1998-06-303817SENATE439501998-06-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice439543954395O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Parer representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the minister confirm that in a media release entitled `Government Announces Pig Industry Assistance' dated 10 June the government announced it intended to `correct a surprising administrative anomaly' by introducing a general safeguard mechanism into the relevant legislation? Does the government still intend to take this action? If not, why not? If so, when will the government act?4395Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I do recall words to that effect in a press release put out, I think, by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and also the Deputy Prime Minister. The government has moved to address all aspects of a Senate resolution of 7 April calling for action under World Trade Organisation rules—and I think that is what it referred to—on the effects of imports on the pig industry in particular. On 10 June it announced, as you would be aware, a further package of financial assistance to the industry, amounting to another $9 million for investment grants to specialist pig processors. It has also set aside special provisions under the national component of the new FarmBis scheme to improve risk management skills and the adoption of best practice in the industry.The government has also announced a benchmarking study of the entire pork production processing and supply catch to assess performance of the industry. It identified the need for a study of the medium-term export opportunities focusing on Asia. The minister welcomes the finalisation on 26 June of the terms of the reference from the Treasurer to the Productivity Commission for an inquiry into the imports of uncooked pork and into the profitability and competitiveness of the pig farming and pig meat processing indus tries. This inquiry will examine whether safeguard action is warranted against imports of frozen pig meat under the WTO safeguards arrangements and will report within 140 days. It is now up to the industry to convince the Productivity Commission that the safeguard measures on imports of frozen pork can be justified under the WTO.The Deputy Prime Minister has also indicated that the government would lead a high level trade mission to key markets in order to expand opportunities for exports of Australian pig meat in the latter half of 1998. This assistance is over and above that which the minister announced in November 1997 for the provision of $10 million in assistance to the pig industry under the national pork industry development program. In addition, on 8 April 1998 the government introduced amendments to the Trade Practices Act to clarify claims of `Product of Australia' and `Made in Australia'. I believe these are currently before the Senate or will be in the next few days.4395O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, isn't it true that the press release said, `The previous Labor government inexplicably failed to include such a safeguard mechanism in legislation introduced to the Parliament'—not something to do with World Trade Organisation rules? Doesn't the minister agree that the claim that legislative amendments were required was no more than a delaying tactic by the government?In relation to the Productivity Commission report and the request that it report in 140 days, doesn't this mean that the government has effectively deferred any decision to protect producers from a flood of imports until after the next federal election? Isn't this yet another example of the minister for primary industries and the minister for trade putting the interests of rural Australia last?4395Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The answer to most of those questions is no. The government has acted very quickly with regard to the pig industry. It recognises—and I think I have said this a number of times in this place—and has great concern about the difficulties facing the pig industry. A lot of it has to do with things like oversupply of pork—not just with in Australia but around the world. But the point is made that the inquiry will examine whether safeguard action is warranted against imports of frozen pig meat under the WTO safeguards agreement. With respect to the balance of the question on legislation, I will refer that to the minister.43964396MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—My question is to Senator Ellison as the minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and relates to the government's Jobs Network initiative. Is it a fact that while Labor was in office nearly one million people were out of work—to say nothing of many times that number who were underemployed—that nearly 360,000 Australians were unemployed for 12 months or longer, and that the only thing the Labor government did for them was dream up taxpayer funded make work programs like Working Nation? Didn't they shuttle them between the Department of Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Service and provide no focus at all for them to get jobs? I ask the Minister how the government's new program, the Jobs Network initiative, is addressing these shortcomings.4396Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—There is no doubt that long-term unemployment is one of the most serious social problems that this country faces. It has ramifications in both the personal and societal senses in that it tears apart our social fabric, and there is also an economic consequence. This is a very important problem which this government is addressing and one which the former government obviously did not address.Under the current Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, when he was minister for employment, there were 359,000 long- term unemployed people. Indeed, in December 1992, when he was the minister, unemployment peaked at 11.2 per cent. His comments back in 1993 when he was minister for employment illustrated Labor's attitude to the long-term unemployed. I quote from Hansard:What we are going to live with, and what they are living with, is going to be a very lengthy period of unemployment for some people . . . I am proud to say that this coalition government has not succumbed to this defeatist attitude which dominated the Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister for employment. We are addressing the question of long-term unemployment. Today, there are 123,000 fewer long-term unemployed people.With the Jobs Network, we are providing choice and convenience for unemployed people. Obviously, the opposition does not want to hear this, but in the former system you had to go to the CES and be registered as unemployed. You then had to go to the Department of Social Security to collect your payment. What we are providing today in this reform is 1,400 sites—over four times the 296 sites offered by the CES previously.But what does the opposition do? The opposition is content to pick out the negatives, to nitpick and to downgrade this reform for those seeking employment. The Ballarat Community Education Centre had this to say:The Federal Government's new Jobs Network system is working extremely well and negative comments are both inconsistent with reality and damaging to the new scheme.Jobs Australia said this:It was unfortunate that media coverage of the new Jobs Network arrangements has generally focused on the negative and that stories about smooth and successful operations and positive outcomes for unemployed people do not get the attention they deserve.That is what job providers are saying. Jobs Australia is an association of 40 community groups dealing with those people who need intensive assistance. The opposition would do well to listen, because this is what it is all about. These people are involved at the coalface and they are saying this system is working. Yet the opposition is still nitpicking, going on with all the negatives, breeding a feeling of despair and despondency, and misleading those unemployed Australians.Jobs Network has already, after eight weeks of operation, provided thousands of jobs to job seekers. About 40,000 have been lodged on the national vacancy database. There is a telephone number—13 17 15—which any employer can ring to lodge a vacancy at no cost. That is available to all job seekers. Jobs Power in Victoria said:Our recent experience has confirmed that the system is reliable and operating