty Ltd, the holding company, and approximately 50 workers at the abattoir were employed by Giltech which had no realisable assets. What appears to have happened as a result of various corporate manoeuvres is that, through the transfer of assets and/or cash between the various Gilbertson companies, the employing company was stripped of the funds to pay these entitlements which should have been paid to those workers at the abattoir in South Grafton.One has to ask the question: what sorts of laws are there in this country that allow this sort of theft to go on and these sorts of actions to occur in such a manner where the perpetrators of these, what I regard as, crimes are not prosecuted at law? These matters are under investigation by the Australian Securities Commission. I trust that that commission does take these matters through to their rightful end and that these sorts of actions are stamped out. Workers are entitled to the protection of proper industrial laws. They should, in fact, have the opportunity to take benefit from those laws and not be subject to these sorts of abuses and corrupt actions.419722:50:004197Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise to speak tonight about a matter of extreme importance to the natural environment of my home state of Victoria. It is indeed of importance to Australia but particularly to Victoria. I refer to the recently signed regional forest agreement for the Victorian Central Highlands.We have heard a lot of mistruths in this place about RFAs generally from the government, and the Central Highlands RFA is no exception. Last month in question time, Senator Parer said that the Central Highlands RFA is:. . . a win for both jobs and the environment. One hundred and sixteen thousand hectares have been added to the central highlands reserve system. This represents a 64 per cent increase in the reserve system.He continued:. . . the central highlands regional forest agreement will create jobs, protect the environment, and I commend it to the Senate.I would like to look at some of those statements and try to work out the real situation. It is worth doing, not just because of the importance of the Central Highlands region, but also because the region has come up in this chamber on a number of occasions in question time, matters of public importance and debate over legislation.The Central Highlands Regional Forest Agreement was signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Premier of Victoria on 27 March this year. At the time of the announcement of that signing, it was described by environment groups as `an enormous con trick, a glossy PR exercise designed to make it seem that the longstanding conflict over native forest logging has been solved'.As with the East Gippsland and Tasmanian RFAs, the Central Highlands RFA process has been widely criticised for some dubious scientific methodology—for lack of proper survey data and questionable statistical sampling techniques. Done correctly from the start, the RFA process could have had some integrity and offered us at least some chance of lasting peace in the forests. Instead, the ecological importance of the Central Highlands region and many others is at risk.Forty vegetation classes have been identified in the Central Highlands region, of which 20 are considered rare, endangered or vulnerable. The Central Highlands also contains 25 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, and 15 plant species that are listed under Commonwealth or state legislation as being threatened. These species include Victoria's faunal emblem, the Leadbeater's possum, the Baw Baw frog, the grey goshawk, the spotted tree frog, the crimson spider orchid, owl species, and many more. The area contains magnificent mountain ash forests, fern gullies, riverine forests and other vegetation types. It is also virtually on Melbourne's doorstep and, therefore, into the future will become an even more important recreational and aesthetic asset.The 116,000 hectares claim is a nonsense. These areas are either largely mountaintops and other areas that would not have been logged anyway, or, alternatively, they are not big enough to be considered secure and viable reserves as habitat for threatened species. In reality, no further secure or significant reserves have come out of this process. The RFA fails its most obvious environmental test—the state's faunal emblem, the Leadbeater's possum, is a species in serious trouble, yet the logging giant Amcor has access to two-thirds of the possums' known remaining habitat.The RFA between Victoria and the Commonwealth agrees that, even if a world heritage assessment of these forests within the eucalypt theme were to conclude that they were of international significance and would meet the world heritage criteria, the Commonwealth has actually agreed not to proceed unless all governments agree and, given that this includes the Victorian government, that is highly unlikely. This is all spelled out in clause 29 of the agreement.Similarly, the agreement says that no recommendations for further listings to the Register of the National Estate