1998-06-293817SENATE427901998-06-29The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Business42794279Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of government business orders of the day No. 2 (Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-99 and two associated bills) and No. 3 (Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998).Bills4279r529Billsr531Billsr5334279Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That these bills be now read a second time.12:31:004279Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—In March 1996, the coalition was elected to government promising leaner, smaller government and promising higher standards and honesty. Having attacked the National Media Liaison Service when in opposition, they immediately and secretly established a taxpayer funded Australia wide media monitoring unit—a unit whose total annual salary costs alone now approach $1 million. I have spoken previously about the secretive and dishonest manner in which this unit was established.But the government's hypocrisy in relation to the size of these units does not end with the baby aNiMaLS. On 12 April 1996 they set up the government members secretariat with an initial establishment of 10 positions. Nine positions were immediately filled and no advertisements were placed by the Department of Administrative Services.The government has tried to draw a comparison between the role and scope of the government members secretariat and the government caucus committees secretariat that serviced Labor backbenchers when we were in government. This is an extremely dishonest comparison. For a start, the caucus committee secretariat had an establishment of six. It employed one director, four clerks and a personal secretary, and provided administrative and secretarial support to backbench and caucus committees. The classification levels of the staff reflected the support nature of its work. The government members secretariat, on the other hand, is top-heavy. Its current establishment of 11 is composed of a senior adviser, four advisers, four assistant advisers and two personal secretaries. The total estimated cost of the staff salaries alone exceeds three-quarters of a million dollars.But it is not only the cost or the high classification staff levels which makes a comparison with the caucus committees secretariat inappropriate. Rather, it is the overtly political nature of the work that the government members secretariat performs that makes its taxpayer funded existence so offensive. The opposition has no problem with the employment of staff under the MOPS Act in a manner that provides a government wide service to MPs. The role of such units, however, should have a parliamentary or an executive or ministerial focus. In any event, they should not have an exclusively campaigning role. This is the task of party secretariats. The preparation of shell newsletters, political pamphlets, the provision of technical support for party databases and the production of message documents are not the functions of taxpayer funded staff; they are the responsibility of party funded operatives. It is Menzies House, John McEwen House or, for that matter, the ALP's national secretariat which should bear the responsibility and the cost for such material.So how does the government describe the functions and responsibilities of the government members secretariat? In answers to questions asked during the senate estimates process, the weasel words that have been used have been to say that the GMS:assists members and senators in communicating government decisions, policies and programs or dealing with issues which are frequently raised within electorate offices or are of relevance to electors.What this translates to is simple. The government has established a taxpayer funded political unit worth three-quarters of a million dollars in salaries alone to conduct marginal seat campaigning. What we have with the government members secretariat is a support unit for Robert Menzies House. It is a marginal seats campaigning unit—a top-heavy political hit squad that performs year-round campaigning for the coalition in marginal seats across Australia.The cost to the taxpayer of this political campaigning unit does not end with the salaries of the staff involved. The savings to Robert Menzies House and the National Party headquarters are worth well over $1 million per annum when other state-of-the-art equipment is taken into account. The costs blow out even more when the extensive travel of the staff of the government members secretariat is taken into account.In equipment alone, we know the GMS has eight mobile phones. In February 1997 it had four laptop computers. Since then, four more have been purchased. As well as 10 conventional desktop computers, the GMS has videos, TVs and colour printers, at least two photocopiers, three fax machines, desktop publishing facilities, a folding machine and a scanner.We also know that the joint house committee has carried out $40,000 worth of fit-out changes to the offices occupied by the GMS since they were located there. We know that the senior adviser, Mr Chris Fryar, who has operational command of the unit, receives a vehicle supplied on usual SES level terms and conditions. The cost of the equipment is all met by the taxpayer. The cost of maintaining the equipment and the ongoing costs of the phones and photocopiers are also met by the taxpayer. Even the cost of the extensive newspaper subscription received by the GMS is met by the taxpayer.We know that in calendar year 1997 the GMS spent an incredible $33,464 on station ery alone. But the taxpayer funded costs do not end there. Will the government confirm that Ms Sue Warren, a former employee of the GMS, who is now employed on the personal staff of the Leader of the Government in the Senate as a political adviser, actually produces weekly newsletters that are attributed to the GMS? If this is the case, this adds at least one functional staff member at adviser level to the staff establishment of the GMS.We know that two of the staff are not Canberra based. Ms Aileen Wiesner, an assistant adviser, is based in Sydney in the office of the Prime Minister, while Mr Keith Blyth, an adviser, is based in Adelaide in the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Blyth's trips to Canberra have therefore cost the taxpayer $32,367.80 in airfares alone since his appointment. This does not include the cost of cabcharge or travel allowance.In Ms Wiesner's case, her 55 domestic airfares between Canberra and Sydney since her appointment, worth $8,338.40, are nothing compared to the real costs that she has incurred taxpayers. In addition to her commercial airfares, in 1996 alone she travelled an additional 16 times between Canberra and Sydney on VIP aircraft. From April 1996, when the unit was established, to May 1998, the airfares and car transport of the GMS staff have totalled $185,259. This figure does not include VIP travel or the cost of the tax free travel allowance paid to staff.If the government is comfortable that this travel has always constituted a legitimate expense by staff members of the GMS, then they should come into this chamber and explain why Mr Brendan Cooper, a personal secretary at the GMS, was required to travel extensively between Canberra and Perth in October, November and December, 1996. Can the government assure us that he was not deployed as a political operative for the state election then being conducted in Western Australia? Did he claim travelling allowance when he visited Perth during this time or was he on unpaid leave? If he did not receive travel allowance and if he was on unpaid leave, what justification is there for his taxpayer funded flights worth almost $10,000 to provide political support for the re-election of the Court Liberal government in Western Australia?Is it a coincidence that Mr Brendan Cooper resigned from the GMS on 3 October, 1997 to take up a position with Mr Court, the Premier of Western Australia? Indeed, what were Mr Cooper's political responsibilities that required him to take almost $50,000 worth of commercial air travel alone during his time at the GMS?Ms Linda Reynolds, an adviser with the GMS since its establishment, is described as the senior training coordinator. Why was she conveniently required in Western Australia continuously for 18 days during the period of the Western Australia state election? Will the government assure the Senate that her activities did not in any way relate to the state election campaign?Supplying equipment to MOPS staff is not inappropriate. Paying the travel costs to the same staff is not inappropriate. However, the issue in this instance is: should the cost of the activities of the GMS be met by the taxpayer or by the coalition parties who, like the Labor Party, receive public funding for the legitimate costs of federal campaigning at elections? The simple fact is that the equivalent activities of the GMS were always performed by the national secretariat of the ALP or its various state and territory branches when we were in government and that is still the case now that we are in opposition. None of us in this chamber are political babes in the woods. We know what goes on. All of us know approximately where the line falls between the tasks that can be performed by taxpayer-funded staff and party political staff.The GMS is beyond the pale. It is a campaigning tool, pure and simple. It serves no other role than that of marginal seats campaigning on behalf of the parties. As far as we can ascertain, the GMS does not serve any single function which should be legitimately borne by the taxpayer.This is not an argument about the balance between opposition and government staff. It is an argument about the proper function of the government staff. If the opposition were to close its eyes to the activities of the GMS, it would be to ignore forever the distinction that has traditionally existed, at least in a practical sense, between the staff of parties and the staff of parliamentarians.What exactly does the government members secretariat produce? We know that they produce `Points of order' which is subtitled, `A daily summary of proceedings in Parliament House, Canberra.' It is a message document that contains, in point form, bullet point messages, lines and so-called facts to assist coalition campaigners in determining appropriate political lines.We know that they provide training support that includes the use of database programs within electorate offices. This technical support is coordinated by Mr Tim Archer, an assistant adviser at the GMS, whose actual role is national database trainer. This almost certainly includes the Liberal Party's feedback program, which is their direct mail database.I would note that members and senators now receive a separate software allowance to defray the cost of technical support and training for such databases. Surely Mr Tim Archer's activities should not be charged to taxpayers. There is no justification at all for the taxpayer subsidising Mr Archer's blatant political activities.We know that they have received Corel Draw 7, which is used as the desktop publishing program to produce shell newsletters. The artwork is provided directly to government members and senators. I would point out that Corel Draw 7 is not even available in the offices of senators and members and that, therefore, material provided in this format must be passed on to a professional printer before it can be utilised by parliamentarians.If the function of the GMS is, as stated, to provide training and support to coalition parliamentarians and to ensure the efficient and effective operation of electorate offices, how can the provision of material that is not even compatible with the software in their offices be consistent with this? This is simply taxpayer funded, cradle to grave election material.The shell newsletters and pamphlets are not of the information variety that are often produced in members' offices. They are political propaganda—dirt sheets on the Labor Party and overt political promotion of the policies and the themes of the coalition government.We have seen their small business newsletter, their notes on tax and debt and their material on the unfair dismissals legislation. Some of the material has been found to breach the Electoral Act because it has not been correctly authorised. The member for Dunkley, Mr Bruce Billson, distributed a GMS small business newsletter which fell foul of the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act because it had not been correctly authorised.Other activities have been found to be unscrupulous or dishonest, such as the letter writing campaign where coalition members were encouraged to submit letters to the editor under their own signatures that had in fact been drafted elsewhere.At the outset, I referred to the government's hypocrisy about size of government and the promise of higher standards. By `higher standards' the government presumably meant honesty and accountability. We have already seen the dishonesty that surrounded the secret establishment of a nationwide media monitoring unit with no line item appropriation. The opposition, therefore, found it extremely difficult to effectively question ministers and officials about the costs and function of the media monitoring unit during Senate estimates hearings. In the same way, the government has sought to prevent questions being raised about the government members secretariat.When it was originally established, the GMS was responsible to the Minister for Administrative Services and questions could be addressed to the minister during Senate estimates in the ordinary fashion. Recently, however, the GMS has been transferred from DAS to the chief government whip, Neil Andrew MP, in an attempt to prevent parliamentary scrutiny. We know the GMS services both senators and members. What possible reason, other than a shady attempt to invoke the principle of comity between the two chambers, can be advanced for this transfer to an office holder of the House of Represen tatives? This is simply an attempt to prevent Senate estimates scrutiny of the unit's activities.We know that the salary costs are in the order of $760,000 per annum, including ministerial staffing allowance. We know that the annualised stationery costs are worth about $33,000 and that the annual costs of airfares and car transport exceed $92,000. The GMS has over $54,000 worth of equipment, and it spent $40,000 on office renovations. We know that their franking machine has thousands of dollars worth of postage on it. We have no estimate of the travelling allowance paid to staffers, or the costs of VIP and other non-standard airfares. We do not know the costs of the facilities provided to staffers based outside Canberra or the true costs of staffers who work for the GMS but are not part of their official establishment.We can be certain that the costs would easily exceed $1 million per annum, combined with baby aNiMaLS, which also spends almost $1 million on salaries alone. The government is spending $2.5 million on these two units alone—$2.5 million dollars to employ and deploy 24 full-time—(Time expired)12:51:004282Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—A Victoria Cross is displayed in the National Party party room in Parliament House. The Victoria Cross is the supreme military honour. It represents great courage against greater odds and the strength to overcome fear and to act positively for the sake of your country and your children. That Victoria Cross was won by an officer, Mr Anderson, who went on to become the Country Party member for Hume.I raise this today as a reminder of the legacy of heroes of the past who kept Australia safe and free. I raise it to demonstrate a patriotism that is tangible and real. There are some people in this country who use the cloak of patriotism to cover a lack of substance; there are some people who declare their patriotism rather than their agenda. One Nation wanted the world to believe they were patriots, so they claimed the support of a VC winner. But the VC did not exist. It was all a sham.The rise of One Nation has posed challenges for us all: politicians, political parties, the media and the people. Firstly, I affirm that the coalition must continually strive to give strong leadership to rural Australia, despite the National Party's small proportion of the parliament and an obstructive Senate. Strong leadership involves three things: policy action, being a good messenger and courage.In the two years since we came to power, the coalition government has put over $1 billion into major policy actions for rural Australia, above and beyond the traditional portfolio requirements—and this in a tight fiscal environment. The coalition has listened to the fallout from competition policy with concessions to pharmacists, newsagents and the sugar industry. We may have to do more.Thousands of farming families survived the drought only through years of government assistance, including a further 12 months after the drought to help them back on their feet. Drought funding of $620 million has been provided to farm families over the past six years. That is a lot of listening.The coalition government is prepared to go to the ballot box in a difficult electoral climate to get the issue of native title resolved. There can be no greater sign of our commitment to rural towns, industries, employment, infrastructure and diversification. Did we not listen to the sounds of rural and small business backs breaking under high interest rates? Now the farm sector saves between $400 million and $500 million a year through lower interest rates, which is an average benefit of $600,000 per farmer. Did we not also listen to the cries for help to get our products into overseas markets to help the four out of five primary producers who rely on exports? Yes, we listened and we delivered. Yes, there is more to do. There will always be more to do.Remember that One Nation has a vested interest in drowning out the achievements and complexities of government. I talked about the need for courage. That means a firm hand on the tiller—not lurching to the right or to the left but holding out for what is practical and beneficial for our people. If these are hard times for the National Party, then these are dangerous times for rural Australians. It is more important than ever that the National Party dare mightily in both acting for our people and in exposing the chill desert winter offered by One Nation.Some say we should move to the right and vacate the conservative moderate ground, leave the coalition, print more money, raise tariffs, go back to the White Australia policy—where would that thinking end? How far would fear, once given into, chase us? This is the kind of hard time when leaders must act—not out of fear but out of the courage to say what is right and true and to defend that truth against great odds.For a long time, the far right have searched for a perfect political foil, an anti-politician who can attract wave after wave of publicity. They tried it with Peter Sawyer, the Logos Foundation and Graeme Campbell. They finally hit the ballot box office with the One Nation leader. The message is centuries old and plays on our fears and disappointments. They tell us we are all doomed to endless poverty and that the major parties are selling us out as part of a foreign conspiracy intent on world domination.The ageless modus operandi of the extreme right is to massage their message so it is plausible and simple. Their sympathisers and fellow travellers then move in to back an isolated person capable of using ordinariness as a political weapon. That person gradually becomes surrounded with people and ideas that flatter and seem to help but, behind the scenes, contacts are made which inevitably lead back into the extremist networks.Their approach is recognisable. They enlarge some of society's problems and make up others. Many want to believe that the hard bits of life are someone's fault. The finger is pointed at scapegoats who can be easily identified either because they are in public life, they look different or they practise a different religion. Distil the message of One Nation today and you have the same themes as the League of Rights had five, 25 and 50 years ago: fortress Australia, anti-immigration, Aboriginal welfare, secret international plans and community referenda. The big difference today is that the package is updated and the organisation more professional.I do not know a single person who has not suffered in this life—this is reality—and no government, no political party, can take away all unhappiness. I know very well that the bush has done it tough. Together we have tried to work through solutions on big and small issues, from native title and Hilmer to a single word on a label that is causing problems. It has been my privilege to be their voice. My remarks about One Nation today reflect not on regional Australians but on those few, those very few, who use them to scavenge some much needed credibility.I am proud to stand by my record as a practical politician who has had wins and quite a few bruises from fighting for the bush. Acting on principle, I have crossed the floor on both rural and family value issues. I have made the real difference that can only come through parliamentary forums and processes—not through treating parliament with contempt, running away from the tough questions and resorting to shallow generalisations.Like the Australians who won the Victoria Cross, we must stand up to those who would put our future at risk. This is difficult. It is much easier for all of us to surrender to the mirage of short-term gain—politicians, media and the people. One Nation cannot trust their members to run the party in a democratic Australian way. So they made it a private company, run by a triumvirate and sealed with a secret pact. One Nation uses fear, not fact, to engage on a purely emotional level. But for Australians to go forward we need hearts and minds to work together energised by hope and not negativity. Our vision must be based on the practical reason that we have to trade to survive, not turn our backs on the world. A very famous Australian once said:This small population, located at so vast a difference from other civilised parts of the globe, can have no prospect of success unless it can raise the export of some raw material in considerable demand . . . and be capable of bearing the expense for the longest sea voyage.Those were the words of John Macarthur in the 18th century. His vision then holds true today. We have to be a trading nation. Macar thur pioneered the wool industry thereby enabling Australia to stand on its own without handouts from Britain. If we lose the essence of that vision now as One Nation wants, then our children will be like the early settlers—eking out a welfare existence. If we resorted to printing money, it would soon cease to have value. The early settlers traded in rum after all.Like other subversive political movements which seek to destroy rather than to build, the rise of One Nation has encouraged a new kind of political correctness. The word `global' is code for sinister international forces. Surely if Macarthur could start a huge industry with six sheep and a vision based on the `globe', we cannot go too far wrong. Thanks to One Nation, the word `immigration' now resonates with fear and suspicion. The term `politician' is the lowest of the low in the One Nation syntax, despite the fact that they all want to be one. `Aborigine' in One Nation lingo has become synonymous with the welfare aristocracy. They tie first with Asians as the people most to blame for the mess the country is apparently in. The code word of One Nation makes a rotten language that does not judge people on their merits but on the colour of their skin or the place of their origin. This is not how the Victoria Cross was won.It is said that the vote for One Nation was a protest vote and nothing to do with its policies. Policy scrutiny has long been a hallmark of Australian political life. This used to ensure that hypocrisy and policy nonsense were exposed. We all have responsibilities in a democracy. I have to say that One Nation and its leaders have not been brought to account. This was not helped by One Nation cutting short its policy media launch after 10 minutes, but it was a particular problem in regional areas where local media releases are often reprinted verbatim without the analysis and probing we expect ritually here. I was not alone in being stunned by the happy family types of reporting on One Nation in the Queensland election. Regional Queensland was fed a regular diet of positive One Nation profiles. The commendable exception to this was Queensland Country Life which exposed the dangers of One Nation policies to primary producers.How many voters last Saturday were aware that, despite One Nation's emphasis on law and order and their call for greater police powers, the One Nation leader voted against the government to make it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to get warrants for phone taps? Where was the headline `One Nation helps crime bosses'? How many voters in Queensland knew that, despite One Nation's call to abolish native title and benefits based on race, the One Nation leader voted to give millions of acres of Queensland crown land in freehold to Aboriginal land councils using a native title regime based on non-extinguishment?These actions are totally at odds with other statements by the leader and the One Nation Party. Yet there was no call to account and no headline that said `One Nation leader says give land to Aborigines'. There was no exposure of the facts that the party leader said one thing and did another. These votes are significant because the One Nation leader actually attended them. We must conclude that they helped somehow in her stated mission to `make a difference'. One Nation also has a policy for politicians to have equivalent remuneration common to all other workers. I am still waiting to hear whether the One Nation leader has deposited a large chunk of her above average income into a charity account. Perhaps she is planning to lend it out at two per cent.How many Queensland voters were aware that the new One Nation Queensland president, Tom King, believes that Australia has global parks owned by the United Nations where foreigners can go but we cannot? King has taken his conspiracies to the readers of both the Strategy and the League of Rights publication On Target. How many know that this One Nation boss portrayed himself falsely as part of the mainstream Australian Defence Association and advertised himself publicly as such in the Strategy? This paper's favourite themes are one world government conspiracies and anti-Semitism. Advertisers include the League of Rights and the extremist magazine Lock, Stock and Barrel, which has had some editions banned. How many knew that the Strategy, which has several links to One Nation, sponsored the Australian tour of a prominent American militiaman, Jack McLamb?There is a vast virtual world of One Nation on the Internet, but how many voters in Queensland knew that One Nation web master and official biographer, Scott Balson, has a business arrangement with the same extremist newspaper, the Strategy? Balson gives them double billing with his own news of the day service. Together they form the Independents Consortium. Where was the headline `One Nation spins racist web'? This is virtual politics, where reality is buried deep beneath hundreds of pages of propaganda and mixed media wizardry.How many Queenslanders knew that One Nation strategist and would-be senator David Oldfield visited known extremists for input to gun and immigration policy to get their networks on side? One of these, Ron Owen, editor of Lock, Stock and Barrel, has promoted the violent white Afrikaner resistance in his magazine and suggested that readers send them money. These far right links to One Nation will only increase. A federal candidate in New South Wales has been connected with the AUSI Freedom Scouts and Campbell's Australia First Party. One of the Scouts's adds in Lock, Stock and Barrel claims that our air and water were deliberately poisoned. `Take our weapons,' they state, `and we will take your life.'A candidate in Victoria Tony Peters has called for a royal commission into the Port Arthur massacre. He has been taken in by the Strategy line that it was all a conspiracy and that Martin Bryant is innocent. Another One Nation officer Tony Pitt promotes this view too. Do they really say what all Australians think? Robyn Spencer founded Australians Against Further Immigration. She has now taken over the reins of One Nation in Victoria and written their immigration policy. The Age recently reported that Oldfield brokered a deal for 500 AAFI Victorian members to move into One Nation ranks. In return, Spencer would get the top spot on the One Nation Senate ticket.Who are these people taking over One Nation? They do not have ordinary ideas. The AAFI have close links with the League of Rights. One of their candidates said:My policy on refugees and illegals is to reopen the second Yallah meatworks, creating up to 500 local jobs, and convert them to blood and bone.Robyn Spencer has direct links with the League of Rights. She addressed a regional dinner of the League of Rights in Victoria in May 1995. League founder, Eric Butler, reported the occasion in the league newsletter, finishing with the statement:If the AAFI can elect only a handful of senators at the next federal election, perhaps holding the balance of power, they may be the decisive factor . . . Every social creditor should be able to grasp this potential and to act accordingly.Social credit is the ancestor of One Nation's financial policies. The league promoted a tape of Ms Spencer's address. She went on to share a platform with Eric Butler at another league meeting—the annual dinner in Adelaide in August 1995. The AAFI is also home to Denis McCormack, another speaker at the League of Rights, proofreader of the One Nation leader's book, adviser to Graeme Campbell, and Vice President of Graeme Campbell's Australia First Party.The umbrella of One nation shelters the ragtag army of the far right. This is very serious. We are witnessing a steady amalgamation of the far right groups under the One Nation banner. Decent Queenslanders registering a protest vote would be horrified at the agendas of these extremist groups—would be horrified at how deep their claws have sunk into One Nation. The bottom line for the league is that they blame the Jews for everything—wars and depressions. They deny the Jewish holocaust. They say it was a bad case of typhoid. They say Hitler's policy was a Jewish policy. They argue that Jesus Christ was not a Jew. That is the ugly hidden reality of the League of Rights and their fellow travellers. But Queensland never knew. The media made the public face of One Nation widely acceptable by failing to expose the unacceptable.It is not good enough to mention these serious defects in political character in a small par on page 10, if at all, while large photos and happy family reports are on page 1. Profile is votes. More profile is more votes. What possible conclusion could the reader reach but that the strange links mean little against the earnest smile on a One Nation face and empty platitudes?Economic rationalism must be taking its toll in the press galleries. No-one has the time to do investigative research. A free press has to be a responsible press. What message is sent to those wanting to enter political life—that they should criticise Asians, hardly ever attend parliament, get a lot of facts wrong, sign up some key extremist networks and smile for the camera? That may be the make-believe world of virtual politics, but it is not the real politics. I know that it is not the kind of leadership that makes a difference or creates one new job.The Victoria Cross in our party room was not won by taking the easy path. It was not won by shadow-boxing; it was won by an encounter with grim reality. The National Party's VC is a real VC. It was won by a real hero who chose hope, valour and hard work over fear and running away from the real issues. I know that in the end Australia will choose that way too.13:11:004286Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—The appropriation bills that we are being asked to look at are: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 , moneys for ordinary annual services of the government; Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 , moneys for non-recurrent expenditure; and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-99 , money for departments. These bills, unfortunately, are another example of ignorant, ideological and misguided legislation reflecting ignorant, ideological and misguided policies of this government which this government is hell bent on pursuing. It is no wonder that the fervent and impassioned speech we have just heard is now belatedly necessary in this parliament when this government has been pursuing scapegoat politics through their policies.This government is hell bent on pursuing economic rationalism at any cost, and then finding someone else to blame for the out comes. It is hell bent on believing that the famous hand of the market can deliver all the goodies we have ever wanted as a country. It is hell bent on applying competition policy ad nauseam to all aspects of society. The Nationals, who are now leaving the chamber I notice, themselves were concerned about competition policy but did not stand up against either the Labor Party or the coalition in administering it at all costs. This government is hell bent on the free trade agenda at any cost to our local industries and our unemployment levels. Behind these appropriation bills we see a government hell bent on achieving a surplus at any cost.This government is not interested in looking at any real indications of the well-being of our society. They are happy to hide behind their nice bottom line and ignore the reality in our society: the sickening reality that the quality of health in Australia is spiralling down; the informed reality that education is moving towards a framework where universities are a business, students are customers and those students whose mummy and daddy can pay will get top notch education; the desperate reality that our unemployment rate is not getting better; the unjust reality that people who desperately need legal representation cannot afford it; and the intolerant reality that people are so disillusioned, frustrated and angry that they are looking for racist and selfish answers—the kind that we saw responded to today.If the government decided to pull its head out of the sand, if the hypnotic effect of the budget surplus wore off, I would submit that unemployment levels are a good place to start in looking for real indications of Australia's well-being. With Japan, the United States, the Netherlands and Switzerland all on an unemployment rate of below five per cent, it is clear that there is a long way to go before Australia should receive pats on the back on the basis of this economic indicator.The Queensland election drove home a crystal clear message. It is not that there are a heap of rednecks in Queensland who are anti-Aboriginal and anti-immigration—no. The crystal clear message is that the community is sick and tired of being ruled by testosterone-charged bottom liners. People are sick of being dictated to by economists who value a balanced budget more than they value quality health care, quality education and removing unemployment. In fact, unemployment at a highish level is desired by many large corporations investing in a country like Australia. They are downright sick of the government saying that economic rationalism and free trade are the only way to go, regardless of how it affects Mr and Ms Joe Citizen. Remember that exports are only about 20 per cent of Australia's economy. We have forgotten about our domestic economy.The Australian community are crying out through the ballot box for the government to hear their concerns. They are crying out through the ballot box for the government to acknowledge that people in Australia are hurting, even though the media and the economists gave an almost unanimous pat on the back for bringing home a surplus. The people of Australia are not impressed by a surplus when they can see the real impacts on the ground. They can see that the dogged pursuit of the bottom line has destroyed communities and is still doing so. They have had enough of head-in-the-cloud economists ruling their lives. They have had enough of money markets in Europe and the United States running their lives. Australians are refusing to listen to the prevailing wisdom that anyone who disagrees with the government's economic orthodoxy is some kind of economic nobody, an illiterate economic lightweight. They have said, `Enough is enough.'There is a vote from the people on the ground that this government's pursuit of a surplus at all costs has had devastating impacts from a social perspective. What has been less widely acknowledged is that the economic benefits of a budget in surplus are in fact highly dubious. The surplus, as an indication of economic wellbeing, has been beefed up beyond belief. Many other economic indicators are telling a very different story and they suggest that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) should be chastised and not congratulated. The government's blase attitude to the ever-widening current account deficit is especially disturbing. Not only are they complacent about the fact that the current account deficit is ballooning, but they are trying to shove it under the carpet by saying, `Don't worry about the current account deficit. Our public sector finances are A-OK, so we can ride this wave.' Even Senator Cook, from the opposition, the other day was saying, `Look how many more exports we've got.' He forgot to mention that there are many more imports—more than we have exported. So in fact we are running faster and faster and not even staying in the same place.This is the general smoke and mirrors approach that the coalition have taken to all the economic indicators that point to the fact that their approach to economics may not be as hot to trot as they claim. The Treasurer tried to talk up the Aussie dollar as it plunged to deeper and deeper levels, again saying, `But, hey, we produced a surplus. She'll be right, mate.' The biggest concern I have with the Treasurer's blase attitude towards the current account deficit is that his comments echo exceptionally problematic reasoning.The coalition's attitudes and claims are based on the concept of the twin deficit theory. The twin deficit theory is based on a link between budget deficits and surpluses and the current account deficit or surplus. The reliance on the twin deficit theory is evident in statements in budget paper No. 1 of 1998-99, which states:. . . the ongoing improvement in public sector finances should exert a downward pressure on the current account deficit.The idea of the twin deficit theory has never been borne out in practice, however. Indeed, it is clear that the twin deficit theory is a fallacy when you consider that, firstly, across all countries the current account deficit must sum to zero and, secondly, in contrast, government deficits across all countries can take on a large range of values. The twin deficit fallacy is overwhelmingly illustrated by the latest current account figures. Despite moves towards a budget surplus over the last two years, our current account deficit has continued to increase. Could it be that they are not related?The government has had its head in the clouds. The current account deficit is a crucial economic indicator of wellbeing. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is crucial. It reflects the state of the national economy and deserves serious attention. To think that all will be A-OK, irrespective of the current account deficit, as long as the domestic export fundamentals are kept under control is naivety in the extreme. People in the community can sense this. They know what is happening with local industries. They know how much they can buy that is made elsewhere. They can even see those things which are food commodities in the marketplace. It is obvious to everyone except the government and perhaps the opposition.The Greens (WA) are disappointed with a wide range of areas in this budget. Let us start with health and community services, as health care is a relevant place to start. There is no Commonwealth funding for dental care for low income people; no new initiatives in child care, despite ripping out operational subsidies for community based child-care facilities; and no new capital for aged care, despite pleas from the carers in this area who can see that the quality is sinking and sinking as the operators of residential aged care facilities are penny-pinching, cost cutting and staff slashing. The offer in the Australian health care agreement was so low that even the conservative states walked out. There was not one extra dollar to help the public hospital system in crisis, and we have the poorly targeted extension of the seniors health care card.In relation to taxation, we have increases in migration charges to $5,000 for parents and the introduction of discriminatory visa fees. In relation to labour market programs, there was a further reduction in resources for employment assistance services as a result of savings made through the much advertised Job Network competitive tendering process, where the government is walking away from its responsibility. We have a further tightening of the activity test for unemployed people. Blame the unemployed: that takes the pressure off government.Let us look at welfare recipients, a big target of the government. We have further pain and a further tightening of the belts of those who can least afford it. There were reduced entitlements affecting many sole parents, including cuts to parenting payments for indigenous sole parents participating in the community development employment program. Blame the unemployed. Blame the poor. Take the pressure off yourself. We have reductions in pensioner education supplements for those not carrying a full study load and a reduction in family allowance for some receiving non-cash maintenance.For women, we have an emphasis on a gender neutral mainstreaming approach to policy initiatives that have an impact on women. We have no new initiatives for women. In housing, we have the continued decline in funding of the Commonwealth-state housing agreement from 1996-97 levels, including a five per cent dividend cut and an annual cut of $50 million. Again, the government is pulling out the basic necessities and reducing the fundamental standard of living.Under law and justice, we have no new funds for legal aid and tighter guidelines for spending that will diminish access to legal aid for migration and refugee matters in the Federal Court and the High Court. We have a total undermining of the idea that everyone is equal before the law—the bedrock of the rule of law. This government is positively usurping this principle by saying everyone who can afford it is equal before the law. We have a tighter application requirement and higher fees for refugee applicants in their processes. Is that fair, I ask you?All in all, these appropriation bills are inadequate. There is not enough funding to address the deep social problems, the ever increasing number of people living in poverty, the continued degradation of the environment, and the desperate situation in the bush. The little electioneering sweeteners that the Treasurer has passed out to the Australian people will not fool them. They feel the impacts of this famous, or now infamous, surplus every day. In conclusion, I would like to say that this is a government that has used its economic policies as a process of blame. Punish those people who have the least ability to fight back. Reduce funds to those people who are cited as being the noisy lobby groups that even One Nation cites. It is a good way of pretending that you are not going along with bigoted policies by targeting particular groups of people and silencing, as we have heard in the last week or so, those groups who dare to speak out and advise on the policies and the impacts on real people—the impacts not just in rural and regional Australia but on anyone who does not fit under somebody's strange idea of average.This is what we are seeing in these appropriation bills. Unless Australia sees a real desire to look at the impact of these policies of economic rationalism on the ground, this government obviously does not really want to learn why Australians are disenfranchised.13:24:004289Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—The appropriation bills for 1998-99 were touted by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) to put Australia back in the black, back on track. What he did not indicate, however, was what track he was talking about, whether it was the track from Darwin to Alice Springs or the railway track from Melbourne to Darwin via every marginal seat in the country.What they actually do, however, is cause more pain and hardship to ordinary Australians who thought that, by voting for the coalition, they were voting for a fairer Australia, a government for all of us. In reality, the burdens placed on these Australians—the elderly, the unemployed, our rural and regional Australians and our young people—are now almost unbearable. The government will have you believe that all this pain was essential. The people of Queensland demonstrated on 13 June, however, that they are not copping the pain any more, and I think they spoke, in all probability, for most Australians.If it was essential, why did this budget contain spending increases of $10 billion over the next four years? If it was essential, why is it that, when we look at the effect on financial year 1998-99 of the three Costello budgets, we find that, in net terms, he cut $6 billion in the first budget, $1 billion in the second and then put back $2 billion in the third?The government has turned its back on older Australians, who, even after the nursing home entry fee debacle last year, still have to pay up to $4,380 in annual fees and up to $37.65 in extra daily fees. In their hour of their greatest fragility, they are still having to sell the family home to pay for entry into a nursing home. After all the backflips and reversals—some 14 of them in all—the fees remain, and the government still circles the family homes of our elderly.With all the debate going on over child care—there was an interesting series in the Sydney Morning Herald earlier last week on the changes that have been wrought in this area—the government failed again to rectify their meanness by allocating no additional funding for child care in this budget. The budget papers showed that expenditure on child-care assistance is down by $117 million, because parents simply cannot afford formal care any longer. Women are being forced back into the home, or children are being placed in backyard care. Since the 1996 election, almost $1 billion has vanished from child-care funding, which says it all about the current government.The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, thinks about family values, but these changes amount to a collapse in the living standards of middle and low income working families. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said in his speech in reply:These are the human losses on which this accountants' surplus was built by a government that has long since ceased caring and has never learned to care. These indeed are the hard yards. These are the long hauls. The shouldered burden of battling Australians somehow fuels the happiness of a Treasurer long unacquainted with the ordinary needs of his fellow Australians. The griefs and consolations and the quiet unprotested sufferings underpin the triumph of his numbers and the failure of his government's decency.So what we see from this government is a general lack of direction, of substance and of innovative and worthwhile programs across all sections of our society, industry and economy. I want to focus on today a number of issues that affect all Australians.Research and development in Australian industry has been let down by the Howard government. Throughout the course of this government, the Howard led coalition has cut $2.2 billion to industrial research and development assistance. Over $2 billion has been torn out of R&D programs over the life of the current government and replaced with much smaller R&D incentives. Last year's budget papers set aside $164 million for R&D grants in 1997-98, but only $109 million was actually spent. This government program is in deep trouble 18 months after it was launched.Was this $55 million that was saved rolled over into the budget for R&D for the following year? No, it was not. Did it go back to Treasury and into consolidated revenue? No, it did not. In the estimates hearings for the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism on 2 June, we heard that the money was used to offset some other programs within the industry portfolio. Money that should have been spent on Australian research and development was spent in other areas.The massive fall-off in R&D start funding has been caused by Australian businesses rejecting the complex and bureaucratic structures set up under the program. This is coupled with the fact that the government is being particularly nasty in its approach to R&D funding, as the policies are designed to cut its budget rather than pick the best available job-generating projects which have obvious flow-on effects. If the Prime Minister were serious about Australian research and development, he would have ensured that the full underspend was rolled over into the next financial year. In fact, he would ensure that the program for R&D expenditure is capable of being met in full in each financial year.However, it is not only in the area of research and development that the Australian people have been let down. The Prime Minister made an election promise to create 200,000 new manufacturing jobs by the year 2000. The only jobs promise he made during the last election campaign is now absolutely in tatters. By now, he should have created 102,500 new manufacturing jobs. Instead, there has been a net loss of manufacturing jobs in the Australian economy. Just last week, data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed the continuation of the collapse of Australian manufacturing jobs. Labour force selected summary tables for May 1998 show a seasonally adjusted fall of 2,300 manufacturing jobs in the quarter to May 1998.In total, over the last year, 32,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost, with falls occurring in each of the last three quarters. Given that the Prime Minister has not been able to meet the only jobs promise in his election campaign of 1996, I am sure that it can be justified by simply putting it into the category of non-core promises. It will go with the long list of promises that this government has failed to meet in terms of the commitments it made to the Australian people at the last election.The reality is that the Howard government has no positive strategy to achieve jobs growth. Without this, however, the future for Australian workers is bleak. Unfortunately, there are still no signs that the government has recognised the need for such a strategy, which is cold comfort for all the remaining manufacturing workers. There are certainly no positive indicators of this in these appropriations. In fact, there has been an alarming slump in expenditure in the manufacturing sector over the last quarter, which is strong evidence of the manufacturing industry's lack of confidence in the policies of the Howard government.Australian Bureau of Statistics data on private new capital expenditure and expected expenditure to June 1999, released on 20 May 1998, shows that spending in manufacturing has fallen from $3,064 million in the December 1997 quarter to $2,575 million in the March 1998 quarter, which is the lowest level of expenditure since March 1997. Those figures are hardly surprising. The Howard government has presided over a decline in growth, an ever-expanding current account deficit, an ever-growing foreign debt, and an unemployment rate that is stuck at around eight per cent with no real hope of decreasing in the short term.One of the main causes of slower growth is budget decisions taken by the Costello-Howard government that have put a stop to growth in innovation in industry. Business confidence simply is not there. The ACCI-Westpac industrial trends report for the June quarter states that those firms expecting an improvement in general business conditions in the next six months fell from 16 per cent to six per cent while those predicting a deterioration rose from 35 per cent to 57 per cent. A recent article in the Australian Financial Review stated that businesses were shelving their investment plans and that figures on capital spending fell by 3.5 per cent in the first three months of this year as a direct response to what is occurring in Asia.The current account deficit is of particular concern. The Treasurer has played down the prospect of a recession because of the Asian economic crisis. The figures show that we are in a period of slower growth because of the Asian crisis, even though the Treasurer said only a few short months ago that the impact of the Asian crisis on us would be scarcely measurable. He said that the Australian economy was fireproofed. The current account deficit is expanding. The budget papers forecast the deficit to average 5.25 per cent of GDP over 1998-99. This is a current account deficit of around $31 billion, which equals $1,722 for each and every Australian. This is almost double the level of 1996-97, and this is after the Treasurer and the government have repeatedly assured us that the Australian economy has been effectively fireproofed or insulated against the Asian crisis.The two main concerns with the current account deficit are that: firstly, the forecast is below that of the Reserve Bank, which forecast a rate of between 5½ per cent and six per cent, and below most private sector forecasts; and, secondly, the government's forecast is based on a presumed improvement in Asia during the financial year, which conflicts with most other expectations. This comes from a government which promised before its election that the first thing it would do would be to deal with the current account deficit. We all remember well the debt truck travelling around the streets of Australia during the 1996 election. One can only say that if Labor repeats the dose at the next election, we will have to get a road train to write the figures on after what the government has done to this economy over the past 2½ years.The current account deficit is running at a dangerously high figure which will lead to a further increase in foreign debt. The ACCI-Westpac report also highlighted that export deliveries were down again, and the expectation is that there will be further falls in the September quarter. Capacity utilisation has fallen sharply and labour shedding is expected to resume in the September quarter. Ordinary Australians—the battlers, as they are referred to—will suffer wholesale as a result of the way this government has managed the Australian economy.Rural and regional Australians are perhaps the biggest victims of the policies of the Howard government. Simon Crean, the shadow minister for industry and regional development, while speaking on a matter of public importance in the House on 23 June, said:One of Labor's mistakes in government was to talk about the big picture and simply assume that regions would understand how they fitted in. It was Canberra imposing on the regions, not empowering them. But we have listened and we have learnt. The big picture is still important, but we have to construct it from the ground up, encouraging each region to develop its piece of the mosaic.The Howard government should have learnt those lessons, but it has not. Throughout the course of its government, it has continued to attack rural and regional Australians. The government has slashed the regional employment development organisations, abolished the infrastructure fund, and frozen infrastructure bonds.The Howard government has cut services to the bush. It has withdrawn the avenues to job opportunities that existed through labour market programs such as skillshare and LEAP. Job assistance has finished, unless you can afford to pay for it. The government has sliced funding to regional universities, closed regional CES, Medicare and tax offices, and watched as bank branches vanished from regional towns. It has destroyed vital job opportunities. Australia Post is currently under threat. On top of that, we must now fight against the sell-off of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. We must fight against continual job shedding in rural and regional Australia. Once again, rural and regional Australians will be let down and left behind. They do not want any part of the sale of Telstra. They want an efficient, effective communications carrier which provides the same services to people in rural and regional Australia as Australians living in the major capital cities enjoy as a right. Labor has been decent enough to announce that, if Telstra is sold, there will be no equivocation on our part and we will not support the sale. An ongoing and fixed proportion of the Telstra dividend will be paid into a fund. Part of that fund will be used for regional development and nation building. This is some comfort for rural and regional Australians.There is an important connection between industry policy and regional development. The Howard government does not care about that connection—or it does not understand it. This government stood by while BHP announced the closure of its state operations in Newcastle. It stood by while Amcor announced the planned closure of the pulp mill in Burnie, and it did nothing. What sort of public policy creates a situation whereby woodchips from Australian forests sit on the wharves at Burnie awaiting export while they are bypassed on the way in by wood pulp bought from overseas as the feed stock for the Burnie pulp mill? That is a nonsense policy. It demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what is needed in terms of driving Australian industry into the global economy of the 21st century.The ALP is committed to developing an industry plan for the forest products industry. That policy will complement the regional forests agreements process. What is the point of securing an ecologically sustainable way of utilising our resource if we are not prepared to value add it? This government has allowed that to occur in the reverse. This lack of action on the industry policy front has not only hit Newcastle and Burnie but threatens places