well . . . The opposition would do well to listen to these positive comments. (Time expired)43974397Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the minister verified the reports which the opposition drew to her attention last week that banks were charging extra fees in cases where benefits were paid late as a result of Centrelink error? Is the minister aware that Centrelink in Western Australia has agreed to refund $80 in bank charges to a couple on benefits who were forced to pay these charges as a consequence of a late payment from Centrelink? Will the minister now give an undertaking that all those in similar situations will receive refunds?4397Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—There is an arrangement whereby people who suffer from defective administration in Commonwealth agencies can be reimbursed. Every case, however, is considered on its individual merits, and that would be the case in these circumstances.4397Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I have a supplementary question, Madam President. The couple in question got their compensation because they went to their local Labor member of parliament. Will the minister give an undertaking that all those who incur charges as a result of late payments by Centrelink will be compensated? Will she ensure that they all get compensated for the costs they have incurred?4397Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I suggest that constituents who have had this problem—and there have been very few of them, I am glad to say—might do well to cut out the middleman and go straight back to Centrelink.43974397Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is also directed to the Minister for Social Security. The minister has previously outlined the many benefits associated with the introduction of the youth allowance, including rent assistance for students and a more generous means test than currently operates. The previous Labor government had a policy to pay young people more to be on the dole rather than to continue in education or training programs. Could the minister outline the government's changes to youth payments, addressing Labor's failures, particularly its failure to assist students with rent assistance?4397Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am very grateful for the question because one of the most important reforms to benefit young people is to be introduced tomorrow. The opposition has struggled mightily over the last few weeks with their friends in the CPSU to try to develop a campaign to somehow frighten people about the youth allowance. The reality is that, of the 560,000 young Australians who will be affected by the introduction of this allowance, 153,750 will receive more money, 361,200 will receive the same payment, 32,350 will receive a reduced payment and 12,800 will receive no money.The important point is that students who have been campaigning for years to get rent assistance to be able to afford to go away to study, to be able to afford to have a decent standard of living while they are studying, at last are getting rent assistance. They are not only getting rent assistance, but they are also getting a pharmaceutical allowance and, if they live in remote parts of Australia, they may also be eligible for a remote area allowance.I think what the scare campaign of the opposition is refusing to recognise or acknowledge is that they had an Austudy parental means test which, in fact, is less generous than the parental means test which will apply from tomorrow. First of all, they both started at about the same number of dollars as a base but under youth allowance they cut out very much higher. For example, for a family with one child living at home, the cut-out point would be at $41,000—about $4,000 more than the cut-out point for Austudy. If there was one young person living away from home, then the cut-out point of the family income would be $58,000—that is $12,000 more than the cut-out point for Austudy. You are not hearing the Labor spokesman acknow ledging that as she travels around the country trying to frighten people.The Labor spokesman is claiming that families in Gympie, Lismore, Burnie and Bendigo are going to somehow be disadvantaged by that. It just shows how out of touch the Labor Party still is because those are areas which, like most of rural and regional Australia, are still suffering after 13 years of Labor. These are families on low to middle incomes, compared with the rest of Australia. Most in fact will be eligible for assistance for their young people.All we have had from the Labor Party is complaints about the initiative. Do they really want to go back to students getting less than the young unemployed? Are they prepared to go out and campaign in the next election on their cuts to the extra expenditure? This is not a savings measure, Madam President. It is $212 million extra expenditure on youth allowance—extra money over the next four years for youth allowance for the benefit of students as well as young people looking for work. But no, what we have got is a campaign of ALP and CPSU delegates trying to beat up a storm, trying to frighten the public, trying to do something to help the CPSU in its industrial relations campaign, in its negotiations of a new agreement with Centrelink management. Our staff are working very hard in Centrelink to get the information to young people and to process their applications. We have a new policy being implemented for a new—(Time expired)43984398Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister confirm that, contrary to claims by the government, the number of sites providing intensive assistance to the long-term unemployed—those most in need of assistance—has actually fallen under the Job Network program? Will the minister admit that the combined number of sites assisting the long-term unemployed under the CES contracted case managers model was approximately 860 whilst, now, only 700 sites are available to the long-term unemployed under the Job Network program?Opposition senators interjecting—4398Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—It is well known that the referrals for intensive assistance have been very good, because what we have here is a system which has three—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On a point of order, Madam President. We have had a number of occasions to observe how the Labor Party is conducting itself in question time today. On each occasion when a question has been asked of a minister, it has been followed by constant interruptions on the other side. I simply invite you to say that that is not acceptable conduct. Just because Senator Cook is still smarting from missing out on that job as a cleaner with the ILO, he wants to take it out on us all the time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, you should stick to the point of order.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—It is not acceptable conduct and it is not a proper way of allowing question time to proceed.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on the point of order. This is the oldest tactic in the book—Senator Alston coming in to try to give Senator Ellison a bit of time to turn up the brief and get his confidence back, because we all know he has lost his confidence in question time. It is an abuse of question time, an abuse of procedure and an abuse of the standing orders and Senator Alston knows it, Madam President.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Your behaviour is outrageous and in breach of the standing orders.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Madam President, on the point of order: the oldest trick in the book, which Senator Faulkner is aware of and practises on a daily basis, is for a minister to be asked a question and, precisely as outlined by Senator Alston, Senator Faulkner—with his back to you because he is too chicken to do it to your face; he is the sort of gutless little person that beat up kids behind the toilet block—Opposition senators interjecting—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—You probably beat up kids behind the toilet block and pulled wings off butterflies. Too chicken to front up to the President and do it. And his little cohorts behind support him in the task of ensuring that ministers cannot concentrate on answering questions. That is the abuse of question time that is going on.