shall proceed unless jointly agreed between the federal and state governments. In our view this is an abrogation of the federal government's re sponsibility, and this is precisely why so many people are very worried about this government's proposed changes to environmental laws due to come into this chamber, I understand, some time this year. In essence, it is about state rights, not the rights of the planet and the myriad of creatures that inhabit these wonderful forests.The public consultation process for those changes to the federal environment laws has been grossly inadequate, with only one month for the community to comment on a very vague discussion paper put out by the office of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer). The Central Highlands was the same story with many groups claiming consultation was tokenistic and was there to simply legitimise predetermined outcomes. Certainly, if you believe the book by Pamela Williams entitled The Victory—and I have no reason to doubt it—about the last federal election, this tokenism is certainly the case. That book goes into some detail about the deal which was done between the Liberal Party and the forestry industry prior to the last election. Certain agreements were already reached as far back as November 1995.In clause 40 of the agreement, the Commonwealth has also agreed that Victoria's processes and systems provide for ecologically sustainable management of forest in the Central Highlands. Yet the parties also agree on badly needed improvements in later clauses—such as clause 48 which recognises the need to further develop appropriate mechanisms to monitor and review the sustainability of forest management practices. Also, clause 59 agrees that pest plant and animal control programs will be developed within five years. How then can the Commonwealth agree that Victoria's forest practices were, at the time of signing this RFA, already sustainable?In clause 79, the agreement also allows for mining and exploration in the reserve system. In addition, no package of measures is yet available which would guarantee proper management of Aboriginal heritage. Clause 74 recognises this fact. And so it goes on.Perhaps one of the most startling admissions in the agreement is contained in clause 81 regarding the Thompson catchment. This is the catchment that provides most of Melbourne's water supply. Logging within the catchment has been controversial for many years. A recent economic study concluded that the catchment is worth more in dollar terms for its water than for the returns which could ever come from logging. The RFA agrees to develop a long-term timber harvesting and water production strategy for the catchment `when timber resource data becomes available in 1999'. Obviously, we have been proceeding for all these years without even basic information, as this RFA now admits.I argue that successive federal governments have dragged various states into national competition policy arrangements, and they have used various means to do so including the competition principles agreement. But what do we see in the RFA? The Commonwealth agrees that pricing and allocation arrangements for wood from public forests are solely matters for Victoria. In other words, unlike other COAG agreements about the pricing of water, the Commonwealth government have given away their involvement in these matters. They may as well have said `We don't care, even if state governments want to give our forests away for nothing.'I have visited many places in this RFA region, and I cannot for the life of me see how this agreement can claim to be ecologically sustainable. After logging, these coupes look more like battlefields. The Central Highlands RFA, as described by Senator Parer, is not a win for the environment. It is, rather, a lost opportunity, squandered by this government.419923:00:004199Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Last Tuesday, in the concluding minutes of the adjournment debate, I raised the problems encountered on a regular basis by many Tasmanian shippers in forwarding their cargo through the port of Melbourne. Shippers from Tasmania are very much at the mercy of shipping companies and some very bad waterside practices. There are difficulties in booking space and getting containers, loading is frequently unreliable, ships hardly ever dock or leave on time, and to keep up with their schedule shipowners will take the decision to pull out of port, leaving on the docks containers booked on the vessel, to hopefully be loaded on the next ship. I am referring to the export trade.Exporters do not have faith that containers will be shipped in the manner they request, or on the deck they request. If a tarpaulin is put on a container at the shipper's expense to protect their product, the tarpaulin may be stolen and almost certainly will be damaged. Exporters find they have no right to expect their product to be cared for and protected once out of their sight. In Australian shipping, customers had no rights 25 years ago, and for many Tasmanians little has changed today. Reforms are supposed to have