like the Shoalhaven, Maryborough, Whyalla and Port Hedland.The government's decisions on the book and ship bounties threatened regional centres in Tasmania, Maryborough and Fremantle until Labor led the campaign for their restoration—just as we led the campaign to support the automotive and textile industries. In all these cases we argued that the regional impact was too severe to justify the government's decisions.The member for Hotham outlined that, if Labor wins office at the next election, we would as a matter of urgency call in the parties in the steel industry and in the pulp and paper industries. We would develop, in partnership, appropriate growth strategies for those industries based on new investment, innovation and the growth coming from net export, and based on a commitment to job opportunities not just for Australians in the capital cities but also for those living in rural and regional Australia.13:44:004293West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I rise today to join this debate on the appropriation bills. I have spread around me quite a deal of paper, and when I read some of it, I am as confused now as I was when we undertook the estimates procedures. The reason for this is that, within the Department of Social Security alone, we have had three corrigenda given to us for one table. This was a department that started off by handing down their budget statement and several days later we received a large stack of corrigenda, which I then placed in my book. I could not get the figures to add up. I still cannot get the figures to add up. When we have to receive three corrigenda for one table—and it just happens to be the table that is the summary of outlays for the portfolio, so it is probably one of the most important tables in the whole of the PBS—one really has to wonder.I think some of the confusion comes about because it is not clear, when you look at the Department of Social Security figures, what is Department of Social Security expenditure and what is Centrelink expenditure. It has been extremely hard through all of this estimates process to ascertain precisely what is Centrelink expenditure. How much are they charging a number of the departments for the services they are providing?We do know from the Department of Social Security PBS—well, we think we know some of it—because they have given us a breakdown, but when we have gone and checked with the corresponding PBSs for the other departments, it is not clear just what has been expended. We also find no mention in the Department of Social Security PBS of the work and the pilot that was conducted by Centrelink for the Department of Veterans' Affairs.It is these sorts of difficulties that make accounting for this expenditure of government money, of taxpayers' money, extremely complicated. I would be critical of the Department of Finance and Administration because I thought that it was the role of that department—an important role—to ensure that the information in these tables was correct. It is the Department of Finance and Administration, surely, that has responsibility in the long run for ensuring that tables add up. When we have had mistakes with that, when we have had transposition errors and when we have had to go back and add in whole new sections relating to Centrelink, one has to say this is not good enough. As I said, it is not clear from the tables that we have been given where and what that expenditure was used for.We had an interesting situation recently where there were a number of problems for recipients of benefits from Centrelink. In answer to some questions I asked last week in relation to failures with the computers in the Newstart common platform, the minister said that it is a new information system and:It is also correct to say that it is a very significant improvement on the systems we inherited from the previous government.Of course, some of the systems they now have in operation have had to undergo considerable change because it is this government that is into the issue of outsourcing the IT services. It is this government that has moved into the agency field as well. The minister said that the previous system was not year-2000 compliant and that the previous government let the computer technology run down. If that is the case, I wonder why, in previous estimates hearings, when I have asked questions of the department about their computer systems and how the upgrades were going, we have heard comments such as the one on 24 September 1996, from the then secretary to the department, Mr Blunn that:The network replacement I think has been an outstanding success. We brought it in in very short time and well within cost. It is up and running, and running increasingly effectively. There are some teething problems, as there always are. But, basically, it is running very effectively.Why, if it was running very effectively in September of 1996, is the minister saying that it is our fault now? We also had a question about some of the delays that took place in the mainframe replacement and we got an answer, again in September 1996, from Mr Humphreys. I asked him why we were having an 11th hour rush. Mr Humphreys said:It is, to some extent at least, tied up with the proposals to actually review the whole of government environment and options to outsource. We need to actually look at any potential to upgrade our equipment within the context of possible outsourcing. That is what has been going on with those coordinating agencies.So it is not fair or appropriate for the minister to blame the previous government for what she calls computer problems. The blame has to be laid fairly and squarely at the feet, the door, of this government. The Department of Social Security was saying in September 1996 that they were going to continue with their arrangement for, say, 12 to 18 months, pending a decision about the whole of government. They actually put in that tender specific arrangements for buybacks or lease. It is all in the Hansard of 24 September 1996, on pages 553 and 554, and I recommend it for reading. I asked Mr Blunn a question as to how it was going to fit with the agency work. Mr Blunn said:Quite well. We are planning that. The IT systems will basically go with the agency. The sort of capacity that we need now will be the sort of capacity they will need then. There will be some interface problems, which we are working on now, with some existing computers that DEET use. There are issues—don't let me say there are not issues—but I think we feel that we are comfortably in charge with those issues. On page 654 of the Hansard , when questioned in October 1996 about efficiency dividends and how improved IT was going to help this, the minister said:Just as is happening in the teleservice centre, for instance, new and evolving technology is actually making it easier for us to become more efficient without having to use masses of extra staff. There are changes in the IT area which, I think, will help the agency to become more efficient.That was from the minister herself. This is the same minister who last week or the week before was very scathing of the question I asked and made, I thought, some very rude comments about the previous government in an AAP article on 22 June. The minister is quoted as having said:The new system had to be introduced because the old system is outdated and not Year 2000 compliant, meaning that it could have been thrown into chaos by the so-called millenium bug.When questioned on this 12 or 18 months ago in estimates again, why did we have answers from the department that work was being done to overcome this problem and that, within plenty of time, it would be in a position to actually conduct trials prior to 2000?It does not make sense. This government obviously has a huge problem with its computers that it cannot blame on anybody else. When you look at the expenditure on computers within the Department of Social Security this year, you can see very clearly that quite a deal of additional expenditure has gone into the computing system. Of course, when you have so many corrigenda to tables it gets a bit hard to actually find the right ones, but I think it is well worth noting that in the 1997-98 budget—last year's budget for the current year—DSS said that they were going to expend $18.987 million on computing services to be purchased from Centrelink. There was an additional appropriation sought to take it up to $48.462 million, and my recollection is that they actually expended more than that. The question was asked, of course, as to why this money had to be expended. The answer was that it was all to do with the new equipment that was having to be bought, purchased or leased for Centrelink. Why this sudden reversal and why this over-expenditure if two years ago we were being told everything was on track and that there were no problems? What have this particular government and this particular minister been responsible for in trying to get their computers working? It is not fair and it is not appropriate to blame anybody else for the computer debacle that has happened in the last couple of weeks; it is one that this government has brought upon itself.As I said, the appropriation for the expenditure for Centrelink's computing went from $18.987 million to the revised appropriation of $48.461 million. They actually expect to spend $48.462 million and this coming year's budget will be down to $27.51 million. That is an indication that there are computer problems within this area that are solely and wholly the making of this current government. This government has not been on top of this issue and we have seen—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Very political!1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Yes, minister, it is very political because this is the budget. I would not have raised this issue if the minister had not come in here and said that it was the previous government that was responsible, when in fact it was not the previous government. We were told two years ago that everything was on track and on track properly. But that obviously is not the case from the things that we have seen falling over in these very recent times. For that, the government should be asked to answer more questions and to look more carefully at what it is doing and precisely what service is being provided, because it is not being provided in the way that people would like it to be provided.I think it is incumbent upon this department to have, within these statements, some way of accounting for what is Social Security expenditure and what is Centrelink expenditure. It is very difficult, when you have one agency mixed up through about half a dozen portfolios, to try to ascertain and question in some logical form the workings and the administration of those particular agencies. That is what estimates and budgets are all about. The process is about undertaking the very careful scrutiny of government expenditure—of taxpayers' expenditure. Is it any wonder that people get frustrated, upset and angry when they see that the expenditure of their money cannot be scrutinised adequately, and that the scrutiny that should have been undertaken was not able to be undertaken?I suggest that people should read the report of the committee that was tabled here because it was a unanimous report expressing concerns. The department had to come back 48 hours later with a revised set of tables so that we could at least get some understanding of what is going on in that department.Debate interrupted.Questions Without Notice429542954295Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is to Senator Alston representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware of recent statements by former P&C Stevedores staff that they have been betrayed by the company, the Farmers Federation and the Howard government? Is he further aware of a statement by a former Defence Force officer and dumped PCS worker, Mr Scott Daly, that `the waterfront episode proves that Australian workplace agreements do not protect workers—unions do'?Is he aware that another PCS worker, Mr Derek Crerar, said, `My advice to everyone out there is to join a union, because the AWA is not worth the paper it is written on'? Are these not the same workers who were the spearhead of the Howard government push to reform industrial relations using confrontation, guards and dogs? Is it not the case that job security in this country can be brought about only through proper industrial negotiation and award protection for workers?4295Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—It is really a great shame that Senator Sherry is out there perpetuating Labor's retreat to the past. They were very much in favour of enterprise bargaining when they were in government but, once again, in opposition they go back to the future—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—These are your workers; you sold them out.LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not know whether it is Scott Daly or not, but there was some bloke who went to PCS for a week and then baled out. Was that him?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—No!LD4Senator ALSTON—No, all right. You will get a few disaffected people no doubt wanting to run the union line.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—These are your mates.LD4Senator ALSTON—They are not our mates. Overwhelmingly, the people who wanted to go and work for PCS were those who wanted a breath of fresh air. They did not want to be hamstrung by all this `Never get out of first gear stuff' that you got through the MUA.Senator George Campbell interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—George, you know as well as I do that they could not spell `productivity' in the MUA. It was a criminal offence to talk about how to lift your game. It was all about `Protect your mates. Do as little as possible. Get as much as possible.', and of course the end result is—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You used them up and sold them out.LD4Senator ALSTON—I do not know if you read Glenn Milne this morning, but it looks pretty interesting to me. What it suggests is that once again these hypocrites opposite, Labor in government—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, would you withdraw the use of that word, please?LD4Senator ALSTON—`Opposite'?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—No.LD4Senator ALSTON—Yes, I withdraw, Madam President. Labor in government was interested in waterfront reform—indeed, workplace reform. In other words—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We didn't bring in the dogs.LD4Senator ALSTON—Didn't bring in the dogs! You brought in the army, didn't you? You never resiled from it—whatever it takes. You would have brought in elephants if you had thought it was necessary. Don't give me that nonsense. Do you think the MUA were going to stand there and listen to someone say that somehow they will stand aside because someone else wants them to? Of course, they would not. You know the language the MUA talk. They were only susceptible to action that would have ensured that the rights of others were protected. This is gross hypocrisy on the part of the fully paid up members of the ACTU over there. Senator Sherry has been in the union movement for so long that he has forgotten what the real world looked like. The thing I found utterly extraordinary was when Senator Lundy got up and said that she did not know much about how the public sector worked because she was from the private sector—in other words, these people in the union movement somehow think they have an understanding of the private sector. They have no understanding at all, because what drives these things in the real world is productivity and performance, the very opposite—RF4COOKSenator Cook—How would you know—you're a lawyer?LD4Senator ALSTON—I was a member of the BLF. Were you? Were you ever in the BLF? Of course you were not. We did a bit of work in those days. We were out there at 7 o' clock in the morning. The only reason I got a job was that, when they said, `No ticket, no start', I hung around and when half of them did not come back at lunchtime from the pub they took me on. It was the only way I was able to break that union monopoly. There I was being paid for doing an honest day's work.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It's the only time you had a real job.LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, I did not moonlight driving taxis; I agree with that. But I did a range of other things. All of them involved the bottom line: I knew what productivity was about and I performed.Senator Sherry interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I know it's anathema to you, and I know that Senator Sherry's continued pre-selection depends on getting up here and supporting the union movement. He has only been kept here to keep his superannuation. We all know that. (Time expired)4296Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Alston, they got not much more than a breath of fresh air; they got ripped off by your front organisation that sold them out. Don't these comments from former workers contracted to the National Farmers Federation front company give the lie to the Howard government's recent statements to the ILO that AWAs provide sufficient protection to Australian workers? Aren't these workers correct in saying that there is a legitimate and important role for unions in protecting the rights of workers and that the government was wrong in trying to implement its policy of attempting to smash a union?4297Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—They were half right. I will compromise. I know I am wimping out, but they were half right. They were right in saying that unions have a legitimate role in protecting the interests of workers; they were not right in saying that AWAs are not the right way to go. And you know it. AWAs are all about lifting the game. It is about time you lifted your game. You should not just be hanging around here wanting super; you should be prepared to perform. And that is what that is all about. If you ask me, `Are they right?', you are asking me whether I agree with two opinions out of presumably many tens of people who work for PCS who presumably would have quite the contrary view. That is why they signed up in the first place. So if you want to somehow pretend that two people represent—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Four breaches of the standing orders.LD4Senator ALSTON—All right. Thank you, Mr President!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am noting them.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am glad that he has given his holidays away, Madam President. He might even see out question time—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, I draw your attention to the question you are answering.LD4Senator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam President. The point I was making is that for Senator Sherry to pretend that somehow two people represent even the majority view of PCS, let alone the majority view of the community, simply demonstrates that he is owned lock, stock and barrel by the union movement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, I would remind you of standing order 186 and addressing the chair.42974297Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. I refer to a report in the media today detailing the Labor Party's plans in 1994 to stand down the work force and deregister the MUA as part of its attempted reforms of the Australian waterfront. How does this approach contrast with the Howard government's longstanding commitment to clean up the Australian waterfront?4297Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—All is now revealed, in particular the duplicity and hypocrisy of the Labor Party when it comes to the waterfront. What did we learn today? We learnt today that the Labor Party, in 1994, had a cabinet subcommittee looking at all options available to crush the MUA. We learnt that the Labor Party received advice. What was that advice? It included standing down the MUA work force.Senator Carr interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Madam President, you get the advice that you ask for. Even the Labor Party knows that. The Labor Party, through its cabinet subcommittee, sought legal advice on how it could crush the MUA. The advice he got back was standing down the MUA work force, cancellation of MUA awards and agreements—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—How do you know? What is your source?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, there is an appropriate time to pursue this.BH4Senator HILL—Deregistration of the MUA, action under boycott laws and action under the Crimes Act for interference in international trade. The ALP in government, through its subcommittee of cabinet, set up to crush the MUA in the middle of the ANL dispute, was receiving this advice from its advisers. Who was on this cabinet subcommittee? Interestingly, it included Mr Beazley, now the Leader of the Opposition. He was apparently a party to seeking this advice. What did he say? I certainly hope that Senator Cook, a member of cabinet, was not party to it because he was in here recently saying that the only way to deal with the unions is cooperatively. He would not, therefore, have been a party to seeking advice on how to stand down the MUA work force or how to cancel the MUA awards, I am sure.Mr Beazley was asked today what was his knowledge of these events. He said, `I don't actually recollect those options for waterfront reform but it is quite possible they were up there circling around as particular suggestions.' We know they were. We know the then government was addressing the very options that it now condemns this government for. This government did not necessarily adopt them, but they were adopted by the parties to the waterfront agreement.What we do know about the Labor Party is its record on the waterfront, that is, a five-day, nation wide strike in September 1994 which cost $55 million—Senator Cook might well say that in those circumstances we were justified in looking at every option—leaving Australia with an average crane rate of about 17 containers per hour when the world's best practice was close to 30 containers an hour, spending $420 million paying out waterside workers which gave Australia an improvement of only five additional containers an hour and caving in to union pressure over the sale of the ANL.This government took a tough line on the waterfront because we believed reform was necessary to provide the increased productivity that was in the interests of all Australians. We have now been able to do that and that will be of benefit particularly to exporters but to all Australians through increased jobs now that there is a better chance of having a competitive waterfront and gaining those benefits in terms of our overall economic challenge. We took the hard decisions; all the opposition did was preach hypocrisy. (Time expired)4298Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Last Friday, Senator Schacht gave a definition of reform. Minister, do you agree with that definition?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question should be rephrased to direct the question to the minister through the Chair. I call Senator Hill. I will explain it later and not waste question time.4298Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—The point is that it seems the Labor Party was contemplating the very sort of action that it now comes in here and says is so heinous. That is the comparison—one side of the parliament being prepared to be honest. Nobody from the Labor Party is coming in here and saying, `We were contemplating the same courses of action,' because to do so would be to acknowledge the duplicity and hypocrisy of Labor's stand in this matter. The people of Australia can be pleased that one side of politics is prepared to take hard decisions to bring benefits to the total community. The Howard government has done this and the community will benefit through a more productive waterfront. It has not been easy, but governments are not elected to take easy decisions.42984298Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is directed to Senator Ellison, representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister recall that in 1996 the Prime Minister stated at the National Press Club, `I will be a very disappointed man if I haven't made very serious inroads into youth unemployment in this country because I would like to see our performance in that area as being a mark of what we have been able to do as a government'? Is the minister aware that youth unemployment has risen from 26.4 per cent when Labor lost office to 27.9 per cent in May 1998, an increase of 1.5 per cent since this government came to power? Is this the mark of what the government has been able to do? Is it not a mark of utter failure? Is the Prime Minister a very disappointed man?4298Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Madam President, it is really pretty cheeky indeed of the opposition to raise this point because, under their government, youth unemployment was over 32 per cent. What we are talking about here is a figure around the region of 27 per cent.Madam President, it is a fact that youth unemployment is always too high, and it is something that this government is addressing. We are addressing this through training programs and through increased numbers of apprenticeships. The fact is that we have contracted with providers in the next 19 months to bring about 200,000 new apprentices.We are looking at the 70 per cent of young people who do not go on to university—unlike your government, Senator Mackay. We are looking at these people in terms of increased vocational education at school. We have kept and enhanced the JPET program for homeless youth, for youth with problems. We are increasing training opportunities for young people. We have increased the bridge from school to work for the jobs pathway program.This is an area where the opposition just cannot talk. They have a disgraceful record in relation to youth unemployment. Unemployment rose to heights of over 11 per cent, full stop. Who was the minister then? It was then the current Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition presided over those figures.They have an absolute cheek to raise the question of youth unemployment when we look at what this government is doing. This government is committed to fighting youth unemployment. We will fight to reduce those levels, and we will get them down to levels much lower than that opposition over there ever did when they were in government.4299Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Is this abysmal performance the reason why this government is planning to spend a minimum of $4.5 million on a youth advertising campaign, on top of its current dishonest and misleading $3.8 million youth allowance campaign, to try to cover up the government's abject failure to meet its commitments to young Australians?4299Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Madam President, Senator Mackay mentions $4.5 million. What about over $550 million that this government is spending on new apprenticeships? What about that? That is where you will get the real benefit for young Australians. We have underpinned growth for new apprenticeships, through funding to the states and also through direct funding from the Commonwealth, with over $550 million. That is what we are doing for the young people of Australia.42994299Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston. In contrast to Labor, the government has been up-front about plans to enable Australians to attain a further direct stake in Telstra. Will the minister further outline those plans to the Senate, and explain how this approach is in contrast to the plans by the Labor Party for a further sell-off of Telstra? Is the minister aware of any further evidence that indicates the Labor Party plans a sell-off of Telstra should they ever get the opportunity?4299Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Madam President, I am sure we all remember what happened late last year when Labor was caught red-handed trying to water down its policy on the privatisation of Telstra. There was a draft platform that had been circulated by that economic genius Gareth Evans which said that Labor supports—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I have a point of order, Madam President. The second half of the senator's question was clearly out of order as it commented on Labor Party policy. It did not even have the normal gormless words about alternate policies. It is directly out of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister will avoid answering things that ought not be put to him and deal with it as it should be dealt with. Also, the bill is on the Notice Paper , so the bill itself should not be referred to.LD4Senator ALSTON—I think what your ruling clearly indicates, Madam President, is that I am entitled to contrast our approach with that of others who might seek office in this country. Can I simply say that Senator Ray will well remember what happened in the lead-up to that Hobart conference because he was the one out there hosing it down. He took out the reference to merely `majority public ownership' and ensured that they hastily rewrote the draft platform to say, `Labor opposes the sale of Telstra and will not sell any further portion of the company.'What we have had today is yet more of the same scare campaigns about Telstra. We have had Cheryl Kernot reappearing from nowhere, out of the shell-shock bunker, basically misleading the community once again by suggesting that timed local calls are almost inevitable—which is not quite as rugged as Mr Beazley putting in his newsletter to his constituents, in no uncertain terms, that it is inevitable. This is the same Cheryl Kernot who said, a couple of years back, `I think Labor in opposition won't sell Telstra, but I am more worried about Labor in government.'What is really of concern here is, you would have thought, that that lesson had been learned. We are up-front. We have said consistently that we will not do anything in relation to the sale of Telstra without getting a mandate. That is a very clear and transparent policy approach, and one to which we have adhered to the letter.By contrast, the mob opposite swore blind before the 1990 election that they would keep the Commonwealth Bank in government ownership. But what did they do? They sold it. And they did the same with Qantas. And I tell you here and now that they will do the same with Telstra.The basis for saying that is a letter put out by that increasingly long shot from South Australia, Senator Chris Schacht, who wrote an open letter to residents headed, `Why on earth would we do it? Why sell all of Telstra?' He did not say, `Why would we sell any more', but `Why would we sell all?' He said, `Under majority public ownership, we are able to ensure that Telstra services remain. As shadow minister I am determined to retain the public share of Telstra.' In other words, he is setting the scene for watering down once again. In other words, they want to flog off 16 per cent and say that they have a mandate to do it.Once again here is Senator Schacht—presumably well aware of what happened in the lead-up to Hobart—obviously jumping ship to get away from the Bolkus Left at a million miles an hour, doing a deal with Kim Beazley to enable the Labor Party to say that they always had authority to sell down. Senator Schacht, the cat is out of the bag. I do not know why you chose to do it now, but you have done it again. I really cannot understand why you keep providing these enormous free kicks to us politically. I think, more importantly, what you are doing is showing the community—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should be addressing the Chair and not speaking across the chamber.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I am sure you are as appalled as I am that Senator Schacht should be out there telling the public one thing by way of the platform at Hobart, and then saying quite another in an open letter to residents. It is sheer hypocrisy. It is making it as plain as ever it was before that Labor will do what they have done in the past—that is, they will say one thing before the election and another thing after the election. And here we have it in Senator Schacht's own handwriting.Madam President, it is an own goal of enormous dimensions. It is very bad news for Labor because, as even Kenneth Davidson said a couple of months ago, Kim Beazley has no credibility on the privatisation of Telstra. Senator Schacht has just confirmed that today. (Time expired)43004300Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is also directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, and it is also in relation to Telstra. Was the minister aware of Telstra's intention to increase the cost of advertising emergency numbers at the front of the White Pages, from $200,000 per annum to $800,000 per annum, before it was revealed at the recent estimates hearings? Further, was the minister aware that this decision caused the Department of Health and Family Services to withdraw its easy guide to emergency numbers which includes numbers for such services and agencies as counselling, emergency accommodation, drug and alcohol services, child welfare, rape crisis and services for the disabled? What action has the minister taken, or does the minister intend to take, to overturn this disgraceful decision which may well deny lifesaving information to people in desperate need of assistance?4301Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Here we have it again. What is really being put forward by Senator Forshaw is the proposition that, somehow, we should be second-guessing every decision that Telstra makes. Every decision on advertising and every commercial decision, you would second-guess. We know Senator Schacht's recent approach. He wants to get out there and force Telstra to spend $26 billion—not a small sum, I might say—but that would be the consequence if he forced them to go down the path of 64 kilobits for digital data capability. They know not what they do.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Where did you get that from?LD4Senator ALSTON—I got it from an impeccable source—Telstra. Senator Forshaw is simply confirming that it is Labor Party policy to run the company. Think of all those people who bought shares on the basis that we put in place some high quality directors and not the constituency board that you advocate—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Just a moment, there are too many interjections. I would ask senators to abide by the standing orders.LD4Senator ALSTON—We put in place some high quality directors from the private sector who have been running that company very well indeed. What Labor wants to do is turn back the clock and put in place all their mates. Labor would hand out rewards to some broken-down trade unionists who could not even get preselection—you would have to be pretty low grade to be in that category, but I am sure there are a few—you would put them on the board of Telstra and then you would tell them what to do. So you would be basically running the company. That is what you would be doing. You would be telling them what you thought was a fair thing to charge for advertising; you would be telling them what you thought was a fair thing for a whole range of commercial decisions.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The question was directed to what action the minister has taken—it appears he has not taken any—or intends to take to deal with Telstra's fourfold or 400 per cent increase in the cost that it will charge to the department of health for this emergency information. That was the question that was asked of Senator Alston. There are a lot of disabled and other people out there in the community that want to know what his answer is.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you are debating the issue. There is no point of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—There might be some hearing impaired people on the other side of the chamber who have a problem.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!LD4Senator ALSTON—I was asked whether I was aware before Telstra made the decision, and the answer is no. I ask you: why should I have been aware? Under your regime you would be aware. How do I know—they might not have been increased the charges for years—and why should I make an assumption that somehow it is not a commercial decision? But you would. You would be in there saying, `No. You want 400 per cent; I will give you 250. But in exchange I want some other grubby little deal.' You would be running the company; you would bring it to its knees; you would undermine shareholder value; and you would have a second-rate Telstra. That is what you want. You want to be able to tell them how to run the company. Well, you could not even run government in 13 years. You certainly cannot run opposition. Why you think you would be able to tell Telstra how to run its business is beyond me.4301Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question through you to the minister: given that this action has occurred whilst Telstra is still in majority government ownership and under the minister's supposed supervision, how can anyone take seriously the minister's commitments that Telstra will continue to honour its community service obligations if it is completely privatised? I also point out to the minister that it says in the White Pages at the bottom of the page, `Inserted as a community service by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services.'4302Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—What a classic performance! Senator Forshaw is obviously oblivious to the fact that the community service obligation is enshrined in legislation and has nothing whatsoever to do with privatisation. Don't listen to the facts. It is in the Telecommunications Act.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!LD4Senator ALSTON—It is a tragedy that they are not even aware of the legislation that governs these regimes. The Telecommunications Act is utterly distinct from any change of ownership arrangements. We are the ones that are in favour of keeping CSOs; we are the ones that are in favour of keeping community service guarantees. Are you? If you are not in favour of keeping them, then presumably that is about the only way in which they could be changed in this chamber, because we are not going to propose any changes. If you are, you might as well get up and come clean now.43024302Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—My question is also directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts and also relates to Telstra. Minister, how can you say that the high quality private sector directors that are now running Telstra are doing a good job in light of the figures just released by the Australian Communications Authority and acknowledged by yourself? Isn't it the case that your customer guarantee has failed and that these new figures actually show that the performance of Telstra has nosedived? Didn't you promise prior to the 1996 election that Telstra would not be privatised unless there was a clear public benefit? We have no proof that there was an economic benefit and now it has been proven in many ways that there is absolutely no improvement in services, so how can you suggest that the sale of the rest of Telstra is actually going to be in the public interest?4302Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The facts are that Telstra has been tightening its belt ever since Kim Beazley, as minister for communications back in 1991, introduced competition. I know that is a very unpalatable proposition and you will not be out there telling anyone about it, but the fact is that Kim Beazley opened Telstra up to competition. Ever since that time it has no doubt been trying to get rid of some of those shonky work practices that have always been encouraged and condoned by your mates in the CEPU and elsewhere.Telstra admitted that it was 30 per cent off world's best practice. It has therefore put in place a number of changes to try to smarten up its act. Again, totally unrelated to privatisation, we have taken the view that there ought to be minimum benchmarks and performance standards for both installations and fault repairs. We enshrined that in legislation through the customer service guarantee.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It has gone down 20 per cent—telephone connections in the bush are down 20 per cent since privatisation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, you can debate this matter at the appropriate time, and it is not now.LD4Senator ALSTON—The customer service guarantee took effect from 1 January this year and was designed to ensure that penalties were paid where there were not connections within a specified time and where faults were not corrected within a specified period—that is, one day for metropolitan, two days for rural and three working days for remote. I have to say that I continue to be disappointed at Telstra's performance in this regard. It has nothing to do with privatisation; it has everything to do with a commitment on behalf of management.They no doubt will say to me that it is ever since you corporatised the outfit and then exposed it to competition back in 1991 that they have had to go down this path. All I am saying to Telstra is that that is not good enough. There are statutory benchmarks. We are now proposing to increase the amount that can be repaid to customers who do not have their faults corrected on time. After five working days, that penalty will increase from $11.65 for residential consumers to $40 per day thereafter. That is once again a very serious indication of how serious we are. We do not want to know why; we simply want to see the bottom line delivered in terms of performance.I know that Senator Lees would support us in that because she wants to see Telstra lift its game as well, irrespective of who owns the place. Customer service guarantees and performance benchmarks have been in place in a number of other countries. We are the first ones to introduce it here. You were not interested. America, for example, which has never had publicly owned telecommunications companies, has had benchmarks in place. We simply want them to be adhered to. When Telstra put out a press release on 31 March this year, they said that they could meet those benchmarks. We are simply going to hold them to it. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that that occurs.4303Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, you talk about shonky work practices and keep looking back at the previous government, but isn't it the case that you used to be able to, if you lived in the country, get your faults fixed on average 74 per cent of the time within a day and that it has gone down to 59 per cent of the time in the last 18 months? Is it not the case that your regulatory system is in tatters and that in fact Telstra was performing a lot better when it was in full public ownership?4303Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The short answer to the second part of the question is no. Telstra's performance has been inadequate for a number of years. I remember in opposition I used to fulminate about the fact that these—8U4LEESSenator Lees—This is only over the last two years.LD4Senator ALSTON—You might have a short-term memory; I can go back a bit further. I can remember in opposition getting stuck into Telstra on a regular basis because those quality of service reports showed they were not performing well enough. That is why we introduced the customer service guarantee. It was the very reason we proposed it prior to the last election. We have always taken the view that, irrespective of ownership arrangements, Telstra ought to measure up to a minimum standard. We are going to ensure that happens, irrespective of any other changes that might occur. It is simply the least that people are entitled to expect, and we will deliver on that promise.43034303Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Justice. Minister, is it true that your government's cuts to the Australian Federal Police in Queensland have led to delays in attending incidents at Brisbane's International Airport? Is it true that both Qantas and the Australian Customs Service have written to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner complaining that on 18 May this year a police contact number rang out four times, ultimately forcing concerned people to contact the Australian Federal Police at Tweed Heads, some 120 kilometres and a 1½ hour drive away? Is it true that Qantas and Customs have raised concerns about the lack of a full-time presence at the airport, a lack of presence which has led to, for instance, there being no officer in attendance when a passenger on an outstanding fraud warrant entered Australia, passengers being allowed to walk through unchecked despite their carrying dangerous goods, concerns about parents being able to unlawfully remove their children from Australia, and, further, difficulties dealing with persistent smokers on planes or violent and disorderly passengers?4303Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Bolkus for the question. It seems that his preoccupation at the moment is to get some information that he believes is credible in respect of the Federal Police in one state or another. We had my own state of South Australia last week and we are in Queensland this week. Senator Bolkus, I will undertake to get some information on the facts that you allege in your question. If there is anything that the Senate ought to know with respect to those, I will come back with that.There is one thing that anyone listening to question time might well like to consider—that is, this Prime Minister, Mr Howard, is the first in a very long time, certainly in my memory, to have indicated to the Federal Police that we want them to be funded on the basis of their being able to achieve the status of a Federal Police force second to none. That is the Prime Minister's desire for the Austral ian Federal Police. It is as a consequence of his desire to take the Federal Police to that position that he asked Mr Tony Ayers, the former secretary of the Defence department, to undertake a review of the Australian Federal Police, which he has done, which the government is now considering its response to.The important thing is that that review was not something foisted upon the government by some disaster found by the opposition or anyone else with respect to the Federal Police; it was sought by this government because of this government's appreciation of the need for the Australian Federal Police to be properly funded to ensure that they can face the law enforcement challenges that will come to them as we move into the second millennium. I take Senator Bolkus's question seriously. I will have a look at the details of that. But he should be under no misunderstanding: all his government ever did was cut, cut, cut the AFP. We have put more money into the AFP. We have asked for a review to ensure that the funding basis for them can be improved to allow them to face the challenges of the future.4304Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. That is an amazing answer from a government that has cut almost $300 million over four years from law enforcement to claim that they have put more money into it. Minister, will you not admit that not knowing about serious gaps in your portfolio is stark evidence that you are not on top of the critical issues in your portfolio? Is it not true that the Australian Federal Police budget for the northern region, covering Queensland, has been cut by some $4.7 million or some 14 per cent over the last two years? Is it not true that some 40 of the region's 235 officers, or one in six, have not been replaced? Minister, when will you seriously take this issue? When will you come to grips with your portfolio? When will you provide the AFP with the resources necessary to effectively protect Australians?4304Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—Senator Bolkus gives me the opportunity, which I would have passed up but for his supplementary question, to highlight the number of press releases Senator Bolkus has put out which simply shows either that he cannot add up or that he does not understand the budget papers or that, with malevolence, he goes to deceive the community at large.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Minister for insults. Resort to insults. Get back into the insults, Amanda.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus interjects that this is an insult. He does not like the truth being put before the Senate. He simply has not been able to understand—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam President, on a point of order: I did not ask the minister about how many press releases I put out. We are used to this minister resorting to insults. That is why she is known as the minister for insults. Would you direct her to answer the question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order.7E4Senator VANSTONE—I am simply making the point, lest anyone listening to question time or reading the Hansard gives any credence to what Senator Bolkus says, that they ought to have big red lights around his name saying, `Watch out! Watch out!' He has so consistently put out press releases that have been mistaken in fact either in bad faith and malevolence or in ignorance. I will have a look at his question. I will come back to him, and I will give him an answer if it merits one.43044304Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. You will have noticed One Nation's new policy of banning immigrants who do not pass an English test. Would it not be simpler to block or export people who are not clear on the name of our country and who think it is an eight letter word, minus the `l', pronounced `Austraya'?4304Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank Senator Brown for his question. There are a number of points to make with respect to the senator's question. I do not want to underestimate the importance of getting the balance in the immigration program correct. The coalition has significantly strengthened the English language requirements for migrants since we came to office. We have done that in a number of ways. Firstly, the proportion of applicants who are subject to English language requirements has been increased, because this government shifted the immigration program from a situation of two to one, family reunion and skilled migrants respectively, to one of roughly 50 per cent family reunion and 50 per cent skilled migrants. It is in that area where there are English requirements.The level of English has also been significantly increased so that most successful applicants must have vocational level English rather than just a functional level of English. Some 85 per cent of all occupations for which independent and skilled Australian linked migrants enter Australia now require vocational English. Previously, it was only about 20 per cent. The government has also introduced points for English language ability to be taken into account in the skilled Australian linked category, formerly the concessional family category. That was originally disallowed by non-government senators in 1996 but was finally passed in 1997. From November 1997, vocational English has been a standard requirement of the employer nomination.The second point I would like to make is that the substance of these changes has ensured that the migrants arriving in the skilled migration categories stand much better chances of obtaining employment in Australia and therefore contributing to the economy. In addition, the adult dependence of all skilled stream migrants who do not speak functional level English are required to pay for the English language tuition before they are granted a visa. Senator Brown, that is to indicate the importance of English; let us not pretend it does not have a role to play in helping migrants secure a job.But to require every single migrant to have English language ability is simply not practical. Are we really going to expect refugees fleeing persecution to pass an English test before we let them in? Can we really expect an Australian to wait while their life's partner passes an English test before they can live together in Australia? Can we really expect a dependent child of an Australian to pass an English language test before they live with their Australian parents in Australia? The answer to those questions is no.Those three groups of migrants make up almost 50 per cent of the total migrant and humanitarian intake. Around 12,000 will be visaed in 1997-98 on refugee or humanitarian grounds. About 25,000 spouses and fiances and more than 2,000 dependent children will come in.Ms Hanson has gone further than that and suggested that New Zealand's English requirements—I regard our friends in New Zealand as friends, but it is somewhat insulting to suggest that they have a better arrangement than we do—are more extensive than Australia's. As with so many other things she says, she is simply wrong in that respect. Like Australia, New Zealand applies English language requirements to general skills and business investor categories. There is no English language requirement in New Zealand for family and humanitarian arrangements.In conclusion, the coalition parties have a strong and very proud record on immigration. It was this side of politics that got rid of the White Australia policy, and it was this side of politics that first welcomed Indo-Chinese refugees into Australia after the Vietnam War—in stark contrast to the people now in opposition who did not want that to proceed.4305Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The Greens are also totally opposed to this despicable potential policy. I ask the minister: is a person advocating such a policy, who says, `Everyone should speak English. I don't want you to go to any parts of Australia and don't know whether I am walking into a butcher shop or a hairdressers or where I am going,' not in danger of failing her own test?4305Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—That would not be for me to say, Senator Brown. If Ms Hanson indicates that she has difficulty on occasion not knowing where she is going, I can say that some of us are also perplexed as to her direction. 43064306Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that there were 145 CES staff servicing Queanbeyan and Goulburn in March 1996, that this number had fallen to 65 by 1 May this year and that the number of Employment National staff employed to replace them is expected to fall to eight? Can the minister confirm that only 16 per cent of unemployed people in the Broken Hill region are serviced under the new employment services market? How do these facts square with the government's claims that regional Australians are better served by the new Jobs Network?4306Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—What Senator Campbell fails to mention is that—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Senator George Campbell, please.9X5Senator ELLISON—What Senator George Campbell fails to mention is the increase in the number of sites in the ACT, when he mentioned Queanbeyan, because we now have 29 sites compared with the previous five sites. That is a great increase in the number of sites that we have available. So I would say to Senator George Campbell, through you, Madam President, that we should look at the increased opportunities in relation to the vast increase in the number of sites available.It is interesting that there has been a great deal of criticism and negativity from the opposition in relation to the Jobs Network. In fact, much was made of the Jobs Australia survey last year and we have a letter from Mr Thompson, dated 26 June this year, who said:Contrary to claims that the results revealed a consistently negative picture of the situation, the reality at the time is that some of our members reported that things were going extremely well.The letter goes on to make some very positive statements about the Jobs Network system that this government has introduced.So one can only question why the opposition has to harp on the negativity and try to criticise this great reform that we have brought in. Senator George Campbell asked, `Why aren't there more staff?' but he failed to mention the increased number of sites. In fact, when you look at New South Wales, you can see that the total number of sites is now 491 compared with 100. That is an increase of nearly five times the original number of sites. I would simply say to Senator Campbell, through you, Madam President, that we have increased the points of access for unemployed Australians, we have increased the number of opportunities and we have brought in a system which Labor never had the courage to bring in.4306Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that Queanbeyan and Goulburn are not in the ACT and I also ask the minister to table the letter from Mr Thompson in respect of the comments he made. I ask the minister whether he shares the sentiments of the secretary of DEETYA, Mr Sedgwick, who said, in responding to questions about the financial difficulties being faced by many of the new job agencies, that `we'—that is, the government and the department—`never promised anybody a living'.4306Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Can I say that I understood Senator George Campbell to be talking about Queanbeyan in the ACT and my remarks stand in relation to that. They still remain the same. The fact is that the sites available are still the same. It is still a vast increase.