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, on the point of order. You may not have been able to hear it from down that end of the chamber but Senator Mackay had not even sat down on her seat before she started screeching across the chamber at Senator Ellison. Hansard will record a punctuation mark, if not a question mark, at the end of her question and, then, if they were to be accurate—if it is possible for the poor Hansard reporters—they will record a barrage of screeching before Senator Ellison had even stood on his feet. I would ask you to at least ask Senator Mackay to stop screeching. I would support Senator Vanstone in her submission to you to stop Senator Faulkner from turning his back to you—which I know you have asked him not to do before—and then, with his raucous voice, engaging in a continual commentary on question time. All Senator Faulkner is doing is trying to do the ABC commentators out of a job.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I think it would be better for everybody if we proceeded with question time and that most people—both inside and outside the chamber—be given the opportunity to hear the questions and the answers.9X5Senator ELLISON—Madam President, as I was saying—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Before you were so rudely interrupted by Senator Alston.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left will behave!9X5Senator ELLISON—We have three programs, basically job matching, job search assistance and intensive assistance. This has been provided through 1,400 job sites which is over four times the number of sites which were provided under the previous system. As I said earlier—and I do not know whether Senator Mackay was listening—we have referred 122,000 people for intensive assistance. I said that in my previous answer. That is just 3,000 short of our target of 125,000, which we are on target to meet by the end of this month.Those figures are very good figures indeed, because intensive assistance goes to your indigenous people, your migrants and your long-term unemployed. Remember the long-term unemployed, of which you had 359,000 when you were in government. We have cut that number by 123,000.What we have here is an opposition that does not want to live up to the facts of the history when it was in government, when it presided over the worst unemployment figures in recent times. It does not want to look at a system which only had 296 job sites that unemployed people could go to. It does not want to acknowledge the fact that we have job providers who are saying, `We are getting people jobs. We are getting people who need intensive assistance. We are looking after those people.' We have 40,000 new jobs on the vacancy service. We have a free service where an employer can lodge a vacancy, the 13 17 15 phone line. That incurs no cost.What we have here is a system which is going well, a system where job providers have said, `We're sick and tired of nit-picking.' The negativity is only going to breed despair. It is doing this reform a disservice, and the opposition needs to take account of itself in this regard because it does nothing for the unemployed people in this country—especially the long-term unemployed—when it keeps attacking this program.4399Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it or is it not the case that there are now 160 fewer sites available to long-term unemployed people through intensive assistance? Isn't it true that long-term unemployment has risen by 4.5 per cent since the last election? Isn't it true that this rise will be further compounded by the government's failure to provide sufficient access points for long-term unemployed people to intensive assistance under the Jobs Network program? Isn't it true that this new system is everything to do with saving money—$1.8 billion to be exact—and nothing to do with providing services to long-term unemployed people?4400Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—For each disadvantaged person who comes under the intensive assistance program, there is an up-front payment of over $1,500. That is the commitment that this government is providing. Senator Mackay asked whether this was a cost saving exercise. It is not. It is an endeavour to help those people who are long-term unemployed. We are putting the money up-front and the incentives are there for those people. More than 300 organisations are involved in the total Jobs Network program. We are offering more choice. We are offering them financial incentives. We are offering the reforms to get the long-term unemployed people back into the work force. That is what we are doing.44004400Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is to the Minister for Social Security. Is the minister aware of reports that senior Centrelink staff have stated that, if data collection forms sent out to current Austudy recipients are not returned by 8 July, these students will be deemed to have breached their obligations and they will be docked 18 per cent of their benefits for six months? Is the minister aware of a letter sent by Senator Tambling to AYPAC this month which promises a publicity campaign emphasising the importance of returning the forms? It also promises two reminder letters and individual telephone calls to those who will be no longer eligible for payment or who will suffer a significant reduction. Minister, what has happened to the publicity campaign? Do you realise that there is nothing about the deadline or the penalties on the common youth allowance website and that the $3.8 million common youth allowance promotional campaign also fails to make any mention of these particular penalties?4400Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I have noticed that Senator Stott Despoja claimed some of these things in a press release that she put out, but I am afraid she did not pay much attention to accurate statements on this matter. She has an ideological position, I am afraid. The answer is that, no, young people who return the youth allowance data collection forms after 1 July will not be incurring a breach and have their payments reduced, although she claimed that in her press release.At this stage, I had better make clear something that I am very pleased about. Senator Stott Despoja mentioned the website. Maybe not every item that she wants is on the website but there is a great deal there. We have had 72,000 hits on the website in the five weeks since the site was established. So that is a pretty good indication that young people and their families are interested.Let me get back to this question of breaches. An administrative breach is imposed only where a person refuses or fails to comply with the request for information without reasonable excuse. It is understandable that some young people may have had trouble getting the information required, even though they were sent the data collection form five weeks ago. Centrelink are therefore doing all they can to help, including phoning those who have not sent the forms back. I hope Senator Stott Despoja appreciates that personal service.If young people do not send the form back, Centrelink cannot work out if they qualify for youth allowance, so payments will stop until such time as they return the form. Those who return their forms after 1 July will have payments completely restored, provided they are qualified. So I urge all young people who received a form to send it back as soon as possible or to go and talk to their Centrelink office if they are having trouble getting the necessary information. Some young people will have found work in the intervening weeks and will not be returning a form for that reason. Nevertheless, I urge those who have been sent a form to contact Centrelink so we can establish their eligibility or otherwise for existing or new payments.4400Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, are you denying that senior Centrelink staff have said to student and youth organisations that 8 July is the deadline by which current Austudy recipients must have their forms into Centrelink or else they will incur a penalty of 18 per cent docked for six months from their common youth allowance? I am not talking about all common youth allowance applications that have to be in by 30 June. I understand those penalties, even though you have not advertised those as well. Is the minister denying that that is being said by Centrelink officials to current Austudy recipients? Will the minister give a guarantee that those people who do suffer a reduction in their