occurred, but people from Tasmania, when shipping overseas, ask where they are, certainly in terms of the costs.Until we have a sincere approach on reform in which it can be acknowledged and accepted by all parties in the shipping industry that the customer should and must always be right, there is unlikely to be any worthwhile reform. The customer, the shipper, must have a right to expect that he actually can and will get what he pays for. The customer, the shipper, has the right to expect that everything possible will be done throughout the booking of space, the ordering of empty containers, the receival of the product at the wharf, storage at the wharf, loading onto the ship, the voyage, discharge and delivery at the point of destination, to ensure that the paying customer is always right. The customer has a right to expect nothing less. Then, and only then, will we have reform that is working. Then, and only then, can the customer, and Australia, become world competitive.No wonder exporters are frustrated. No wonder they are cynical about the Melbourne waterfront. One Tasmanian exporter became so frustrated about shipping his product through Melbourne that he actually provided additional tarpaulins to be put at Melbourne wharf so that when the original one went missing he had a replacement. This particular exporter reckoned that wharfies must really like camping. Not a week went by without the same exporter receiving complaints from customers in Melbourne and Sydney that their consignments were one or two bags short.Then again, fresh vegetables from the north-west coast of Tasmania, grown in that amazing red soil, are world renowned. Wharfies and their families must be really well fed on Tasmanian vegetables, particularly from the north-west coast. A textile importer innovatively changed the wording on their crates to ensure they received their full order on arrival at their depot. The wharfies' families must be well clothed too.Shippers complain of the high cost of shipping. It was not too many years ago when it was difficult to find shipping executives after lunch. It could be argued that our shipping managers, our stevedores and our port authorities let go the management and control of the Australian waterfront. Weren't these the people who did the deals because it was the easy way to keep the ports working? What about the $12 pay increase to wharfies in 1991, in the middle of a recession? It was wrong then, and we have continued inefficient work practices ever since.We believe that the position can be redeemed. It is going to take a great deal of effort if we in Australia are to get these things done. But, without what I call total waterfront reform, this country will never be world competitive. New Zealand has certainly tackled the problem, and so must Australia. The situation is embarrassing for us as a country and it is also embarrassing for our exporters. Recently when in New Zealand I visited the port authority in Auckland and found there that the wet handling charges—the tug charges and associated events—by the Port of Auckland Authority were five times cheaper than any port in Australia. We are not talking about 10 per cent or 20 per cent but five times cheaper than any port in Australia.There must therefore be total reform, and it must be honest reform—by all the parties—to end the decades of poor work and management practices on our docks which have added to exporters' costs and reduced our international competitiveness. As a Tasmanian senator, I look forward to total reform, particularly from the port of Melbourne.Senate adjourned at 11.06 p.m.Documents42004200The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Child Care Act— Child Care (Eligible Child Care Centres) Amendment Guidelines (No. 1) 1998. Child Care (New Allocations) Guidelines 1998. Child Care (Other Places—Allocations) Guidelines 1998. Childcare Assistance (Fee Relief) Guidelines—Section 12A—Amendment guidelines—CA/12A/98/1. Childcare Assistance Immunisation Requirements Direction 1998—IMCA/12G/98/1. Childcare Assistance Immunisation Requirements Direction 1998—Amendment direction—IMCA/12G/98/2.Child Care Payments Act—Vaccination Schedules Guidelines—VS/18/98/1.Childcare Rebate Act— Childcare Rebate (Exempt Persons) Amendment Determination (No. 1) 1998. Childcare Rebate Immunisation Requirements Direction 1998—IMCR/39A/98/1. Childcare Rebate Immunisation Requirements Direction 1998—Amendment direction—IMCR/39A/98/2.Financial Management and Accountability Act—Determination under section 20—Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference and Seminar Contributions Reserve—Determination 1998/6.Fisheries Management Act—South East Trawl Fishery Management Plan 1998—SET 01.National Health Act—Declarations Nos PB 10-12 of 1998.National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act—Pulu Keeling National Park— Comments on representations received by Parks Australia on the proposed plan of management. Plan of management.Superannuation Act 1976 —Determination—Superannuation (CSS) Employer Component Payment (Telstra Superannuation Scheme) Determination No. 4.Taxation Rulings TR 98/10 and TR 98/11. Answers to Questions on Notice4201The following answers to questions were circulated:4201(Question No. 1118)11184201O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:(1) (a) Prior to 6 December 1997 what discussions did the Minister have with representatives of the National Farmers Federation regarding the creation of a new stevedoring operation or stevedoring workforce for the Australian waterfront; (b) when and where did these discussions occur; (c) who was present; and (d) what was the content of the discussions.