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Queanbeyan is in New South Wales! Give him a map!9X5Senator ELLISON—Forgive me, I am only from Western Australia so it is a bit far from home. In relation to the Jobs Network, Job Power wrote to the government saying that they had found the level of referrals satisfactory. They went on to say:We are disappointed that Jobs Australia has released its report through the Australian Democrats.What Job Power are saying is that the jobs network is going very well and that they are disappointed in the negative comments by the opposition. They are disappointed that the opposition is trying to talk down the successful reform which has been brought in by this government. (Time expired)43074307Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. Under the Howard government, the number of apprenticeships and traineeships at the end of 1997 had risen to 182,000, compared with only 138,000 under the ALP in 1995. Will the minister outline the significant achievements by the Howard government in this critical area, particularly for rural and regional Australia? How does this record compare with the previous government's?4307Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I acknowledge Senator Tierney's longstanding interest in this matter and also in matters pertaining to New South Wales. What we had in March this year was a record number of people in training. We had over 183,000 Australians in training, which is an increase of 14.9 per cent on the figures at the end of March in the previous year.As I stated earlier, this government is concerned about the 70 per cent of students that we have who do not go on to university—the 70 per cent of students who will benefit from vocational education. That is why this government has allocated towards vocational education amounts of $1.4 billion in the financial year 1998-99, compared with Labor's outlay of $1.2 billion back in 1995-96. As I mentioned earlier, we have committed over $550 million to bring about 220,000 new apprenticeship places. This will benefit young Australians, particularly people in regional Australia.When you compare the government's approach with Labor's record, you see that we have had an increase of 59 per cent over Labor. You can see that more than 63,000 new apprenticeships commenced in the July 1997 to March 1998 period. When you compare that with the last nine months of Labor when it was in government, that is a 59 per cent increase. That only spells good news for Australians and particularly young Australians.On 1 May this year, we introduced the new apprenticeship centres—some 200 sites which offered a streamlined opportunity to employers and would-be trainees and apprentices. As a result of that, we now have an opportunity to provide people in regional Australia with a streamlined approach to training. These sites are located across Australia in places such as Tamworth and Bathurst in New South Wales; Esperance, Kalgoorlie and Karratha in my home state of Western Australia; and Burnie and Devonport in Tasmania.In relation to New South Wales, new apprenticeship centres have been allocated 4,450 new apprenticeship opportunities—just under 4½ thousand new apprenticeship opportunities—in regional New South Wales. In northern Tasmania, where it is much needed, new apprenticeship centres have been allocated—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise on my left is absolutely unacceptable. It makes it difficult for even me to hear what is being said. I would ask senators to abide by the standing orders. You know what they are.9X5Senator ELLISON—As I stated, in northern Tasmania, new apprenticeship centres have been allocated over 2½ thousand new apprenticeship opportunities. Based on the number of commencements for the region, over $6 million in overall government support will be injected into the region, taking in towns such as Devonport, Launceston and Burnie, over the 19-month period May through to November next year.Over 50 per cent of apprentices of group training companies, an essential part of delivering training in Australia, are employed in regional Australia. This spells good news for regional Australia. This shows that this government is taking on the issues in regional Australia, which Labor never did. This shows that we have increased training by 59 per cent in the last nine-month period, July through to March, compared to Labor's last nine months in government.43074307Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that the government's move of employment market services from the CES to private providers has cost the taxpayer up to $29.4 million in dead rent on vacated CES offices? Is the minister also aware that his department admitted to a Senate estimates committee that 49 former CES offices have been closed without the space being taken up by Employment National, DEETYA or private providers? Does the minister agree that this waste of some $30 million on CES offices where, in same cases, leases do not expire until 2008, is a gross waste of money? Is this not just another example of this government withdrawing Commonwealth services from people who pay for them and wasting taxpayers' money at the same time?4308Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—Senator Murphy should have been at the estimates committee because he would recall the words of the secretary to the department, who said that we were working through the transitional arrangements of those offices, we were working on getting other tenants for those offices. It shows again the negativity of this opposition. They want to highlight the transition of some offices. They are not concerned with the fact that we have increased the number of sites that unemployed people can go to from 296 under the former scheme to over 1,400. That is a more than four-fold increase. We have increased site opportunities for unemployed Australians by more than four times. That is what the opposition should be looking at.The opposition should be looking at the fact that we have brought in more than 300 organisations to help unemployed Australians. Senator Murphy should be looking at the reforms that we have brought in in relation to Jobsearch, not the transition of some Commonwealth Employment Service offices and the transitional arrangements relating to some tenancies.This was the subject of much questioning at estimates. It really did not get anywhere, and it showed how small-minded the opposition is and how it is missing the point. Look at the big picture. Look at the thousands of Australians we are helping to find employment. That is the thing the opposition should be looking at.4308Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I thank the minister for avoiding the question, but can I ask as a supplementary question: $30 million is really the question, Minister, and is it not a waste of government money? It is $30 million that would have provided a lot more employment services, particularly to those unemployed who really need them.4308Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—As I stated earlier, this is a transitional situation where these tenancies are being negotiated. This is a $1.5 billion reform that we have instituted, and all Senator Murphy can concern himself with is the rent of some offices. He should be looking at the plight of unemployed people and the high levels of unemployment that existed under the previous Labor government.43084308Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, and I refer to the proposed uranium mine at Jabiluka. I also refer to the strong statements by Minister Parer and Minister Hill when they said that 77 conditions would be imposed on the mine, in accordance with the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Both ministers referred to those conditions as `strict and stringent'. Does the minister stand by his claim that those conditions are strict and stringent? Can the minister inform the Senate if any of those conditions is legally enforceable? If they are not legally enforceable, how can he use the term `strict and stringent'? If they are legally enforceable, under which sections of the legislation are they legally enforceable? What will the minister do about breaking condition 56 that there must be a cultural heritage management plan in place before the operations commence?4308Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I would like to thank Senator Alison for that question. Let me just put this on record, and I think I tried to do it last time but ran out of time because it was in answer to a supplementary question: this was a claim made in the media and also made by other people in recent times with regard to section 56. The journalist himself, as I mentioned previously, failed to find out the actual conditions imposed on ERA by me.In considering the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine, Senator Hill provided over 70 recommendations to me as the action minister under the administrative procedures of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. I am required to give all such directions and do all such things as can be done to ensure that Senator Hill's recommendations are taken into account.After considering his recommendations, I took them into account in placing requirements on ERA. In response to Senator Hill's recommendation that a cultural heritage management plan be developed—and that is what you are referring to—I imposed the following condition:In complying with Jabiluka environmental requirements 36 and 32, ERA must take into account the intent of recommendation 56.I adopted this approach, in response to Senator Hill's recommendation, so as to integrate them into the existing legal framework set out by the Jabiluka environmental requirements provided for under the Northern Territory mining lease under which the project will operate.The environmental requirements already require the carrying out of an archaeological survey of each area to be affected by construction work before construction work commences in that area. ERA has provided a six-monthly progress report detailing how it is proceeding with the additional studies which I required the company to progress. The six-monthly report advised that ERA had appointed an environmental officer as required by environmental requirement No. 3. The report also states that a detailed survey was carried out by ground inspection of the mine site in March 1998 and that no prehistoric archaeological sites and no isolated stone artefacts were identified in the survey area. In addition, no historically significant archaeological materials of Aboriginal or European heritage were identified.The six-monthly report also notes that the principal traditional owner has refused to participate in any consultation with ERA over aspects of the environmental and social monitoring report. This is consistent with the media release issued by the NLC in May this year. It states that the NLC is not in a position to negotiate on behalf of the traditional owners of Jabiluka for the mine because they are opposed to the mine. ERA has advised that all strategies and commitments required for a cultural heritage management plan are in place, but that there is no formal plan yet because the traditional owners have said they will not meet with ERA to discuss any aspect of Jabiluka while ERA continues to go ahead with the project.The six-monthly report was also used by the Northern Territory in giving approval for the commencement of the construction of the mine portal in decline. In making this decision, the Northern Territory minister sought the advice of the Supervising Scientist. The mine site technical committee, which includes the Northern Land Council, has regularly met. On 19 May, it considered actions and work in progress in relation to the requirements I placed on the company, including the issue of surveys of archaeological and heritage sites.4309Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer to the question. However, an archaeological survey is not a management plan. As I understand it, the Northern Land Council, which he says is not in a position to negotiate, has not even been approached by ERA. I am happy to look into that further. I ask the question again: are those so-called strict and stringent conditions enforceable? I understand that they are not. What steps will the minister take to make sure that they are? Again, when will the minister ask the company to cease operations in accordance with those conditions which have not been met and in accordance with the World Heritage Bureau's request that they do so?4309Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I have made it clear that the archaeological studies have been done. The only thing is that there has been no formal plan yet. The only reason why there is no formal plan is that the traditional owners have said they will not meet with ERA to discuss it. I repeat that, even though Senator Allison does not believe the NLC has been approached, I issued a media release in May this year, which I quoted to her in answer to the previous question.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice431043104310The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—On 22 June, Senator O'Brien asked me a question relating to matters that arose out of the Economics Legislation Committee on 3 June 1998. With the concurrence of the Senate, I seek to incorporate the answer into Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—On 22 June 1998 Senator O'Brien asked me a question in four parts about proceedings during the estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee on 3 June 1998, and I undertook to consider the question and report back to the Senate.Senator O'Brien asked about the basis on which a line of questioning he sought to pursue was ruled out of order. It appears from the Hansard transcript of the hearing that Senator O'Brien's line of questioning was ruled out of order on the basis that the minister had indicated that he did not intend to answer the questions. The line of questioning does not appear to have been contrary to the rules or practices of the Senate. The fact that a minister indicates that the government will not respond to questions does not make the questions out of order. It is for ministers to take responsibility for any government refusal to answer questions.Senator O'Brien also asked about a direction by the Chair that some of Senator O'Brien's words be deleted from Hansard . It appears from the transcript that the basis of this direction was that Senator O'Brien continued to speak after he was called to order by the Chair. Senators should not, of course, continue to speak when the Chair is calling for order and remarks made then would not be a part of the Hansard record. As I have indicated, however, Senator O'Brien's line of questioning was not out of order.Senator O'Brien also asked what action I would take to ensure that chairs of Senate committees act in a fair and impartial way. There is no evidence that Senator Ferguson was partial in his rulings on this occasion and I believe the Senate is well served by those of its number who chair committees.Senator O'Brien asked what action I would take to ensure that Hansard is a true and accurate record of the proceedings of Senate committees and is not censored by a committee chair as he challenged happened on this occasion. It is not correct to suggest that Hansard is not producing a true and accurate record of proceedings and it is not correct to suggest Hansard was censored on this occasion.I will draw the terms of this answer to the attention to the Chairs of legislation committees.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Madam President, after the taking note of answers I will be seeking leave to make a statement in relation to that answer.431015:04:004310Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions without notice asked by Senators Forshaw, Patterson and Lees today, relating to Telstra.I think it is very clear from the responses of Senator Alston that this government has absolutely no concern for the ordinary working people of this country. His flippant approach to questions relating to the future of Telstra under privatisation demonstrate that this government does not really care about the future impact of a privatised Telstra.I turn to what is currently happening under this minister's stewardship of Telstra. Whilst 33 per cent of Telstra has been sold, it is still under majority government ownership. For many years under previous governments, when it was 100 per cent owned by the people of Australia, Telstra provided, through its White Pages, a service known as the Easy Guide. It was an easy guide to emergency phone numbers that persons in need of assistance could quickly find at the front of the White Pages.As I indicated in my question, these services provide information for people who may be in need of, for instance, emergency accommodation or assistance for drug and alcohol addiction. This page, which has always been inserted into the White Pages, includes information on, for instance, agencies providing family support and agencies and private sector organisations providing services for people with disabilities. Very importantly, it provides emergency telephone numbers for persons who may have been the victim of rape or sexual assault or, similarly, people who may be in need of urgent psychiatric assistance. Just about everybody in this country is familiar with the telephone due to the universal service provided by Telstra over many years. It has always been understood that if you needed emergency information you could go to the front of the White Pages and it would be set out under the various categories.In estimates a couple of weeks ago, it emerged that the information that is provided by the Department of Health and Family Services in the front of the White Pages would discontinue. When questioned as to why that was the case, the officers representing the department indicated that Telstra was reviewing its charges and that it was going to increase the charge to provide this information—information which is inserted as a community service—by somewhere between $400,000 and $600,000 per annum, so the price would go up to about $800,000 per annum. The department decided that that was too much to pay.What a disgrace that that is happening with a government owned instrumentality such as Telstra, whose responsibility is to provide telephone services for people, organisations and companies in Australia, and which also has the responsibility of ensuring that the people in this country can find the telephone numbers they need. What is the point of having a telephone service if nobody can find a number when they need it? That is why the White Pages are there, and the emergency numbers are up the front so that they are easier for people to find.However, the Department of Health and Family Services is going to discontinue this invaluable service, a service that is there for people in desperate need. When Senator Alston was asked what he was going to do about it—whether he was going to talk to Telstra and say, `This is not on. You can't just treble or quadruple your charges in the case of providing such essential community information'—he made jokes about the disabled and people who may be hard of hearing. That was the response.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—He did not.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The Hansard will demonstrate it, Senator Patterson. You can have a look at it later. That is what we got. The minister is a joke and the government is a joke. (Time expired)15:09:004311Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak to the motion to take note of the various answers on Telstra which Senator Alston gave in question time today. Senator Forshaw has spoken very eloquently about the way in which this government has allowed Telstra to callously remove from the White Pages appropriate community information for people so that they know where to ring to get advice and assistance in a time of need.This minister will always roll over in favour of Telstra's management. The minister might ring up Frank Blount from time to time and say, `Tut, tut, Frank, can't we do better?' but he will not put the pressure on, even though he still represents two-thirds of the ownership of Telstra—the Australian people. On a number of occasions, this minister has refused to take direct action and use the parliamentary power under the existing act to direct the board of Telstra.For example, the dreadful COT cases came to the notice of the Senate estimates committees. Through arbitration, one of the COT case people won a big payment to pay for legal expenses, but Telstra refused to pay. When we asked the minister why he did not get onto Telstra and tell it to carry out the instruction to pay, in accordance with the arbitrator, he said that he had written a letter but Telstra had chosen to ignore it.Telstra's management chooses to make this minister its doormat, just as the Prime Minister has made this minister his personal doormat on communications and ABC policy. Today, we saw another extraordinary performance when the minister answered a question from Senator Lees about the release today by the Australian Communications Authority of its performance monitoring bulletin for the quarter ended March 1998.Before the bulletin was released in late mid-morning, the minister was forced to put out his own statement anticipating the bad news in the report. He said that he was disappoint ed that Telstra had not been able to improve its service performance, particularly for people in rural Australia and that, therefore, he was going to increase the fines for non-performance from $11.65 to $40 a day. He did not point out in his press release the shocking decline in Telstra's performance.If rural members of the Liberal Party or, more importantly, members of the National Party in this parliament are going to defend the people they are supposed to represent, they should read this report. On page 4 it says that Telstra's performance for the provision of new services on or before an agreed committed date in country areas continued to decline, falling another two percentage points to 64 per cent during this quarter. It says that, compared with the corresponding March 1997 quarter, this was a decrease of 17 percentage points.The report then reports what Telstra said in various states. That shows that, in the full 12 months since Telstra was privatised, since the bill was carried in this parliament, country connections in Australia declined by 17 per cent. As far as I am aware, this is the biggest decline in country services in the history of Telstra, Telecom or the PMG. We know that in parts it might have come off a low base, but since the government has allowed one-third privatisation, it has gone down 17 per cent. This was a shocker for the minister.What did the minister say today? He said that he was going to increase a few fines. Will he take action to direct Telstra to improve the service? Will he ask what it is doing with investment? Not a word. This minister is useless, hopeless and helpless when it comes to dealing with Telstra. It is no wonder, when people in the bush see the decline in this service and that neither this government nor the minister does anything about it, that One Nation's support is getting away in the bush and cutting up support for the coalition.That sort of service is why over two-thirds of Australians oppose any further privatisation of Telstra. That is why the people in the bush are in open revolt against this government on the privatisation of Telstra. That is why this minister's day has gone. That is why this minister should go immediately—he cannot direct Telstra to improve services to people in rural Australia. (Time expired)15:14:004312Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I found that performance rather amazing, given the fact that Senator Schacht must have been the most appalling and most abysmal minister for communications that this country has ever seen. We have seen the absolutely appalling introduction of various telecommunications policies—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the sake of accuracy in the record, unfortunately have never been the minister for communications. I certainly will be the minister after the next election.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I meant the shadow minister for communications. He is an appalling shadow minister who really dabbles around. It is very obvious. He has been abysmal in his performance as shadow minister. The bureaucrats sit on the other side during estimates and scoff at his questions and believe he does not pay attention to detail. He is hopeless. He has got up here and gone on about Minister Alston, who is actually doing things and reforming the system. When we look at the Telstra service levels of performance for the March quarter—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Service in the bush has gone down.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Come to order, Senator Schacht!LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Madam Deputy President, I sat here in absolute silence listening to Senator Schacht—it wasn't worth listening to, but I sat here in silence—in deference to him and in deference to the Senate, but he chooses to interject on me all time. He did not say what he wanted to say when he was on his feet, and now he wants to have a second go at it. It is appalling. It is just like him: he cannot actually get his words out the first time round, cannot get his argument over the first time round, and he then wants to interject on me when I am speaking.Telstra has a national obligation to maintain its service at the levels which Australians expect and deserve. Its quality of service levels have been unacceptable for a number of years, particularly in regional Australia for many years under Labor.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It's got worse under you lot.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Schacht!LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—For example, it is true that only 64 per cent of faults nationally were cleared within one working day of notification in the December 1997 quarter and 63 per cent in the March 1998 quarter, but it is also true that this fault clearance level had exceeded 75 per cent in only two quarters in the four years to December 1997.Thank heavens Senator Schacht is leaving the chamber—now I will be able to go on without being uninterrupted. We continually expressed concern about service levels when we were in opposition, but Labor did nothing for 13 years. That is why we promised before the 1996 election the introduction of the customer service guarantee scheme, requiring carriers to compensate customers for not meeting standards on phone installations, repairs and appointments. We delivered on that promise, and the scheme took effect from 1 January 1998. Labor had 13 years to do something about it and did absolutely nothing. Now Senator Schacht comes in here as the weak shadow minister for communications, bleating about the fact that we have done nothing about Telstra's performance.The Labor Party did nothing in government, and in opposition all they can do is carp. I will repeat what the coalition has done: we promised before the 1996 election to introduce a customer service guarantee, which requires carriers to compensate consumers for not meeting standards on phone installations, repairs and appointments. It took effect on 1 January 1998. However, it seems from today's figures that Telstra is taking too long to lift its game. That is why we are sending them an unmistakable message with today's announcement that per day fines under the customer service guarantee would rise to $40 if Telstra has not connected or repaired a service by five working days after the time period specified under the customer service guarantee.Labor's feigned interest in rural telecommunications issues stands in stark contrast to its appalling lack of any concrete action to address these issues for over a decade. It has a total lack of credibility on rural telecommunications, which is demonstrated by its failure to require Telstra to speed up the digitalisation of its telephone exchanges, thereby giving rural phone users access to advanced phone services, as the coalition has done; its failure to require Telstra to provide rural Australia with high speed digital data capacity through the rollout of ISDN capability, as the coalition has done; its failure to examine the need to upgrade the definition of the standard telephone service to take into account new technologies, as the coalition is doing; its failure to provide any substantial financial support to meet the specific telecommunications needs of rural Australia, as the coalition has done; and its opposition to the coalition's $250 million regional telecommunications infrastructure fund, which is providing much needed support for rural communities, including the establishment of points of presence, enabling local call access to the Internet. This opposition has no reason to be complacent and no reason to crow. It has done nothing about the issue of Telstra and what Telstra is doing.I have given just part of the record of what the coalition is doing to actually bring Telstra into line and deliver services to consumers, in particular those in rural and regional Australia.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I call Senator McGauran.Senator Sherry interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator McGauran has the call. We had two on your side and now there will be two on this side.15:19:004313McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—That is correct, Senator Sherry—you had two in a row.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—But you didn't get up.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—That is the usual procedure. The government welcomes this debate on Telstra, which precedes the debate on the legislation which is due to take place at the end of this week. That is the whole point of this debate and the attack by the opposition: to attempt to discredit the government's privatisation program for Telstra and the enabling legislation to come before the parliament. It is nothing more than that. It is a trumped up attack on the government's privatisation program.Senator Schacht has not seen through this debate. As Senator Patterson has said, you would think he would have seen through this debate to the end. He has not done so. He did not ask one question at question time, nor did he lead the taking note of answers. So that is a measure of the shadow minister's effort in this debate.The point is that the government's two-thirds sale of Telstra, which is to come before the parliament, is an honest, up-front attempt to seek a mandate from the people, as was our one-third sale of Telstra. Before the 1996 election the government sought from the people a mandate for the one-third sale of Telstra.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Did you agree with that?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Yes, I did. The government sought, and got, that mandate, as we will do with this legislation and prior to the next election. The legislation will not be enacted until after the next election. That is in stark contrast to any privatisation program that the previous government had—for example, the Commonwealth Bank. They went to the elections saying they would not privatise the Commonwealth Bank beyond one-third. Straight after the election, they did. In fact, as I recall, the then Treasurer, Mr Willis, even put it in writing to the existing shareholders of the Commonwealth Bank that they would not be privatising any more of the Commonwealth Bank, but they did.That is the difference between our privatisation program and the previous government's record—we seek the mandate of the people and we get the mandate of the people. So to say, as Senator Schacht has said, that 70 per cent of the people in rural and regional Vict oria do not support the privatisation is spurious. There is no such figure at all—not that I can remember the last time that Senator Schacht ventured out into the rural and regional areas; they do not seem to be his domain at all. When I venture out into the rural and regional areas, I do not get that sort of feedback at all in regard to Telstra. When it is explained to country people that one of the main benefits of the government's two-thirds privatisation of Telstra will be the reduction of the government's $100 million debt—that the proceeds of the sale, estimated to be some $40 billion, will be taken off the government's debt, and the benefits of that reduction—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—They will turn to One Nation.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—They will not, Senator. They accept that that is a very good reason. The question is often asked, `What underwritings are you giving in regard to the USOs to rural and regional areas?' We have stated time and time again that the rural and regional areas will not be left behind with regard to privatisation. The situation is quite the opposite. Telstra will continue to be governed by the universal service obligation in law. This universal service obligation ensures that all Australians, in particular the rural and regional areas, must have access to the standard telephone service and access to pay phones regardless of where they live in Australia. This is put into law and this is enforced. One of the passions of the minister is that the USOs are strengthened and put into law with the two-thirds sale of Telstra. They are the sorts of guarantees and assurances that we are giving, and they are the guarantees and assurances that are being accepted in the rural and regional areas.15:24:004314Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I am glad that Senator McGauran finally got to his feet to participate in this debate on behalf of the National Party. He is a bit like telecommunications equipment in the country—he is always late. Senator Patterson referred to the opposition `carping' about the decline in quality of telecommunications in the bush—in regional and rural areas. I want to refer to another senator in this place and to his criticisms—carpings, if you like. They are those of Senator Ron Boswell, and I will refer to them in a few moments.The opposition highlighted today, with the questions to the minister, Senator Alston, the continuing decline in telecommunications services in rural and regional Australia. And of course what was highlighted was Senator Alston's failure to give adequate answers as to why this decline in services has not just continued but has actually accelerated. The Australian Communications Authority has released performance figures for the March 1998 quarter which state:Country customers received the lowest level of service for new service connection, with performance declining from 82 per cent in the December 1996 quarter to a low of 64 per cent in the March 1998 quarter.We have had a significant decline in new service connection—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—And they've been brought to account.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—But they have not been brought to account. These figures are for the March 1998 quarter. That is very recent, Senator McGauran. The interesting thing is that since the one-third privatisation of Telstra, when we were assured—not just by the minister but by the Prime Minister and the National Party—that quality service would increase in the bush but it has gone backwards.What did Senator Boswell—your leader, Senator McGauran—say about this on 30 March this year? Presumably he is one of the senators that Senator Patterson was referring to as `carping' in his criticism. After they had voted to sell off one-third of Telstra, Senator Boswell, Leader of the National Party in the Senate, said on the Channel 10 morning news:We will want guarantees written into the legislation. We will want the community service obligation firmly written in the legislation. We will want enough people out in the bush to service the telecommunications system.The point is that this was on 30 March 1998. If the CSO—the community service obligation—was written in, and if there are supposed to be guarantees about staffing levels, where was Senator Boswell representing the National Party?On 30 March 1998, after the legislation had gone through, after you voted for it and after you said you were protecting the bush, Senator Boswell is still complaining. He wants the guarantees in legislation. Obviously the guarantees have not been effective, and that is certainly highlighted by the report from the Australian Communications Authority.We had a very good example today of the continuing decline in the quality of service since the one-third privatisation of Telstra. The question was posed by my colleague Senator Forshaw. The emergency numbers currently cost $200,000 and the price is to increase to approximately $800,000. These are life and death community service organisation notices that are supposed to appear. All Senator Alston could do was to enunciate a hands-off policy—a do-nothing policy. When Labor, quite rightly, is demanding an improvement in the quality of service under a one-third privatised Telstra, all he can do is say that we are undermining shareholder confidence with our demands, that basically we would be running the company, and that governments should not be giving these sorts of directives. What Senator Alston is outlining is a hands-off policy—a do-nothing policy.The only way to guarantee a proper effective service, particularly in rural and regional Australia, and the only way to guarantee service quality, to stop the acceleration in staff reductions, and to protect rural and regional Australia is to ensure that the remaining two-thirds of Telstra remain in public hands. A fully privatised Telstra will obviously seek to maximise profit—you cannot blame them for that. (Time expired)15:29:004315Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I want to use the few minutes that are available to me not to unnecessarily denigrate the other side, which has an appalling record in telecommunications, but to assure the Australian public that what my government proposes to do is the only and correct course to take with respect to the two-thirds balance of Telstra. The government intends to give the people of Australia the opportunity to decide—as it should do in a democracy—whether or not the balance should be sold and thereby have a fully privatised Telstra. The government has said that, if it is possible to get that legislation through this Senate in spite of the spoilers on the other side—Senator Sherry interjecting—WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Senator Sherry, you are not the person to speak on that, and I would ask that you—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. I was just rightly drawing the attention of the chamber to Senator McGauran's level of discomfort at the word `rationalism' in Senator Lightfoot's contribution in this debate about the sale of Telstra.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.Senator Carr interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I ask Senator Lightfoot to address the chair. I ask Senator Carr to remain silent.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—As I said, the only rational thing to do is to sell the balance of Telstra, but not without the permission of the people of Australia. A government cannot be fairer than that.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What about the bush?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—When I said `not without the people of Australia', Senator Sherry, in his appalling ignorance, said, `What about the people in the bush?', as if the people in the bush do not matter in Australia. That has been the problem with the Labor Party. They do not understand that people in the bush are part of Australia. This side of the house understands that. This side of the house understands that people in the bush are an integral part of Australia.Now let me get on with my contribution. What we intend to do is leave the legislation on the table, as it were, and if and when the government of today wins the next election then we would take that as the imprimatur of the people across Australia to enact the legislation to fully privatise Telstra. That is the only way to go. The Labor Party did not say anything about that—it did not say any thing about privatising the Commonwealth Bank, the icon of the Labor Party. Australia was going to fall apart if we privatised the Commonwealth Bank. Well, Australia did not fragment, fall apart and fall into the Pacific or the Indian oceans; Australia carried on and Australia did a very good job with the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth Bank today is functioning as it did before. It is offering some of the best rates to Australian people. And it is one of the better things that the Labor Party did. Even if they lied to the Australian people about the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, it was one of the better things that the Labor Party did in their subterfuge.Today we need to have Telstra privatised completely. You cannot expect international telecommunications companies with the redoubtable expertise that international companies have to come in and compete in Australia—which we invite them to do—if Telstra is government owned. There are very few countries in the world, if any—yes, Red China is one and Nigeria is another one—that still have central control of telecommunications. Cuba still has full control of telecommunications. I think there is something like neo-communism on the other side that gives them this compulsion to control telecommunications, because they believe, like in the old bolshevik days, that if you control telecommunications you control the people. That revolution was a long time ago, I have to tell the opposition. Rationality has to prevail. But it is not only economic and commercial rationality that is going to prevail. What this government is going to do is give the people of Australia, in this wonderful democracy, the opportunity to say, `Yes, we are going to accept the full privatisation of Telstra.' or `No, we are not.' Nothing can be fairer than that. There is nothing covert, nothing about l-a-w, law—we are going to write it into law—nothing of that nature. There is nothing here like saying `We are not going to privatise the Commonwealth Bank', and then, as soon as you get the reins of power in your dirty little sticky fingers, the first thing you do is privatise it. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous431715:35:004317Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—by leave—Last Wednesday the Senate ordered that all briefs, scoping studies, research reports and acquittal documentation relating to all advertising promotional, information and/or public relations campaigns planned, commissioned or undertaken since March 1996 where the estimated or final cost was in excess of $500,000 be returned by 3.15 this afternoon. The government is in the process of identifying which departments and agencies may have planned or undertaken such campaigns. It is a large task. We were unable to complete it within the time set by the Senate. However, once we have the material together, we will assess the material according to the usual criteria and our legal advice, and table what we are able to table as soon as possible.15:37:004317Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I seek leave to ask the minister when he will report progress on that task.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I would like to ask you, Minister, when you might indicate to the Senate whether you have been able to make progress on this very important issue of the order of the Senate which was agreed to in our last sitting week. In other words, given that the minister has made this explanation, it might well be reasonable to give the government some more time. But I think it is also appropriate for the minister to indicate when he might come to the Senate chamber again to inform us as to what progress has been made by the government in this matter.15:38:004317Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—by leave—I will seek advice from the officials on the question, but the point is—and I do not want to reflect on an order of the Senate, of course—that the enormity of the task within the time frame that was set by the Senate was really impossible. There is a lot of work required in this exercise, which was the mission of the Leader of the Opposition in this place. We are doing it as expeditiously as possible. We always seek to comply with these orders but, as he would know, not only do the promotions have to be identified but the documentation has to be gathered. It then has to be tested, as I said, against the usual criteria which, I am certain, will require in at least some instances the taking of legal advice. Then we will be able to table what we are able to table in accordance with usual practice. I will try to get a better indication as to when that is likely to be. At the moment, I do not have an estimate of that.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Will you be able to report to the Senate after question time tomorrow?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I will try to give further indication tomorrow.Miscellaneous4317431715:39:004317O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—At the conclusion of question time, in the statement by Madam President relating to a question I asked on Monday, 22 June regarding the asking of questions at estimates and the intervention of the Chairman of the Economics Legislation Committee to ensure that part of a question did not appear in Hansard , let me say, having received the answer, that I think further information should be placed on the record. Firstly, it should be noted that the question that was asked clearly was not out of order and that there was no basis for the chairman purporting to rule it out of order. That is a matter which is clearly stated in the President's statement today. That was my view at the time.The Senate ought to be made aware that what occurred at that time was something which I had not previously experienced. When it was noted that part of the question had been omitted from the Hansard, Mr Logue of my office contacted the Chief Hansard Reporter to inquire as to how that had occurred and, in a letter dated 5 June addressed to me, received the following answer:Mr Logue of your office has discussed with me the Hansard report of the proceedings of the Senate Economics Estimates committee of 3 June 1998. Specifically, he has referred to the omission at page E216 of certain material which you read in the course of the hearing.When the committee suspended for the dinner break that day, a copy of your quotation was supplied to the Hansard officer maintaining the log of committee proceedings. However, the Chairman of the committee, Senator A Ferguson, advised the Hansard officer that `only those words that Senator O'Brien asked before he was called to order should appear in Hansard'.In the preparation of the transcript, the advice from the Chairman was adhered to. I understand that this advice was discussed by the Chairman with the secretary of the committee before it was given to Hansard.Bernie HarrisChief Hansard ReporterIt is important to note in relation to this matter that, but for the intervention of the chairman, it is clear that the Hansard would have reflected the full content of the question and, indeed, the question was not out of order. What occurred was clearly an intervention by the chairman to ensure that that part of the question was not in the Hansard . My understanding of proceedings in Senate committees is that it is open to any member of the committee to seek that matters which are referred to in proceedings not be included in the Hansard but that that matter would be drawn to the attention of the committee. As a matter of courtesy, I would have expected that Senator Ferguson would have drawn to my attention, when I returned to the committee following the dinner break, that he had advised, asked or directed Hansard to do that which he had advised, sought or directed them to do, but that was not the case. As I indicated, the first time I noted that the matters had not been recorded in Hansard was when looking at the Hansard the following day.A great many things occur in this place and in committees where comments made may be the subject of a call to order, but Hansard continues to record them. One would only have to go to answers to questions by Senator Alston who persistently ignores the calls of the chair to cease his answer and continues his answer. I suggest that his answers are recorded in the Hansard. It seems to me that it was quite an unusual step for Senator Ferguson to take to exclude from Hansard that part of the proceedings, the question clearly being in order, the document in fact being affirmed the following day as legitimate and one which I was seeking to ask questions about in order to affirm its veracity or otherwise. All of this occurred in the context of proceedings where there was a persistent refusal to answer questions by the minister, allegedly on the basis that matters were sub judice, notwithstanding advice from the clerk that the question of refusing to answer questions on the basis of sub judice had no basis at all in terms of the standing orders or the practices of the Senate. An advice received by Senator Mackay in that regard had been tabled before the committee.Madam Deputy President, this matter arose in relation to the waterfront issue. Questions arose about the conspiracy that this government, with others, had been involved in to take action to remove the Maritime Union from the waterfront. A great number of questions were asked on that matter at the estimates—and in this place, and on notice—none of which has received proper answers. In my view the questions have been addressed without proper regard to the standing orders of this place.It is interesting to note that the proceedings affected by the advice of Senator Ferguson were extensively reported on ABC radio and elsewhere the following day. So, to the extent that this was an attempt to censor the matter, it failed, but it is an important matter nevertheless. It is, I believe, a matter which the Senate and committees should have regard to in relation to how committees proceed and how the chairs of committees behave when dealing with questions, the validity of questions and, certainly, in relation to any directions or requests that might be made of Hansard.May I suggest that, if it is a view that a matter is not properly in the Hansard, then a chair of a committee, before intervening, ought to have at least a conversation with the senator affected so that the matter is not required to be dealt with in the way that I have had to deal with this matter—that is, by raising it with the President.Let me say that I cannot find anything in the standing orders which justifies the actions of the Chairman of the committee, Senator Ferguson, in this matter. The President in her answer has not drawn my attention to any parts of Odgers which might relate to that matter. If there are such references I would be very pleased to receive them so I can study them and fully understand the basis for the actions that have been taken.Let me say that I regard this as an extremely unfortunate incident. I hope that all chairs of committees and all senators will take notice of what has occurred so that these events do not occur again.15:48:004319Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—by leave—Madam Deputy President, I first became aware of the detail of Senator O'Brien's question to the President this morning. May I suggest that, if Senator O'Brien had shown some of the courtesies that many of his more experienced colleagues choose to use—that is, had he discussed any grievances with the chairman and the committee, perhaps, before running off to the President or the Clerk for advice—then some of the matters that he has raised might have been easily explained without him having to go to such great lengths.I want to correct a couple of things that Senator O'Brien said. He spoke about my intervening in the Hansard process and that I directed Hansard to remove material. Can I say to Senator O'Brien, through you Madam Deputy President, that nothing could be further from the truth. I, in fact, was approached by Hansard when the hearings broke for dinner and asked for some advice as to whether or not some things that were said by Senator O'Brien should be included in Hansard because I had called him to order and, on their tape, there were two voices running concurrently.I did not direct anybody to do anything without seeking advice. I sought the advice of the committee secretary. His advice was that, after Senator O'Brien had been called to order, where two voices were running concurrently, in fact that was the time—although I cannot remember his exact advice word for word—when words that were spoken by Senator O'Brien should not be recorded as it followed the time that he was called to order.Otherwise, Madam Deputy President, you could have a situation where—perhaps in this place—you were trying to stop somebody from reading a document that was possibly sub judice and, even if you stood on your feet and that person kept on talking, in fact it could go into Hansard. I was advised by the clerk this morning that, if that is the case, Hansard reporters in this chamber simply turn off the microphone so that it cannot be recorded.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—That is not right.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I am only relating to you the advice that I received this morning, that in fact that is what happens.Also, Senator O'Brien said that it was on my initiative that I intervened with Hansard. In fact that is not the case; Hansard came and spoke to me at the start of the dinner break to see what should happen. I sought advice, and that advice I then passed on to Hansard. It was not on my initiative at all; it was initiated by Hansard. Had Senator O'Brien given me the opportunity, even the next day or later on that evening, I certainly could have helped him with that part of his question.In his question to the President, Senator O'Brien also asked, `What action will you take to ensure that chairs of Senate committees act in a fair and impartial way?' Madam Deputy President, I have been chair of a committee for only some four years, but Senator O'Brien is the first senator on that side to imply—and that is what he does in his question—that I have not acted in a fair and impartial manner.While that is his prerogative and he is quite at liberty to accuse me of acting in an unfair and partial manner, I can only say that, in the running of most estimates committees, perhaps there could be more interaction between senators, both prior to and after hearings. Senator O'Brien has been in this place for only a couple of years or so and may not have learned from his predecessors how Senate processes normally operate, or he may not have been advised how they normally operate. In fact, a lot of the things that he raised could have been dealt with.The other thing you asked the President was: `What action will you take to ensure that Hansard is a true and accurate record of the proceedings of Senate committees and is not censored by a committee chair?' In fact, a chairman has no power to censor anything that Hansard does, and I certainly did not attempt to. As I said, I was initially approached by Hansard. It was only after that approach that I sought advice and relayed that advice back to the person in Hansard—I cannot even remember who the Hansard reporter was. That is the way that I treated it. I did so in what I thought was the fairest manner possible.In regard to Senator O'Brien's suggestion that I was in some way abusing standing orders, I consider that, during the process that day and during some of the other estimates hearings that we had for three days, senators on the other side were abusing standing orders consistently when they were being called to order and were continuing on. If Senator O'Brien wants to accuse me as chairman of being in some breach of standing orders, I would suggest that he read the Hansard carefully and look at how often he and some of his colleagues were in breach of standing orders.As a matter of fact, the opposition do not even understand standing orders. I was surprised when Senator Cooney entered into the fray during that estimates hearing after Senator O'Brien asked to table a document, was refused leave and so at that point Senator O'Brien moved that my ruling be disagreed to—when, in fact, I was not making a ruling at all. I was just refusing leave which is in accordance with standing orders. Anybody can refuse leave. We then had Senator Cooney trying to say that they were moving dissent on a ruling when I had not even made a ruling. All I had done was refuse leave to table a document, and he somehow suggested that was in some way a breach of standing orders.Through you, Madam Deputy President, I make these suggestions to Senator O'Brien in order to prevent this sort of thing occurring in the future: if you had spoken directly to me as the chairman—or any other chairman—or if you had raised it with the committee at the time or at an appropriate time after the dinner break, then you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble. I know that during this estimates most of your dinner break was spent preparing more questions. One of the problems that arises under the way you conduct the questioning is that, if the questions are prepared by somebody else and you do not get the right answer, you do not know where to start asking the next question. I think that is what caused some of the problems that happened on that day when repetition became the order of the day. We spent some three hours on one or two particular small points, which you sought to make some political capital out of but failed miserably.In conclusion, the premise on which Senator O'Brien's question to the President was based was wrong in that I did not direct Hansard to do anything. Hansard approached me. I sought advice before I said anything to them at all, and then only passed on to them the advice that was given to me.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Who from?EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—While I chair committees, I will continue to try to act in a fair and impartial manner, and I will not at any stage attempt to interfere with the workings of Hansard who provide a true, proper and accurate record of proceedings in this chamber.432010001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:432016LI4Patterson Sen KayTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties; 2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal; and3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. Those affected appreciate the belated, partial recognition. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Senator PattersonLI4Senator Patterson(from 16 citizens)432128TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:Not sign the MAI at all.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 28 citizens)432115TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. Make available the draft text of the Agreement2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corporations 3. Not sign the MAI unless substantial amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be held5. Not sign the MAI unless it clearly enhances benefits to labour, the environment and society generally.