benefits or some kind of breach will be reinstated and repaid those benefits?4401Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—As to the last point, I think I made that perfectly clear in the answer I gave. I think Senator Stott Despoja should recognise that there are something like 24,000 employees in Centrelink, and I am not going to stand here and say that any one of them did or did not say anything in particular until I have had advice as to what can be ascertained from Centrelink. That would be commonsense surely. I would be interested to know this: if Senator Stott Despoja is claiming that senior officials in Centrelink said something about 8 July, why was it that she put 7 July in her press release?44014401Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senate Vanstone. Has the Attorney-General's Department been advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of its concerns that the government's policy on the parallel importation of CDs could illegitimately allow the importation of pirate CDs into Australia?4401Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank the senator for her question. I do not have a brief at hand on that matter. I will make inquiries and get back to her.4401Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—While you are there, has the Attorney-General's Department been advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that the government's policy could also breach TRIPS and Australia's general obligations as a member of the World Trade Organisation? Does the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's advice also suggest that an international challenge to the government's policy, if implemented, from either the US or the European Union is a realistic possibility?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. That is clearly not a supple mentary question. There is no way that that could have arisen out of the answer that was given by Senator Vanstone. It is a second and, as it turned out, a third question. The opportunity is to ask one question and then you have an entitlement to ask something arising out of the answer. But that opportunity, in this instance, was not given to the honourable senator. She is abusing the standing orders by seeking to do it in a different way.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On the point of order, Madam President: Senator Lundy asked Senator Vanstone whether advice had been given by one department and whether that advice was to a certain effect. The answer was that Senator Vanstone did not know, but Senator Lundy then went on to refer to the same advice from the same department and asked further whether in fact other points of concern were raised in respect of the same proposal. The supplementary question goes to the minister's state of knowledge about this particular brief. The minister may not have known about the first point raised, but she may very well have known about the second and third. It does relate to the same matter. It is fairly in order. The fact that the minister cannot answer it is obviously a matter of embarrassment for the government and for the Leader of the Government in this place, but that embarrassment does not mean that the question should be ruled out of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—To the extent that any of it related to Senator Vanstone's department, if she wishes to make any comment upon it, she may do so or take it on notice.4401Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I indicated in relation to the first question that I did not have a brief on that. If I may combine a response to the point of order as part of the answer, I had thought that supplementaries would arise out of the answer. On that basis, there is nothing in the supplementary that could arise out of the answer because the answer was, `I do not have a brief.' But, in my usual courteous way, I will try to find out for Senator Lundy because she is one of the people over there who are usually charming, more often than not. I will get some information for her from the Attorney-General as soon as I can and I will send it to her.44024402Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill. I refer the minister to a report in today's West Australian concerning the construction by the Department of Conservation and Land Management of roads into the Wattle Forest block near Walpole in preparation for the logging of the area. I ask: given that the area in question was specifically mentioned in the World Heritage report, which was completed for the state-Commonwealth regional forest agreement process, as being worthy of further consideration for inclusion in a protected reserve system, does the minister agree that this represents yet another example of the Department of Conservation and Land Management's total contempt for the RFA process as being an impediment to its real agenda of promoting the logging of old growth forests for quick profit?4402Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—We are in the process of negotiating a regional forest agreement for Western Australia. The objective of that process is to provide a contribution to a comprehensive, adequate and representative conservation reserve system for Australia. A very important part of that contribution will, in fact, be made from Western Australia where there are very important forests, both old growth and more recent growth. Another objective of the RFA process is to provide for sustainable forest harvesting in a way that can give certainty to the industry and provide long-term jobs for, in this instance, Western Australians.The honourable senator will be aware of the options paper, having been circulated, and that we are in the process of a public consultation period. Those consultations have been taking place in the forest region. We have had one meeting of officials briefing both ministers—me, on behalf of the Commonwealth, and Western Australian Minister Edwardes—on the preliminary observations arising out of those consultations. That consultation period will come to an end soon. We will commence a negotiation to achieve the objectives that I set out in the first instance.As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, we have put in place an interim protected regime to protect the values that will be an important part of the ultimate outcome. We are proceeding towards a long-term agreement which can provide both those conservation and those employment benefits that we are seeking.4402Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I have a supplementary question for the minister. I remind the minister that, when I asked him a question on 26 May this year about the destruction of Hilliger block by CALM, he replied then that I had the opportunity to raise my concerns during this famous public consultation process, deliberately ignoring the fact that there was little point if CALM had already destroyed the area. I ask, therefore: given that we now have further evidence of CALM's contempt for the RFA process and for the concerns of the majority of Western Australians about the logging of old growth forests, what action will the minister take to stop CALM destroying any more forests before the regional forest agreement is properly negotiated to the satisfaction of all parties, including the conservation movement, or is the minister now prepared to admit that the process is a total sham?4402Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—CALM is responsible, as is the Western Australian partner, for authorising the harvesting of forests. It must do so in accordance with the agreement on deferral that is reached in conjunction with the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments. As the honourable senator would know, CALM is currently the subject of a performance audit by the Western Australian EPA. The people of Western Australia can be assured, with those processes in place, including the independent performance audit, that the senator has the sort of safeguards she is seeking.44024402Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Can the minister confirm recent Health Insurance Commission figures that the Howard government has closed down at least 43 Medicare offices nationwide? Can the minister confirm that the government's only answer to more than two million clients previously served by on-the-spot service from these offices is that they should use a fax machine? Can the minister confirm that the Medicare offices closed down by this government had previously processed over 6 million claims per year for items such as Medicare and child-care assistance? Is the government seriously expecting that it can process this volume of claims by fax? Is this not just another example of this government withdrawing Commonwealth services from the people who pay for them and wasting taxpayers' money at the same time?4403Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Bishop for the question. Senator Bishop does not inspire the frisson of excitement that we used to get when another—the former—Senator Bishop was in the chamber because this Senator Bishop reads press releases put out by the shadow minister for health and believes them.