(2) (a) Was the Minister present at a meeting in Melbourne on 18 September 1997 at which the contents of the ACIL report on waterfront reform was discussed; (b) who else was present at the meeting; (c) were members of the National Farmers Federation present; and (d) were copies of the report given to any persons other than the Government representatives.(3) Has the Minister discussed the contents of the ACIL report, or any other waterfront consultancy reports commissioned by the Government, with any persons other than Government ministers, officials or the consultants themselves; if so, with whom, when and where.(4) (a) How much money has been paid by the Government to each of the following consultants on waterfront reform listed at (4)(c); (b) what was the nature of the work performed by each consultant; and (c) are there any other consultancies relating to the Government's waterfront reform strategy that do not appear in the following list: David Trebeck of ACIL, Paul Houlihan, Stephen Webster, John Davies, BGC Media, Mark Textor of Australian Research Strategies, Jonathon Gaul of Canberra Liaison, Minter Ellison, Corrs Chambers Westgarth and National Institute of Labor Studies.(5) (a) In what capacity is Dr Stephen Webster employed in the Minister's office; (b) is he on a fixed-term contract; and (c) what level of remuneration is he being paid.(6) Is Dr John Davies employed in the Minister's office; if so: (a) in what capacity; (b) when did he commence; (c) is he on a fixed-term contract; and (d) what level of remuneration is he being paid. (7) (a) Which waterfront reform consultancies commissioned by the Government have produced written reports; (b) what is the approximate length of each of the reports; (c) what is the subject matter of each of the reports; and (d) when were they delivered to the government.(8) What connection exists between the Government's waterfront reform consultancies and the Fynwest Pty Ltd attempt to train waterfront workers in Dubai; (b) what connection exists between Government's waterfront reform consultancies and the P&C stevedoring operation being established at Webb Dock; (c) if there is no connection, what alternative proposals does the Government have for improving waterfront productivity; and (d) when will the Government begin implementing these proposals.(9) (a) What discussions has the Minister had with Chris Corrigan, Peter Scanlon or any representatives of Patrick Stevedoring regarding waterfront reform; (b) when and where did these discussions occur; (c) what was discussed; and (d) was the possibility of sacking the entire Patrick Stevedoring workforce discussed.(10) With reference to a minute from Darren Gillespie from the department, dated 10 March 1997, and headed `Meetings with Stevedoring Employers': (a) was action taken on the recommendation at the end of the minute that a further meeting involving the Prime Minister take place in April 1997; (b) did such a meeting occur; if so, when and where; (c) who was present; and (d) what was discussed.(11) (a) Is the Minister aware of the affidavits signed by Lucas Rene and Richard Scougall on 25 February and 24 February 1998, respectively, detailing accusations of fraudulently conducted crane licence tests by PC Training Services Pty Ltd; (b) have any inquiries into these allegations been made; if so, what inquiries and with what outcome; and (c) has any action been taken in this matter, or is there any proposed action.(12) (a) Has the Minister had any discussions, either in person or by telephone, with either Michael Wells or Peter Kilfoyle; if so, when, by what means, and where; and (b) what was discussed.(13) Has there been any examination of alleged management inefficiencies and deficiencies in Patrick Stevedoring's operations; if so, what has been the outcome from such inquiries.(14) (a) Since 8 January 1998 has Mr Peter Wilson, or any other member of the Minister's personal staff, contacted any stevedoring or other companies to urge them to publicly or industrially attack the Maritime Union of Australia; if so, who did they call, when, and what did he ask the companies to do.4202Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—On 28 May 1998, on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, I tabled an answer to this question.4202(Question No. 1129)11294202O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) Can copies be provided of all invoices relating to the consultancies undertaken by Dr Webster and Dr Davies, as part of the Government's waterfront strategy.