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 15 citizens)4321241X4West 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 24 citizens)43215907G6Lundy Sen KateTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:We the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of all Honourable Senators the importance of the ACT as the national capital and as home to more than 300,000 people and for Senators to note the devastating effect the Howard Liberal Government policies are having on the region.We the petitioners call upon the Senate to ensure that the Prime Minister and fellow Ministers take immediate action in implementing policies that will secure Canberra's economic and social future and to assist Canberra families that are suffering as a result of short sighted Government decisions.Senator Lundy7G6Senator Lundy(from 590 citizens)Petitions received.Notices432243224322Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that the 1999 Biennial Youth Gathering has been cancelled as a result of the Federal Government's withdrawal of funding to the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition (AYPAC);(b) condemns the Federal Government for this attack on young Australians; and(c) calls on the Federal Government to reinstate funding for AYPAC and the Biennial Youth Gathering.43224322Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statements read as follows—FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1998The Victorian Government on behalf of the States and Territories has been negotiating with Chinese of finials for a number of years for an adoption program between the two countries. Early in 1997 the Chinese raised a concern that the process could see children from China being stateless for a period between the adoption order in China and court confirmation in Australia.It delayed completion of the arrangements until a satisfactory solution could be achieved. The proposed solution is the automatic recognition of the Chinese order in Australia but this requires Commonwealth legislation to provide for recogni tion. The appropriate legislation is an amendment to the Family Law Act 1975.State and Territory Governments are anxious that the amendments proceed as soon as possible. On 6 April 1998 the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, in answering a question without notice from Senator Harradine, said that amendments to the Family Law Act in relation to intercountry adoption would be introduced in the Winter sittings. Further, he said that " I trust that the Parliament might be prepared to deal with it in the one session so that we can put it into effect."(Circulated by the authority of the Attorney-General)VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS AMENDMENT (GOLD CARD) BILL 1998The bill is to amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to extend eligibility for treatment of any injury or disease to Australian veterans with Second World War qualifying service who have attained 70 years, from 1 January 1999. An eligible person will receive the Repatriation Health Card—For All Conditions (a "Gold Card").The legislation needs to be in place to allow the policy to operate from 1 January 1999. Over the second half of 1998, the Department of Veterans' Affairs will need to undertake a range of promotional and other activities to inform veterans who are to benefit from this policy. Those activities, and the commitment needed to complete systems changes and administrative actions before 1999, will require legislative certainty.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs)43224322Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), by no later than 3.15 pm on 2 July 1998, electorate issues briefs prepared by Commonwealth departments at the request of ministers and their offices.43224322Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the words of former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, in 1962 that, `we never pushed the question of self-determination with determination' in relation to West Papua (Irian Jaya) remain true, and (ii) recent demonstrations in Jakarta and elsewhere underscore a strong movement by West Papuans seeking political freedoms in 1998; and(b) calls on the Government to reinvigorate Australia's approach to the West Papuan freedom movement by moving to ensure a fully enfranchised vote on self-determination in West Papua.43234323Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that 10 per cent of the population, or 1.7 million people, have some form of hearing impairment or deafness, (ii) the increasing number of Australians suffering hearing damage through accident and the aging of our population, and (iii) that comments, such as those from the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) during question time on 29 June 1998, which included flippant references to hearing impairment, are hurtful and discriminatory;(b) calls on the Minister to apologise; and(c) supports increased captioning of broadcast services for the benefit of those who are deaf or hearing impaired.43234323Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) congratulates the Victorian Liberal Government on its successful bid to attract a silicon chip design facility of the giant Korean Anam group to Australia;(b) notes that: (i) the New South Wales Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government failed to offer Anam a viable alternative, (ii) an article in the Australian Financial Review of 1 May 1998 summed up this failure as, `NSW has neither the political leadership nor the bureaucratic depth to underpin the development of a complex industry such as silicon chips', and (iii) estimates are that a group of chip plants could create 25 000 jobs and $12 billion in exports by the year 2005;(c) recognises that this industry also offers Australia research and development initiatives and education and training opportunities; and(d) condemns the Carr ALP Government for its lack of foresight and comprehensive industry policies.43234323Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for inquiry and report, by 10 November 1998:(a) the timetable for conversion from analogue to digital terrestrial broadcasting services;(b) the timetable for the statutory review processes identified in the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998;(c) the bill's ability to: (i) provide certainty of operation for all sectors of the broadcasting and television industry, new commercial entrants and consumers, and (ii) act in accordance with the community standards enshrined in the Broadcasting Services Act, including its ability to encourage diversity of control of the more influential broadcasting services;(d) the differential impact the bill may have on the commercial, national, community and regional broadcasting sectors;(e) ownership and control issues in relation to multiplexers, particularly for datacasters and community broadcasters;(f) the implications for the operation of the bill, and for broadcasting policy generally, should the free-to-air broadcasters choose not to broadcast high definition television services;(g) whether free-to-air broadcasters have a commercial advantage in providing datacasting services over other potential service providers; and (h) any other related issue the committee considers relevant.43244324Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—At the request of Senator Hogg, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Australia and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) be extended to the third sitting day in August 1998.Committees43244324432416:03:004324Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—by leave—I move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the impact and benefits of government policies and services to rural, regional and remote communities, primary producers and miners be extended to the end of the first sitting week in March 1999.Question resolved in the affirmative.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—by leave—I wish to indicate to the Senate that, due to pressure of other references and discussions within the committee to prioritise and refine the terms of this reference, the committee has not been able to progress this inquiry. The committee intends undertaking this major inquiry later in the year and reporting on it early in 1999.Business43244324Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of 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 the first day of the spring sittings 1998. 4324Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 1089 (relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act) and 1101 (the appointment of a select committee on government consultancies on waterfront reform) standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, be postponed till 1 July 1998.4324Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1184 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating Job Network, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4324Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Carr) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1073 standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, relating to the Government's response to a question asked at an estimates hearing, be postponed till 2 July 1998.4324Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 1161 (relating to the appointment of a select committee on the socio-economic consequences of the national competition policy) and No. 1187 (relating to victims of Torture) standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4324Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of 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 the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone), be postponed till the next day of sitting. Committees432543254325Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Bishop)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the impact of government child-care funding cuts be extended to 20 August 1998.43254325Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of the Senate today, from 4 p.m., to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998.43254325Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Ferguson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Part-Time Students) Bill 1997 be extended to 1 July 1998.Miscellaneous4325Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous4325Motion (by Senator Margetts and Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the meeting of the World Heritage Bureau held in Paris on 23 June 1998 expressed alarm at the threats to the cultural and natural world heritage values of the Kakadu World Heritage site from the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine, (ii) the bureau has decided to send a high-powered inspection team, which includes the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, to investigate and report by December 1998 on the threats posed to the Kakadu World Heritage area, and (iii) the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) has indicated that he is not concerned by this criticism;(b) acknowledges the concerns expressed by the bureau; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to immediately halt any construction activity at the site of the proposed Jabiluka mine and to take no further action until the bureau has completed its report and considered the matter at its next meeting in Kyoto in December 1998.Miscellaneous4325Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed:That the Senate calls on the Government to ensure the continued staffing of the Maatsuyker Island lighthouse in Tasmania's Wilderness World Heritage area. Question put:16:13:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Harradine, B. Lees, M. H.Margetts, D. Murray, A.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.48Bishop, M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Committees432643264326Motion (by Senator Conroy)—as amended by leave—agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities for inquiry and report on or before 8 October 1998:Whether there needs to be further reform of the law regulating industrial relations and/or corporations so that it appropriately and adequately deals with the following issues:(a) the trend for companies to declare themselves insolvent in order to avoid paying employees their legitimate entitlements or in order to avoid meeting their obligations to creditors;(b) the trend to use shell companies to avoid the normal contractual obligations arising from the employer/employee relationship or with creditors;(c) protecting workers' entitlements in the transmission of businesses;(d) corporate avoidance or evasion of Workplace Relations Act protections;(e) protecting workers' entitlements in circumstances of privatisation or contracting out;(f) protecting against manipulation of corporate structures to avoid employee rights and entitlements and creditors' rights and entitlements; (g) protections for workers employed by insolvent employers;(h) the inter-relationship between the Corporations Law, the Workplace Relations Act and awards and industrial agreements; and (i) minimising the adverse effects on employees of insecure employment forms.43264326Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Hogg) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous4326Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That the Senate is of the view that, in the event of a simultaneous dissolution of both Houses under section 57 of the Constitution, the division of senators into two classes for the purposes of rotation should be in accordance with the results of a re-count of the Senate vote under section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to determine the order of election of senators in each State.16:19:004326Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like leave of the Senate to give a brief explanation as to why the Democrats do not agree with this motion, rather than dividing on it.Leave granted.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I just wish to indicate on behalf of the Democrats that we opposed this motion because we believe it is inappropriate for this Senate to be expressing opinions to a future Senate which, as has been widely noted, may be of a vastly different composition from the one that currently sits here. If we are going to start doing that on issues such as this, we may as well start doing it on issues such as how to appoint the President or the Deputy President after the next election. For that reason, we feel it is inappropriate to support a motion which expresses an opinion so different from that which has been expressed by the Senate on every previous occasion this century.16:20:004327Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—The one matter that concerns me about this motion is that this is not a principle that is a permanent one. What is wrong here is that the Senate has the ability to change from one option to the other or to make a determination after the election which is different to the one which was made before the election.The history of the debate on which option should be taken here is one that is a studied effort in political advantage. When it comes down to it, it is very slim, but there is at the margins the possibility that one senator who would have got a three-year term under the alternative means of counting will end up with a six-year term. I think there is fairly wide agreement, including from people like Malcolm Mackerras, that the half Senate counting form should be adopted throughout and that it is the most democratic form. I notice that the Proportional Representation Society of Australia agrees with that.Therefore, on the advice of that society, I support this motion, but I think we ought not leave open the option of twiddling it—of having the next election according to the interests of various parties. If this is the most democratic way of determining which senators become six-year senators and which senators become three-year senators after a double dissolution election, then we should reach for a means of making that a standard way of behaviour.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Change the constitution.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No, not change the constitution, Senator Ray, but at least legislate so there has to be great deliberation and an obvious act of political self-investment before the country can overturn it. I agree that changing the constitution would be very difficult for a minor matter like this. Most people in here do not understand the matter, so how would you convey it to the wider electorate? They simply want to know that there is a fair formula which is agreed on and which is permanent, and that is what we should be aiming for.Parliamentary Zone432716:24:004327Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974, I present the following proposals by the National Capital Authority to carry out work within the parliamentary zone, together with supporting documentation: removal of Old Parliament House annex, construction of pedestrian and cycle access to and from Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue bridges, minor road works in front of Old Parliament House and external restoration works for Old Parliament House, proposed on behalf of the Department of Communications and the Arts. I seek leave to give a notice of motion in relation to the proposals.Leave granted.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority:(a) removal of Old Parliament House Annex;(b) construction of pedestrian and cycle access to and from Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue bridges;(c) minor roadworks in front of Old Parliament House; and(d) external restoration works for Old Parliament House, proposed on behalf of the Department of Communications and the Arts.Documents43274327432710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 49 of 1997-98—Performance audit—Evaluation processes for the selection of hearing devices—Department of Health and Family Services.16:25:004327Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. The Australian National Audit Office report sets out their review of the hearing device evaluation process. I believe this is a timely report and highlights the special needs of those Australians who are deaf or hearing impaired. Some 10 per cent of Australians suffer some form of deafness or hearing impairment, and the number is increasing. This is a significant problem for governments, and I am pleased to see that these issues are actually being brought to the parliament's attention for ongoing debate.It is of particular concern to me, and I have introduced a bill, the Captioning for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Bill 1998, which aims to increase the availability of captioned services for the benefit of those people who suffer some form of deafness or hearing impairment. This will be done in three ways: firstly, by increasing the broadcasting of captioned television and like services; secondly, by captioning videos for hire and sale; and, thirdly, by having television sets and videos with the ability to decode captioning signals.I realise that this report mentions that the majority of people who utilise the services referred to in the audit report are over the age of 70 years, but at the moment we are seeing an increasingly ageing population and a number of younger members and mature age members of the population who have some form of hearing impairment. For those people, currently only 15 per cent of Australian broadcasts carry closed captions. This is comparatively low compared with that of the United Kingdom and the United States, which are at a rate of 45 per cent and 90 per cent respectively. Australia is behind, and we need to catch up.The United Kingdom's Broadcasting Act requires that 50 per cent of all commercial broadcasts must be captioned by 1998. In the United States, the Telecommunications Act requires that everything must be captioned by 2008. The proposals set out in the bill before the parliament, and certainly referred to in audit reports previously, are consistent with international practice and provide a compromise between complete captioning now and moves towards complete captioning.It is important that the Senate acknowledges the role that Australian broadcasters are playing when it comes to increasing the level of captioning available. I understand that, for example, SBS captions almost 45 per cent of its programs, excluding the re-broadcast foreign news programs. Channel 7 has also made big efforts to increase captioning of key services.The issue of captioning, the bill and a reference to these issues in the parliament are a signpost for parliament in an era of rapid technological changes. We have the technology and we must grasp the possibilities, and certainly the opportunity, for the benefit of many Australians, at least for 10 per cent of our population. We have moved to accept disabled groups in our community through positive legislation. The next step is to make sure that the ongoing technology is available to these groups, and that is something that the evaluation process, as discussed in the audit report, looked towards doing.Many deaf and hearing impaired members of the community have contacted my office—and, I am sure, many other offices—with their views. Their perspective provides quite an insight into the importance of this issue. One writer stated:Caption television has brought many deaf and hearing impaired people into the world again. Denied radio, unable to hear in theatres or cinemas, uncomfortable at the most ordinary social gatherings, the deaf and severely hearing impaired, it is not to much to say, often they live for their bit of information and entertainment on captioned television.Furthermore, this is an excellent opportunity for Australia to develop this technology and benchmark the system for other international markets. Captioning is an international necessity and, through domestic captioning, we have the potential to develop an international industry with important consequences for our culture and our place in the family of nations.Our export documentaries, films and television programming have international appeal, and we can value add to this through an active captioning industry in Australia. I do acknowledge the government's mention of captioning in its digital television proposal, and I, along with many other Australians, certainly the Australian Democrats, welcome that recognition. However, this does not go far enough.To conclude, I put on record my anger and disappointment at a flippant comment made by, ironically, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) in question time in this chamber today. When we are reading reports such as the one on evaluation processes for the selection of hearing devices, presented to the Senate today from the Australian National Audit Office, we should be very conscious of the way that this chamber and many other institutions treat people with deafness and a hearing impairment of some kind.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees43294329432916:30:004329MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present a report entitled Improving but . . . : Australia's regional dialogue on human rights together with the Hansard transcript and minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—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—As senators are aware, Australia's place in the Asia Pacific region, and its attitude to its neighbours in the region, has come under particular scrutiny in recent times. Australia has a strong tradition in the promotion and protection of human rights but recently its credibility has come under the spotlight. We are also mindful that this year is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.This report of the committee is timely, therefore, for itsexamination of a number of issues. These issues include: . the place of human rights in the relations between Australia and our neighbours in the Asia Pacific region;. the link between observance of human rights, and security and stability (a matter which has been brought into sharp focus in the wake of the Asian economic crisis);. the acceptance and impact of United Nations human rights treaties; and. the roles played by government and non-government organisations in dialogue on human rights.During the course of the inquiry the committee was reminded of the very positive contribution made by Australia to regional dialogue on human rights, especially through the funding of national human rights institutions. A case in point is the recent contribution of $2 million by Australia to assist the Indonesian Human Rights Commission, as well as the training and support provided to the Indonesian commission by Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As senators are aware, the Indonesian commission has played a crucial role in the recent crisis in Indonesia.Through its work on both bilateral and multilateral bases, Australia has maintained strong support for human rights. However, some submissions made to the committee suggested that there has been a decline in Australia's role as human rights advocate over the last decade or so. The committee did not made such a finding, but it agrees with those who say that there is room for improvement in Australia's role in the region.There will always be room to improve our effectiveness in human rights, to speak up more frequently for those who are not in a position to speak up for themselves, and to be more persuasive when we make representations on their behalf. A number of measures which would make Australia's role in human rights more effective were considered by the committee and I will outline three of these briefly.. an increased emphasis on human rights by AusAID in its overseas aid program. This might include programs in human rights education for aid recipients;. support for proposals that mark the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education and the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One proposal made to the committee which has merit is the development of a national committee for human rights education; and. appointment of a Human Rights Ambassador, with responsibility for development of policy and programs that serve to promote and protect human rights. Such an appointment could serve as a focal point for the pursuit of human rights issues. It could also play a coordinating role and overcome one of the difficulties our federal system poses for human rights: the need to coordinate with different levels of government.Without a better foundation (in terms of human rights education in the community), and commitment to human rights issues (such that government is encouraged to seize each opportunity that is presented during its dialogue around the region), Australia cannot hope to be a more effective advocate for human rights.I commend the report to the Senate.Debate adjourned.4330433016:30:004330MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present a report entitled Australia's trade relationship with India together with the Hansard transcript and minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.YH4MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—This report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Australia's trade relationship with India —will play an important role in maintaining the focus on the importance of India to Australian trade and investment.Australia recognised early in this decade that the Australia-India relationship was underdeveloped. Since then the Australian Government has increasingly focused efforts on developing a stronger and more diverse relationship with India. Australia's bilateral relationship with India has expanded significantly, particularly in the areas of trade and investment.In the past six years, bilateral trade has more than doubled. On current growth rates this trade level is set to double again in the next five years, making India one of Australia's largest export markets. Equally important is Australian investment in India which has increased dramatically since 1991.Much of the impetus for the expanding bilateral trade relationship has been provided by the gradual restructuring and liberalisation of India's formerly `inward looking' economy. This restructuring began in earnest after India struck severe balance of payments difficulties in 1991. Since then a wide range of economic and trade reform measures have been implemented to improve India's economy, and to make it globally competitive.Despite its status as a developing country, financial and investment indicators suggest India has huge potential as a market for trade in goods and services. It is the world's largest democracy, with a population ofapproximately 950 million people and growing at 2 percent per annum. In 1994 it was rated as the fifth largest economy in the world in purchasing power parity terms, although it is estimated that 328 million citizens are living below the poverty line. The size and real disposable income ofIndia's growing middle class is debated. However by the year 2020 India is expected to be the fourth largest economy in the world.The importance of India as an emerging regional economic and political power, and in particular its growing significance to Australia's commercial interests, cannot be underestimated. The inquiry took a considerable body of evidence during 1997 which stressed the opportunities for Australian trade and investment. Concern was expressed by witnesses that the focus, at the official level, on the significance of the Indian market to Australia would wane in the wake of the successful Australia India—New Horizons promotion at the end of 1996. The Committee has made a number of recommendations which will build upon the impetus and success created by the New Horizons promotion, including putting in place an ongoing program of trade visits to be led at the highest government level.The Committee recognises the important and significant role played byAustralia-India business councils chambers of commerce, cultural organisations and specialised research and studies centres in developing trade and investment links with India. The report deals with the future of the specialised research centres and the need to preserve the teaching of the Hindi language in Australia.The Committee endorses the efforts of the Australian Government in promoting Australia's trade and commercial interests in India through a number of bilateral and multilateral mechanisms. A number of recommendations have been made which will assist in further developing commercial ties, and focusing Australian business on India as a market and the opportunities to be found there. Two issues of significant concern to the Committee, which impact on the Australian Government's strategy to advance Australia's commercial interests overseas, are the closure of Radio Australia's broadcasts to India and the lack of a mixed credit or soft loan facility. The report addresses the importance of Australia's engagement in a number of regional mechanisms including the multilateral initiative on regional cooperation and trade facilitation, the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC). The Committee stresses the importance of paying more attention to the social and cultural dimensions of the South Asia/Indian Ocean region and utilising the expertise of specialised research centres.Two significant events occurred during the final stages of the Committee's Inquiry which impact on the Australia-India relationship. The first wasthe election of a new Government in March 1998. The second was thefive underground nuclear tests which India conducted in May 1998. India has been described as a country with no full stops and the latter event has put a comma in the Australia-India relationship at both a political and commercial level.The Committee maintains that Australia must continue to develop its links west and to build on its trade and investment relationship with India.I commend the report to the Senate.16:31:004331Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This report, Australia's trade relationship with India: Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond , bears some connection to the report about Australia's trade relationship with Hong Kong and Indonesia. I make that connection because during the inquiry and hearings on Australia's trade relationship with Indonesia I sought with the committee to get some understanding of the on-the-ground realities in Indonesia. This included an understanding of the internal politics of the country and what the relationship between Australia and Indonesia might be like in a post-Suharto Indonesia. To that end, I suggested a witness or witnesses that committee members could speak to who would not give them the idea that it was a static or hopeful situation or one set at a particular point in time. As such, they would have given information which might have been of some use. It did not happen then, and I do not think it has necessarily happened in this report.I was a bit concerned about the subtitle of the report, which is Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond. It sounds very much to be about jolly hockey sticks and the old boys club. The situation in India is chan ging. It is not back in the 1950s; it is changing. We have perhaps not acknowledged to any extent the impact of those changes on India. If as a committee we do not attempt to find out the social and economic impacts of major changes in trade on a country that has had a very specific self-reliant trade policy for a long time, we will probably continue to be surprised when, in a general election, there is a change of government and people choose a fairly radical, economic nationalist approach. `What a surprise,' we will say, `how did this happen?'I suppose that part of it is that Australia has not acknowledged the major social turmoil in India that has occurred as a result of the free trade agenda. There have been major changes to employment and people's life expectations. They are beginning to see that some of those things were built from Ghandian times, when India was basically ripped off by colonisers in a trade relationship. They got to a point where they were producing almost nothing. They were producing natural resources, and they were having their terms of trade dictated by another country. They had ceased to be able to produce a lot of their own goods and services.The symbolic gesture at the time was that Ghandi became a spinner. He encouraged people to spin to make a political statement about India reclaiming its ability to meet its own basic needs, clothing being one of them. It got to be a very strong policy in India, considering its population, needs and employment situation. If the people could produce goods and services and value added products using their own technology and personnel, they did. It got to the point where India was even producing its own whiskey, which was probably not a good thing to do, considering the need for a particular water quality in that process.There were many things to be admired about the post-Ghandian time, where Indians virtually pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They became self-reliant and dictated the terms to other countries and, especially, to multinational corporations, which would otherwise go into a country and determine in advance the terms of investment. India chose not to do that. It was one of the few countries specifically outside the Soviet bloc that did not, for instance, have Coca-Cola established there for a long time.Things are changing in India. The push for globalisation and so-called free trade has reached India as it has everywhere else. People realise that changes need to be made, but they still criticise the claim that free trade will bring all the benefits that it is meant to. Therefore, it is not surprising that when there is a change of government people respond. They will respond if they have not seen the benefits that they were promised, just as Australians responded to the Keating push for free trade and competition policy. The benefits included more markets for beef and wool and better prices for primary commodities. There was going to be an improvement in the balance of trade, but that is now off the agenda. There was going to be more choice and better outcomes for consumers. Consumers are finding that they are being pushed into the international global agenda. The big players are getting their needs met, but small consumers are being left off, particularly if they are bank consumers or consumers who do not matter to the large corporations.You can also see a parallel with Australia. The push for globalisation and globalised free trade as a result of the Uruguay Round of GATT had a massive impact. Substantial social comments were made and large protest rallies were held. There were riots in some parts of India, just as there were in other parts of the world. If the committee had gone to India, and if I had been able to find time away from my electorate to go to India, I was hoping that the committee would have had a chance to talk to groups in India about the different viewpoints amongst groups in India about globalisation, globalised free trade and the impacts of the World Trade Organisation.If, as a parliament, we understand the impact those issues are having in those countries then, apart from anything else, it might help us understand when we get a fairly substantial kick in the rear end from the electorate in parts of Australia. India is an almost totally closed market going to a substantially open market, and what is hap pening there might help us to understand some of the elements within our own economy and within other economies in the South-East Asian region.I am making a plea that, when committees look at trade relationships with other countries, they understand that it is necessary to look at the social and economic impacts on the ground, how that has been spread throughout the economies, and how that is likely to impact later on in terms of political change. Otherwise, as a parliament, we will continue to be surprised when there is some substantial change in the politics of India or Indonesia because we have failed to understand that major global economic changes have social, economic and political impacts. It may well be a waste of time if committees of the parliament are not prepared to look into those aspects or if they try to pretend that everything is rosy in relation to trade between Australia and other countries. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.4332433216:40:004332McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the report entitled Deportation of non-citizen criminals , together with submissions, the Hansard transcript, and the minutes of proceedings.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.Over the past 18 months, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration has been conducting a comprehensive review of the criminal deportation arrangements which are under the control of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, and which are administered by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.The committee found that the existing scheme was adequately managed, although aspects of the scheme could be strengthened to improve the protection afforded to the Australian community. The committee has responded to the 58 submissions and over 300 pages of transcript evidence it received with recommendations which we believe will ensure that the criminal deportation scheme remains what parliament intended—a fair and effective scheme which protects the community from further crimes by non-citizens.For 15 years, the current deportation scheme has sought to protect society from criminal non-citizens whose actions have demonstrated their unsuitability to remain part of our community. In that time, several developments have affected the operation of the scheme. Permanent resident non-citizens are now subject to other legislative provisions that could result in their removal from Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as a review body, now has the right to overturn even decisions made by the minister about deporting non-citizens. Also, Australia's ratification of international law conventions and the development of Australian case law have imposed new requirements on decision makers.Although the committee is convinced that the existing arrangements operate adequately, it nevertheless recommends strengthening the process to reflect the goal of protecting the community. The recommendations are based on evidence of a widespread consensus that aspects of the scheme should be modified and updated. However, the changes recommended do not overturn the fundamental elements of the existing system.The committee's 21 recommendations go to all areas of the existing scheme: refining the existing legal framework; suggesting amendments to the ministerial and departmental policies; and strengthening liaison between the department and state and territory agencies. The major recommendations involve changes to the review arrangements to reflect the central role of the minister as the criminal deportation policy and decision maker.The committee recommends changes to the statutory time limit on non-citizen liability to deportation to ensure that serious crimes after 10 years of residency can still be considered under the deportation arrangements. I suggest that this recommendation will receive more attention than most of the other recommenda tions contained in the report. The current 10-year rule refers to the residency limitation placed on criminal deportation in section 201 of the Migration Act.Under existing law, once a permanent resident has lived in Australia for 10 years, he or she is no longer liable for criminal deportation. The 10-year rule is supported by some people on the grounds that it provides certainty and recognises the fact that, after a considerable period of residency, people have become part of the community, even though they have not become citizens. On the other hand, the 10-year rule has been seen as an arbitrary historical anomaly which fails to protect the Australian community from long-term non-citizen residents who have committed serious crimes. Others have noted that the 10-year rule may be too harsh when applied to those who came to Australia as children.The committee also recommends that:the Migration Act 1958 be amended to abolish the ten year rule in relation to those convicted of very serious offences. These offences can be specified in the Regulations and would include murder, serious sexual assaults, drug dealing, armed robbery and the other very serious offences contained in the draft Ministerial Policy Statement.It does not mean that persons who are convicted of offences that attract a sentence of more than two years imprisonment will automatically be considered for deportation if they have been in this country more than 10 years. We are suggesting that there be a discrimination in that area between the very serious crimes and the less serious crimes, if such can be suggested, and we have suggested that our regulations can cope with and cater for this.The issues addressed in the report continue. We make suggestions about the information exchange with state and territory justice and prison agencies to ensure that each non-citizen prisoner is considered in a fair manner. We found and recognised that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is constrained in its dealings with state and territory agencies because of limited legislative powers to gather information. The result is a deportation system using different information and differing verification practices in the various jurisdictions to identify and process potential deportees.In chapter 5 of the report, from paragraph 5.11 onwards, the committee explores in detail the various methods used to identify potential deportees by each of the state and territory organisations. Without using up the time of the Senate, they are there for everyone to see, and they graphically illustrate the different arrangements in place in each of the jurisdictions.To our concern, we found that, despite some very good arrangements being in place in some of the states, it is still possible for individuals who would be liable to deportation to slip through the net. We have made recommendations which, hopefully, if they are enacted, will ensure that that will not occur, that people who are liable to deportation will not be able to slip through the net.In the report we recommend changes to the ministerial deportation policy to specify all relevant community views and the weight that should be given to these respective views. We think that the changes suggested in this report will improve the balance between the sometimes competing objectives of the scheme—that is, protecting the community against the risk of further criminal acts by non-citizens and ensuring that the rights of non-citizens are taken into account.The committee concludes that, subject to the changes recommended in the report, the criminal deportation scheme must continue. The absence of the power to deport non-citizens who commit crimes offensive to the wider community would strike at the heart of community acceptance of Australia's migration program. It is also important that non-citizens who have abused their residency in Australia by committing serious crime are not permitted to remain in this country. The community has been well served by the existing arrangements, but the revisions unanimously recommended by the committee will instil in the community greater confidence that the scheme operates effectively, efficiently and fairly to protect society.One issue that it was decided was not within the ambit of the committee's deliberations was the deportation of Australian citizens who are found to have committed crimes. During the process of gathering information, the committee received evidence concerning the deportation or removal of certain Australian citizens who had committed crimes in this country or overseas. We identified two issues: the possible deportation of Australian citizens who had been convicted of criminal offences while in Australia thereby breaking their citizenship oaths, and the deprivation of citizenship to those persons who had become Australian citizens but had failed to advise of their involvement in crimes. We found that these issues were not within the ambit of the committee's terms of reference, and we raised them with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock). We refer to them in appendix 8 of the committee's report.As the deputy chair of the committee, I appreciated the efforts of members from all political parties to achieve a consensus on the direction and scope of the changes necessary to strengthen the scheme. My thanks particularly go to the chair, Mrs Chris Gallus MP, and to all other members of the committee for their endeavours throughout the inquiry. I also thank all the staff, and there were many, who were engaged during the conduct of this long and detailed inquiry. I commend the report to the Senate.16:50:004334Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I came to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration upon my entry into this place. The committee was part way through its inquiry, so I did not have the opportunity to explore some of the issues in as much depth as I would have liked, but I would like to speak briefly on the report. I think it is an important report, particularly in the context of the ongoing debate in the community on matters relating to migration and immigration.A lot of effort was put into trying to come to a consensus position. I think one of the themes and aims that ran through the report was to try to have a consistent approach across the board. Regardless of whether or not one was in agreement with a particular approach, I think all people would generally agree that it is ideal that there be a consistent approach to issues relating to deportation rather than a variety of different treatments depending on which section of the act was being utilised at any particular time. As with any other large and complex act, there is always the potential for those sorts of anomalies to occur, and anything that moves towards reducing those is always to be welcomed. I think this report goes some way towards doing that.The other main point I would like to make is no reflection on the report itself but is always an issue in the context of this debate. I indicate on behalf of the Democrats that, whilst I very much agree with a consistent approach and even a reasonably firm approach because it is also appropriate that non-citizens who do commit major crimes are open to be deported from this country, it is certainly appropriate also for those people to have adequate means of having their own individual circumstances considered.I have no problem with a reasonably firm approach and, more importantly, a very clearly defined set of principles that apply so that everybody knows the rules of the game. It is in that sort of context that I think it is important to have those rules as clearly outlined as possible. In a situation where issues relating to migrants are in the public debate, and there is the potential for what might be unfair and heavy-handed actions to be taken simply to appease community sentiment of a negative type, that is a danger that needs to be avoided.I suggest that it is very appropriate that, amongst all the other principles that are part of the decision-making processes in relation to deportation, the very basic and common principle of human compassion comes into the equation. Obviously, that has to be applied not just to the person who is subject to deportation but to the safety of the broader community, and I acknowledge that. But I and a lot of other people are concerned—again, I am not speaking in relation to this report per se but in the broader political context that it has to operate within—about the direction of public debate and, potentially, public sentiment at the moment which is becoming rather more lacking in compassion and tolerance than may have been the case in the past.I simply wish to put that and relate it to this report. My willingness to agree to what is in the report was reached in the context of nonetheless wanting to assert the importance of those basic Australian characteristics of a fair go, of compassion and a bit of tolerance. I again wish to balance that by recognising very much the broader principle of the safety of the Australian community, and that is something that I think is very appropriate and underpins the principles that are applied in relation to deportation policy as it operates.In conclusion, I would like to recognise the hard work of the various staff who worked on this report over quite a long period. I was impressed by the amount of detail and the lengths to which the committee and the committee chair were prepared to go to ensure that everybody had as much opportunity as possible to be aware of what was being proposed in the report, to comment on the wording, to comment on the recommendations and to work through them, if necessary over and over again as did happen with a few areas. I think this is an ideal process. It would be nice to see some Senate committees which have become somewhat fragmented along party lines in recent times return to such a process. This is an important report, as is the case with many parliamentary reports of substance, and I commend it. I am sure it will make a worthwhile contribution to further debate on this important issue. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills4335A message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following law: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 Bills4335r5414335Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.433616:57:004336Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—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 bill implements the Coalition Government's choice of superannuation fund measure. This measure was a key initiative in the 1997-98 Budget and involves reforms to give employees greater choice over which superannuation fund or Retirement Savings Account will receive superannuation contributions made on their behalf by their employer.The choice of fund arrangements are about giving employees greater choice and control over their superannuation savings, which in turn will give them greater sense of ownership of these savings. The arrangements will increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading to improved returns on superannuation savings.The choice of funds provisions were originally introduced to Parliament in Schedule 5 to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, which was introduced to the House on 4 December 1997. Those provisions were excised from that bill to ensure timely passage of other measures contained in the bill, in particular the savings rebate, which is another key initiative in the 1997-98 Budget.Before the provisions were first introduced to the House in Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, the government announced enhancements to the choice of fund measure on 25 November 1997. These enhancements were designed to significantly reduce the administrative burden on employers and provide more flexible and responsive arrangements to address the retirement income needs of all Australians. The announcement of those enhancements followed extensive consultation and were met with a positive reaction from industry.Amendments to the choice of fund provisions contained in Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 were moved by the Government in the House of Representatives. The deferral of the start date of choice of fund for new employees from 1 July 1998 to 1 July 1999 is incorporated in this bill.I commend the bill to the Senate. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned until the first sitting day of the Spring sittings 1998, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills43364336Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the corporations law, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.433616:58:004336Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The purpose of the Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 ("the bill") is to overcome transitional problems associated with the proposed commencement of Corporations Law sections 249HA and 250BA.These sections will be inserted into the Corporations Law by the company law review Bill 1998 ("the review bill"). They were inserted into the review bill by the Senate and their insertion was subsequently agreed to by the House of Representatives on 25 June 1998.Section 249HA obliges a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange ("a listed company") to give at least 28 days notice of a meeting of it members. Section 250BA obliges a listed company to include in the notice of a meeting of its members a fax number for the purpose of receipt of proxy appointments.The Government proposes to commence the review bill on 1 July 1998, including sections 249HA and 250BA. This will allow the amendments to be made to the Corporations Law by the review bill to commence at the same time as a number of other bills making substantial reforms to the Australian Financial Sector.There are listed companies that have given notice of a meeting of their members to be held after 1 July 1998 without having given the 28 days notice of the meeting required by section 249HA. Furthermore, the notice of the meeting may not have specified a fax number for the purpose of the receipt of proxy appointments as required by section 250BA. If these companies do not comply with sections 250HA and 250BA there will be legal uncertainty about the validity of any resolutions passed at the meetings.The bill has the effect that sections 249HA and 250BA do not apply to a meeting of the members of a listed company if the notice of the meeting was given before they commence.The bill therefore provides legal certainty concerning the validity of these meetings. Passage of the bill in the 1998 Winter Sittings will avoid the need for companies affected by sections 249HA and 250BA to incur the additional expense of convening a further meeting that complies with those sections.The Government has warned that it is important that there is appropriate public exposure and consultation on all amendments to the review bill in order to obtain feedback from the business and professional community to ensure that the amendments achieve their intended effect from a policy and implementation perspective. The Government encourages the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities to inquire into and report on all amendments to the review bill which were passed by the Senate, after considering submissions on the amendments. The Government also encourages stakeholders to provide their comment on the amendments to the committee.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned until the first sitting day in the Spring sittings 1998, in accordance with standing order 111.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I seek leave to give a notice of motion to exempt this bill from the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 7 of standing order 111.Leave granted.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during this sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The purpose of the Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 ("the Bill") is to overcome transitional problems associated with the proposed commencement of Corporations Law sections 249HA and 250BA.Section 249HA obliges a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange ("a listed company") to give at least 28 days notice of a meeting of it members. Section 250BA obliges a listed company to include in the notice of a meeting of its members a fax number for the purpose of receipt of proxy appointments.These sections will be inserted into the Corporations Law by the Company Law Review Bill 1998. They were inserted into the Company Law Review Bill 1998 by the Senate and their insertion was subsequently agreed to by the House of Representatives on 25 June 1998.The Govemment proposes to commence the Company Law Review Bill 1998 on 1 July 1998, including sections 249HA and 250BA. This will allow the amendments to be made to the Corporations Law by the Company Law Review Bill 1998 to commence at the same time as a number of other Bills making substantial reforms to the Australian Financial Sector.There are listed companies that have given notice of a meeting of their members to be held after 1 July 1998 without having given the 28 days notice of the meeting required by section 249HA. Furthermore, the notice of the meeting may not have specified a fax number for the purpose of the receipt of proxy appointments as required by section 250BA. If these companies do not comply with sections 250HA and 250BA there will be legal uncertainty about the validity of any resolutions passed at the meetings. The Bill has the effect that sections 249HA and 250BA do not apply to a meeting of the members of a listed company if the notice of the meeting was given before they commence.The Bill therefore provides legal certainty concerning the validity of these meetings. Passage of the Bill in the 1998 Winter Sittings will avoid the need for companies affected by sections 249HA and 250BA to incur the additional expense of convening a further meeting that complies with those sections.