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Nobody could be that silly.VW4Senator HERRON—I acknowledge Senator Ian Macdonald's remark that nobody could be that silly. Obviously he does. It is true that some offices are closing down. However, the government is introducing a system whereby other agencies will open so that there will be many more offices throughout the country in pharmacies.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That's not an office, it's a fax machine!VW4Senator HERRON—`It's not an office,' Senator Forshaw says. It is not just a fax machine. Senator Forshaw thinks you can have fax machines plucked out of the air and not put in some sort of environment. The fact is that we are bringing in many more agencies where claims can be made right throughout the country.I notice that Mr Lee put out a press release stating that Medibank Private was closing down its agencies.Senator Forshaw interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Forshaw said that something like 19 of the 22 offices of Medicare Private are closing in regional Victoria. Yet again he is incorrect. Medibank Private has established its own new national distribution arrangements. There are 91 Medibank Private business centres Australia wide. There are two-way agency arrangements with 226 Medicare offices, which will allow Medibank Private members to drop claims at any Medicare location.There are pharmacy agency arrangements across Australia and other agency partnerships, including over 100 cash claiming agencies in selected locations. Finally, Senator Forshaw might be interested to know that there will be access to telephone inquiry services Australia wide and fax and telephone claim lodgments in rural and regional Queensland. That is the complete opposite of what Senator Bishop is alleging, because he has followed a press release issued by the shadow Minister for Health and Family Services. I refute the implications of the question; they are false implications. It is true that in rural Victoria there is a re-allocation of some of those agencies in relation to Medibank Private. However, overall, the numbers will increase right across Australia.4403Bishop, Sen MarkSenator BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that the closure of these 43 Medicare offices by the Howard government means that some 4,740 square metres of office space has been dumped by the government on a depressed commercial retail market, with some leases not due to expire until well into the next century? How many of these offices remain vacant? What is the potential total Commonwealth liability in dead rent in these offices? Can the minister confirm the commission's advice that over $300,000 has already been paid out in recent weeks as dead rent? Finally, if the minister cannot answer these questions, I ask that they be taken on notice.4403Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I obviously do not have a brief detailing the amount.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Why not? You were asked the same question three weeks ago at estimates.VW4Senator HERRON—Because Senator Bishop has asked questions about the square footage of office space and the contracts that have been let in relation to it. I am happy to get that from the minister and provide him with an answer to it. They are not in the brief that has been supplied to me. With regard to the facts of the matter, I am happy to supply them. I will get them from the minister as soon as they can be made available to us.44044404Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister inform the Senate of progress by the government in delivering the most comprehensive small business reforms in more than two decades? What resistance has there been to measures introduced by the Howard government to assist this vital sector of the Australian economy to grow and employ more Australians?4404Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—It is indeed a very impressive track record. We promised to reduce paperwork and red tape for small business, and we have cut it by something like 24 per cent. We have introduced award simplification, which makes an enormous difference for small businesses being held to ransom by you and your union mates. It certainly enables them to calculate what they have to pay and to enter into sensible workplace negotiations.We have eliminated the fringe benefits tax on vital travel costs. We have cut capital gains tax on small business rollover and on retirement. We have twice reduced the provisional uplift factor. We have established a small business registration point. Any number of changes have made a dramatic difference to the way in which small business operates. Certainly the introduction of the small business innovation investment fund and the new apprenticeship schemes are two classic examples.What do we have by way of contrast? It is only a week or so back that the Leader of the Opposition was effectively confirming that Labor is going into the next election without any policies whatsoever. He said, `When I actually get into power, I'm going to put forward a set of policies which I believe the Australian people will rally to.' In other words, he will tell us after the election what his policies are. We only have to remember back a couple of years when small business interest rates got to 25 per cent and Mr Keating said, `So they're feeling the pinch. They ought to say that small business is not for them, because it's never going to get any better.'Labor has never repudiated that outrageously offensive remark, but in many ways it simply typifies Labor's attitude to small business. When we reformed the unfair dismissal laws we were opposed tooth and nail. What did COSBOA say? It said that those laws, introduced by Labor and held on by them until the very end, cost something in the order of 50,000 jobs. They never learn. They simply keep bringing in here people who have no understanding of small business.Look at the Northern Territory. They did it again. Bob Collins was one of the few non-unionists. What happened? They wheeled in yet another union hack. It is no surprise that these people have not the slightest idea what small business is about. We have reformed retail tenancy laws. We have made it much easier for small business to deal direct, and yet this mob opposite is going to repeal the secondary boycott provisions. In other words, once again they will roll over and allow their union mates to call the shots.It is quite clear why Labor has no policies, but it does not worry us in a sense because they will be judged by their track record, and that is one that makes it very clear indeed that they have not the slightest interest in or understanding of how small business works. They will simply continue to go to the election absolutely policy bankrupt, in no shape or form ready to fight an election. We welcome that. I think Tim Colebatch got it absolutely right this morning: if you are not interested in policies, you do not deserve to be in government.44044404Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston. Is it true that the minister has told his department that he is concerned that his responses to correspondence are not sufficiently engaging with the recipient? Is it true that he has told his department that, `When a complaint is being made about a third party which we agree with, like the ABC, we are not sufficiently supportive in the response'? Isn't the minister effectively requiring his department to be as partisan as he is in regard to his relentless criticism of the ABC?4405Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Let me give you an example. If I had a number of complaints about Senator Faulkner—and I get them constantly wherever I go—and people wrote