(2) (a) How many meetings were there between Dr Webster and a departmental officer, Mr Darren Gillespie; and (b) where and when did those meetings take place.(3) (a) How many meetings were there between Dr Davies and Mr Gillespie; and (b) where and when did those meetings take place.4202Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—On 28 May 1998, on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, I tabled an answer to this question.4202(Question No. 1158)11584202Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, 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 1 996 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.4202Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:1 (a) The value of advertising placed by the department was $ 1,653,458.87 from March 1996 to 23 April 1998. This excludes staff related gazettals, other recruitment activity such as job advertisements in newspapers and tender notices.(b) The amount spent by portfolio agencies was $68,145,124.12. This excludes staff related gazettals, other recruitment activity such as job advertisements in newspapers and tender notices. As the following tables show, the vast majority of this amount was spent by the Australian Tourist Commission, the Australian Government's international tourism marketing organisation.For the month-by-month breakdown for the Department and Portfolio agencies, see table belowDEPTADANSCASDACSIRO1996Mar$31,765.42NilNilNilNilApr$60,852.75NilNilNilNilMay$227,469.63NilNilNil$1,358.00June$60,421.26NilNilNilNilJuly$14,794.66NilNilNilNilAug$19,834.02NilNilNil$300.00Sept$1,055.02NilNil$200.00NilOct$14,404.20NilNilNilNilNov$19,297.95NilNil$1,600.00$6,891.00Dec$22,891.10NilNilNilNil1997 Jan$61,814.43NilNilNilNilFeb$72,685.69NilNilNilNilMar$85,348.78NilNilNilNilApr$194,531.29NilNilNil$270.00May$115,301.28NilNilNil$2,871.00June$89.425.96NilNilNil$170.00July$35,117.07NilNilNil$109.00Aug$71,726.23NilNilNilNilSept$68,299.97NilNilNil$1,306.00Oct$104,260.92NilNilNilNilNov$88,456.34NilNilNilNilDec$21,387.58NilNilNilNil1998Jan$12,585.40NilNilNilNilFeb$54,287.88NilNilNilNilMar$51,613.04NilNilNilNilApril$53,831.00NilNilNil$21,800.00IP AustraliaAIMSATCASCACSANSTO1996MarNilNil$2,945,334.00$7,132.00Nil$3,050.00AprNilNil$5,586,636.00$3,275.00$619.00$595.00MayNil$395.00$1,980,115.00$5,988.00$575.00$1,085.00JuneNil$527.00$6,894,447.00$9,182.00Nil$4,697.00JulyNilNil$441,418.00$3,139.00$2,376.00$3,835.00Aug$2,111.60Nil$846,689.00$19,537.00$1,050.00$2,025.00SeptNilNil$830,518.00$20.674.00$1,775.00$620.00Oct$2,118.00Nil$912,247.00$22,551.00Nil$4,480.00Nov$300.00Nil$718.353.00$15,124.00Nil$920.00DecNilNil$1,502,437.00$20.594.00Nil$380.001997Jan$6,770.00Nil$2,547,615.00$13,693.00$1,021.00$2,860.00Feb$4,495.00Nil$3,607,942.00$9,523.00$1,379.00$965.00MarNilNil$4,076,802.00$2,147.00Nil$1,495.00Apr$3,448.45Nil$1,524.008.00$24,860.00$3,005.00$7,000.00May$1,969.60$2,667.00$4,267,491.00$6,491.00Nil$12,521.00June$6,809.61$4,290.00$9,833,132.00$7,281.00$50.00$760.00July$3,220.00Nil$38,582.00$4,161.00$1,212.00$6,114.00Aug$8,625.00Nil$371,884.00$1,012.00$2,543.00$935.00Sept$5,534.00Nil$733,273.00$3,237.00$2,500.00$1,810.00Oct$3,880.00$1,647.00$2,671.119.00$11,695.00Nil$11,156.00Nov$35,685.92Nil$3,033,903.00$16,894.00$3,717.00$9,418.00Dec$5,825.94Nil$2,411,990.00$10,675.00$555.00$1,934.001998Jan$2,977.00Nil$4,963,658.00$8,707.00Nil$6,716.00Feb$3,325.00$8,255.00$2,634,948.00$7,040.00$790.00$3,901.00MarNil$2,000.00$2,230,631.00$5,116.00$853.00$1,829.00April$8,630.00$495.00NilNil$359.00$1,868.002 (a) The proportion of advertising placed by the department on print media was 90.14%.2 (b) Radio—Nil.2 (c) The proportion of advertising placed by the department on television was 0.46%.2 (d) The proportion spent on other forms of advertising was:. 0.2% for banners. 9.2% was for advertising through inflight videos screened on domestic airline flights.For Portfolio agencies, see table belowADANSCASDACSIROPrint MediaNilNil100%100%RadioNilNilNilNilTelevisionNilNilNilNilOtherNilNilNilNilAIMSATCASCACSANSTOIP AustraliaPrint Media66.50%41.10%91.16%85.70%100%100%Radio15.70%0.90%1.87%2%Nil1%Television17.80%56.30%Nil12.30%NilNilOtherNilCinemas 1.7% Internet 0.1%Balloon Aloft and panel advertising 6.97%NilNil19% Direct Mail Through State Chamber of Commerce and other local authoritiesDEPT Department of Industry Science and TourismAIMS Australian Institution of Marine ScienceADA Anti-Dumping AuthorityATC Australian Tourist CommissionNCS National Sport CommissionASC Australian Tourist CommissionASDA Australian Sports Drug AgencyACS Australian Customs ServiceCSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationANSTO Australian National Science and Technology Organisation3 (a) An estimated 62% of the total advertising expenditure by the Department since March 1996 was spent through OGIAThe proportion of advertising through OGIA by the Portfolio agencies was Nil3 (b) The Department and Portfolio agencies use a number of methods to place advertising. We have used two master advertising agencies—AIS and TMP Worldwide (formerly Neville Jeffress).In some instances advertising has been placed directly with a publication or organisation.