(Circulated by authority of the Treasurer) Bills4338r529Billsr531Billsr5334338Debate resumed.16:59:004338West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Before this debate was adjourned for question time, I was raising my concerns about the fact that the Department of Social Security had required such a large number of corrigenda to be released and that one table—the summary of outlays for the portfolio—had in fact required three corrigenda to be released as well as the original statement. I had concerns about this and the fact that this made it rather difficult for the adequate and compete scrutiny of the government expenditure—and therefore taxpayers' expenditure—by the Senate, by members of parliament. I also had concerns that most of its figures—the material and information provided on the expenditure and the workings of Centrelink—are within the DSS portfolio statement. It is extremely difficult when there are parts in DSS, when there are parts in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, when there are parts in DEETYA, when there is a pilot program being done for Department of Veterans' Affairs—and I suspect that there is also some work being done for the department of Aboriginal affairs. It makes the proper scrutiny of their work very difficult, and I would hope that next time around this can be overcome. But one has to have reservations about this when one hears of the recent problems for people accessing Centrelink and the overpayments and underpayments that have happened with that computer.I want to raise a couple of other points that I canvassed at estimates time and that I wish to keep monitoring. One concerns aged care and the length of time that had been taken for people to be granted hardship for the accommodation charges. A constituent of mine lodged an application in late February, and it was not until early June that hardship was granted. That is totally inadequate. I do not care whether it is setting a precedent for the agreement that people are under hardship; that sort of length of time indicates that this government is not on top of its portfolio.I also want to bring to people's attention that there has been a further change to rent assistance for sharers—those people who are in grotty hovels and terrible private hotels will no longer have their rent assistance cut but will be returned to full rent assistance. However, it will not take place from 1 July this year—when I think it should. It should never have been introduced in the first place, and I have argued about this piece of bad legislation from when it was introduced. These people will be suffering until 1 July next year. I think it is almost bordering on incompetence if this government cannot initiate some mechanism whereby people with very low incomes who are living in poor and substandard accommodation cannot have their rent assistance increased. I think that is an appalling thing.I also wish to draw attention to the fact that the government has re-introduced a program for men's health. When Dr Lawrence was the minister for health she actually started down this track, but the process was stopped when we lost government. At estimates we discovered one of the reasons it was stopped. Mr Podger, the department secretary, said:It is fair to say that there were some understandable suspicions that a thing simply called `men's health' was being a bit politically correct rather than focusing on particular elements . . . So, for two years, we saw men's health being disregarded by the department and the government because they thought that it was too politically correct. I am glad that, somewhere along the line, someone has seen the light and has stopped thinking of it as being politically correct. I wanted to draw those small things to people's attention to show how narrow this government is being in looking at some issues in that they want to put political correctness ahead of individuals' health.17:04:004338Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise to speak on appropriations in relation to schools. During estimates two weeks ago, the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Dr Kemp) made quite an admission: the $2.3 billion which Dr Kemp has said over and over again would be additional to Labor's 1996 budget over the next four years was, as it turned out, an error. It was an overstatement of some $400 million. The new figure turns out to be $1.9 billion.Honourable senators will be forgiven for not noticing this announcement. Dr Kemp did drop the $300 million in his speech in the House on 5 March, but we were unsure whether this was simply a rounding off or an admission that what he had been claiming for over two years was a lie. So I sought clarification from the minister for schools in a question without notice which the minister was unable to answer at the time. It seems that Dr Kemp at the time had not advised Senator Ellison of the error or that he was too embarrassed to provide the Senate with the details, and he was unable to shed any light at all on the question of the missing money.Most of us, I must say, have doubted for some time that this was new money at all or that once you remove the indexation, increase in enrolments, and supplementation it was an increase of any sort of magnitude. And the government has been unwilling to give us a breakdown so that we might be able to check that matter. The 1996 budget shows an increase of $1.6 billion for specific purpose payments over four years.Even if this figure turns out to be accurate, it is a very small amount indeed when you consider the desperate lack of funds in our education system, the fact that some 80,000 extra students will be in our schools by the year 2000, and the extraordinary lengths schools now have to go to raise money for the most basic educational needs. It is not unusual, for instance, for schools to have to set themselves a targets of more than $100,000 a year just to make ends meet. And yet we know that people would be willing to have the revenue raised to properly fund schools. What we do not know is why successive governments have refused to hear the call. Of course, much of the government's rhetoric has been about increased spending on literacy. I want to make it very clear that its supposed new money on literacy programs is in fact a rehash of previously folded pro grams. It is not new money and, furthermore, it is about testing and benchmarking, neither of which will do anything to solve the problem for that small group of students who have not learned at the same rate as their peers in the same classroom.The LAP tests in my home state of Victoria demonstrate just that. The recent results of the second set of tests were just like the first. If you do not deal with the questions of class sizes and you do not address the specific needs of specific students with identification of the problem and follow that with what is often the need for one-to-one help, then you simply do not change the results. I say again in this place: there is no recognition of the fact that 10 to 15 per cent of children have trouble with literacy because of an identifiable learning disability. Some of the best teachers will instinctively identify impediments to learning, but most have neither the time nor the training to diagnose the problem or to deal with it adequately in the classroom, especially one which has 30 or so students, as is the case in so many Victorian schools.This kind of disability is ignored and there is no funding available to help. It costs more than $200 to get a professional assessment done and it costs time and effort to meet the needs of those students. Of course, simple answers like testing and benchmarking are the hallmark of this government, which is more interested in the bottom line and in shifting students from public to private sector schools.Curiously, simple answers are the province of the One Nation party as well. One Nation prides itself on being vociferously anti-intellectual and its embryonic education policy—or principles of direction, I think it calls them—bears out this trait. Its web page devoted to this is filled with references to reclaiming the three Rs in our schools, as if they were some precious piece of Australian heritage stolen from the people, leaving a great wound where the collective works of Banjo Patterson should be.The document, coupled with recent outpourings by the party's Victorian leader, is resonate with the unreasonable nostalgia for the 1950s. This is also something propounded by the schools minister, Dr Kemp, in his literacy campaign. Patriotism, respect for teachers, parents and elders and the three Rs: that is the One Nation recipe for Australia and the clever country. No doubt we can all see Robert Hughes, Bill Gates or Gustav Nossal emerging from such a formula!One Nation's Victorian leader, Robyn Spencer, claims `A lot of kids don't even know we've got a desert in Australia.' We would be very surprised if any research existed to substantiate that sort of claim. It ranks alongside Dr Kemp's unfounded claim that a third of year 9 students could not read. Basic education in research methods is obviously sorely lacking in both One Nation and the coalition. Ms Spencer should apologise, I think immediately, to the children of Australia for this crude defamation. The rest of us should heed the warning that a One Nation education system would well and truly place us in banana republic league.One Nation's education principles might look presentable as statements for a developing country in which a large percentage of children are illiterate. With its exclusive emphasis on the three Rs, it is a document somehow curiously lacking in imagination and ambition. As a vision of what Australia—a First World nation—could aspire to, it is intellectually bankrupt. Do we really want to aim so low that our only expectation of children is that they emerge with at least the three Rs—and basic maths at that?I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. However, perhaps 20 years ago the aim would have been merely for all children to be able to sign their names on a ballot paper. One Nation has even tacked two Rs of its own onto the original three: it wants responsibility and—perhaps they do not know that Aretha Franklin said it first—respect. This sounds to me like a code for the reintroduction of corporal punishment or perhaps for public schools to be allowed to expel problem students with nowhere else to go. Neither One Nation, with its call for curfews on young people, nor Dr Kemp, architect of the notorious youth allowance, can scratch up between them a single good idea on what to do about the growing class of teenagers who cannot get a job but simply do not want to be or cannot be at school.One Nation's call for respect sounds suspiciously like unquestioning adherence to old values, no matter how unjust or how irrelevant. Moreover, if we are serious about children learning to be honest, the last thing we should be doing is bending to the public education rantings of a party that spreads lies about the comparative advantages enjoyed by indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and seeks to whitewash the attempted genocide of Aboriginal people. The fact is, in order to gain respect, you must first offer it. One Nation vilifies people from non-English speaking backgrounds and Aboriginal people. Race based supremacy, in my view, has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with pathology.We were very heartened last week by a demonstration which showed that many students are not taken in by One Nation's agenda. A rally organised by 17-year-old student Matt Wilson drew more than 100 students onto Melbourne's streets in opposition to One Nation's agenda. One Nation is anti-intellectual and knows the value of the education system in catching them young. Robyn Spencer has called for more emphasis on Australian geography and history in school curricula. Yet if this emphasis is to be a rigorous, honest look at our heritage rather than a sanitised package, I doubt that she or her colleagues would be prepared for the consequences.Much recent Australian history has been devoted to uncovering Australia's Aboriginal past and how black and white histories have been intertwined. Research by Peter Read, Ann McGrath, Henry Reynolds and others looms large in any university course and is gradually changing the way many of us look at the past. No longer is it acceptable to use the once common argument that dispossession was something which happened 200 years ago. It is too late to think we can shove all this history back into a box. The stories of the stolen generation and Aboriginal participation in the workplace—in white homes as domestic labour and as the backbone of the pastoral industry before equal pay was introduced and many were thrown off their ancestral lands—are now the property of the public domain, and fortunately so.True patriotism cannot be founded on lies. If we ignore black dispossession and the invasion of their lands, then we are engaging in the sort of wishful thinking that has led Japanese schools, for instance, to ignore the atrocities committed in Japanese concentration camps during the Second World War.I would like to say a few words about Robyn Spencer's claim that migrant children boast an unfair advantage over others in examinations for languages other than English. Children bring all sorts of skills, abilities and experiences, and conversely, disabilities, weaknesses, et cetera, with them to the classroom. Ability in a foreign language, especially at an early age, often has its corollary in poor English. We should not seek to punish children for proficiency in another language, but encourage efforts to see that all children are able to be taught a second language. It is a myth that migrant students can be lumped into one category and described as having an unfair advantage—as Spencer did—in language learning over children with an Anglo-Celtic background.Within migrant groups there are many attitudes towards children learning their language of origin. Some parents actively refuse to pass on their language to children, under an unfortunate and misguided belief that this is the price of assimilation in this country. They do not think their children will need the language, or their own relationship to their country of origin might be fraught with painful memories that they want to forget. Other parents would like their children to speak the language, but either cannot or will not allow the time and patience needed for this. Many children, especially in the climate created by One Nation, are anxious to fit in at school and are either reluctant to take language classes or they simply do not apply themselves to the task.Other parents are supportive of passing on the language, but have been speaking English or a hybrid themselves for so long that language gets passed on in such a fragmented way that their children would be hard put to converse fluently. This is exacerbated if older siblings speak only English. Other parents send their children to language school on weekends or weeknights. These are the success stories for their children, if they are lucky, will have access to a rich written heritage. Like those in other English speaking countries, I have thought for a long time that Australian children have the great disadvantage of being largely monolingual, unlike their European and, I should say, their Aboriginal cousins too.One Nation's supposed commitment to a level playing field is really an unwillingness to allow children to reap the benefits of their heritage. Membership of any non-English speaking background has both its riches and its pitfalls, but the One Nation ranks do not apparently abound with the maturity required to accept that level of ambiguity.17:18:004341Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The Howard government has taken $3.6 billion out of public health in cutbacks to hospitals, dental services, pharmaceutical benefits and Medicare, and has put back less than $2 billion—leaving a net reduction in funding to public health of $1.6 billion. The Howard government has taken $3 billion out of primary and secondary university and TAFE colleges and this year has put back less than $100 million. The community is saying in every state that Howard is failing to deliver on health and education. When it comes to public education and public hospitals, soft Liberal voters in key marginal seats are saying that Howard neither cares nor understands.The Howard government has taken $800 million out of child care and not put one cent back. The Howard government has cut jobs programs by $1.8 billion while youth unemployment is at 27.1 per cent and rising. How can the Howard government explain that GDP will fall from 3.25 per cent to three per cent yet employment growth will increase from 1.25 per cent to 1.75 per cent? The figures do not add up. Standard and Poors, the financial rating agency, argues that the Howard government's projections are optimistic. They argue that economic growth and the current account deficit are likely to be worse in 1998- 99 than forecast in the budget. The Howard government's economic forecasts are based on Australia's trading partners in Asia growing by four per cent in 1999. Given the recent events in Indonesia, that is unlikely.The Australian dollar is hovering between the US60-62c mark and the current account deficit is at record levels. Since March 1996, the level of foreign debt has worsened by $28 billion. It is forecast to grow by $31 billion in the next financial year. The Howard government's response to the current account deficit has been to put on black shirts, balaclavas and dogs on chains in our workplaces and provide $250 million to two well-known Melbourne crooks, Chris Corrigan and Peter Scanlon, who are currently under investigation by the National Crime Authority, in their attempts to sack 1,400 workers simply because they happen to belong to a trade union.Mr Rob Henderson, chief economist at Dresdner Kleinwort Benson, was quoted on page 38 of the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 25 May as saying that he expected the Australian dollar to fall to US61c within the next couple of months but went on to say, and I quote:If by the end of May commodity prices fall as they have at the beginning of the month, I have to revise that down to US60c.That is what market economists were saying before the crisis but after the government's budget. What that says is that out there in the markets they could see that the projections of the Howard government in its budget were soft, and that is being kind. The government is ignoring the current account deficit because it knows that if there is a further deterioration in the value of the Australian dollar, due to a further reduction in commodity prices, or because of external factors such as the continuation of the Indonesian crisis, a devaluation of the Chinese yuan, or a recession in Japan, the Reserve Bank will have to intervene and put interest rates up prior to the election.What has happened on the markets is that the Chinese have said that they will not allow their currency to be devalued: they will stand behind it. Those are brave words. It did not work for the UK and it has not worked for any of the other Asian currencies. If market sentiment turns against the Chinese currency, it will not work for them. The consequences of a devaluation in the Chinese currency will have significant further ramifications for Australia and our prospects on all fronts.If interest rates were to increase before the end of the year, and it is now emerging as a distinct possibility, everybody in the community would presume this to be the commencement of a series of interest rate increases and not just an isolated event. The last thing the government wants to talk about is the current account crisis or how to deal with it, because they know that if it leads to the need for interest rate increases—as is now emerging as a possibility—it will destroy confidence in the housing market and in the Treasurer. This would cost votes in key marginal seats where there has already been a significant reduction in support because of the severity of cutbacks in health, education and jobs programs over the past two years.The government must be held accountable for the turnaround in our trading performance. The current account deficit in elaborately transformed manufactures is currently $15 billion per annum and will grow to $46 billion by the year 2005. Growth in exports of elaborately transformed manufactures is dependent on research and development expenditure. Growth in business spending on research and development, which reached an all-time record of $4.3 billion in 1996, has now stopped growing for the first time in 10 years following the cuts to R&D support by this government two years ago.As the Business Council of Australia indicated in their submission to the Mortimer inquiry:. . . the cuts to certain key business programs (eg DIFF tax concession for R&D . . . ) for short-term revenue purposes are counter-productive, as they adversely affect the international competitiveness of Australian industry and in most cases fail to recognise the legitimate role of government in overcoming market failure.I want to repeat that: the Business Council of Australia have actually said—certainly the first time that I have ever heard them—that they recognise the legitimate role of government in overcoming market failure. That is quite an extraordinary statement coming from the Business Council. I wanted to emphasise that. They go on to say:The actions also create medium term damage to business investment and confidence and have highlighted an ad hoc and incoherent approach to industry and investment policy.That is the Business Council talking about this government's ad hoc and incoherent approach to industry and investment policy. Further, a report for the Australian Business Foundation by the Allen Consulting Group stated:. . . Support for R&D stood out as the most important Government program. This reflects the nature of firms included in the survey, virtually all of whom have a high commitment to R&D. Given their size, which tends to be weighted to medium sized large companies, the survey firms tend to be intensive users of the R&D tax concession.In 1996 the government removed $2 billion in research and development concessions. In December 1997, as a consequence of the manufacturing industry's reaction to the 1996 budget cutbacks, the government announced the introduction of the R&D START program which has proved to be a bureaucratic nightmare with little of the $55 million having been spent. No money can be spent under the R&D START program until a public servant decides that the research project has merit. So we have the minister for industry sitting in judgment and picking winners, instead of the marketplace, and this scheme has the approval of Treasury. It does not make sense and it will not work.The government has removed tariffs on IT and telecommunications imports, but it has retained the three per cent duty it imposed in 1996 on goods previously imported duty free under tariff concession orders. I will come back to that a little later. The duty is purely a revenue raiser, and the government has admitted as much.This year's exports of elaborately transformed manufactures will grow by only seven per cent—compared with 16 per cent in recent years—because of the Asian crisis. Moreover, if the government does not achieve its surplus forecasts, industry believes there will be further cuts. The net effect of the Asian crisis and the lack of commitment by the Howard government to the manufacturing sector will be reduction in investment and consequent lower growth in the economy.What have a couple of the major manufacturers had to say directly? I would like to read a couple of quotes from the CEOs of some different companies around Australia. Mr Brian McNamee, CEO of CSL, said:In the pharmaceutical industry competitiveness requires that R&D projects are carried forward as quickly as possible. The reduction of the 150% R&D tax concession will reduce the speed with which CSL can carry out R&D.The cutting of the 150% R&D tax concession in the 1996-97 Budget sent the unfortunate message to industry that it is better to go back to producing imitative products based on imported technology.Mr Jim Fox, CEO of Vision Systems, said:The reduction in the 150% R&D tax concession created circumstances in which Vision Systems would look to place part of their R&D work in Malaysia where it could qualify for a 200% R&D tax concession.A number of CEOs of international corporations who would rather not be named said:In the past the 150% tax concession was the one policy instrument that Australia had that provided a clear signal of the Government's desire to attract R&D based, knowledge-intensive industries. The cutting of the tax concession, without prior consultation or analysis, reduced its signalling effect to potential investors.That is from the mouths of large industry that maintain large employment in this country. They are saying that the cuts in this area are starting to have their impact now and, if things are left as they are at the moment, they will just go from bad to worse. In 1996 the Howard government cut support for private sector research and development by $2.5 billion. The reduction in tax concession available for research and development from 150 to 125 per cent and the abolition of the syndication scheme represents a $2.12 billion cut over four years to 1999-2000. The 1998 announcement of $556 million for the research and development START program over the next four years will still leave a budget cut of $1.75 billion for private sector research and development over those four years.The announcement in this year's budget of $173.6 million over four years for medical research will enable the National Health and Medical Research Council simply to maintain its 1998 calendar year level of grant funding in future years. The announcement does not represent an increase in real funding; it represents a continuation of existing funding which would have lapsed as the five-year program concluded.Contrast this circumstance with what is occurring in the United States. It is very important for the government to look around the world to find out what is happening, especially in the United States. New legislation introduced in the US Senate proposes to increase funding for basic non-defence, scientific and engineering research from $34 billion in 1999 to $68 billion by the year 2008. So in those nine years the US is going to increase funding by almost double in this area. The legislation is bipartisan. It has the support of President Clinton and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. The legislation provides for the doubling in research expenditure over the 10-year period. This initiative sends a clear signal that the United States intends to maintain its position as the technological leader of the world.Contrast the scale of the bipartisan initiative in the United States and its message to investors and manufacturers with the direction of the Howard government and federal Treasury. The conclusion has to be that, on the science and technology policy, the United States Democrat government, with the wholehearted and enthusiastic support of the Republicans, is going in one direction and prepared to put billions of dollars into research while our government is not simply failing to lead but also cutting back funding to the same areas. One government is embarking on a program of growth; the other one of cost cutting.The federal budget reinforces the ideology of the Howard-Costello government. What we are witnessing for the first time in Australian history by conservative governments is not just a reduction in spending in real terms on health, education and jobs but also a removal of a commitment to the public sector, a removal of a commitment to the public good. Recent polling in Victoria in federal seats has produced record levels of support for the ALP on a two-party preferred basis. The level of support is higher than in 1983. You just have to pick up any of the major newspapers that produce a poll in Victoria at the moment and they will all show you that. During the Mitcham state by-election campaign the Labor Party produced a pamphlet saying that Kennett was not delivering on health and education.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Order! Senator Conroy, would you refer to the Premier of Victoria by his proper title.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Boofhead? No, I couldn't do that.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No. Would you please withdraw that remark.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I withdraw. The Labor Party produced a pamphlet saying that Premier Kennett was not delivering on health and education. The response from swinging voters was that Prime Minister Howard and Premier Kennett not only were not delivering on health and education but also did not care or understand. Hamer and Fraser had a commitment to the public sector.Prime Minister Howard, Premier Kennett and the Institute of Public Affairs have been saying and are now acting on the ideology that a dollar spent in the public sector is waste and that if you work in the public sector you are a bad person but if you work in the private sector you are a good person. Premier Kennett and Prime Minister Howard are opposed to and are running down public hospitals, state schools, the public transport system and jobs programs and are closing every hospital and school they can lay their hands on. The reaction from the electorate in Victoria is at record levels. It surpasses anything that occurred in 1982 when John Cain was elected and in 1983 when Bob Hawke was elected.There was nothing new in the budget on unemployment. All the Treasurer did in his budget speech was to reannounce all the programs that are currently in existence. It is clear that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister now recognise that none of those programs have any real effect and they have no new ideas for the long-term unemployed or the youth of this country. Unemployment remains at an unacceptably high level. The government's forecasts are unreliable and the prospects are for a further increase in unemployment over the next year. Even today's papers reveal that a survey of business expectations conducted by the Bureau of Statistics predicts that employment will slump by 0.7 per cent in the September quarter and will continue falling next year.The jobs downturn predicted by the survey is the sharpest slump in four years and comes despite record job vacancies. The article goes on to say:Profits were expected to slump by 1 per cent in the coming quarter, with the earnings of small businesses down by 7 per cent.. . . . . . . . .By June 1999, employment growth was expected to be running at minus 0.5 per cent.While a number of business surveys have predicted a grim outlook for the economy, the bureau survey is regarded as the most comprehensive of its kind.But last week Treasury officials stood by their employment forecasts, notwithstanding the Asian crisis since the budget and notwithstanding Japan virtually being, if not technically, in recession. Treasury officials last week tried to put their finger in the dike and say, `This is still working. These budget forecasts are still accurate.' How do they expect anybody to believe them?Two weeks ago I was lucky enough to visit a couple of manufacturing plants in Melbourne. One produces drill parts for manufacture locally and overseas and does some retooling of other companies' drill parts and the other produces abrasives. Their anecdotal evidence to me was frightening. They took me for a walk through their plants. They took me into rooms that they said were almost full six months ago. They were almost empty now.They even looked a little embarrassed to say, `The cutbacks have already started. Our own export orders have been cancelled. Our customers in Australia that we retool for for their export orders started to cancel as well.' To quote them, `the December quarter is looking like a bloodbath'. The MTIA survey that was done last week backed up that anecdotal evidence. It said that this country, particularly in the manufacturing sector, is in real trouble in the next few months. Treasury officials last week tried to pretend to the parliament that there was no need to change their forecasts before the Indonesian crisis and before people realised how much trouble Japan was in.Recently, I was lucky enough to hear a speech by the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Stephen Grenville. He talked about a number of issues. He talked about capital flows. It was interesting. Senator George Campbell, you would have appreciated it. He quoted the Chile example, which we might want to talk about at another time. In particular, he stressed that he believed that the RBA official figures about Japan were a little optimistic. He went on to say that his personal opinion was that the Japanese economy was going into recession. As the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, Mr Evans, said last week, it is not just the World Bank but our own bureaucrats here in Australia who are prepared to tell the truth—that Japan is in real trouble. If Japan is in real trouble, the Treasury forecasts of where we are going have to be rubbery. (Time expired)17:38:004345Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—This year's budget was greeted by the press with some relief in terms of education. The view expressed was that education had emerged relatively unscathed. That relief was predicated on the assumption that education in this budget had received relatively few new cuts. The real story is much more serious than that, because the real damage has been done over the course of this parliament.The amount of $4.2 billion has been ripped out of the education budget by this government, and those cuts are continuing in the foundations of this current budget. The forward estimates highlight that between the period 1996-97 to 2001-02 there will be a drop of six per cent in real terms in education expenditure in Australia; a 20.6 per cent cut for higher education; a 3.2 per cent cut for vocational education and training; a 1.3 per cent cut in real terms for schools, particularly public schools; and a reduction of 5.9 per cent for student assistance.Those simple statistics, as horrific as they are, highlight that this government has no strategic vision for investing in this country's education and training. It has no view of what should occur in the future for education in this country other than to say that the Commonwealth will retreat from its responsibilities, will abrogate its responsibilities, to Australians and future generations of Australians in terms of Commonwealth expenditure on education across all sectors.What this government has done is focus almost solely on lowering costs, regardless of the implications for quality. This is no more apparent than in the case of TAFE and, in particular, the vocational education and training sectors more generally. The coalition platform before the last election said that a national plan for TAFE—I want to emphasise that it was for TAFE, not for VET—would be produced by this government. Now that we are on the eve of yet another election, we are entitled to ask: where is that plan? It is nowhere to be seen. In the meantime, thousands of Australians have missed out on places at TAFE colleges, and Commonwealth expenditure will fall by almost eight per cent between 1997-98 and 2001-02 in real terms.The Australian vocational education and training system has undergone significant changes since the creation of the Australian National Training Authority. The move towards a greater national emphasis in planning and policy is one that I personally welcome. It is obviously superior to the regime that occurred prior to the creation of ANTA. In recent times this government has not been able to meet the challenges that are required to develop a truly national vocational education and training regime in this country. This government does not have the breadth of vision that is required to steer the vocational education and training system through to the next century. The lasting legacy of this myopic approach will be confusion amongst employers, workers and prospective students.In recent times, we have seen the release of yet another national strategy for vocational education and training. On this occasion, a strategy was agreed to on 22 May 1998 at the Brisbane meeting of the ministerial council. What I understand to be the situation is that, while this national strategy was agreed to by ministers, the government has yet to release it. It remains still a secret strategy. What I am looking forward to is the public release of this national strategy. What we are waiting for is a commitment from government to actually support such a strategy with adequate funding. I think we will be waiting in vain for that.We have seen a strategy outlined by various leaks in the press. Quite clearly, the minister himself has sought to leak his own secret strategies, according to reports last week in the Australian dated Wednesday, 24 June. He is obviously concerned about the level of public debate and the concern that has been expressed regarding the fact that the government has failed to formally and publicly release this document.Despite the drawn out process of developing this strategy, despite the fact that there have been complaints about the exclusive nature of some of those consultations and despite the fact that public educational institutions, particularly in the case of Canberra, have missed out on the opportunity to put their views, essentially we have seen an attempt to rebottle old wine, to recommit previous policies in a new format which does not address those basic questions that I referred to earlier, that is, the lack of resourcing to back them up.The equity objective, originally `to overcome the skill development and recognition problems for target groups', was changed to `achieving equitable outcomes in VET'. That is a much less specific objective, which will no doubt be used by governments to avoid placing too much emphasis on equity and access issues in terms of future vocational educational policies.The objective that related to increasing industry's contribution started in the consultation process as an attempt `to increase investment in training by industry'. By the time ministerial approval was granted, it had become `increasing investment in training'. That is a substantial difference which, I might add, significantly reduces the obligation upon industry—even as it is narrowly defined by this government—to meet its obligations to facilitate the national vocational education and training agenda of this country. Running through this document is a commitment by government that everybody else should pay except employers and the government, particularly the Commonwealth government. When it comes to the government's friends in business, particular protections are made.In general terms, the future direction of vocational education and training boils down to some simple issues. The first question is whether adequate funding has been provided by governments. The KPMG report into the costing and resourcing of new apprenticeships early in the life of this government highlighted that this program was substantially underfunded, and there has been no recourse through this budget to alleviate that problem. The government has not sought to provide substantial additional money, but it has reduced the real expenditure for vocational education and training. We have a government with the expectation that the states will provide additional moneys. While some 400,000 additional places are required, it is expected that the growth for TAFE, in particular, will be funded through efficiencies.That leads to the second question that I will raise in this area—that is, the impact that such underfunding has on the quality of services provided by vocational education and training providers, be they public or private in the current regime. That equally leads to my concern about the level of skilling—and deskilling, in particular—that may arise with the new regime that has been imposed by this government. That has seen a movement away from traditional apprenticeship training and a movement towards new forms of training packages. That highlights a limited and more narrow focus on traineeships, rather than the broadly based apprenticeship models we have seen in the past.The third area that arises from these considerations is the extent to which this government is prepared to privatise the TAFE sector in this country and undermine the capacity of communities to enjoy the benefits of a publicly funded social infrastructure. The fourth issue relates to the question of management and priorities. The strategic vision, if you want to call it that—and I use the term loosely—is predicated on the assumption that industry led models should be applied, by which it is meant that employer led models should become the norm.No matter how you look at the national strategy, it falls down on these basic questions, especially in view of the fact that so much has been cut from the budget over the lifetime of this government. That has undermined the capacity of our public institutions to meet their obligation to provide high quality public education in the vocational education and training arena.The system is facing a critical shortage of funds, and that has been identified in consultancy after consultancy by this government. In fact, it is consultants who are relied upon these days because so much has been cut from the Public Service. Some 83 per cent of the department's public servants have been removed as a result of the various budgetary decisions of this government.The objectives around quality, equity and industry contributions have been compromised. The government's projections as to what it believes will be the Commonwealth's budgetary objectives have been reduced as a result of relying upon a reduction of the unit cost of the provision of training to the lowest common denominator, as determined by its various benchmark studies which highlight that Victoria has the cheapest training available in Australia. Despite the fact that Australia is a very diverse society in terms of both its demography and geography, the government expects that all costs can be reduced to that of Victoria, no matter what consequences such actions will have on the quality of services provided. I think the reliance on the cheapest and nastiest form of provision will have serious long-term implications for the quality of education provision across Australia. What we have is the Commonwealth relying heavily upon its capacity to inflict upon the states its agenda and its obsession with the reduction in cost at the expense of the provision of a broadly based training regime.Equally, in terms of the provision of education, the government has a very narrow view of what should be undertaken within our public institutions. For instance, with the introduction of user choice, the Commonwealth has removed the standard and widely accepted convention that governments do have an obligation to fund infrastructure, equipment and staff for public vocational education and training institutes and an obligation to ensure that there are opportunities to achieve economies of scale—but not at the expense of providing support for smaller regional colleges. That is particularly important in the so-called outlying states—that is, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.Measures have now been adopted by state governments to follow the direction as set by the Commonwealth, whereby there is an amalgamation of institutes and universities, with the consequent loss of choices available for people in the state of Victoria. That is a model that will be followed inevitably by conservative governments around the country if this government is re-elected, because that is the policy direction that this government will force all states to follow simply because it is relying upon a funding model which assumes that the lowest cost equals the best process by which one should deliver educational services. As I said, Victoria has a different demography and geography and that logic does not necessarily apply on all occasions.Equally, you are seeing an attempt by governments to introduce, by way of their user choice models, measures to actually undermine those public institutions, particularly in places like Victoria. So not only are TAFE institutes facing the threat, the challenge, of having to cope with reduced overall resources, the prospect of having to combine with universities, which effectively undermines their capacity to provide their unique services, but also are having to meet the prospect of competition from smaller, private providers who do not have an obligation to provide those community service obligations such as libraries, student counselling facilities and a range of other programs that public institutions have to provide.In due course, this will be a cost which all of us will have to bear because there will come a point where those public institutions will be required to recapitalise. If you go to institutes such as the one in Wodonga where they have massive capital investments in terms of industry programs designed to facilitate employment in the timber industry, you will find that huge amounts of public investment have been provided over the years by governments.If under this government's policy, or the logical conclusions drawn from this government's policy, those programs are wound down over time, one has to ask, `Who will provide that infrastructure, that capital investment, that is required to replace the resources that were once provided by public institutions?' You can be certain that private providers operating on a much lower unit cost, but at a much cheaper cost structure with much lower quality, will not be interested in providing a range of facilities that has broader application in any particular community.You will see that the facilities provided by fly-by-night operators will move into areas that were once regarded as the exclusive terrain of a regional college. It may well be the case that, in the short term, regional colleges believe they have a monopoly in terms of services provided in their particular locality. Increasingly, universities are moving into the vocational area, and fly-by-night operators are moving into the vocational area a long way from where they are based.Equally, it is only a matter of time before we will see more of the sort of `ship of fools' example being exposed. In south Queensland, a cruise ship company went broke operating in conjunction with a private provider from Melbourne. The cruise line training program operating out of Melbourne was not providing adequate infrastructure to support people undertaking courses in that particular entity. They were left high and dry when they found that the training provider did not have the proper credentials and that the jobs that were supposed to be available were not available at the conclusion of any particular training package.In reality, over 90 per cent of vocational education and training is still provided by public institutions in this country. This government is doing its level best to undermine the capacity of public institutions to provide that. While many very good courses are offered it is unfortunate that too often complaints are made about what I regard as cheap and nasty training packages. I notice in the second reading speech of the accompanying bill that is to be introduced to this parliament that the overwhelming bulk of training packages are still in the developmental stage, despite the fact that a whole new training regime had commenced on 1 January this year.In the evidence that is coming to me, I am noticing that there has been an increasing trend for unscrupulous employers to use the new training agenda, the new training packages as we see them, as cheap forms of labour substitution. A new device is being developed by unscrupulous employers to see that fully qualified, fully trained, workers—often mature age workers—are being directed into training programs at a much lower rate of pay, a training wage, than they would be entitled to be paid under any reasonable award.That sort of scandal will be exposed, and it will bring great discredit to our national training infrastructure in this country. Quite clearly, it is a direct result of the decline in the quality of services provided as a result of this government's policies to move away from a genuine national commitment to ensuring that all Australians have access to high quality educational services.I am particularly concerned about the impact that such measures have on individual workers. It is all very well for business to talk about its responsibilities. We have yet to see large sections of Australian industry actually putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to training in this country. The larger employers still remain committed. BHP and the other big corporations still remain committed. But all too often, particularly in the building industry, we are seeing a decline in the commitment to what should be a public obligation to ensure the protection of a national skills base of any particular industry and of the Australian economy. For individual workers, the question of deskilling that results from poor policy decisions is of critical importance and ought to be a matter that this parliament takes very seriously as well.17:58:004349Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—The Howard government's third budget, delivered by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) last month, exposed the policy void of the coalition parties, which has provided a fertile environment for the simplistic and racist solutions of the One Nation Party. Since the election of the Howard government, Australians have witnessed the performance of a weak and out of touch Prime Minister leading a coalition which stands for very little other than union busting and making the lives of Australian people a misery.There has been the dismissal of eight frontbenchers for poor accountability. There has been the crusade against the Maritime Union of Australia. There is the plan to take Telstra completely out of public ownership. Regrettably, there has also been community division on issues such as native title. This government has promoted that division, through its references to black armband views of history and an Aboriginal industry, which has resulted in the process of legitimising the One Nation organisation.Even in this budget the coalition has been caught out pandering to its threatened constituency of farmers and self-funded retirees. Unfortunately for the Howard government, if the result of the Queensland election is any indication, the attempt in the budget to gain back these two groups has failed well and truly. Regrettably, other sections of the community will be forced to suffer as a result of the coalition pandering to these two groups.This coalition government has become aloof and estranged from the Australian people. Nowhere is this more evident than in the past three budgets. The first two were slash and burn efforts across a range of portfolio areas. This budget has put back only the barest minimum to many sectors of the community, which have been left reeling from a heartless and mean-spirited government.I want to speak about how this budget and this government are failing the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our community. In its first two budgets, the Howard government ripped $400 million out of the disabilities sector. In this latest budgetary effort, there has been a return of only $89 million to the area of disabilities, $80 million of which will go into the Commonwealth-state disability agreement. In 1992, the previous Labor government embarked on a massive plan of unifying the states and Commonwealth in addressing the funding and other needs of the disability services sector in our community. The signing of the first Commonwealth-state disability agreement was a landmark achievement which promised much for people with disabilities, their carers and their families. The federal Labor government put in place a series of multilateral arrangements so that, regardless of which state a person with a disability lived in, that person could be expected to receive a minimum standard of service and funding.Unfortunately, a change of government has delivered a dark cloud over the disabilities sector. We have witnessed prolonged and incompetent negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states over a new Commonwealth-state disability agreement. This has resulted in uncertainty and distress for disability groups and their members and made a mockery of the coalition government's pre-election commitments to this sector.The 18 months it took the Howard government to reach an agreement with the states speaks volumes for just what level of priority the coalition places on providing services to people with disabilities. This budget is further evidence of the low priority the Howard government places on people with disabilities and the disability sector. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported earlier this year that $294 million of unmet need was existing in disability services. Amongst other matters, it found that 13,500 people with disabilities were not receiving their requirements in relation to accommodation services. It outlined how 70,000 people with severe disabilities require a meaningful day support program.Despite the obvious need for the Commonwealth to act on these figures and to work towards reducing this level of unmet need, there has been a commitment of only $10 million per annum for four years from the Commonwealth. There has also been a commitment that the Minister for Family Services will liaise with his state ministerial colleagues in 12 months to look at ways of addressing the question of unmet need.In recent budget estimates hearings, departmental officials conceded that the Commonwealth-state disability agreement is doing little to seriously address unmet needs. Departmental officials concede that the agreement is a perfect environment for buck-passing and for each level of government to blame the other. We have to ask why we continue to have a Commonwealth-state disability agreement if it does not have the authority or the determination to tackle the big national issues, such as unmet need. It is for issues such as these that the agreement was established in the first place. Instead of waiting over 12 months to sit down with state ministers over this issue, this government should have had the decency to put back into the disabilities sector the money that was pilfered out of it in the first two budgets and directly assign it to tackling the issue of unmet need. Surely a national government should be showing national leadership.The disability community is crying out for political leadership and initiative in this area. In my home state of Queensland, the former coalition government promised an additional $34 million per year over three years to assist Queenslanders with a disability. Unfortunately, Mrs Sheldon's second budget only allocated an additional $1.9 million over three years to address the existing unmet need of the disabilities sector. It has resulted in the disgraceful introduction of 40-year waiting lists for some services.The Borbidge-Sheldon neglect of key social policy areas such as this one is one reason why the coalition was deserted by the people of Queensland at the polls earlier this month. But, for people with disabilities, it is not just the issue of unmet need that is causing problems. Approximately 15,000 people have been cancelled from the child disability allowance, substantially as a result of the new tough assignment criteria to be eligible for this payment.The disability review panels for people with disabilities seeking employment have also been scrapped. They have been replaced by Centrelink staff who do not have the panel's professional and practical experience in getting people with disabilities into the work force. A key feature of the budget announcements in the social security portfolio, the new treatment of non-economic loss compensation payments, is a further burden for members of the disability community. In effect, the coalition is penalising people with disabilities who receive a non-economic loss lump sum compensation payment of more than $10,000. In many cases, this disadvantages people who legitimately receive compensation for such matters as pain and suffering arising as a result of an accident or injury of some type.This government is heartlessly ignoring the fact that these people have often been waiting for a period of several years for this payment. It is also ignoring the fact that many people have no choice other than to receive the payment as a lump sum. As a result, they are losing their payment, usually the disability support pension, for a period of up to 12 months. However, by far the worst consequence of the coalition government's initiative is an issue which was revealed in a budget estimates hearing. People with disabilities who receive a lump sum payment which specifies that a certain amount be set aside for modifications to a person's home—for instance, wheelchair ramps, handrails in baths and toilets, et cetera—are also susceptible to losing their payment.As a result of losing their disability support pension or another payment, people who require extensive home modifications are obviously going to reduce expenditure on the required capital works, as they will be required to use a significant proportion of this specific compensation award to meet their daily needs. This is the approach the coalition government has imposed on the disability sector. It is an approach of compromise and mean-spirited penny pinching at the expense of the genuine needs of vulnerable people.In essence, Treasurer Costello's third budget has witnessed the culmination of the coalition's cruel hoax on people with disabilities and their families. As I said earlier, unfortunately this sector of the community is one of a number of groups which have paid the price for the coalition's failed political pandering to its supporters who have been changing to the One Nation Party.For all its glib lines like `back in the black' and `back on track', this has really been a non-event budget in terms of constructive initiatives for the Australian people. For this government, the main game has always been the introduction of a GST and the full sale of Telstra. It is a pity, because the signal most Australians are trying to send to government is: `Deliver for us on health and education issues. Give us access to affordable child care, and help us get jobs.' In all these key areas—the real areas of interest to the majority of Australians—this budget, like this government, has been an abject failure.There is not one extra dollar in this budget for Australia's public hospital system. There is not one extra dollar in this budget for dental health, despite the continuing expansion of waiting lists for emergency and preventative dental care. And there is not one new idea to address the continuing decline in private health insurance, which the budget concedes will continue to fall again this year despite the mass subsidisation of this industry by Australian taxpayers.The picture does not get any better in relation to education and employment, with a 12.5 per cent reduction in the DEETYA budget as a result of previous cuts to higher education and employment program funding. The budget has failed to do anything for the university and TAFE sector, which bore the brunt of the coalition's viciousness in its first two budgets, and it is now $3 billion short of what it was when Labor left office in March 1996.Just as disturbing is that not one cent of the over $800 million which has been ripped out of the child-care sector over the past two years will be put back into the sector. That means that fees will continue to rise, even more women will be forced to give up their jobs, or women from low income households will not bother to look for jobs because it would not be worth it. Centres will continue to close and backyard and unlicensed operators will keep thriving.In all these crucial areas of social policy, where the majority of Australians are almost begging for political support, this coalition government, as evidenced by this budget, has walked away. On 1 July, the government's much vaunted and highly publicised youth allowance will come to fruition. The budget paper outlines that $428 million over four years will be taken away from unemployed 18- to 21-year-olds who are in families earning more than $23,400.The Howard government has touted this initiative as its crowning achievement in social policy during its term in office as it means that young Australians going from study to unemployment and vice versa will not have to fill out another form or make another application. It is my feeling that, come 1 July, when young people and their parents realise the full implications of this policy and what it is doing to their already struggling family budgets, the thought of saving time by not completing another form will be the last matter on their minds.Those families will be asking where they are going to find the additional money to support their 20-year-old son or daughter and why a 20-year-old person who lives away from home is not considered to be independent. When this realisation occurs, all the glossy advertisements will not do anything to prevent this initiative putting the youth of Australia and their families against the wall.Wednesday, 1 July will also be the commencement date for another Howard government initiative which will erode the quality of life of Australians. From this date, award conditions will be stripped away to leave only 20 allowable matters, regardless of whether or not there is agreement at the workplace between employees and management to the contrary. This will result in the further marginalisation of young people, regional and rural workers, and people in casual and part-time employment who are frequently without union representation and are conscious of conforming with their employer in order to maintain their jobs.Over the period of the Howard government, its leadership weakness and its inability to develop innovative social policy with compassion and decency has led to major disenchantment in the community. That, in turn, has provided a fertile ground for appallingly dangerous organisations to flourish—organisations like One Nation, which provides simplistic theories. It is time for the political and social agenda in this country to get back to fairness and stability. Only a future Labor government will bring about this situation through real leadership and creative policy initiatives.18:15:004352Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I rise to address the appropriation bills by way of some comments on a couple of areas which are of major concern in our community. The concern relates to a number of things but, principally, it is, firstly, that this government has made the mistakes and, secondly, that it utterly fails to recognise them. It is one thing to make a mistake or to introduce a policy and get it wrong, or to get into some kind of mess with it, but it is another to flatly refuse to have any regard for the consequences of those decisions—in other words, for the mistakes you have made.The other thing this government has done, almost under cover of darkness, is to cut away a whole range of services that people in this country very much believe in. It is almost as much as saying that Australians believe in fairness and equity and they also believe in government participation in services, in particular in Medicare, educational opportunities, training and child care—some of the areas that I would like to address tonight.People in the community are anything but amused at all these services being cut back, very significantly cut back. There has been a major reduction in government funding in all of those areas, and all we hear from the ministers is, `You've got the figures wrong,' or, `Don't you understand we are doing more?' or, in some cases, `Well, now that we've privatised those things, they will survive or fail. It is not for us to interfere in those private sector arrangements.' I have to tell you that private sector providers, but in particular the community that depends on those services, are anything but amused. They are very angry and they are hurting.I want to read a letter from a Queensland private child-care operator. I asked a question the other day with reference to the quotes in this letter and had it batted back in terms of, `You don't understand, Senator, there are many more child-care places,' et cetera. It is as if the government is absolutely blind and deaf to what is going on in child care. I will read some of the comments in this letter, which is actually a copy of a letter sent to Ms De-Anne Kelly MP. As I have not asked the person who wrote it if I may cite his name—I have been unable to actually address that matter—I will not do so, but I think the points in it are very important. He wrote:Shortly after we took on the business—of owning a private child-care centre—we had a change of Government which we directly blame for our current financial crisis today. Your Government—Remember, this letter is addressed to a member of the coalition—has cut to bits the funding once provided to a vibrant industry. Now we are faced with doom and gloom. Whether you would like to admit it or not, the cuts made have directly resulted in a great downturn in the number of parents willing to enrol in childcare. It is TOO expensive. With the twenty hour limit in place and shortly the assistance percentages are to be lowered, parents can't afford to place their children in childcare. Why is it that there is a freeze on the Government's hourly rate for assistance? The Government has a $117 million surplus in the childcare budget. Doesn't this tell you something?Surely there is a visible trend depicting a decline in the amount of funds centres are claiming for assistance.He goes on to say that his centre is now running at about 55 per cent occupancy and that they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They have personally injected $30,000 worth of funds just to try to keep their business running. He also adds:We have even had to put off a full time employee to try and lower costs. Childcare is one of the largest employers in small business. Why has it been so hard hit by the Government?He finishes:I guess you can sense that we are very bitter towards the Government. Well, it feels like we have just had the rug pulled out from under our feet. There just doesn't seem to be any light on the horizon for us either. I thought the Government was an advocate for small business. Well, guess again, it is destroying the childcare industry.There is more that I could read from this letter, but that is the point made very succinctly. Private child care is now in large part running at something like 40 per cent to 50 per cent occupancy in those centres that are still surviving. The point very well made by this operator is that child care is a small business and that it is a very significant employer of women in particular, but also of men. People somehow think of child care only as providing assistance so that parents can go to work. They forget the very significant employer that child care is in itself.This industry was actually employing something like 70,000 workers at the last election. I am absolutely sure that that number is very significantly reduced. We have evidence that something like 50 community based child-care centres have closed and that a very large number of outside school hours care centres have closed. Yet the government seems to be unwilling or unable to take the data that is coming in anecdotally and appreciate the anguish and concern that is in the community.I asked a question at the estimates hearings about this matter. I have been provided with an answer that I think is clear evidence of how out of touch the government is. I asked:The Government claims that there is very little drop in the participation rate of women in the work force. At the same time, there is a significant drop in the number of child care users—some 48-50 community-based Child Care Centres have closed and many private centres are operating at 40-50 per cent occupancy, and many outside school hours care centres have closed or have reduced numbers. Given the Department's stated `Services for Children':(a) What do you understand is happening to these children? (b) Where are the children?(c) What research have you done to address this?(d) Can I have a copy of any research?The answers to (a) and (b) are:There continues to be growth in the number of children attending Commonwealth funded long day care centres—an increase of more than 17 per cent between the 1995 Census and the 1997 Census of long day care centres. Simultaneously, from 1 July 1996 to 30 April 1998 there has been a net increase in both community and private child care centres totalling 311 centres nationally. Given these broad indicators, it would appear that children can continue to access appropriate child care arrangements, including other formal child care services, following any centre closures. Outside school hours care changes have only commenced recently, and we are monitoring these reforms.As to the research, they have nothing to say at this time. But what is a very big puzzle is how departmental data can be so absolutely out of touch with what is happening in the real world. How can it be so out of touch? One of the reasons is that it is, necessarily, a little behind; it does depend on census data, and it is very hard to have an absolutely up-to-date and adequate census of an industry. But the changes have been going on for over two years.I certainly was amazed when, having had this answer provided to me, I got a call that said, `Whoops, the data provided in that answer is not correct.' Although they did not say, `Whoops,' that was the sentiment and, as I had heard my colleague Senator West say before that the data provided in answers to questions on notice from the Department of Social Security has been amended two, three and four times, I thought, `Oh, well; it's another correction.' You will be pleased to know that I got a further, `Whoops. No, we weren't wrong. It's actually right, so you can rest assured.' I have to tell you that I do not rest assured at all. First it was wrong, now it is right, and anyhow it is heroically out of touch with what is going on in the community.I would love to say to the person who sent me a copy of the letter from Queensland, `Dear Sir, the government says there are more centres opening than ever before, and that there are more places for children, and it does not seem to have any understanding of why there is $127 million of child-care assistance not claimed. I would love to know how the government can possibly expect that more children are using child care, but there is a significant underspend of child-care assistance for those very same children.' The data is a matter of the greatest concern, and I am sure that those of us who are interested in this area will be pursuing why the data is so out of touch with what is happening in the real world.I suggest that the government members, who must surely be feeding some of this information back to the appropriate ministers, be urged to take up the battle even more, because it is a major concern when the people who previously argued with what the Labor government was doing in child care are now strenuously opposed to the current practices or changes and cutbacks in child care. I certainly believe that this is a matter for us to pursue much more closely in subsequent estimates. In the meantime, I think it is a clear indication of a government so out of touch. The recent Queensland poll shows just what that means in terms of election results and why the government should be very concerned in this area before it faces the electorate on the matter of child care.In the few minutes remaining, I would also like to take up the same pattern of a government so deaf and blind to the evidence in front of its eyes in the area of the replacement of the CES with Employment National and Job Network. In my own state of South Australia this is evidence of research provided through the Advertiser which, as I have said on the record before, is anything but a lefty Labor Party newspaper. If this newspaper is seriously looking at the issues of concern, doing its research and so on, you would think that the government would want to take serious notice of this.I am particularly concerned by quotes that tell you what people who are looking for jobs now have to do. With 73,900 jobless, South Australia has the highest rate of unemployment in the nation. It is a figure that the minister at the table tonight would not want to boast about. It is particularly concerning because people who are supposed to be assisted to get work through this new system are finding it impossible. The Advertiser of 22 June 1998, at page 4, said:The jobless fill out new social security forms, wait for job seeker identification numbers, fill out more forms to link with private employment service providers, go to Jobsearch seminars, drop off their resumes, and hope their luck will change.That, I believe, is one way in which you could measure the chaos and confusion out there.There is another matter that I am pursuing. I have not got the final information here tonight, but one organisation that was successful in the Job Network tendering was an organisation called Hospitality Horizons. As an organisation out of Sydney, it won tendering for $15 million. I discovered on an unemployment hearing in regional South Australia that it has responsibility for providing Job Network in Port Augusta. I have sought information about the Job Network members in Port Augusta. For the intensive assistance known in shorthand as FLEX 3, I can see none provided in Port Augusta, one of the areas that Hospitality Horizons has responsibility for.When we were in Port Augusta that was what people complained about. They said that the services that were supposed to be there to assist the local community were not on the ground. I cannot tell you the date of this information that I have had provided to me, but it comes off the Internet on 29 June 1998 so it is today's data. I cannot be sure how up to date the information on that page is. I could be corrected, and I certainly would accept that if that were the case, but, as I read it from the ticks and information here, there are some FLEX 1 and FLEX 2 services in Port Augusta, but none for FLEX 3—the long-term unemployed needing the most assistance. Can you imagine why somebody in Sydney would be charged with providing job networks in Port Augusta? That is a very good question in the first place. I want to follow up why Hospitality Horizons, which won a $15 million tender out of Sydney to provide services, has so far failed to deliver anything. As I understand it, there are no services on the ground in Port Augusta. The government should listen to what people are saying—that there is chaos, confusion and anxiety in Job Network. It is not the solution that the government thinks it is. It is not listening to the people at its own peril. People are telling us, `This government is disregarding and uncaring about the concerns of people in the community at its own peril.'Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:004355Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—In rising tonight to speak on the appropriation bills, I particularly want to address a speech given in the other place by the member for Oxley. I want to do this because I believe that, although she was interrupted on a number of occasions, she was indeed addressing appropriations, if in a very negative way. In looking at her speech, I want to address another issue which has been raised on many occasions, and that is the accusation that One Nation is a fascist party. I want to do this not necessarily by using `fascist' in a pejorative way but simply to examine whether or not in classical terms One Nation could be described as a fascist party. I want to establish that in fact in classical, technical terms it is a fascist party.I do this by picking up some of the classic elements of fascism of the 1920s and 1930s. There is a lot of debate about what constitutes fascism. In terms of the 1920s and 1930s it was things like militarism and the corporate state—which was certainly a feature of Italian fascism but seems to have been adopted very widely by Western democracies these days, so I hardly think that that distinguishes One Nation. Militarism is something that is very much in their vocabulary, because they would increase police forces, prisons and all the rest of it, and do violence to many sections of our community. But I do not think that either of those issues defines fascism in terms of One Nation as clearly as the issue of racism and the way racism is used by this party to establish the enemy.In classical fascism, the feature which is very significant—and perhaps the most significant in the 1920s and 1930s—was the ability of the fascist parties throughout the world, not just in Germany and Italy but in Australia and in every European nation, to establish that out there there is an enemy which is to be opposed and which can be identified, vilified, brutalised and finally eliminated as being the focus for all the ills of the nation. Of course, in the 1920s and 1930s, for the fascist that enemy was the Jews.I would like to suggest that the One Nation Party in 1998 has chosen both the Aboriginal people and Asian Australians as the focus for exactly the same strategy—to establish an enemy in the midst of social instability, in the midst of people being afraid about their financial future and about where the country is going, and feeling terribly insecure. In that kind of social climate—which was very current in the 1920s and 1930s, particularly during the Depression years—it was easy for the fascists, particularly in Germany, to create an enemy who became the focus of the hatred of the people and therefore of their political will. Of course, the one who did this most effectively of all was Adolf Hitler in Germany. But it was a feature of fascism right throughout the world.I would like to suggest to you very quickly that there are four stages in this process. The first stage is to identify the enemy. You need to have somebody you can point out to the community at large as being the focus of all that is wrong. So the enemy is projected as plotting to overthrow the traditional, and often Christian, way of life. This identification is designed to play on latent prejudice against minority groups and to reinforce a fortress mentality. These are all part of this process of identifying the enemy.I now quickly turn to the speech Ms Hanson gave in the House of Representatives on 2 June this year. She referred to the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:The complicity or, at the very least, the lack of will on the part of the federal government to encourage public examination and discussion on this threat to the Australian people is very similar to their reluctance to debate that other attack on Australians also sponsored by Labor and the coalition— you are both to blame—the MAI.Both of these treaties will take power and choice from the majority of our own people and place that power and freedom of choice firmly in the hands of foreigners and self-seeking minorities. Both of these treaties diminish Australian sovereignty and in the case of the so-called rights of the indigenous people could ultimately result in the disintegration of our nation.So you see that it is the identification of an enemy. And it is important that you identify somebody who can be the focus of the hatred, the fears, and the prejudice of people who are feeling very insecure.After identifying the enemy, the next stage is to vilify the enemy. Vilification of the enemy is to project the enemy as a foreign invader, owing no loyalty to the rest of the people, suspected of outside allegiance to forces trying to infiltrate, subvert and overthrow us. The tactic was used by a number of right-wing groups in the 1980s to try to prohibit or limit Asian immigration to Australia. Of course, again, vilification of the enemy is one of the things that Ms Hanson did in her speech. I can read a few extracts:. . . the time has come to concentrate on the dangerously and inappropriately named rights of the indigenous people. When signed, this treaty will become a permanent fixture of division. It will divide us not racially but geographically. This treaty is a treacherous sell-out of the Australian people—et cetera. Then she goes on to describe what she calls the activists of the Aboriginal industry and says:. . . those who help peddle their lies have preyed on the collective conscience of other Australians. We have seen the distortion and blame-filled confrontation of the so-called stolen generations, sorry day, sorry books, and the list goes on.In other words, vilifying the enemy is to take the one that you have identified and to heap upon them as much approbation as possible so that in the minds of people the enemy is not only identified but also vilified. That begins to take away from the enemy the ability to present themselves as belonging in any sense. By separating out the enemy and by vilification it is very clear that this again focuses people's attention, their insecurity and their fears.The next stage in the process of creating an enemy is to brutalise the enemy. Let me give you a description of what I mean by `brutalisation'. It is a step in the process in which it is possible to create a climate in which groups which have been identified and vilified can be physically abused and mistreated, and the abuse is overlooked. That is exactly the reporting that we are getting from Asian communities in Australia and from the Aboriginal people. The incidence of racial attacks, both verbal and physical, on these groups of people has escalated significantly in the last two years.So the third stage in the creation of an enemy is to brutalise that enemy. It becomes possible within that context to treat those groups of people who have been identified as though they are non-human and therefore it is possible to abuse and brutalise them without much fear of retaliation. This is what Ms Hanson did in her speech. I do not have time to go through and pull out all of the quotes but, for instance, she says:The fact is that native title is just a precursor to the establishment of a taxpayer funded Aboriginal state.I have to remind you that in the 1980s in my state of Queensland there was a gentleman by the name of Geoff McDonald who wrote a book called Red Over Black . His theory was that Aboriginal land rights was about creating sovereign Aboriginal states in the north of Australia. Then when they were created, the Aboriginal people would invite the communists to invade, they would set up bases in the states and they would be able to invade the rest of Australia. One would think that is a pretty preposterous idea, but parliamentary members of the National Party took Geoff McDonald around Queensland to public rallies in order to push this ridiculous assertion. That is what happens when you identify, vilify and brutalise somebody as the enemy.The fourth and last stage in this whole process of creating an enemy is, having done all of that, you can then eliminate the enemy because at this point it has been established in the mind of the public that the enemy is non-human or subhuman, a foreigner, vermin, subversive, likely to introduce infectious disease, et cetera. At that stage, the elimina tion of the enemy is not doing something against human beings but almost a public service.It is this kind of creation of the enemy which is very prevalent and very obvious in the speech of One Nation's leader, Ms Hanson. That is why I think it is possible to establish not just in a pejorative sense that One Nation is a fascist party, but in a technical and literally correct sense to say that this indeed is a revival of fascism of the 1920s and 1930s. This is particularly so in relation to the creation by the One Nation party of an enemy within the Australian body politic and to see the possibility of the elimination of that enemy. That is in fact their policy in terms of removing from the appropriation bills any appropriation to those Aboriginal organisations which are essential to the health of the indigenous people of this country.19:43:004357Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I wish to make some observations with respect to the 1998-99 federal budget. In particular, I want to touch upon how this budget and the preceding two budgets are ripping the heart out of Tasmania and the Tasmanian people. We have a health and unemployment crisis in Tasmania that this federal government must take most of the blame for creating.It is becoming a little tiresome when Senator Abetz comes into the Senate casting the blame at the feet of the Hawke and Keating governments for all the current problems being experienced in Tasmania. There is a sense when Senator Abetz speaks out not just of arrogance but of self-righteousness in that the coalition still deserve to be absolved from any blame for the mess and pain that Tasmania and many parts of the mainland are experiencing.Why should the coalition government be absolved from blame for an unemployment rate of 14 per cent in the electorate in which I live—Braddon—according to the latest small area labour market data? I asked that question when in March 1996 the rate was 11.5 per cent. In March 1996, the electorate of Braddon, in comparison with the other 147 electorates, was ranked 29th equal worst electorate in the country for unemployment. Should the coalition not take some of the blame for that electorate now being ranked 14th worst for unemployment in Australia?It will not be long before the electorate of Braddon hits the top 10 in the hit parade on unemployment rates. That will please all those long-term jobless and all those young unemployed people who are struggling to come to terms with the Job Network now representing the brave new world of employment. Let us not forget that there are now over 30,000 more people who have joined the ranks of the long-term unemployed than when the Treasurer announced the start of his long economic trek in 1996.In that period the proportion of people unemployed for in excess of a year has climbed from one in four to one in three. It goes without saying that there has been a mass migration of people out of Braddon. With the mill in Burnie closing there will be many more, because 280 people will lose their jobs in October. They are moving not just out of Braddon but out of Tasmania. With many other people giving up hope of finding work, the 14 per cent is a lot worse than it looks. I believe that for the young unemployed the rate is as high as 40 per cent.What torture the unemployed have had to experience on this so-called first leg of the trek they have had to travel. It has been a long forced march where along the way many battling Australians have been crippled and left behind. How can the Treasurer, Mr Costello, claim that the burdens were shared and the benefits will be shared? The problem is that those that suffered the burdens will be the same families and battlers that will receive little of the so-called benefits. They have been left behind on this forced march. There has never been an inkling that this Howard government may return to pick them up and give them a helping hand.This government stopped caring about people when the first budget was announced. It has only got increasingly worse since that first budget. The battlers will not share in the benefits. Under a GST they will always be denied that chance of recovery from what has been a difficult journey for them. The battlers do not have the benefit of a family trust which delivers to the rich a regime where minimal tax is levied. What a Labor government can promise the battlers is that they will not have to pay a GST on any of their goods or services. Labor is committed to creating jobs in regions of high unemployment and we will never leave the battlers behind.I now turn to the area of health. Why should the coalition be absolved from blame for the health crisis being faced in Tasmania? Again, Senator Abetz freed himself and his government from any blame for the health crisis in Tasmania. He did not blame the Labor Party in total this time but condemned his state Liberal colleagues and said they were misrepresenting the true picture of the contributions made by the Commonwealth. But why should the federal government be absolved from blame for axing a public dental health scheme that now has Tasmanians waiting in excess of three years for a set of dentures or some preventative dental work? Far from being blameless, why did the government, in this budget, not put some of the $2.7 billion surplus into dental care and reduce the waiting times for Tasmanians and the rest of the nation?The same goes for the denial of the Howard government for the provision of free hearing aids. Why should the federal government be absolved from blame for forcing many of our aged to pay more for prescription drugs, including blood pressure and heart condition medicines? An increasing number of people are now compelled to travel from my area on the north-west coast of Tasmania to Launceston for care and treatment unavailable on the coast. Should the government be absolved from assisting in creating that problem? I think not.Why should the federal government be absolved from ripping $30 million off the bottom line in base funding in health care grants for the 1998-99 year to Tasmania? Why should they be absolved from the fact that the Medicare negotiations have turned out to be such a frustrating and belittling experience for the Tasmanian government? In the electorate in which I live there are two major hospitals primarily serving the people of Braddon. They are under enormous pressure with their waiting lists. Some of this public hospital crisis must lie squarely at the feet of the Howard government.Let us not forget that in the coalition's first two budgets $3.6 billion was cut from the health sector. It is a shame that in this latest budget there has been a failure to resolve massive haemorrhaging of the health system. But it is to be expected, as the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), and no doubt many of his colleagues, want to preside over the demise of Medicare and bulk-billing. Again, they will probably want to be absolved from those measures.There was no message of opportunity or avenue being opened up for most Tasmanians in this budget. I have indicated that the unemployed, the sick, families and the elderly are suffering, but there are many others that have been hit hard by this government. I hope we can bring an end to this suffering and go back on the track we have been forced to follow and give them a helping hand.19:52:004359Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—In this debate on the appropriation bills I want to look at the adequacy of the funding for the ABC. The transition to digital funding is inevitable and one of the most important broadcasting advances that the whole world will undertake, and that includes Australia.The ABC, along with the commercial free to air networks, provided the government with estimates of the costs that digital conversion would involve. The latest estimation of the three commercial metropolitan networks was that the cost to the three of them together would be in the vicinity of $740 million over the initial years after commencement—say, about five years.The ABC on the other hand—a national network which broadcasts in all metropolitan and regional centres—provided the government with a funding submission for an amount of less than $180 million. This amount was broken into two phases. The first phase was for the preparation of new television studios, outside broadcast vans and transmission. For radio, it includes digital broadcast consoles, digital audio workstations, and the conversion of studios to digital. This phase one of digital conversion is for a five-year period. The total cost to the ABC of phase one is estimated to be about $108 million.So how much has the government allocated in this budget? A pathetic $20 million over the next five-year period. Yet the government has determined its whole digital policy on the burden the conversion costs will create for the commercial broadcasters. It is patently obvious that the government is allocating far, far less than the ABC will need for digital conversion, even after an independent inquiry found that the ABC's estimates were accurate and even though the government appears to accept that the metropolitan commercial networks will need to spend about $250 million each. Let me just reiterate those figures: the ABC requires $108 million for its phase one digital conversion, and the government has allocated it $20 million. The metropolitan commercial networks believe they will require about $250 million each for their conversion to digital, and the government appears to unreservedly accept that estimate.Why is the government so obviously vastly underfunding the ABC's conversion to digital? Why did the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) feel it was necessary to have a consultant review the ABC's funding submission? Why has the government slashed funding to the ABC generally? Why has the government closed down Radio Australia's state-of-the-art Darwin transmitter—the voice of Australia inside Asia—just when everyone else is increasing their short-wave presence in the region and just when we most need to speak as a nation to the ordinary people of Asia?The only explanation I can see is that many members of the cabinet have an unhealthy obsession with the ABC, because they believe the ABC to be biased. In effect, the budget allocation tells the ABC to behave. Can these allegations of bias against the ABC be substantiated? Quite simply, no. In fact, 79 per cent of all respondents to a poll commissioned by the national broadcaster earlier this year, and reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 May, stated that the ABC did a great job and was balanced and even-handed in politics. Ninety-five per cent stated that the ABC did a good job in providing reliable and accurate news and current affairs programs. How unfortunate for that 95 per cent of Australians that the five per cent of Australians who do not agree must include the cabinet members who have total control over the ABC's funding and eventually, of course, over the ABC's very existence.The ABC board requires reports on accuracy, impartiality and objectivity within the network. The board has only required these reports of the organisation since the coalition came into office. The board obviously identified very quickly what was underwriting the government's agenda. But the government simply has not been able to prove their ridiculous notion.Issues included in the current report—the three months to March 1998—covered some of the most important issues our nation has debated: native title, the Constitutional Convention, the Indonesian currency crisis and the Iraqi crisis. Since then, of course, we have had coverage of the MUA dock dispute. The government's allegations of bias against the ABC have been unrelenting ever since, including the minister's letter of complaint to the ABC's managing director, when Senator Alston knows very well that the chair of the ABC board is the person to whom he should direct his concerns.The minister has claimed that the ABC is not being scrupulous enough in ensuring their coverage of the waterfront dispute was impartial and accurate. However, Senator Alston said in an interview on Media Watch on 8 June that his main concern is that:. . . there are proper mechanisms in place to monitor—not just have nice words in the guidelines—but to ensure that the ABC recognises the importance of having the community at large see it as acting in a fair and impartial manner.The minister is also concerned that `the ABC places too much emphasis on social issues than economic issues, when clearly that is not what the vast majority of the Australian population wants.' Some of the minister's colleagues have also made this claim in recent Senate committee hearings.But what about the ABC's charter? The ABC will pursue issues which are not considered mainstream, not because it is a recalcitrant broadcaster but because its charter requires the ABC to transmit programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform, entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian population—and thank goodness they do. We live in a society; we do not live in an economy.Australians are deeply interested in social issues, in cultural issues, in the arts, in politics and in the economy. What a boring place it would be if we heard only about economic issues and sport—although sometimes I do get that feeling! And if the ABC did not offer these alternative program streams, then who would do it?The present ABC ratings are higher than they have ever been. People are choosing to watch the ABC in greater numbers than ever before. The ABC evening news service is rating second in the four main news services. Does this mean the viewing public is not able to discern what comprises a good program and that only the government understands that?The ABC's relationship with the government of the day has never been, nor should it be, a natural alliance. The ABC is accountable to the parliament, not to the government. Where a government has a direct interest in the outcome of a particular issue, its assessment of the ABC's performance will, of course, be clouded. This becomes truly dangerous though when the government links its criticism to ABC funding. And what is dangerous for the government is when the community recognises what the government is doing. The public values an independent ABC. Australians want the government to leave the ABC alone and to restore its funding base. But the minister remains steadfast in his allegations of bias against the ABC. These culminated recently in the minister attacking the adequacy of the ABC complaints handling procedures and issuing a media statement outlining a five-point plan for the ABC based on the BBC's procedures.But the ABC has an independent Complaints Review Panel which provides a review of complaints about bias, accuracy and impartiality. This is not the same body as the National Advisory Council, which Senator Tierney mistakenly confused with the Complaints Review Panel, when he said it was part of an ABC club and that five of its six members were journalists and therefore not representative of Australians. To set the record straight, the NAC is an independent statutory authority established under the ABC act. It makes its own decisions about the ABC, and it provides independent advice to the board on matters relating to broadcasting generally. It is comprised of 12 members who are selected from all walks of life after open advertising.It appears to the vast majority of Australians that the ABC broadcasts with the public interest in mind and that it remains fair to all sides of the debate, which is difficult in a politically charged atmosphere. There will always be allegations of bias made against the ABC and, more often than not, from the government—any government. But alleging bias against professional journalists who operate within the context of editorial and ethical guidelines is not very impressive.It is time for the government to stop this ridiculous, tedious and dangerous campaign to destroy the ABC. It is time to fully restore ABC funding, to re-establish Australia's short-wave voice into Asia, and to provide the ABC with the funding it requires for digital conversion in order that it can keep broadcasting to the high standard that we expect into the next century.20:00:004361Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Perhaps the best way to describe the budget is as a missed opportunity. The government had an opportunity and a chance to address some of the major issues confronting Australian society and the economy today. It could have done that through a range of innovative policies and the continued funding of proven successes. Instead, and perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly, the government took the same old route of slashing funding and withdrawing entitlements from the sectors of society that need them most. I would like to concentrate this evening on a couple of issues where the government has been quick to recognise the problem but very slow to provide answers, if any.Foremost among these is the issue of unemployment, and youth unemployment in particular. For a government which likes to claim fiscal expertise and responsibility, the coalition has been stubbornly asserting that simply relying on high growth is one way of delivering jobs for the 8.1 per cent of Australians who are still out of work. This is in the face of a financial crisis in the Asian region and the potentially looming recession and depression in Japan. The simple equation that high growth will necessarily result in lower unemployment or an increase in job creation is an extraordinary assertion when you take into account some of the other economic and social factors.The Committee for the Economic Development of Australia stated in May this year that growth would not be as high as predicted and certainly not high enough to deliver the jobs that were promised by the government. It was certainly not high enough to deliver the growth rate predicted in budget papers, let alone when the government first came to office almost three years ago. It identified investment in human capital and research and development as the means by which employment can be created. This is certainly a position that has been long advocated by the Democrats. You have to have a measure of intervention. Governments have to be positive and active in the focus of job creation.Only today it was revealed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that 3,000 businesses across Australia have indicated that they plan to cut jobs by almost one per cent in the coming year due precisely to the Asian economic crisis. Furthermore, a survey of 11 academic economists has indicated that it is very likely that Australia will be in recession for the next two years. The government clearly cannot try to perpetuate this assertion that economic growth will deliver jobs, because this is simply not going to happen.The other answer we get from government and Treasury officials when we are talking about the answer to unacceptably high levels of unemployment has been the idea of the introduction of a competitive employment services market to replace the former government run service, a universal service that was publicly funded and accessible to all. But we have now seen the absolute privatisation of employment services in this country and their replacement with a competitive market privatised employment service.It is interesting to note that the government has also treated this reform as an opportunity for cost cutting and for profit making with its service provider, Employment National, directed to make a profit at the expense of job creation. Approximately $37 million was saved through a tender process which favoured cheaper bids. This comes on top of the $1.8 million that has already been cut from the provision of employment services. With a large number of smaller providers trying to remain open—almost struggling to remain open—and hampered by the unviable contracts they have been awarded, and a lack of promised referrals from Centrelink to provide them with the necessary capital, the Democrats urge this government to bring about a review, a review that was promised for the end of the year. The least the government could do is refund the $37 million which the Treasurer, Peter Costello, boasted of saving.The government must undertake some positive action to create jobs. It cannot simply rely on the rhetoric of growth increasing. This budget has attacked some of those very measures and strategies that were responsible for assisting job creation such as labour market programs. But this, like other budgets, has seen cuts to these very areas. Of course, we have seen cuts to the processes by which unemployed people are assisted in looking for work.One of the remaining few schemes, the highly successful new enterprise incentive scheme, also suffered a budget cut. Even a scheme that was demonstrated to have positive and high results in terms of placement suffered a budget cut of $8 million, leaving it with $25.5 million to carry out its work of encouraging unemployed young people in particular, but unemployed people generally, to start their own businesses.Despite its rhetoric that unemployment `is the single most important issue facing Australians', this government evidently feels that it is not important enough for it to take positive action—some form of interventionist action, some kind of action to create jobs. It is relying instead on unlikely growth. This government is not prepared to monitor and fix some of the flaws that beset its new employment assistance service. It is a $1.66 billion Job Network gamble.This government continues to slash funding to job creation and to labour market programs. Sadly, one area where the government has been willing to take some action has been in attacking young people. I note for the record that tomorrow is the last day that young Australians will have an effective national representative peak body. The government's decision to axe the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, known as AYPAC, makes Australia one of the unique nations amongst OECD nations in terms of our lack of a national, universal and peak representative body for young people.This is a mean-spirited, ideologically motivated decision, designed to silence the voice of young people the day before—and I suggest that this timing is rather coincidental—the introduction of the new income support system for young Australians, the common youth allowance. This is a policy that will see many thousands of young people cut off from benefits and dependent upon their families for support. By the government's own admission, this is going to happen. We are going to see tens of thousands of young people either losing support completely or having their benefits reduced.There are a number of nasty measures in this legislation. Before the Minister for Social Security, Senator Newman, insists on correcting the record by saying that there are some positive elements, people have acknowledged that the streamlining of income support payments is a positive thing. Ensuring that people do not have to run between one department and the next, say, the Department of Social Security for unemployment benefits or the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs for Austudy, if you are a student, that you do not have to have that kind of administrative bungle or inflexibility, is a good thing.However, it seems that the government has taken the lowest common denominator approach. So you have an income threshold that kicks in—just over $23,000 per annum; you have ages of independence which are absolutely concocted. They are a sham—to think you do not qualify for the independent rate until the age of 25 if you are a student or 21 if you are young and unemployed. Do not forget that this common youth allowance also allows for 16- and 17-year-olds who are not in employment, education and training to be completely knocked off benefits. We are still yet to hear from the government how those families, potentially struggling families, are going to look after their essentially old teenagers or young adults. But then again the government does not consider people independent or of adult status until 25 in some cases.So there are regressive, indeed nasty, parts of this legislation and this policy framework that the government has yet to explain or rationalise in a way that makes sense to ordinary Australians. It makes sense if you are a hard-nosed government that wants to meet a budget bottom line and does not factor in social, intellectual and other deficits that can impact on a society as equally as can a budget deficit.The government is actually going to spend $3.8 million on an advertising campaign to convince young people that the common youth allowance is advantageous to them and $4.5 million on telling young people about youth issues. Yet it will only put $225,000 into giving young people any access to policy development. This is only twice a year, so a select few—roughly 50 people—will meet for a round table experience with Minister Kemp.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What's second prize?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I can see people lining up for that one! You will have to get in line, Senator Conroy! So entitlements have been cut for over 45,000 people.I point out, as an aside, that even some of those advertisements have met with some challenge and wrath from members of the community. I know that there is one advertisement running now, which members of parliament may have seen, in which the actor playing the role of father, referring to his younger daughter, talks about the common youth allowance and all the great benefits it is going to bring young people. He then makes an offside comment that he will not necessarily be there and who is she going to have there to give her a `kick up the bum'. I think members might have heard that some members of the public have complained about the overtones of that ad. They cannot even get their ads right. If it is going to spend more money on the advertising than it is on young people's representation, the government could at least get it right.This budget has shown once again that the government has no answers to unemployment, that it prefers scapegoating young people, cutting funding and shutting down services to taking positive action to stimulate jobs growth, job creation and providing assistance to those who need it most.20:11:004363Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—A former Liberal Prime Minister once said, `Life wasn't meant to be easy.' It was not easy for him either in some respects.2L6BISHOPSenator Bishop—Who said that?FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Good old Mal. But the current Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has redefined those words into two sets of standards: one for those who are wealthy—they get the `life is meant to be comfortable, relaxed and secure' version—and the other for the unemployed, elderly, sick and those who are trying to get an education. They get the `life is going to be damned difficult and we intend to make sure of that' version. When we look at the most recent budget of this government, we can see exactly what the Prime Minister means.What the Prime Minister does not seem to realise is that people do not get too excited about economic and social pain, especially when that pain is so unnecessary. Over the last three budgets, Australians have been forced to suffer a significant amount of unnecessary pain. If we look at the area of unemployment related programs, the government has slashed $1½ billion from those and $3 billion from education. If we look specifically at employment services, we see that both the unemployed and employers have lost access to independent, easily accessible, free employment services, as were provided in the main by the CES and some private providers.I would like to draw to the Senate's attention a recent statement of the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, who said:Employing Australians is the greatest single social challenge of any government, federal or state, in the 1990s. And the decisions we take in every area of political responsibility must have a high priority in the area of employment.However, since the government has come to power, it has closed down 293 CES offices around the country, including eight in Tasmania. In the electorate of Bass, the electorate where my office is based, on 1 May 1996 there were 63 CES staff working to help the unemployed in the Launceston area alone. There are now only 11 people staffing the new government agency, and it is no wonder that people are finding it so difficult to get a result in terms of finding a job. Moreover, the previous private employment services that we had under the Working Nation programs are now gone as a result of the government's new approach to the provision of such services.This has created an even worse situation for the unemployed living outside of the metropolitan areas. For example, a young person living at, say, Deloraine, which is some 50 kilometres from Launceston, who requires assistance in training and various other aspects of seeking a job, is left with little hope. This is because, following the introduction of the government's new FLEX 1, 2 and 3 system, Link-Deloraine, which is the only employment service in Deloraine, only has a FLEX 1 contract. Therefore, it has no capacity to provide the services for those young people who require additional assistance. They are left with the situation where they have to travel to Launceston, at best. They have to pay a bus fare for which, as I understand it, they do not get any assistance. It makes a mockery of what this government said about looking after the regions of Aus tralia, particularly those outside the metropolitan areas.In a recent survey, it was discovered that every one of the 134 job agencies around Australia associated with Jobs Australia reported that they were struggling to make the John Howard Jobs Network operate to help the unemployed. The survey found that referrals are not happening, at least one agency has not had a single referral and agencies are reporting problems with the way data is collected. To quote one respondent to the survey:The biggest concern is the way everything is tied to Flex 1. Employers still don't know what is going on. Referrals are very slow and Centrelink staff aren't helping.When we look at some unemployment rates around Tasmania for March 1998 compared with the same period in March 1996, we find that unemployment in Bass in 1996 was 10.3 per cent and it has now risen to 12.7 per cent, Lyons has moved from 11.3 per cent to 12 per cent and Braddon has blown out from 11.5 per cent to 14 per cent. These figures clearly undermine claims by Liberal members and senators that they are delivering to Tasmania.In regard to the question of delivering to Tasmania, we had a Tasmania package from this Liberal government prior to the last election which said it would do a number of things, but what has happened is that we have got nothing in return, except to say that the shipbuilding bounty—which is very important to one of Tasmania's most significant employers in the state, Incat—is going to be abolished. Has the government taken a further decision on that? No. The Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme has been cut by some $10 million or $11 million. What has that done to assist employment?The government did deliver one thing, I suppose, and that is in relation to the Bass Strait car equalisation scheme, or the Bass Strait passenger equalisation scheme. It is not really a passenger equalisation scheme because it actually gets paid on cars. The intention of that scheme was to ensure that Tasmania's tourist industry—another very important industry in the state—would see more people coming across Bass Strait to Tasmania, but what has happened? Yes, like any new scheme, there has been an increase in passenger numbers, but the net effect of this will be that all the Bass Strait passenger equalisation scheme is doing is underwriting the bottom line of TT Line. It is not delivering. In fact, passengers per car number have actually declined. It is not delivering so far as our state is concerned.The outlook for Tasmania and the country as a whole is not getting any better. The government itself has projected a fall in economic growth from 3¾ per cent to three per cent. On top of that, it then projects that somehow unemployment is going to fall to seven per cent by the end of 1998. Unfortunately, those predictions cannot be supported by the facts. Of course, this is from a Prime Minister and Treasurer, in particular, who said that they had fireproofed the Australian economy against the Asian economic crisis. I would suggest that the fireproofing that the Treasurer has put in place is about as good as that which was employed by the Romans in the burning of Rome.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—This is getting a bit scholastic for you, Murphy.