to me about it—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Table them!LD4Senator ALSTON—I would have to wash my hands before I picked them up. I would not be interested in tabling them. The sensible approach would not be to write back a letter saying, `Thank you very much for your letter regarding Senator Faulkner. I'll take it into account in future dealings.' The sensible way to reply is to empathise with the correspondent if the concerns expressed are consistent with government policy. I would have thought that was fairly simple.Maybe in government you were not interested. All you did was simply take what was given to you and fire back something. I remember that former Senator Button used to sit in here, and it went on for days and days, and all he ever did was fill out correspondence. He was not the slightest bit interested in what was being put. He was simply just putting his signature to the letters as quickly as possible.We have a different attitude. If people take the trouble to write to us about issues that concern them, the least we can do is show that we have read the letter and that we sympathise with them where it is consistent with our overall approach. Where there are policy decisions that might be of interest to them, those matters ought to be brought to their attention. I am appalled that the Senator Faulkners of this world think that somehow we should ignore people's concerns, that we should simply play a straight bat, and that we should not make them aware of what our policy concerns are. That is not our attitude.All I can say is that I would be permanently disabled if I had to reply in writing to all the oral complaints I have had about Senator Faulkner's performance on television. It is absolutely appalling. To think that if someone wrote to me complaining about that I should not write back and tell them what I really thought of him is an absolute laugh.4405Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it true that the minister's office has recently returned a number of ministerial representations to the department so that they can, in fact, be made much more critical of the ABC?4405Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—As I have said, it is our approach—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner has asked a question and he is entitled to hear the reply.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Do you want to hear it or not?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—We'd like to hear the truth.LD4Senator ALSTON—Let me tell it to you. Let me give it to you unvarnished. If someone writes to me, they want to know what I think, don't they? They do. I assume they do. I might be a bit naive, but I assume that if they write to me and say `Dear Senator Alston, here are my concerns', that they expect me to write back and address their concerns. All right? So what I do is that I ensure that when I write back to them I am actually relevant to what they are saying. I do not just do what Senator Ray would have done: blindly take a pile of letters, doesn't matter what the complaint was, he wouldn't bother reading it but just put his initials on the bottom and away it goes. That is not the way to respond to constituents' and community concerns. That is the way you lose touch. That is the way you rule your union mates—(Time expired)44054405Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin. I refer to the Wik deal between the Prime Minister and Senator Harradine. Minister, are you aware that indigenous people are being put through the wringer on this matter? Can you inform the Senate whether the National Indigenous Working Group has been consulted by your government in this latest round of talks, or do you think they are irrelevant to the debate? Minister, what happened to this morning's announcement? Didn't your backbenchers like it when the Prime Minister briefed them? Minister, what are the sticking points between the Prime Minister and Senator Harradine? When are the indigenous people going to find out what has happened to their native title rights?4406Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Madam President, I inform the Senate that of course there is no deal, there is no agreement. Senator Harradine and the government are working in the national interest to see if we can resolve the differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate on this vital piece of legislation to overcome the obstruction presented to us by the Labor Party and the Democrats and Greens who clearly have no interest in resolving this issue, and who seem hell bent on forcing the government to a double dissolution on this issue by their insistence that the government include in the bill amendments which they never agreed to when they had the opportunity to deal with this act in government.Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Bolkus!JX4Senator MINCHIN—We are working as hard as we can with Senator Harradine to see if it is possible to resolve the areas of disagreement and to produce an outcome that will be in the national interest to amend Paul Keating's Native Title Act in a way that will serve all Australians and provide a fair balance on the outstanding issues.The question of indigenous consultation is of course an important one, and I respect Senator Woodley for raising it. But I would say that the Prime Minister went out of his way from the minute the Wik judgment was handed down to consult as closely as he possibly could with the leaders of the indigenous communities of Australia. We had something like 100 separate meetings with the indigenous leaders of Australia. The Prime Minister had Gatjil Djerrkura and other indigenous leaders to the lodge on several occasions, separately and with other leaders of industry groups around Australia. Those discussions continued right through to about April or May of last year, when the National Indigenous Working Group, of its own volition, left the table. The Indigenous Working Group walked away from the consultation process which we had put in train because they said they were no longer interested in talking to us.We did in fact take account of many of the indigenous concerns in presenting the Native Title Amendment Bill to this parliament. You on the other side know what those areas are in relation to agreements and representative bodies et cetera. The bill does protect and preserve native title. We have respected native title on pastoral leases, and I would have thought that you would have at least been prepared to acknowledge, given the outrageous and ridiculous position taken by the One Nation Party on this issue, that the government's position does indeed represent a fair balance of all the competing interests on this very sensitive and difficult issue for the government and for the people of Australia.I remind you, Senator Woodley, that the National Indigenous Working Group's position was outlined in this so-called yellow book. This was the position which the Indigenous Working Group said was their bottom line, and that anything not in this book was not of interest to them and they were just going to walk away from it. One part of the bottom line for them is:No extinguishment of native title by the Commonwealth, States or Territories without the informed consent of native title holders.That is a polite way of saying that there is an absolute Aboriginal veto on any development of 79 per cent of Australia. It is a completely unacceptable position, which not even the Labor Party was prepared to put forward. But that was put forward as a bottom line—a veto on any development on land that may be native title land in Australia, which, as a result of the Wik decision, amounts to 79 per cent of Australia. So their position was unacceptable not only to the government but to the Labor Party itself, both in government and in opposition.We have sought to consult as closely as we can with indigenous groups in developing the amendment bill. The process we are going through now is to see if agreement can be reached with Senator Harradine to get this bill through the parliament and resolve this issue once and for all.4407Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you for that answer, Minister. I refer to that part of the question in which you spoke about the national interest. Is it not in the national interest that you speak to indigenous people in this round of consultations—speak to them, not at them?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—This is a sermon, John!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Abetz! Senators on my right will cease interjecting.HX5Senator WOODLEY—This is an important question. Is it not the case, Minister, that you have had meetings with representatives of the mining, farming and pastoral industries in this latest round of talks? Is the Prime Minister going to use indigenous people as human shields against David Oldfield's One Nation in the lead-up to the next election?4407Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—It is about time the Democrats and Greens in particular, but also the Labor Party, took account of the disastrous effect of the current Native Title Act on rural and regional Australia, and of the disastrous impact their amendments would have. They have completely ignored rural and regional Australia, and they are partly responsible for the rise of One Nation in this country because of their obstruction and intransigence on the native title issue. We could resolve this issue if they would cooperate with us in getting a fair solution to this native title issue.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, are you raising a point of order?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Whether representing One Nation's point of view or not, the minister should not shout across the chamber.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are debating this issue, Senator. You can take the matter up afterwards.44074407Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. I refer the minister to the resignation in April of this year of the chairman of the Australian Rail Track Corporation, Mr Ken Baxter. Can the minister confirm that Mr Baxter was forced to resign after the revelation of a conflict of interest in the form of his role on the ARC and a position in a company called Red River? Can the minister also confirm that the department referred this matter to the Australian Securities Commission following advice from the Australian Government Solicitor? What action has the government taken to ascertain whether Mr Baxter's conflict may have contaminated any decisions or advice he gave to the government?4407Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I can confirm that—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Did you ask Jeff Kennett?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, a question has been asked by Senator Quirke, and Senator Alston is entitled to answer it without you interfering.LD4Senator ALSTON—I doubt there is anyone in Victoria who would speak to Senator Carr, let alone Mr Kennett. I can confirm that Mr Ken Baxter resigned as chairman of the Australian Rail Track Corporation on Friday 29 May this year. The advice from the secretary to the department is that a claim had been made of a possible conflict of interest involving Mr Baxter in his role as chairman, and advice was sought from the Australian Government Solicitor and the Australian Securities Commission. The chairman, Mr Baxter, was then given the opportunity to respond to the claims that had been made, and in view of what was regarded as an unsatisfactory response, the department sought Mr Baxter's resignation from the position. He tendered that resignation to the company secretary on the day indicated.I do not know that there is much more that I can add, other than to say that the depart ment did act swiftly and promptly to address the situation and to ensure that the ARTC is able to deliver the benefits to the Australian rail industry that it desperately needs after 13 years of Labor mismanagement. If there is any other aspect of the matter, I will refer it to the minister.4408Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that Mr Baxter has performed other work for government such as the Public Service Bill and the restructuring of DAS, has a check been undertaken as to whether any other conflicts of interest occurred?4408Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am unable to answer that, but I will direct the question to the minister's attention.44084408Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment. Minister, since coming to office this government has taken numerous steps to improve Australia's environment. This includes such matters as the establishment of Australia's largest ever environmental package, the Natural Heritage Trust; regional forest agreements to protect high conservation value forests and increase job security; implementing national environmental standards on pollution; international and industry agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; enhancement and protection of world heritage properties; and the establishment of strict environmental safeguards to ensure development is sustainable. Minister, how do the government's achievements compare with those of the previous Labor government? Is the minister aware of any new policy proposals?4408Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—After just over two years of government it is becoming possible to contrast the approach of the Howard government with that of the previous failed Labor government. Of course, one will remember that the approach of Labor to environmental issues was to build division and confrontation and to seek to win political points out of it, not necessarily for any environmental gain at all, whereas we have approached it quite differently, building support cooperatively with the states, the Commonwealth and stakeholders, thus achieving good environmental outcomes.Take forests, for example. No-one will forget Labor's approach to forests—the confrontation, the blockades and the unpleasantness with no worthwhile environmental goals at all. Remember what the Australian said about it on 3 April 1995:Faulkner has been a disappointment as environment minister.The Sydney Morning Herald on 23 December 1994 said:What Keating was saying about the Minister for the Environment was that he had proved politically incompetent.The Bulletin on 14 February 1995 said:Faulkner has made a mess of things. The extent of his mishandling of the issue is only now becoming apparent.Madam President, compare that with the Howard government—three regional forest agreements in place, good conservation outcomes, more than half a million hectares of new conservation reserves and, on the other hand, the possibility of another 1,250 jobs.Moving on to greenhouse, who remembers Berlin and the delegation led by Senator Faulkner? Do you remember what the Australian said about that embarrassment on 1 April 1995:Australia's international reputation took a battering. Its performance at Rio has left it looking inept abroad and out of step at home.Madam President, this is Senator Faulkner's contribution. Compare it with that of the coalition government, which achieved an outcome at Rio which was good for the environment and, Senator Brown, good for jobs as well.What about world heritage? Who remembers 13 years of Labor unable to solve the problems at Willandra with landowners who were not paid compensation? So frustrated were they with Senator Faulkner as environment minister that they had to blockade his aeroplane. Last weekend we went to Willandra and the problems of the landowners are solved—finally finished. They are now being paid fair and proper compensation. After 13 years of failed Labor on that environmental issue, the coalition comes in and fixes the problem. What about national environmental standards—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—How come you are travelling at 34 per cent if you are so good!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner!BH4Senator HILL—I know it is embarrassing, Madam President. The Labor Party promised national environmental protection standards for air, water and hazardous waste. It established a national council in 1994. We came to government in 1996 and it had not even had a face-to-face meeting. Senator Faulkner had not even called a face-to-face meeting.Under the coalition government meetings are taking place, and we now have a national measure in place for a national pollutant inventory, a second one for ambient air qualities across the whole of the nation and a third for the transport of hazardous waste. What a contrast. The coalition government is getting the job done without confrontation, with good environmental outcomes and good job outcomes. The previous Labor government could not achieve a worthwhile environmental outcome even with confrontation.