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I do not want Senator Ferguson trotting off and asking for part of my speech to be expunged from the Hansard on the basis that he thinks I am out of order. I hope, Mr Acting Deputy President, you will not do that.As I said, our Prime Minister and Treasurer said that we were fireproofed against the Asian economy, but the fact is that we are losing huge chunks of our export market in a very important part of our overall export market. This is also despite the value of the dollar being lower, which should actually enhance some of those aspects of our export markets, and it does mean an improvement in some of our commodity prices.This, as I said, leads to a total decline of exports from the region, and this then leads to local business growth slowing and unemployment continuing to rise at an ever increasing rate. Indeed, in the Financial Review on 17 June, it was reported that:. . . business confidence has collapsed to its lowest level since 1991, prompting Westpac Banking Corporation to lower its economic growth forecasts for 1998-99 to just 2.25 per cent.Most professional analysts predicted the same and some of them were saying that growth could fall below two per cent. That does not augur too well for employment growth. I do not need to remind government senators of what they used to say when we were predicting growth figures of around 3¾ per cent. They thought you had to have at least four per cent and in excess of four per cent to actually get some improvement in employment growth.So what do we have after three Howard-Costello budgets? We have got investment intentions at their weakest levels since 1989-90. We have got the falling dollar—the dollar fell through the roof and almost hit the floor—falling exports, reduced output, declining rates of business investment, rising unemployment, rising home mortgage rates and almost zero business confidence in the government's ability to manage the economy.As I said earlier, all of the social pain in the main has been inflicted unnecessarily. As my colleague in the other place Gareth Evans rightly pointed out on 26 May:. . . if Labor had still been in office, if there had been no policy changes since the last Labor budget, we would have been facing a deficit this year of minus $2.7 billion on the government's own figuring. That deficit could . . . have been covered by a modest deficit reduction program of $3 billion worth of cuts taking effect this year.This has to be taken in the context of the fact that you announced a budget surplus. In effect, the same budget surplus could have been achieved through our policies but with more growth, more jobs and without the social dislocation that has been caused by the government's budgets.I will turn to health. In my home state, the Liberal state government is still at odds with the federal Liberals, accusing them of cutting health funds to the extent that our hospital system is almost falling apart. I agree with the last part of that claim. Our hospital system is almost falling apart, but we have to accept a bit of argy-bargy from state Liberal governments. In fact, the Tasmanian public have been hit by a double whammy—both the state and federal Liberal governments have cut health funding significantly. Indeed, the Rundle government has reduced state health funding by around $40 million over the last two years, whilst the last three Howard-Costello budgets have taken $1.62 billion out of national health care funding, which includes $800 million from public hospital funding and $400 million from the now non-existent dental health care program.In terms of the state figuring, it has been claimed by the state government that, in a total sense, the figure for Tasmania of $15 billion has been cut from the budget by the Commonwealth. One specific example of how this translates at a local level is the loss of $3 million in funding for essential free emergency dental care. State funded dental care is no longer available to people in need, since the Prime Minister has axed that program.Having taken this money out of the public health system, the federal government has re-offered it as private health insurance rebates, the prime objective being to increase the level of private health membership. Of course, when announcing the government's program, the Minister for Health and Family Services, Dr Wooldridge, said that, by the year 2000, 40 per cent of the population would be covered by private health insurance. As we said at the time, exactly the opposite has happened. Since the introduction of the government's rebate system in the 1996-97 budget, instead of increasing private health membership, there has been a further 2.2 per cent drop, leaving 31.1 per cent of the population in private health cover. That is continuing to decline at around 800 people every day.If that money they offered up as a rebate to private health insurers had been put into the public hospital system, it would have provided an extra 3,000 beds and reduced waiting lists by around 100,000. It is also interesting to note that some of the Liberal premiers—particularly two notable ones in Jeff Kennett and Richard Court—have said that the government's strategy in terms of its rebate system is a dud and a waste of money. They are not the only ones concerned. There are many prominent members of the government who are concerned about the priorities and the spending mix of the government's budget.For example, the budget allocates $1 billion to the Federation Fund. That is not to say that the money will not be well spent and there are not programs around that are deserving of money from a Federation Fund, but it could well be argued that this money has been taken from budgets of essential community services that so many Australians desperately need like hospital beds, elective surgery, dental care and nursing homes. So one has to wonder at the logic, especially in light of the announced budget surplus.Another area in which the government has demonstrated its total inability to deliver social policy is aged care. On Wednesday, 1 July 1998, the government plans to move a coalescence of funding, or, in other words, to introduce a national rate of aged care funding for all states. In effect, this simply means more cuts. In Tasmania, the move to coalescence means a further $5 million cut to aged care.In a letter sent to all Tasmanian MHRs and senators dated 23 June 1998, Huon Eldercare stated that the `effect of coalescence alone will result in reduced funding to this home each year of around $105,000 in real terms'. This will result in either increased fees for nursing home care or decreased services, or both. Therefore, it is not surprising that, in a paid advertisement in the Mercury on 23 June, the organisation Aged Care Tasmania had this to say by way of an open letter to the Tasmanian community:Reductions to Aged Care funding will be disastrous for Tasmania.I will read just some aspects of the letter, which states:Due to a decision made last year by the Federal Government, Tasmanian providers will be asked to do all of the above with a REDUCTION IN MONEY over the next 7 years.The decision has been made to take money away from Tasmania, over the next 7 years, under the "Coalescence" to national average subsidies program, and give it to other States.That may well be the case. In summary, we see in this budget the pain of not one extra dollar for public hospitals that was not on the table when the premiers walked out of the Premiers Conference, the pain of not one extra dollar for dental health, despite the continuing blow-out in waiting lists for emergency and preventive dental care, and the impotence of a government which has no new ideas for how to increase levels of private health insurance membership while its own budget papers show that it expects private health insurance membership to continue to fall.This is all from a government and a Prime Minister who said he was for the battlers. I guess the battlers, as the PM put it, will be entitled to judge him according to the benchmark of whether or not he has honoured the commitments he made before the last election, just as he said they would.Budget cuts are not the only misery that he intends to hand out. This Prime Minister and government plan to give the battlers a GST. What will a GST do for the average mums and dads?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Never, ever.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—That is right; he said, `Never, ever.' But now it is, `We will, we will, we will.' What does it do for the mums and dads that he and the government said should feel secure, comfortable and relaxed? It was their right. The promise prior to the last election was that, in government, the coalition would make Australians feel comfortable, secure and relaxed. The GST will have an effect on everything from arts to transport. What is clear is that Australians will not be better off and that a GST tax system will be far from fair.I wish to make a very important point in the last minute I have available to me. This GST that the government proposes to introduce is not in the interests of Australians, particularly those who buy chips from fish and chip shops, and hopefully not from Pauline Hanson's fish and chip shop. It will not be fair on Australians. The government has said that it is an employment generator. If it is an employment generator, why has it not worked in those countries that have a GST? Why has it not served to generate so much employment for them? If the govern ment is going to stand up and say that it has worked in the US, it had better look, because the US does not have a GST. Australia does not want one. We will do everything possible to ensure that we do not get one after the next election.20:31:004367Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Senator Murphy raised a very important point about the introduction of a goods and services tax and its relationship with employment levels. One of the more interesting examples of a country that has recently introduced a goods and services tax is Japan. Japan introduced a goods and services tax at a level of three per cent five years ago. It increased that goods and services tax to five per cent in April last year. I do not lay all the blame for the five years of difficult economic times that Japan has had on the introduction of and increase in the goods and services tax, because it would be exaggerating things. However, it certainly has not helped the Japanese economy. Unemployment is going up. It has technically gone into recession. It is a good bad example, unfortunately, of the impact that a goods and services tax can have. As I say, I do not subscribe all of the difficulties Japan has to the goods and services tax. However, it certainly has not helped.I want to touch on three areas tonight. The first is the material provided to the various estimates committees. Second, I want to make some further comments on the goods and services tax, or the never, ever tax, as it is better described. Third, depending on the time, I will make some comments about some potential mining developments in my home state of Tasmania.We have just been through the estimates hearings, where we examined the budget statements for each portfolio area. I know that Treasury officials are watching this debate. Apparently since the election of this government, they regularly tune in from Treasury and phone the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and offer advice. I know that they are looking in. Of great concern to Labor senators were the significant number of errors in the base documentation provided to the Senate for the conduct of Senate estimate hearings. I do not lay the blame totally at the feet of each departmental portfolio area, though each is certainly partly responsible. We need an explanation from the Department of Finance and Administration, which is responsible for the number of errors that occurred in the documents provided to us.I will run through the portfolio statements provided to us which had errors. From the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission we received a corrigendum. There were three pages of errors in that budget statement. On page 44, there were nine errors. On page 65, there were six errors. On page 68, there was one error. In the primary industries and energy portfolio, there was one error on page 57. Of the health and family services budget statements, page 34 had four errors; page 79 had one error; page 112 had one error; page 124 had two errors; page 207 had three errors; and page 222 had three errors.I suppose one or two errors on three or four pages is acceptable. It is possible to get it wrong. However, in her contribution, my colleague Senator Sue West drew the attention of the Senate to the social security portfolio. It is just a mass of errors. On page 34, there are three errors. Page 37 has 24 errors. Page 38 has 28 errors. Page 102 has three errors. Page 104 has two errors. Page 105 has 13 errors. Page 114 has three errors. Page 129 has three errors. Page 133 has nine errors. Page 134 has 10 errors. Page 140 has three errors. Page 142 has three errors. Page 143 has 12 errors. Page 150 has four errors. Page 153 has 16 errors. Page 160 has three errors. Page 164 has 13 errors. Bingo! That is 153 errors in total.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—One big error.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Senator Murphy is right; the budget is one big error. There are 153 errors in the social security portfolio. As I said earlier, you could forgive one, two or three errors on the odd page here and there.This is not the first time this has happened. As I said, Finance has to bear some responsibility. We all remember the famous mid-year economic and fiscal outlet document of 1996-97. Some debate took place between Finance and Treasury about who was responsible, but there were 170 errors in that document— which apparently was prepared by Finance. The biggest error in the mid-year economic and fiscal outlet document was a revision of the government's underlying deficit from $8.1 billion to $9.3 billion in four weeks. The whole document was littered with errors. That is not good enough.The Department of Finance and Administration has some explaining to do. At the Finance estimates, I raised the issue in respect of the social security portfolio, and Mr Hehir drew our attention to running costs relating to the establishment of Centrelink. He also took on notice the rest of my questions about how this number of errors could occur. We are yet to receive an explanation. I understand that the department has forwarded the questions to the minister's office. We are awaiting a reply.If we are going to conduct a fair dinkum estimates process, we have to have reliable documents. You can understand there being one or two errors, but what is going on in the Department of Finance and Administration? I understand that it has had significant staff cutbacks, but the parliament has to receive reliable documents and the level of errors that is occurring is ridiculous. I know that the Treasury bureaucrats are listening to this debate. I certainly hope they get onto Finance and find out what is going on in the department of finance for there to be that level of errors. If we are to have a thorough estimates process, we need to have accurate figures.The second matter I want to refer to is one of major concern that arose from questioning of the Taxation Office about the tax policy in the Treasury estimates. That matter concerns the government spending approximately $10 million on a campaign to promote a new indirect tax—a goods and services tax, or the `never, ever tax' as it has become known. This $10 million will not only be spent on advertising, but also on opinion poll testing—sounding out the market. This is public money to promote a goods and services tax in the run-up to an election—whenever that may be.That money is on top of the moneys that the Business Council of Australia is going to spend promoting a new indirect tax. You may want to correct me, Senator Watson, but the accountants association—I am not sure which one of the two bodies—also has some advertising at the present time promoting an indirect tax. So over $10 million—I think it is about $16 million in total—is being spent by three organisations, including $10 million of public funds, to promote a new indirect tax. Australia deserves better. It deserves better from Finance when it comes to estimates documents and it deserves better when it comes to a new indirect tax—the goods and services tax that the government is proposing to introduce.A goods and services tax is complicated and costly and, Labor contends, unfair. At the last election, the Prime Minister, as I have said, promised that he would never, ever introduce a GST. He has since said that that commitment was only made for this parliamentary term and, should the government be re-elected, the GST will be introduced and, of course, it will never, ever go up. Mr Howard said:No, there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy . . . When the reporter asked him, `Never, ever?' Mr Howard said:Never, ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election.In a press release on 2 May, Mr Howard said:A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.This promise, like so many of the current Prime Minister's cynical non-core promises, has now been broken by the `never, ever' Prime Minister.Even the Prime Minister's backbenchers seem a little confused about what `never, ever' means. A journalist asked the National Party member for Hinkler, Mr Paul Neville, about it and asked, `For how long?' and Mr Neville replied, `Well, who knows?' Mr Chris Pyne, the Liberal member for Sturt, said, `I have no idea, but I assume that means for good.' Mr Bob Baldwin, the Liberal member for Paterson, said that it was for as long as it is practical, based on circumstances beyond their control. These are new definitions of `never, ever'.I could talk—and I will talk on other occasions—about the proposed new broad based indirect tax. I think Mr Howard tried to use a new acronym some time ago and called it a BOBIT. He is yet to give it a name—the NET tax or the never, ever tax perhaps. Australia certainly deserves better from this Prime Minister. I went doorknocking during the fortnight of the non-sitting period. When talking to people on the doorstep and listening to their comments, I found that if you ask about the goods and services tax, even if you ask those who support a never, ever tax, `Do you honestly think it is not going to go up?', they look at you and then when you say, `Never, ever?', they smile. They certainly know what it means. And there are many other aspects of that tax.The last issue that I want to touch on is a local matter of great concern, and in the appropriations debate we can deal with a significant range of issues. This issue concerns the proposed development of two mines on the north-west coast of Tasmania. I did put down a notice of motion last week and, regrettably, Senator Brown sought to interject very fiercely—I think you were in the chair, then, Senator Watson.By way of background, there are two proposed magnesite mines for the north-west coast of Tasmania. One is to be owned and operated by a company called Crest Resources near West Takone, which is about 40 kilometres south of Burnie, and the other by a company called Golden Triangle, near Savage River, which, I suppose, as the crows flies, would be about 80 or 90 kilometres south of Burnie. Magnesite is the raw ore used for the production of magnesium. Magnesium is experiencing a significant increase in demand around the world. It is used in areas such as the motor vehicle industry because of its high strength and various other attributes.I am one who does not like to overinflate the number of jobs that are likely to emerge as a consequence of these sorts of projects. However, I understand that the Crest Resources mine near West Takone will employ about 30 to 40 people directly at the mine site. Obviously that will have a flow-on impact to the rest of the community. What is important is the value-adding processing of the magnesite into magnesium metal, hopefully, in the area of Burnie-Port Latta. The total project will employ approximately 400 people, and that is dependent on gas coming onshore.But what has been the reaction of the Green movement to these two proposals? What has been the reaction even before a pre-feasibility study has been carried out—and we will not know the result of this pre-feasibility study for at least another year or 18 months? Peg Putt, a local Green member of the Tasmanian parliament, immediately condemned the mine as being a threat to caves and what are known as karsts—magnesium upright rock pinnacles—that are in the vicinity of the mine. Ms Peg Putt alleged that the caves could be damaged by the mining project. She drew on material by a geomorphologist, Mr Kevin Kiernan, who did a study of the karsts, that the karst system could be damaged as a consequence of the mining project. This is before the pre-feasibility mining study.Fortunately, representatives of the Savage River Caving Club have actually been into these caves—I have to say that I have not been in the caves; I don't know whether Peg Putt has been in the caves; I know there are bats in the caves. Mr Bevis Dutton of the Savage River Caving Club immediately corrected Ms Putt and said that she was using wrong information, that the area could be quarried without damage to the caves and, anyway, the caves were not of such significance that they could be rated as being of world renown. `They are intriguing but cannot be considered unique,' were their words.As I have said, Ms Putt drew on a study of karsts by geomorphologist Mr Kevin Kiernan. Unfortunately for Ms Putt, she could not get it right the second time around either. On the following day, Mr Kiernan, whose report she had sought to rely on, said that Ms Putt's claims were incorrect. He did not believe there was a conflict with mining in the same area, given commonsense, goodwill and careful planning, and that the West Takone area could be adequately safeguarded because it involved very small reserves.Ms Putt made one of the most startling and amazing comments by an environmentalist that I have heard during the numerous environmental debates that have occurred in recent times in Tasmania. In referring to the area where the mine may go, she said:It has been quarried and timber harvested in the past, but it has regained a high quality wilderness.The incredible nature of this statement leads one to ask: what has all the debate been about in Tasmania? If you can quarry and mine an area, and yet it can regain a high-quality wilderness, what is all the debate about in Tasmania? And this is Ms Putt's admission.The important things to stress about this mine are, as I have said, that it will not endanger the cave system, it will not endanger the karst features and it will be undertaken in a multiple-use forest area which has already been extensively logged. The study by Mr Kiernan shows that mining can be compatible with the preservation of the karst features. This is a major long-term project for Tasmania which promises major economic and job creation benefits.Ms Putt should apologise to the community in Tasmania for her fearmongering, for misleading the public on no less than two occasions and being directly contradicted by two environment experts. I am told that Mr Kiernan was a founding member of the Wilderness Society.Tasmania, and the north-west coast in particular, needs these types of projects. Tasmania is suffering, particularly the north-west coast, from cutbacks in a whole range of areas such as aged care, health, education, and high unemployment. We need these types of economic developments in the state, not at any cost, but after a proper environmental assessment. Let us see what the pre-feasibility study says. Let us hope they get off the ground. It does not have to be rape of the environment; we can have an adequate balance between the environment and industry development. (Time expired)20:51:004370Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—In rising to speak on the appropriation bills, I want to make some comments about the government's telecommunications and broadcasting policies. One would have to say that, across the board over the last 2½ years, this government has got itself into a considerable mess in its telecommunications and broadcasting policy.Initially, the government, on the telecommunications side, had claimed a great achievement in getting its legislation to privatise one-third of Telstra through this parliament in 1996. That was a decision for which the Prime Minister of the day and the minister, Senator Alston, congratulated themselves strongly and warmly. When the privatisation of the float was completed, and about $14 billion raised from the one-third sale, it was seen as an enormous success and the Minister for Finance and Administration attempted to convince the people of Australia to support the remaining two-thirds sale of Telstra to complete the full privatisation.But what we have found is that, since the Prime Minister announced in March this year that it was government policy to sell the remaining two-thirds, there has been a considerable backlash in public opinion. I do not think there has been any published opinion poll taken by any of the well-known polling organisations, whether at a national level or at various state or regional levels, that shows other than a minimum of at least a two to one opposition to the further sale of Telstra. What I did find interesting was that one of them—I think it was the Morgan poll—did a survey of those people who had already bought shares in the one-third sale of Telstra and even a majority of them opposed any further sale of Telstra.There are many reasons for this, which I do not have time to go into, but today we saw one reason why a majority of Australians do not want to see Telstra fully privatised. It was the March quarterly report of the ACA—the Australian Communications Authority—on the service delivery of Telstra to the Australian public and on meeting its own commitments that it had outlined for what its service levels should be. It showed that, in the last 12 months, regarding the connection of new telephones in rural Australia, there had been nearly an 18 per cent drop in the level of service on their commitment to connect new telephones. That is an extraordinary reduction in service and took place during the period in which Telstra was partially privatised. It certainly fits the pattern where the senior management of Telstra and the board now only ever talk about providing a good return to the shareholders—that is the number one aim of the partially privatised Telstra. The Australian public has realised that a fully privatised Telstra, dedicated to maximising profits, means that these services will further diminish in the non-metropolitan area. The reason that level of service has diminished in country areas is simple: thousands of Telstra employees have been made redundant and sacked over the past 18 months as part of the program of Telstra's management to get rid of some 25,000 of its own staff.There are now plenty of stories from country areas that there are no staff available to meet requests from the public to have their phone connected or to have their phone fixed. That is why there is a revolt in the bush against this government on privatisation. That is why, increasingly, backbench members of the National Party and the Liberal Party in rural and regional Australia are letting the press know that they are very unhappy with the Prime Minister's unilateral decision in March of this year to sell—privatise—Telstra fully. This is an issue that the opposition will look forward to fighting most vigorously at the coming election, because we know that in the rural areas of Australia that the support from people, irrespective of their previous political allegiances, will be for the Labor Party to opposes the full privatisation of Telstra.We also have the issue of the ABC and the way this government, and particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts have treated the ABC. I will not repeat here, as I have on many occasions already, the minister's broken promises—the commitments made at the election in 1996 and the commitments made on election night after he knew he had won the election—that funding for the ABC would be maintained. That is all on the record. The $55 million a year cut in the budget has led to 800 jobs going in the ABC, with more to come. It means that many programs have been cut and have been reduced in both metropolitan and regional Australia. It has meant that the Triple J network, the ABC fine music network and other services have been reduced.The cuts are financially horrific for the ABC but equally bad is the fact that the Prime Minister and the minister have consistently politically attacked the ABC. They have attacked it and abused it at every opportunity they get. At the recent estimates hearing of the ABC, we saw this attack taken to a new level. When the ABC appeared, the questions were immediately given to a Liberal senator, Senator Tierney, who launched into an attack for an hour and 20 minutes on the ABC's management and program content in which he accused the ABC advisory council—the independent committee which looks at charges of bias—of being in-club, in-house and part of the old boys network of the ABC.You saw him name individual journalists for being sympathetic to the Labor Party irrespective of their long and successful professional careers. You saw statements made, separately to the estimates hearings, that people like Mr Barnett, the Prime Minister's biographer, should be appointed as a senior journalist or commentator to the ABC, not on the basis of his professional merit but on the basis that he is a supporter of the Liberal Party, contrary to all the decisions of the ABC management that people should and must be appointed according to merit.The big challenge for the ABC is not just this government's attack on its finances but the political and ideological attack by the Prime Minister and the minister, who never miss an opportunity to criticise the ABC but do not make one word of criticism against any commentator in the commercial media, television, radio or newspapers. They make not one comment of criticism in that area about bias. It is always the ABC.The third area is digital television, on which the debate will continue here tomorrow, I understand, if the government's program is to be believed. We think it will come back on tomorrow. Again we have an example of rushed legislation that has created considerable debate in the community and considerable differences of opinion about what it means.This legislation that outlines the new future of broadcasting in Australia for many decades to come is being rushed through this parliament, and the government has given this digital television bill the highest priority of any piece of legislation. It is an extraordinary arrangement that this should get priority over the appropriation bill, but that was Senator Alston's wish, so we debated the digital television bill for several hours last Friday. It even gets consideration ahead of the government's plan for further privatisation of Telstra. It is an extraordinary judgment of this government to provide an arrangement whereby certain television media proprietors and their companies are dealt with very favourably. The opposition has made it clear that we support some of those decisions; others we oppose. But the government wants to rush this bill through to meet, I believe, some promise in return for political favouritism by the time of the next election.This bill on digital television should have been allowed to lie on the table for several months as an exposure draft, when it is something so technical and so complicated. But not this government: it dealt with it in house for several months, introduced the bill, and restricted the hearings to a matter of only three weeks before the report back to the Senate. There are many still unresolved issues. That is why in the debate on digital television in the next couple of days the opposition will be moving significant amendments. And, if those amendments to make it a better bill are not accepted by the government, we will oppose it on the third reading.I turn now to the leadership of this government. I have just outlined the government's weaknesses in my own area as shadow minister for communications. But where does this weakness come from? It comes from the present Prime Minister, who without doubt in living memory happens to be the weakest Prime Minister this country has ever seen.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That's fair. 4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I must say that that is the case within living memory; I am not going to talk about the time before my living memory. I can go back to the time of John Gorton, Billy McMahon, Harold Holt and even Bob Menzies. When John Howard was elected Prime Minister, I said, `Although I disagree with him ideologically, he is a man with very considerable political experience both in government and opposition. He has been around a long time. He will certainly know how to handle the processes of government.' It is clear that the job is too big for him. We now have a Prime Minister who actually makes Billy McMahon look positively good in comparison—and Billy McMahon I can remember. But John Howard is incapable of providing the leadership that this country so desperately yearned for, because he is without vision; he can only look backwards and hanker for the days of his own childhood and teenage days of the 1950s when he thought Sir Robert Menzies as Prime Minister provided the golden age of Australian Liberal Party rule.We have found that he cannot articulate any vision for the future. He cannot provide comfort, even though he said he wanted Australia to be relaxed and comfortable. He cannot provide any sense of vision for the future that gives some sense of purpose to the Australian nation. Every time he attempts it, he gets it wrong, he sounds backward and mealy-mouthed, and he is always pessimistic. I have never seen a Prime Minister look so pessimistic, even when he is announcing so-called good news. This Prime Minister is not able to give any sense of hope or optimism to the Australian people. I think that is why, at the next election, the issue of leadership will be one of the most important between the two major parties. I have no doubt that that will be a major issue.I draw the attention of the Senate to the extraordinary example of how the Prime Minister thought he could provide a vision for the future by his endorsement of an unfunded project with no feasibility study, the so-called Melbourne to Darwin railway line. Anyone reading the transcript of that press conference would have thought, `This is something more suited to Monty Python or a university revue satire of politicians.' And what did John Howard say at that press conference? He said, `This is a project with great vision, subject to feasibility studies, subject to this, subject to that.'When the project was unveiled at the press conference, a map of Australia was produced which showed the train line zigzagging through all the critical electorates of inland Australia that are now under threat. We saw that it seemed to go through every country town in inland Australia that wanted to have a new train line. The promoter of the train line, Mr Crompton, said at the press conference, `What is $8½ billion in cost? That is just an 8, a 5, and a few 0s.' He actually sounded like a One Nation supporter saying, `Just print more money to pay for any project.'He also announced, `If $8½ million is too much we could build a single track for $5 billion, because we now have new technology. The trains can be on the same track coming towards each other at a speed of 500 kilometres an hour and, with new technology, they will miss each other by half a kilometre.' You would not want to be out selling the fact that passenger trains can be on the same track coming towards each other. Those are the sorts of concepts which were let loose at this press conference and which the Prime Minister endorsed. Since the announcement, the Prime Minister's involvement has been quite rightly criticised, and it has become a political cartoonist's dream world. We have seen wonderful cartoons appearing with maps of Australia and train lines looping the loop and zigzagging all over it, trying to find which electorate missed out on the train line under this project.This Prime Minister does not understand that vision and the future of Australia require a Prime Minister and a person in a leadership position who is able to articulate a broad view about the sort of society we want in Australia, about being inclusive. This Prime Minister is incapable of giving any idea of how to be inclusive of all Australian people. He believes that the political circumstances that serve him best are to create division, to pick on different groups in the community and make them the whipping boys for the other part of the community.That is the style of this Prime Minister's leadership. It is a disgraceful leadership. I never thought he would be this bad. When he was elected I thought that because of his experience he would be a conservative Prime Minister with whom the Labor Party would ideologically disagree on many issues, but he would have a concept of how to be a Prime Minister for all Australia. He has sadly failed in every way. He proves the old adage: you may well be an excellent minister, you may well be an excellent political performer in parliament, but it is a big step to go from there to being Prime Minister.In the past, on both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party sides, most leaders who have become Prime Minister have been able to make the jump. John Howard has not been able to make the big jump up to being Prime Minister. He cannot overcome his pettiness, his divisiveness and the fact that everything he does is seen as a political advantage in the narrowest sense. That is why, at this coming election, leadership will be a major issue. We in the Labor Party only two years ago believed it would be very difficult to win an election after only one term in opposition. This Prime Minister now makes that a very real possibility. We look forward to winning the next election because of the mayhem he has created in this country through his weak leadership and through letting the Hanson party get up a head of steam, which ironically is now decimating the Liberal Party and the National Party.I congratulate Senator Ron Boswell for today getting stuck into the One Nation Party and all its mad right-wing backers. I say to Senator Boswell: if you are going to be fair dinkum about that speech, get the Prime Minister of this country to unilaterally and unequivocally say that the Liberal and National parties will give their preferences last to One Nation in every electorate across Australia. Senator Boswell says that, Mr Costello says that, Mr Downer says that, Senator Hill says that; the one person who does not say that is the Prime Minister of this country because he is a weak leader.The irony is that, because of his weakness, One Nation is now cannibalising and eating out the coalition. And isn't it a sweetness in one sense, an irony, that he thought he would let it loose to do damage to the Labor Party in 1996, but it is now doing damage and destroying his own leadership, as it should. It proves the old adage: if you are a weak leader, in the end you are destroyed by your own weakness. If he had been a strong leader and had had the courage to take on One Nation two years ago, his own leadership would not now be in the major process of being destroyed from either within the Liberal Party or in the electorate. We look forward in the coming few months to the election of the first Kim Beazley Labor government.21:10:004374Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I congratulate Senator Boswell for his speech on the appropriation legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.4374Bills (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Bills4374r5374374Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.21:11:004374Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—At the outset of my speech during the second reading debate on the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 , I pay tribute to the speakers from the opposition in the previous debate. What we have seen this afternoon and this evening is a comprehensive outline of the absolute failure of the Howard-Fischer coalition government to deal with any of the major problems and issues facing the Australian nation today and, further, of its endless list of broken promises. Whether they be in regard to such issues as tax, Telstra or the GST, the record has been laid clear. The public are certainly going to get an opportunity in the near future to exercise their judgment.One of the critical issues—dare I say, it may even be the most critical issue—facing the people of Australia today is the imminent collapse of the public health system in this country. If that is to be its fate—and God help us that it isn't—then it will be squarely on the shoulders of the current government, the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the current Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge).There is no doubt about it: the public health system in this country is in crisis. Those are not just my words. Do not just take the word of the opposition, even though we always speak the truth. Do not just believe me; believe the words of every one of your coalition premiers around the country. Believe the words of every one of the state and territory health ministers around the country, all of whom, with the exception of now two states—might I say proudly, given the recent success of the Labor Party in Queensland—have Liberal premiers. They have condemned this government for its record on health. Further, they have pointed to the crisis that now exists in the health system.The people will get the chance to make their judgment on this government and, when they do, they will remember the solemn promise of John Howard, the current Prime Minister, prior to the last election. He stood up and solemnly promised, with his hand on his heart, that he would not abolish, destroy or undermine Medicare. We know why he made that promise. We know that he never believed it, because John Howard has been on the record for years—I might say, in living memory—as being opposed to Medicare and wanting to abolish it.However, prior to the last federal election, he went before the public and promised to maintain Medicare. He knew he had to do that because he knew that the Australian electorate would never accept as a government any party that sought to abolish or dismantle Medicare. Medicare is one of the inherent parts of our great social system in this country. John Howard finally recognised that because, when those opposite tried to abolish it when they went to the people in 1993, the people said, `No thanks. We want Medicare and we don't want you and a GST.' On the last occasion, of course, he promised to maintain Medicare, but the government have done anything but.Let us look briefly at what the government have done to the public hospital system in the 2½ short years they have been in office. I remind the Senate and the people of Australia that it was a Labor government back in the mid-1970s that established Medicare, then known as Medibank. It was Malcolm Fraser, as Prime Minister, and John Howard as Treasurer in the Fraser government, that abolished Medibank. It was not until 1983 that Medicare was restored under a Labor government. When we came to office in 1983, over two million Australians were uninsured. That was the legacy of the Fraser-Howard years—two million Australians without health insurance.The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), who is in the chamber, may get up again this evening and tell us about the declining levels of health insurance and what happened under the Labor government when it was in power for 13 years. Let us go back to the beginning of our period of office in 1983. We remember that two million Australians had no private health insurance coverage at all. There was no national universal scheme of health insurance for them. We established Medicare to protect ordinary working Australians and their families, to give them a guaranteed access to the best quality care in public hospitals that you can get anywhere in the world. That is still the case. Australia is the only country where people are guaranteed access to top quality medical and hospital care free of charge.But this government, notwithstanding its solemn promise by the Prime Minister, has systematically tried to undermine our public health system. Over the last 12 months or so we have seen this disgraceful circus, if you like, of the Minister for Health and Family Services sitting down, supposedly, to negotiate with the states. But he has never set out to negotiate with the states on Medicare. He put an offer on the table and for months refused to revise it, notwithstanding the genuine arguments that were put by all the states and territories.I remind the Senate that of all those states and territories only one of them was a Labor state, and that was New South Wales. Dr Wooldridge's own coalition colleagues in the states, those that are in charge of managing the hospital system and delivering health services, were telling this government that its proposals on new Medicare agreements were totally inadequate. But Dr Wooldridge refused to listen. He treated the state health ministers essentially as if they were irrelevant. He said it was a take it or leave it offer.Eventually, at the Premiers Conference this year, there was the unique situation—it had never occurred in the history of this country—of all the state premiers walking out because of the Prime Minister's refusal to sit down and genuinely negotiate on the Medicare agreements. The Prime Minister dismissed that as a little sideshow walkout. It was not that; it was a genuine demonstration by all the state premiers and territory leaders that they did not accept this government's record on health and they wanted a proper opportunity to sit down and negotiate.Still today, with one day left of the current five-year Medicare agreements before they expire on 30 June, we have the situation where all the states and the Northern Territory—with the exception of the ACT and Queensland—have still not signed the proposed Medicare agreements. I have made a mistake and should correct the record. They are not to be called Medicare agreements any more. This government proposes to change the name to health care agreements. Maybe I am cynical and should not read too much into that, but it is an interesting observation, is it not? They are changing what for years have been called the Medicare agreements to the proposed health care agreements with the states.As I have said, all the states—except Queensland and the ACT—are still refusing to sign the proposed agreements. We know why the ACT and Queensland signed. The then coalition leaders in the ACT and Queensland were coming up to an election and they hurriedly signed the agreements. They were bought off with the bribe of some extra funds if they signed. I am sure the new Queensland Labor government will be in there reiterating the point properly on behalf of the Queensland people, not like the previous Premier, Mr Borbidge, who thumped the table and said he was going to stand up for the rights of Queenslanders for a decent health system and then crawled off and signed an agreement as quickly as he could because he was a little concerned about his election. It did not help him.The states are still making it very clear to the government that this current offer is inadequate. Let me just go to what the states are saying, because it is important to have this on the record. This is an issue notwithstanding the fact that this legislation will be passed tonight because we as an opposition—despite all of our concerns with the current situation and with the current impasse in the negotiations—are not prepared to see funding denied to the states from tomorrow onwards to be able to continue to operate their public health systems. This is what the Hon. Kevin Prince, the Western Australian Minister for Health said when he gave evidence to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. When talking about the negotiations with the Commonwealth he stated:As far as the Medicare funding offer is concerned, the joint bid by the states is well justified. The current offer—as my colleague Mr Knowles has said—Mr Knowles being the Victorian health minister—is vastly inadequate for a whole series of reasons. And some of the claims that have been made about the offer are, frankly, misleading. What Mr Knowles has not discussed is how the Commonwealth offer would impact differently on different states. Under the most generous interpretation of the offer that was put on the table on 19 December last year, which has been reiterated this year, my state will actually receive $149 million less in hospital funding grants over the next five years than if the current Medicare agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia continued. There is no way that I can agree to that; it is simply not possible. One hundred and forty-nine million dollars less is not on when we have—and everybody knows that we have—this huge increase in demand that is trending upwards.If I can also quote what Peter McKay, the Tasmanian Minister for Community and Health Services, stated:We find the current Medicare negotiations frustrating. I think probably best described as belittling. I think that the operation, as Dr Refshauge was saying, of the press media release type negotiation is astounding. I never cease to be amazed about how they can utilise this one-off funding of $120 million to try and get us to sign up to an agreement that would devastate our hospital system over the new five year agreement. It depends on which press release you read from the Commonwealth as to whether it is $4 million or $9 million. Today it was $9 million from Dr Wooldridge as far as what the state was entitled to. Not long ago it was only $4 million, so it has changed a little bit in that time. But that relates to something like about nine days of operation for our hospitals. Our hospitals cost around about $350 million to run acute care in Tasmania so it is roughly $1 million a day. He—that is, Dr Wooldridge—is trying to make us sign up to an agreement that gives us nine days of paradise and five years of absolute bloody hell. I really think that I am not that encouraged to sign.To summarise, Mr Knowles stated to the inquiry:Further consultation is required between the Commonwealth and the states to develop a partnership approach to delivery of health care and to agree on the appropriate way to embody that approach in the legislation and agreement.So what has happened? We have a situation, as I just outlined, where the states are vehemently opposed to the current Commonwealth offer. It is not only grossly inadequate in funding terms but there is also a whole range of other issues that still have to be resolved, including the final terms of the agreement.It is clear that, notwithstanding the threats from the Prime Minister and the current minister for health and the attempted bribes to get them to sign early, the states are not going to be swayed. So we reach a position tomorrow where the current five-year Medicare agreements expire. That is an intolerable position. We also have a situation where the government, because of its own inadequacies in terms of managing its program through this place, is here tonight endeavouring to have this legislation carried by the parliament. While we in the opposition do not oppose passage of the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 , we do have some concerns with it. Because of the impasse where there are no Medicare agreements renegotiated, there is still a necessity for the Commonwealth to appropriate money so that it can legally pay the states to continue to be able to fund the public health system—that is what this legislation sets out to do. Whilst we are very concerned that the legislation is being put through the parliament without the accompanying agreements having been signed off, we nevertheless cannot stand by and see the states being denied funds from tomorrow onwards. I will quickly deal with some of the opposition's concerns with the legislation. Firstly, clause 4(3) of the bill notes that the total amount paid by way of financial assistance under this section, which concerns the grants to the states, must not exceed an amount of $29,655,056,000. One of the concerns we have—and I would be interested to hear the minister deal with this in his concluding remarks—is that the Prime Minister has promised the states that, for every one per cent fall in the level of private health insurance coverage within a state, their funding under the proposed health care agreements under this legislation would be increased accordingly so that a state would not suffer a disadvantage financially by virtue of a drop in the level of private health insurance. We have a major concern that, because the amount prescribed in this bill to be appropriated is capped at that level, it does not allow for any adjustment in the level of payments for the states if there is a further drop in private health insurance coverage. Given the way this government's private health insurance rebate scheme is going, one can only anticipate a further drop in the level of private health insurance coverage. Another point that we wish to raise is with respect to the definitions in the Medicare principles. The changes that are noted in this legislation compared with the existing principles are indeed of major concern and, again, I would invite the minister to respond to these concerns in his reply. The current Medicare principle 1 states:Eligible persons must be given the choice to receive public hospital services free of charge as public patients.That has been changed in this bill to read:Eligible persons are to be given the choice to receive, free of charge as public patients, health and emergency services of a kind or kinds that are currently, or were historically, provided by hospitals.There is no definition of what is meant by `services of a kind or kinds that are currently, or were historically, provided by hospitals'. In fact, we cannot think of anything that would not come into that definition, but we would appreciate some clarification. Interpreted strictly and literally, that principle, and indeed the next two principles which I will come to in a moment, could well mean that no state would ever be able to fully comply with these principles because of the sheer impossibility of the literal interpretation. Under this bill, the minister has full discretion as to whether to pay funds to a state or not.In principle 2 there is a change such as to refer to what is called a clinically appropriate period—that is, that access to services must be available within a clinically appropriate period. That could almost be one that could be an impossible definition to meet. Thirdly, there is a reference in principle 3 whereby equitable access has to be available to all eligible persons regardless of their geographic location. Again, one can consider that that may have put undue burdens on the state public health system. (Time expired)21:31:004378Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—The Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 before the Senate funds the hospital systems of the states. It is designed to allocate $29 billion over five years to the states and territories to provide health and emergency services as have been currently provided by our hospitals. As everyone knows, the former bill was scrapped because agreements could not be reached with the states. What we have before us now is a simpler bill but one that causes us a number of concerns. This bill will not be funding under a Medicare agreement for five years as is usual. Indeed, it is going to leave the door open for annual battles between the states and the federal government over who gets how much money when and under what conditions.As the present agreement expires tomorrow, obviously we have to see this bill go through tonight. I must note here that the legislation we are dealing with we are dealing with against the wishes of the states. Only Queensland and the ACT have signed on the dotted line. With both of them facing elections, one can only presume that the offer did have something to do with an election in the wind.In the absence of five-year agreements and with some of the very loose wording that is in this bill, we can only hope that we will see some better relationship between the Commonwealth and states than we have so far. It is, unfortunately, a rather forlorn hope if the attitude of this government continues. Basically, this bill requires the states and territories to adhere to the Medicare principle—that is, free treatment on the basis of clinical need and equal access regardless of geographic location.I believe the states have argued a very good case. We went through this in committee. We listened to the department. We listened to the states. The bottom line, Minister, is that, since 1992-93, the total Commonwealth funding to the states has declined from 29 per cent of Commonwealth tax collections to just 20 per cent in 1998-99. Your government is hinting that further falls are going to come. In this context, as well as with the reductions in funding for hospitals, we see why the crisis is occurring and why the states are demanding $1.1 billion per year to share between them if they are going to maintain services at an adequate level.But, no, the Commonwealth government is ignoring this. Obviously we only have until tomorrow to pass the legislation. I cannot see the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) reaching an agreement in the next 24 hours. So we presume that, for the first time in many years, we will be going through without a Medicare agreement. The Commonwealth has largely ignored all the arguments, all the pressure from the states and has put its hopes and its money into an insurance product.We must stress here that, even if we do manage to keep people in private health insurance—and I do not know if we have even had things bottom out as yet—the evidence given to us before the committee and the evidence I find as I move around and talk to administrators in hospitals is that more and more people are choosing not to use that insurance. Insurance companies are actively encouraging people not to use it. People are basically saying when they go into hospitals, particularly in accident and emergency, `No, I want to be treated as a public patient.' Under this agreement, that is part of the deal.The whole thrust of this government's public health policy, which is really a private health insurance policy, is a long way from meeting the basic essential needs of our public hospital system. Our hospitals are in urgent need of funding. I am sure anyone who has visited a large public hospital lately will look at the level of tension and the amount of pressure that people are working under, from the nurses through to the doctors. Nurses are working longer and longer shifts. By delaying adequate funding through to the states we are simply delaying the problem of proper upgrading of equipment. I speak to administrators and they are desperate to find a new way of keeping going with inadequate funding. A whole range of things are running down, including the morale of staff, to the point where I wonder where our public hospital system is going to be in 12 months if this is the best the government can do.To get back specifically to the legislation, our main problem with this bill is that it introduces the element of uncertainty. We have—and I would like some clarification on this, Minister, in a moment—for the first time in the 14-year history of Medicare no agreement for a five-year period. This means that funding can be provided year by year at the discretion of the minister and that he or she can attach conditions to this funding as he or she sees fit.For example, the minister will have the discretion to set conditions governing the amount of grants to each state, as well as the method of payment, the timing of payment and how these grants are going to be separated out. These conditions will not be a disallowable instrument. There will be no debate as to how this money goes through. Also, reading the fine print in this bill, we see that it allows for payments to be made to entities other than a state. Minister, does this mean that the minister for health could individually fund a district? Does it mean that the government could individually fund a particular hospital if it wanted a particular program to get up and running; in other words, step over the states and fund directly into programs of hospitals as it sees fit?The third Medicare principle has been broadened in this bill. The previous Medicare agreement required the states and territories to ensure equitable access to hospital services, regardless of geographic location, `to the maximum practicable extent'. Those five words have been removed from this bill. Basically, it means that we now have a very clear requirement to ensure that people in rural and remote areas have access to public hospital services. Obviously, this is a principle that everybody supports, but I wonder, regardless of funding, how realistic it is to meet this in the short term.We do not have to tell Senator Herron many of the problems that are common in rural and remote areas. One of the most obvious ones is the lack of a medical work force. I am not just talking about doctors; I am talking about nurses, particularly those who specialise in midwifery and emergency treatment—there is a lack of everything from dietitians to physiotherapists. Also, if this is going to be realistic, we need to look at current management and funding structures, as well as the lack of health care infrastructure in many rural areas.So, regardless of the amount of funding, I argue that these cannot be met in the short term. Therefore, I have to ask the government for some clarification of what the minister actually wants, what he sees happening. For example, if the states are not able to comply, are there going to be penalties? What is the time line for them? What is the time line you see as reasonable for the states to be able to fulfil this requirement? Does the minister foresee that if a particular state cannot meet this or other requirements that that is when some funding decisions will be taken and funding will be redirected or diverted around the state? Another concern is that by requiring adherence to an unachievable principle the government is undermining the strength of the Medicare principles.An additional concern, again looking at the fine print in this bill, is that the states may actually refuse to accept some additional conditions that may be put on them in future in order for them to accept the funding. Given that the states have a limited capacity to raise revenue, what does the minister foresee happening? Do we foresee a system where the states simply wash their hands of most of their hospital system and turn what is left into a welfare hospital system? Perhaps going into debt is another option. But has the minister looked ahead to what the government sees as a response if states do not meet any of the requirements that, under this bill, may indeed be put down in the future?I stress again that the bottom line is that this bill has attached to it the amount of money that the states have already said, very clearly, is not enough to keep their hospitals running. So, in closing, I just remind the minister that the forecast is that some 1.4 million patients over the five years will not be funded for treatment under this bill, and the AMA itself has stated that waiting lists will double if no more money is offered to the states. As I said before, obviously it is an appropriation bill the Democrats will not be opposing, but we stress that reliance on this bill to provide public hospital funding will have significant adverse consequences for the security and long-term viability of Australia's public hospital system.21:42:004380Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise tonight to speak on the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 and in support of Medicare—one of the greatest achievements of Labor's time in office and a fundamental right of all Australians which is now increasingly under attack. Promises made by John Howard prior to the last election to maintain Medicare are now being undermined by stealth. Medicare was set up to provide a free, universal health care system for all Australians, and it has proved to be a success story throughout the world in terms of achieving that goal.Major attacks on the health system to the tune of $3.6 billion in funding cuts should be of great concern to all Australians. We all know that John Howard hates Medicare and what it represents. I notice that the word `Medicare' has been left out of the name of the proposed agreement. Why would that be? Inadequate funding of health and public hospitals strikes right at the heart of the values of Australians and clearly demonstrates what this government stands for and does not stand for.In the last two budgets $3.6 billion has been cut from health, including $1.4 billion from pharmaceuticals, $1 billion from Medicare, $800 million from public hospitals and $400 million from dental care. These cuts are very short-sighted. Ironically, it is the ordinary battlers in this country, whom John Howard claims to have a mandate to represent, who are most at risk.The contentious nature of this bill has been more than adequately highlighted in the press. Negotiations have well and truly stalled between the Commonwealth and the states over the proposed replacement for the current Medicare arrangements, yet there has been no increase offered since the premiers walked away from the Premiers Conference. What do we have instead? We have Dr Wooldridge throwing tantrums in the press. I am not surprised that the premiers are so upset. After all, it is incumbent upon the states to provide the hospitals, staff and infrastructure of public hospitals, and they are largely dependent upon the Commonwealth in order to do so.While John Howard has described the Commonwealth's offer to the states as very generous and an increase of 15 per cent in real terms, this is in fact quite misleading if you take into account the fact that our population is ageing and that people are dropping out of private health insurance in the tens of thousands. The supposed increases represented—or should I say misrepresented—in the government's offer are nothing more than the partial return of funding slashed from the health care budget in the last two years. The states, quite rightly, are concerned about the level of funding to address both required service levels and structural reform.The antics displayed by the government at the Premiers Conference—where it became blindingly obvious that even their own coalition partners could not support their stand—would be laughable except for the very serious potential consequences should this matter about adequate funding to the states not be resolved. While the Commonwealth argues that the states are being offered an additional $3 billion over five years, this is misleading. Capital funding under the proposed national development fund is only for one-off projects and does not constitute recurrent funding for the treatment of patients.I hate to think what the impact of a GST would be on health. If a GST is applicable to all of health spending, which is quite likely given the advocacy by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) for the broadest possible GST base, then Australians will have to add a substantial percentage onto basic services which they need. Health should not be treated as a consumer item that people can choose to spend on if they want. It is a basic right. Under a GST, for example, Australians would have to pay an extra $16.20 on an initial specialist consultation charged at the AMA rate of $162 and an extra $3.70 for a GP consultation charged at the AMA rate of $37. A broad based GST would also mean an increase in the price of prescription pharmaceuticals. For example, a drug like Simvastin, which is used for treating high cholesterol and is the second most prescribed drug in the country, would cost an extra $8 on its base price of $80.I am very concerned about the government's ideological bent—or should I say obsession—that the private sector must, by its very nature, be more efficient than the public sector. All of this talk of providing safety nets only for the most disadvantaged in our society means that over time ordinary Australians will increasingly be unable to utilise basic public sector services for which their taxes pay. This seems to be the aim of the government of the day, and it will create a two-tiered system where wealthier people receive better care than poorer people. Do we really want to go back to the system we had in place prior to 1983 when two million Australians had no private health insurance?I am very concerned about comments made by the Treasurer in relation to the public hospital system and his view that the system should be there only for those who cannot afford medical care. This is pretty frightening, given the government thinks families earning $24,000 a year are well-off.These attacks on publicly funded hospitals are just the latest in a long, sad saga promoting the interests of business in the private sector. Who can forget the disgraceful waste of millions and millions of dollars to prop up the private health schemes at the expense of the public system? The level of private health insurance continues to drop—at the expense of the public hospital system, I might say—in spite of the $1.7 billion put into the private health funds via the incentive scheme. It has proved to be a great waste of taxpayers' money. It is absurd that the government has continued to spend so much money on this scheme, while private insurance membership continues to plunge. This $1.7 billion has not taken the pressure off the public health system, and the private health funds are still increasing their premiums. In fact, their premiums have risen more than 30 per cent since this government came into office. This money could have been so much better utilised in the public hospital system.In my home state of Queensland, privatisation of hospitals is currently under way. The previous Borbidge administration was determined to broaden the role of the private sector in hospitals, particularly hospitals in Robina and Noosa. These hospitals were originally to have been public and, while the previous state Minister for Health, Mr Horan, stated that these hospitals would remain free, I do not see how they can, given the constraints imposed by the fact that core health services are to be contracted out to the private sector. I am also concerned that there has been no public debate in Queensland about the shift towards the privatisation of public health services—although with the advent of the new Labor government, maybe that will be different.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—The dawn of a new era.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—We can only hope, Minister. I am sure it will be a different experience. The experience arising out of privatisation of hospitals in other states is that this has led to cuts in staffing and reduced accountability. The increasing influence of the Columbia Healthcare Corporation of America should be of concern to Australians. This company has up to $1.8 billion to invest in Australia. According to reports in America, the company is being investigated following allegations of Medicare fraud. Essential but expensive services such as emergency rooms have been closed in some facilities. Staffing cuts have occurred and numerous concerns about patient care have been raised.The question we should be asking ourselves is: what will be the real effect of profit making operators on the public health system? How will this impact on the principle of free, universal health care cover? How will access to unprofitable and expensive services be guaranteed?In New South Wales last year an additional $6 million had to be provided to the Port Macquarie Hospital just to enable it to run a comparable service to that provided by public hospitals. Labor does not believe that just because something is done by the private sector it will necessarily be more efficient. The federal budget for 1998 did not include one extra dollar for public hospitals that was not on the table when the agreement was rejected by the Premiers Conference. I have said this before but, because I got such a good response from the public, I will say it again: the federal budget did not create one additional hospital bed or employ one additional nurse.As a result, more than one million extra patients stand to be left on the public hospital waiting lists. Blow-outs in waiting lists and for dental care have not been addressed either. The government's offer is insufficient to meet the growth in public hospital demand over the next five years. The states estimate that they will treat 20.26 million patients, but the government's offer will cover only 18.83 million patients. Who will fund the other 1.43 million patients?The way in which the package has been worked out and promoted is quite misleading. The $500 million funding for mental care and palliative care is not new money at all—it is just a continuation of existing services and has been double counted. Funding for veterans affairs has not been included before. This funding is just a transfer of responsibility from the Commonwealth to the states.The health care agreement principles also introduce a new concept—that of designated health services, which is not well defined. The definition of designated services is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. In addition, I fail to see how the designated health services not provided at a hospital will be funded.While the Commonwealth alleges that the states are engaging in cost shifting, I would like to ask the government: with the abolition of the Commonwealth dental health program and changes to aged care services, just who is engaging in cost shifting? I trust that this not so very subtle attack on Medicare has not passed unnoticed amongst our constituents. This new approach to funding puts us at risk of losing one of the most cherished institutions of this country and one which gives Australians a real sense of security in an age where job security and their rights in the workplace are increasingly under attack.What kind of society are we living in if we do not support basic services like health, employment services, education and child care? Is it any wonder that Australians are feeling so vulnerable? I would like to contrast this sad scenario with Labor's achievements in health when in office. Apart from creating a world renowned health care system, incorporating the principles of quality, affordability and equality of access, Labor also introduced programs of a preventive nature to cater for the special needs of women, indigenous Australians and people with disabilities.Under Labor, two million people who previously had no cover were protected under Medicare. An extra $1.5 billion was allocated to the states to upgrade public hospitals, and about $2 billion a year was allocated to support nursing homes and upgrade care. Contrary to what the government would have the good citizens of Australia believe, there was no budget crisis when Mr Howard came to office. When Labor left office in 1996, Australia's financial position was one of the strongest in the Western world.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Tell that to Gareth. You might learn something.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—You might learn something if you listen, Minister. The economy was experiencing strong levels of growth. Inflation was low and unemployment rates were starting to fall. The OECD economic outlook of the 25-member countries confirms that Australia had the third lowest level of government expenditure, the third lowest level of government debt, the fourth equal lowest budget deficit and the fifth lowest level of taxation. It really comes down to the values and priorities of the government. I strongly urge the government to rethink its short-sighted priorities, which place ideology and the interests of big business and private providers ahead of those of ordinary Australians.21:58:004383Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to speak on the Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998. The Tasmanian Minister for Community and Health Services, Mr McKay, has been very outspoken and candid in relation to the stalled negotiations between the Commonwealth and many of the states over a replacement for the current Medicare agreements. Negotiations on the new agreements commenced in May last year, and the sticking point has been the quantum and security of funding.The frustration has resulted in an unprecedented level of public exchange and in-fighting. In Tasmania, Mr McKay started the ball rolling with comments such as, `The Commonwealth is making a Clayton's commitment to Medicare.' Attacks like this led the Prime Minister to call in the support of his seven Tasmanian Liberal colleagues to defend an offer which represented a $137 million cut over five years to Tasmania. Each member signed a press statement describing the Premiers Conference offer as fair and reasonable.The Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet and member for Braddon, Mr Miles, accused the state Liberal government of running a scare campaign on the health crisis. Mr Miles cast total blame for the crisis on Liberal state governments of the past. Subsequently, the health minister accused Mr Miles of white-anting his constituents and of being too long in Canberra. Mr McKay said that Mr Miles was using wrong figures in his criticism of Tasmania over the Medicare row and changed his figures daily to suit his argument. While all this verbal warfare has been ensuing, the quality of patient care has remained under threat.With the Medicare agreement wrangle, we have also had in Tasmania conjecture about options that will need to be explored within the public system so as to deal with the projected funding shortfall in the next financial year. On top of all that, there is the public sector nurses industrial campaign in support of a pay claim. This industrial campaign has ended with members of the public being asked to volunteer their assistance during the dispute at public hospitals. All these happenings have stressed and underlined the fact that public health finances in Tasmania are at crisis point. A recent editorial in a Tasmanian daily newspaper stated:It is the public's right to a good education and good health, so Government spending should not stint on the best possible standards of care, certainly nothing less than the politicians and the bureaucrats who frame budgets would accept for themselves.The editorial went on:Federal as well as state attention to health funding is overdue, and the Commonwealth could start by reviewing the terms of the new Medicare agreement, which most states, including Tasmania, are steadfastly refusing to sign. Appropriately financed, Tasmania could build a health system capable of meeting the demands on it.As we know, Commonwealth funding for public hospitals runs out tomorrow. Agreements are vital to fixing the crisis in public hospitals. This bill typifies the hatred that the Prime Minister harbours for Medicare and the public hospital system. We on this side of the chamber will not forget when the Prime Minister said that Medicare had been an unmitigated disaster. It is not Medicare that is a disaster; far from it. Rather, the disaster that is occurring in public health emanates from the backdowns and reversals by the Prime Minister on his health assurances to the states. The assurances were that every dollar would be provided to the states on time and in full.When you turn to the detail of the offer in this bill, you discover that the Prime Minister's previous assurances have all been nonsense. With the decline in private health insurance, there was an assurance from the Prime Minister that payments would recompense any state if reductions in private health patient numbers were to occur. Other factors were promised to be taken into account to ensure that there was no erosion in the value of funds provided. Alas, that is not the case, as this bill provides a lump sum each year with no indexation.The Prime Minister may attempt to hang his hat on the claim that funding in real terms to the states has been generously increased by 15 per cent over the next five years. However, we heard from the majority of state health ministers that that claim does not stand up to close scrutiny. The government is deliberately attempting to orchestrate a decline in the provision of public hospital services and the whittling away of Medicare. The government wants to dismantle the safety health net for Australians. This bill, in allocating $29 million, will be the start of the efforts of the government to undermine the confidence that has until now been so strong in Medicare and within public hospitals throughout the nation. This bill heralds the development of a two-tier health system. Where will this lead us?I recall reading not so long ago an article in my local paper about a Swedish dentist who left his patient with only titanium screws in his lower jaw. He took his dental implants back as the patient could not pay his bill. That was a dramatic example of the health cutbacks that have been made to Sweden's public dental scheme and health insurance. That example may be dramatic, but one needs to ask oneself how long before examples as stark and concerning as that one in Sweden start to emerge in this country and, for that matter, in Tasmania? How long will it be before compulsory hospital charges are levied for in-patient care on eligible persons who elect to be treated as public patients? Finally, in closing, I quote the Tasmanian Liberal minister for health, who said of the federal government and its miserly allocation to the states:The only people that are hurting are the patients.22:06:004384Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I was tempted to have a rhetorical frolic tonight, but I will restrain myself.Senator Carr interjecting—VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—If you take the opposition's words as those we used when we were in opposition and changed a few figures around, you would end up with the same speech. I invite the opposition to look at the Hansard . I want to make a point about an issue Senator Forshaw and Senator Denman brought up, and it relates to why expenditure under the bill is capped. What happens if the private health insurance participation rate drops?I can understand that because, when the Labor Party was in power, the Medicare agreement of five years ago said that when it dropped under two per cent the agreement would be renegotiated. What did Labor do? It never, ever did anything. Senator West would recall that. It never, ever did; and I used to ask about that all the time. I kept pillorying the Labor Party and asking why it did not renegotiate when that was in the agreement. I can understand the Labor Party asking this question of itself now.Senator Forshaw interjecting—VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—We have taken care of it. The amount of appropriation under the bill is set at the level of the offer made to the states at the Premiers Conference. If the private health insurance participation rate drops, if hospital output costs rise, or if the population increases more quickly than projected, the amount of the appropriation would prove to be insufficient by year 5. That is what happened in the past. In that case, the Commonwealth will need to legislate to appropriate more money.If the states are worried about not being assured of security under this bill, the solution is simple: they should enter into agreements that will determine the amount of money they will receive and set out how this will be varied from year to year to cope with drops in the participation rate, increases in hospital output costs, and increases in population. The simple answer, Senator Forshaw, is for them to enter into negotiations over the agreement and sign it.Senator Gibbs said—and Senator Denman also mentioned—that we were not in budget deficit. She had better tell Gareth Evans that, because he admitted that there was a $10.5 billion budget deficit. There was a $70 billion deficit in the seven years before. Senator Gibbs has one thing in common with Pauline Hanson, and that is that she would print the money, because that is the only answer. You either increase taxes or print money—and that was what she was saying. She was moaning about how we need more money. Of course we need more money. We have an ageing population and rapidly increasing technology and so it is going to cost more.Senator Gibbs should acknowledge that the Labor Party, which is now in power in Queensland, should be very grateful that Queensland signed the Medicare agreement and got an extra $100 million which it otherwise would not have got. She should move a vote of thanks to Mike Horan and express her gratitude for the extra $100 million that Queensland got.Senator Lees raised the question of flexibility. The very point we make in these agreements is that the principles are designed to promote flexibility. Health care is changing. We need to make sure that we are not trapped into in-hospital care, as is the case under the current agreements. I do not think an amendment has been moved. A question came up in relation to those amendments, but I will leave that out. There is nothing else to respond to.We are back to the old story of the states moaning that they have not got enough money. Senator Gibbs asked if we were going to go back to pre-1983 when two million people did not have private health insurance. Senator Gibbs, 12 million people have not got private health insurance now because of the Labor Party's policy in relation to private health insurance. We would love to go back to pre-1983 when there were only two million people without private health insurance.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Adjournment4385Motion (by Senator Herron) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.438522:12:004385Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I rise this evening to talk about the role of government in Australia. It is interesting to observe the way in which this government approaches its responsibilities with respect to the administration of the government and government services. First of all, I believe that the role of government needs to be addressed in the most basic and fundamental way.In Western social democratic societies, the government serves a role in ensuring that a redistribution of wealth occurs to provide the necessary infrastructure for human habitation and active participation in society. The degree to which the government turns its mind to those who have a disadvantage in the way wealth is distributed has traditionally been a determinant of how progressive a government is.I believe that there is always a role for government in providing for those in need, both in the community and at a level of functional infrastructure. What happens when this fundamental role of government is rejected by the party in power—in this case, the coalition—and it starts dismantling the administrative structures that provide the means and the tools by which they give effect to policies?This administrative deconstruction does two things. First, it reduces the ability of the government of the day to effect change. If the tools for change are disabled or locked up in long-term potentially litigious contracts, then governments and political parties, despite their intentions, may not have the means to deliver their policies to effect change, to achieve their social goals, or to put in place their election commitments.The second impact takes this first point into the body politic. Paradoxically, the worse that government services become the more this aim serves to reinforce to voters that governments are unable to deliver effective and meaningful services and to support those in need. This downward spiral works against those parties such as Labor that advocate a reasonable and caring role for government and for government to provide a level of services to society. In other words, the voter perception of that party advocating a supporting role for government is that those services are in fact not effective. Conversely, the very party that advocates a further reduction and diminution in government services creates self-serving reinforcement by underfunding critical services, outsourcing with poor contractual management, privatising and generally withdrawing public accountability processes from taxpayers' expenditure.This scenario paints a very bleak picture, and this picture is Australia. Under the successive budgets of the coalition government, we have seen them shirk their responsibility to the nation to provide for those in need. For the first time in Australia's history, we have a coalition government that is not committed to the good governance and good administration of this country. We have a government so blinded by their own economic rhetoric that they are prepared to diminish their ability to be effective agents of change by deconstructing the administration and giving free rein to the market.We know the market has not got a reputation for compassion and commitment to social justice; we know the market is not known for its concern for countries that contribute barely a percentage point on the global stock market; we know the market is not known for consideration of people who are geographically dispersed; and we know the market is not committed to the growth of new business in industry development. Is this the type of government we want? Are we happy to let the market determine what the agents of change and what the progressive nature of our country will be?I believe this government have abdicated their social responsibility. I think there are three main indicators for this: firstly, the budget; secondly, their priorities; and, thirdly, their activities in silencing their critics. Let us have a look at the successive budgets and the accompanying legislative changes. There has been $1 billion in cuts to higher education and a similar amount to child-care services. There have been legislative and structural changes and cuts to aged care, legal aid, social security, the common youth allowance and the shifts with public schools funding—all of these areas dealt with over the last successive budgets demonstrate that this government has little compassion.The priorities of this government are another indicator as to the neglect of their social responsibility: advocating a GST; conspiring with employers to sack workers on the waterfront; condoning divisive and racist comments and allowing them to be a catalyst for their own policies; the total negligence with respect to new and emerging technologies and the social inequities that come with negligence in that area; and the privatisation of public assets—all of these things represent the priorities of this government. They are not about compassion; they are not about social equity; and they are not about fairness.In relation to my third point about the government silencing their critics, I turn first to the slashing of funding to the ABC. This and the consistent attacks by Senator Alston more than anything else demonstrate that, rather than spend their time on policies which take the country forward, this government spends a disproportionate amount of time trying to silence those who present a fair view. I think the most disappointing thing about the position that Senator Alston has taken with respect to the ABC is that he has become the spokesperson for the attacks on the credibility and unbiased position that the ABC has taken. The fact that he has the executive power to control funding to the ABC demonstrates a classic conflict of interest.It is so interesting that this government decided to place Senator Alston in this invidious position. Why didn't John Howard take the lead in attacking the ABC? Why didn't Peter Costello? Why didn't any of the other ministers—perhaps their consumer affairs minister—take the running on their appalling campaign against the ABC? Why was it left to Senator Alston to wear both hats? It does nothing to support their arguments, and I believe that this conflict that the minister has to deal with in the conduct of his duties as the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts will come back to haunt him.Other examples of this government silencing their critics can be found in the cuts in funding in the first budget round to many women's groups that received grant funding through the Office of the Status of Women. These groups by their nature were collectives of women who came together to advocate specific causes. Some of the groups were quite broad and represented women across a particular sector. They at least got six months notice of their funding cut. I cannot say the same thing for AYPAC. This peak youth body received notice of their funding cut only a short time ago. In fact, they had half an hour's notice that they would no longer receive funding for their secretariat, for their administration, for their future. I think the silencing of these outspoken people in the community is a great demonstration of what this government have to hide.So we can see within the budget, within its priorities and within its exorbitant efforts to silence its critics that we do not have a government that can hold its head up and say it is socially responsible. We have a government that is not about the good governance of this country; it is about deconstruction. That will undermine not just its ability to effect change and progress but from here on in it will undermine the ability of other governments to do that. That is why it is so important to rectify this situation and get rid of this neglectful government.438722:22:004387Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I rise tonight to share with the Senate some experiences of the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee, which is inquiring into regional employment and unemployment. The committee is currently conducting public hearings on this issue and has visited many destinations around Australia to hear from witnesses in many regional and rural areas.The schedule is hard enough, but two weeks ago our task was made even more difficult by a witness who did not want to admit to her political leanings. With all the submissions the committee had to read—over 170 in all—and with all the witnesses to hear from, we got a submission that did not tell us where the writer was actually coming from. The witness that I speak of is not only a member of the ALP but is the ALP candidate for the seat of Gilmore, Sandra McCarthy.Ms McCarthy is campaigning in a bid to win the seat from the outstanding local Liberal member, Ms Joanna Gash. I believe that it is important that the committee be notified of Ms McCarthy's leanings. Her political opinions, of course, are coloured by her membership of the ALP and her federal political aspirations. The question is: why didn't she make it clear to the committee where she was coming from? When questioned, Ms McCarthy said she had entered a private submission yet she declared herself as Councillor Sandra McCarthy, deputy mayor of Kiama council. She told the committee that she was there to talk about Kiama shire council's capacity to employ people, while in her submission she said, `I am very concerned about the future employment in my area of the federal electorate of Gilmore.'I was not the only committee member who expressed confusion about exactly which hat Ms McCarthy was wearing while giving evidence in her written submission. For other members and me, the confusion arose over the fact that Ms McCarthy insisted that her submission was private but she was using council's documents. In addition, she is the ALP candidate for Gilmore. This does not seem like a private submission to me, and I believe that her interests should have been openly declared to the committee.When pressed on the issue, Ms McCarthy insisted that she was before the committee purely because she was concerned about unemployment in the region yet, when we discovered that Kiama council had rejected work for the dole projects, she was forced to submit that when her council was given the opportunity to apply for work for the dole projects for local unemployed, which are a successful coalition initiative, they decided to reject it.Here was an opportunity for Kiama council to give young people the skills, motivation and confidence they need to go out and gain real work. Instead, her council decided that it did not want work for the dole for young people in Kiama. Ms McCarthy told us that this decision had been made because the councillors were philosophically opposed to the program. The Kiama council and Ms McCarthy, ALP candidate for Gilmore, apparently philosophically oppose work experience for local young people. They oppose giving young unemployed people skills that could help them find a job.Last week, Ms McCarthy, at the St Georges Basin forum in the electorate of Gilmore, referred to work for the dole as a six-week wonder. Considering that she is the candidate for the entire electorate of Gilmore, Ms McCarthy is ignoring the success that the Shoalhaven earning a living program and work for the dole program have had in her region. These two programs have offered 270 places for the unemployed people in the area.The criticism of this program, which is benefiting the region but has been denied to Kiama, is coming from a person who wants to represent the people of Gilmore in the federal parliament. Does she not realise that the electorate includes young unemployed people, and that she would be expected to also represent their interests if she was elected rather than denying them access to work experience because of her own philosophical beliefs? The young unemployed people of Gilmore, whom she said she wants to represent, need innovative employment programs that lead to real jobs, not a representative who makes blanket decisions to reject these programs without young people's best interests at heart.In her evidence, Ms McCarthy went on to say that another reason the council decided not to apply for work for the dole projects was because they had not been told who would have to pay compensation if the participant was injured. The council was concerned that they might be stuck with a bill. While it is an understandable excuse, I would have thought that the benefits of the program for unemployed people should have outweighed these concerns.However, what Ms McCarthy did not tell the committee was that the council had had all its compensation concerns allayed in a briefing session during which they were assured that they were not responsible for compensation. The Commonwealth had stated that it will purchase accident and liability insurance for work for the dole participants. So it seems that Sandra McCarthy misled the Senate committee.Under the previous government, dole queues were churned over and participation in ALP employment programs did not lead to real jobs. If Ms McCarthy does not like the new improved program on offer, then we can only assume that she is a supporter of these old failed ALP schemes. Despite work for the dole's widespread support in the community, Ms McCarthy does not support it in her region, and she has had a hand in denying young unemployed people in Kiama access to work experience that could have led to employment.How does she explain to the youth of Kiama that such programs are available to the youth of Nowra but not to them? The youth of Nowra and other parts of Gilmore were luckier. Under the leadership of Ms Joanna Gash, Gilmore's exceptional federal member, they are benefiting from work for the dole and other programs for young people. If the youth of the federal seat of Gilmore are unfortunate enough to have Ms McCarthy as their MP after the next election, will they also become victims of her philosophical purity in regard to employment programs?438922:29:004389Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise tonight to speak about values and some of the choices which Australians face over the next few months. They are choices which come along only once in a while, choices which define a nation. They are choices about the sort of nation we are and the sort of nation we want to take into the 21st century. But these are disturbing, dangerous times that threaten our national life with insecurity, fear and unhappiness.In the early 1980s, along with a number of other Mount Gambier families, we took a Vietnamese family into our home rather than see them sent to a refugee centre. I can still recall waiting at Mount Gambier airport one freezing winter night and watching a number of families come down from the plane onto the tarmac with nothing other than what they stood up in—and that was very flimsy, lightweight summer clothing. I remember that one of the babies was wrapped in nothing but a towel.The family who lived with us for six months told me last week that now they face a far less friendly Australia. The youngest daughter, who is now at university in Melbourne, daily faces taunts and abuse. She says that it seems to her that it is now basically okay for people to direct racist remarks at her. This is happening to an Australian kid from an Australian family—and that family has worked extremely hard to get both their daughters to university. Surely we cannot stand by and just watch this happening. It is shameful and distressing, and it makes me very angry.The sadness and the unease that this family is now facing is mirrored across the country. From Darwin to Hobart, from Broome to Geelong, the values which underpinned our genuinely harmonious society are now under attack from forces of intolerance, division and confrontation. To this point in Australia's recent history, we have taken these values for granted, but we can take them for granted no longer. We must now defend them, because they are under attack. We must fight for them because, if we do not, we will lose them and indeed they will disappear as quickly as dew from the grass. All Australians—all of us—will be the losers.Tonight I restate for the record in the parliament of Australia that the Democrats will fight to preserve these values. We will not sit idly by and watch the Australia we know and love slip away into the darkness.I continue by talking a little about the Democrats—the sorts of values we hold, the sort of work we do. When the Democrats were founded, our first leader had a catchphrase: honesty, tolerance and compassion. In a very real sense, those values filter through to everything we do. Those values of honesty, tolerance and compassion are why we support multiculturalism. They are why we support reconciliation. They are why we support equal opportunity for women and for young people, based on merit.Some 20 months ago, the President of the United States of America visited Australia. On a sunny day in Sydney, he stood before a crowd at the Royal Botanical Gardens and marvelled at the tolerance of our multicultural society. He went on to say that he could not think of a more shining example of how people from diverse backgrounds could come together than the example he was seeing in Australia. That example is now under threat.Some four years ago, Australia rejoiced as this parliament put behind it 200 years of colonial racism to acknowledge prior ownership of this land by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The Mabo legislation reached a balance for the first time—albeit in a limited form—in which we saw our laws acknowledge the legitimate property rights of all Australians. That balance is now under threat. Some two years ago, Australia rejected the gun culture of the United States and opted instead for gun control. That, too, is now under threat.The choices surrounding these sorts of things define our nation. The choices we have made about these things define the Democrats. There are other values which help define us: we are pro-environment; we are pro public education; we are pro-Medicare.Ever since our formative years, when my colleague Vicki Bourne helped draft Australia's very first world heritage legislation, the Democrats have been passionate advocates for the environment and for the environment's protection. From coasts to chemicals, from greenhouse to green jobs, we have fought to enhance and protect Australia's and the world's environment in practical ways. Those values are now under threat.The Democrats have always maintained that education is a right, not a privilege; that quality public education is a necessity, not a luxury. Those values are now under threat.The Democrats have always supported a universal health care system, with strong community based care and well-resourced public hospitals. Ever more than before, those values are now also under threat.On economic matters the Democrats are the party of the middle path. We have opposed the excesses of economic rationalism, but have been outnumbered by the Liberal, National and Labor parties voting together. We support small business but also the rights of workers. We support investment from overseas but also the need to ensure that investment is in Australia's economic best interests. We understand the operation of `the market', but also see an important role for government.These are Democrat values. It is these values which have guided the Democrats in the Senate, because it is the Senate's job to protect the interests of ordinary people and make things fairer. After negotiations, if the laws remain unfair, we then oppose them. This is the case with the Wik legislation. We believe that there have been more than enough compromises.If you look at the Senate's record, out of 405 bills we have now dealt with in this chamber, only one was rejected and four were laid aside by the House of Representatives. This is hardly evidence of the `hostile' Senate that the government claims this is. The Senate rejects a bill only when it believes the government is being hostile to the interests of ordinary Australians or hostile to basic principles of fairness. Acting in this way, we hold the government to account, not to ransom. But that, too, is under threat.There has been a lot of publicity about One Nation—some deserved, some not. Whatever—the situation is now clear. Australians have a choice to make: who do you want holding the balance of power in the Senate? Because it is the Senate where the fundamental contests of values will occur; it is the Senate where a balance of power will come into play. Only two parties can hold the balance of power in the Senate in their own right—the Australian Democrats or One Nation.Current polling shows the Democrats on 9½ per cent of the Senate vote and One Nation on 13½ per cent. Current polling therefore shows that we will be returned with seven seats and One Nation with nine or 10. If we are to win the battle of values, we need to reverse those figures. It is possible; it is realistic. We have, in fact, done it before. But we need the vote of every Australian who holds our values. If we have that, we will prevail.Our first aim is to win two seats in three states—South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland—and one in each of Western Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. That would give us nine senators and probably the balance of power. We also have an outside but fighting chance of winning a second seat in Victoria and a third in South Australia. With 11 senators, that would give us certain control of the balance of power. But we have a lot of work to do and a lot of support to gather before we can contemplate that.I would like to make it clear: it is not the Democrats who are under threat from One Nation. Polling shows we will be back after a double dissolution with at least the same number of senators as we have now. If we were just interested in protecting our seats, we would not be standing firm on Wik, because polling is showing us that, after a half-Senate election, we will be assured of 10 seats, easily. What we are interested in and what we want to protect is our values.I remind the Senate again of my Vietnamese friends. They came to this country believing that they would receive compassion and care, that they would be tolerated and that we would hold out to them the hand of hope and friendship. They took that hand then, but are we to withdraw it now? The values of honesty, tolerance and compassion which Lai, Than, Truc, Thuy and Loc found here in Australia are under threat of being overwhelmed by intolerance, prejudice, confrontation and fear.At the coming election, the people of Australia will have a choice to make about values; what sorts of values they want to see in parliament and what sorts of values they want influencing government. Who do they want holding the balance of power? We ask Australians to think about that question.439122:39:004391O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On 10 June, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) and the Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) released a joint media statement. The statement detailed the Howard government's response to the deepening crisis in the Australian pork industry. The package announced by the ministers had one fundamental weakness: it did not provide any short-term assistance to those producers facing severe hardship as a result of a collapse in prices. You would recall that the Senate last week called on the government to review that decision and reconsider the application for exceptional circumstances assistance from the industry. The minister is yet to respond to the Senate resolution. In the media statement, the ministers said:The Government has decided to correct a surprising administrative anomaly it identified when looking at the safeguards issue—the safeguards issue being the safeguard provisions of the World Trade Organisation rules. The statement continued:The previous Labor Government inexplicably failed to include such a safeguard mechanism in legislation introduced into parliament at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1994.Madam President, we on this side of the chamber have been waiting for the govern ment to introduce an amendment to the legislation which the government stated was required to activate the World Trade Organisation safeguards provisions. I endeavoured to determine exactly what amendments were in fact required. I have also attempted to establish whether or not such a change could have been achieved by regulation. No-one has been able to tell me exactly what legislative or regulatory changes Mr Tim Fischer was referring to.Today my office was advised that in fact there were no legislative changes required as was claimed by Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Anderson. So the Howard government could have moved to establish whether or not there is a case for the application of World Trade Organisation safeguard provisions at any time.There has not been any legislative impediment at all. In fact, if the minister had listened to the views expressed by the Labor Party, the Democrats, the Greens, the Independents and his colleagues in the Senate on 8 April, this whole process would be well advanced. On that day, the Senate passed a resolution calling on the Minister, Mr Anderson, to immediately establish an inquiry into this matter. That resolution was passed by the Senate 83 days ago.I understand the government has now designated the Productivity Commission as the body to undertake an inquiry into the impact of imports on domestic prices. I further understand the government has given the commission some 140 days to investigate the matter. If Mr Anderson and Mr Fischer had acted promptly and in the interests of the industry the work of the commission would be well advanced and help for nearly 4,000 pork producers and their families would be much closer.Unfortunately, the claim by the Minister for Trade that there is a legal flaw in the legislation is yet another illustration of how this government has avoided the tough but important decisions in relation to this industry. The government was aware last February, some 16 months ago, of the potential problems for Australian producers flowing from imports. In fact, Mr Anderson asked the industry to advise him on possible options to deal with the potential problems and the industry responded to that request.The minister has been aware of the problem for some considerable time, from the surge in imports in the second half of last year. It should not have required the Senate to force Mr Anderson to act. I would have thought that, as the minister responsible for this industry and the many thousands of rural families who rely on it for a living, he would have been keen to act to help them in their time of need. And I would have thought the same would be said of the Minister for Trade, Mr Tim Fischer. They are both farmers, after all.Mr Tim Fischer revealed all on the John Laws Show just before the Queensland election. He was asked whether he had moved to support Australian pork producers because their case had been picked up by the member for Oxley. He said that was not correct, but he did not say that he had acted to support the industry because of the unprecedented collapse in prices being experienced by growers. He said that to be blunt and honest the reason for the move was the upcoming election in that state and the federal election.These ministers and this government are seeking out every means to delay taking action to support this industry. For ever day that Mr Anderson and Mr Tim Fischer fail to act, farmers are going broke and their families face severe hardship as a result. Now the industry is looking at another 140 days before any relief might be forthcoming on the question of imports, and the government is not prepared to consider any short-term relief to keep normally productive and efficient producers going until other measures such as export assistance have had an opportunity to kick in.Now the Minister for Trade has delayed until after the next election making any decision about safeguard action to protect Australian producers from imports because that is what the 140 days period for the Productivity Commission to report means. The commission is unlikely to report before the next election.It is about time that the government put the interests of this important industry first, not last. I believe it is time they looked at some interim measures to assist the industry, such as exceptional circumstances assistance, the sort of assistance that the Senate called on the minister to further investigate in its resolution last week.I touch briefly on another matter. Regarding a speech that I made last week, Senator Heffernan, responding to my quote of a Mr Bill Hunt from Bordertown, suggested that Mr Hunt was not a farmer. Unfortunately, I did not acknowledge that interjection at the time so it does not appear in Hansard. I think he will acknowledge that he made it. I subsequently rang Mr Hunt and asked him what his occupation was. He is a woolgrower. His family have been farming since 1911 and his grandfather was a National Party member of parliament. Senator Heffernan should think again before he intervenes on the basis of lack of knowledge.4392Documents43924392The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan—Certification of Draft Amendment No. 21.Child Care Act— Child Care (Breach of Conditions of Eligibility) Determination 1998. Child Care (High Need Regions) Determination 1998.Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordinance—Notice to show cause under section 58, dated 16 June 1998.Currency Act—Currency Determination No. 4 of 1998.Export Market Development Grants Act—Determination of the initial payment ceiling amount for grant year 1997-98—Determination 1/1998 IPCA.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section— 15—T12-98 and T15-98. 19—T13-98 and T14-98.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determination No. 15 of 1998.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 5/98. Answers to Questions on Notice4393The following answers to questions were circulated:4393(Question No. 1183)11834393Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 11 May 1998:With reference to the regional development grants considered in 1996:(1) Was consideration given to an application of around $150,000 to develop a feasibility study into the long-term viability of concrete versus steel for floating off-shore structures.(2) From which organisation did this application originate.(3) Was the South West Development Commission in Bunbury, Western Australia one of those organisations.(4) What share of the cost of the study was met by Commonwealth, State and Local governments.(5) What was the department's recommendation on the application.(6) (a) Were any representations or other comments on the proposal made by current or former Federal or State government members; if so, did they support or appose the proposal; and (b) what were the reasons given.4393Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) An application was received under the former Government's Regional Development Program (RDP) for the above project, but was not considered prior to this Government's decision on 17 July 1996 not to fund new projects under that Program. The application sought $75,000 from the Commonwealth and $125,000 from other sources.(2) The application under the RDP came through the Southern Province RDO and was a project sponsored by a WA State development board, the South West Development Commission.(3) Yes (see 2).(4), (5) & (6) See answer to (1).