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations44094409Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek leave to make a brief statement. I claim to have been misrepresented by the minister in question time today.Leave granted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I will not debate the point but, briefly, Minister Newman implied that I had given two different dates for the receipt of common youth allowance applications. For the record, 7 July is the date by which forms reportedly should be received—that is what I was quoting; 8 July is the date from which recipients will be breached.Miscellaneous4409440915:05:004409Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—I want to add to an answer I gave to Senator Margetts in relation to the Wattle Forest block in Western Australia. I am advised that most of Wattle Forest block is already reserved as part of the Mount Frankland National Park and only the north-western section is subject to logging. The area in question is not in a deferred forest area. As such, activity in this area will not foreclose options on the CAR system. I understand that the WA Department of Conservation and Land Management said that any proposed logging would not foreclose options for widening the existing linkage between Shannon and Mount Frankland national parks.Privilege44094409The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—The Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, by letter dated 25 June 1998, has raised with me a matter of privilege under standing order 81; namely, the unauthorised disclosure of the report of the committee of its third evaluation of the National Crime Authority on 6 April 1998.I am advised that the committee has followed the procedures laid down by the Senate in the resolution of 20 June 1996. This resolution requires that, in cases of unauthorised disclosure of committee documents, the committee concerned shall seek to discover the cause of the disclosure and come to a conclusion that the unauthorised disclosure has caused substantial interference with the work of the committee, before raising a matter of privilege under standing order 81. The committee having followed that process, the matter meets the criteria which I am required to consider.I therefore determine that a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee may have precedence. I table the committee's letter. A notice of motion may now be given on behalf of the committee.15:07:004410McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges:Whether there was an unauthorised disclosure of the report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority on the committee's third evaluation of the National Crime Authority and, if so, whether any contempt was committed by that disclosure.Questions Without Notice4410441015:08:004410Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) today, relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.Only yesterday in the debate on the appropriation bills, I gave lengthy examples of where this government, led by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and his Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), have consistently attacked the ABC not only by reducing its funding by $55 million a year but also by consistent public comment claiming that the ABC is biased, the ABC is unprofessional, the ABC is against the coalition, the ABC does not report broadly enough programs and issues that are of interest to the Prime Minister or to the minister.Today, in the question asked by Senator Faulkner we had a further example of just how far this minister will go to put the boots into the ABC, when Senator Faulkner was able to point out that a memo had been circulated in the minister's own department concerning letters that were to be sent to people who had written in to the minister on certain matters. If they were favourable to the minister there would be a more effusive and warm response for the minister to sign, and in particular when they get letters written in from people attacking the ABC because that is in line with government policy. That was the example given by the minister.I find it extraordinary that the example he would give is about the ABC, a statutory authority for which he is responsible and for which he should have some responsibility to publicly defend and explain its charter. But no, not this minister, he is always in there taking every opportunity to put the boot into the ABC. This is an unparalleled and unprecedented performance by any minister who has been in charge of the ABC since it was formed and created by an act of the Australian parliament over 60 years ago.Of course, we know the minister is aided and abetted in this by the Prime Minister's own obsessions about the ABC, the Prime Minister's own chip on the shoulder and the Prime Minister's own vendetta to get even with every story and every comment run by the ABC that the Prime Minister thinks is against him or the Liberal Party of Australia. So the Prime Minister has egged on this minister to have this attitude towards the ABC.I notice that Senator Alston did not put in the memo or instruct his department that maybe they should have the same response, for example, towards Telstra. I would imagine the minister gets many more letters complaining about Telstra's charges and about Telstra's service. Only yesterday we had the example given by the ACA in its quarterly report to March of this year that new telephone connection services in country areas have dropped by 17 per cent in the first full year of the one-third privatisation of Telstra. But no, that would not worry him. The minister does not want to get into criticising Telstra or even showing some sympathy for some of the legitimate complaints against Telstra, because he wants to promote Telstra for its privatisation. The one example he gives of the ABC, again, absolutely fits the pattern of abuse from this minister.We say to the Australian people that it is not just the $55 million cut per annum that the ABC has suffered—most savagely—by this government since it came to office in breaking every promise it made during the 1996 election campaign to maintain the funding. Even on election night after they had won the election, Senator Alston reiterated the coalition's commitment to maintain the funding for the ABC. The ABC is not only at risk from the cuts to its funding but also these attacks come about because this government, the Prime Minister and the minister for communications are all about one thing only, and that is destroying the ABC as a broad based national and comprehensive news broadcaster in Australia.The Prime Minister and the minister for communications want to intimidate the ABC, particularly in the lead-up to the coming election. They know that, in many areas of Australia, the ABC is the only independent voice for Australians to get factual information about current events, about politics, and about social and economic issues in Australia. Sometimes those comments are not favourable to this government's policies; sometimes they are not favourable to the Labor Party; and sometimes they are not favourable to other political parties. But the ABC has a long history of providing a balance. (Time expired)15:13:004411Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I notice that there is no-one from the government side—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, I raise a point of order. There were two other senators standing. Senator Carr was not even standing.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I was standing.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Patterson, I have called Senator Carr. I will call others standing as well.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I notice that the government has not responded to this motion to take note of the answer from Senator Alston because it has nothing to respond to. As far as the government is concerned, it is appropriate, fair and reasonable for this minister to instruct his department to join with him in its crusade against the ABC. What we have before us today is a proposition where the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) who is the minister responsible for the ABC—a person who ought to be defending the ABC and its legitimate function within our society—undertaking a role on behalf of the Liberal Party to attack the ABC, to vilify the ABC and to seek to denigrate the ABC in the minds of the Australian public.What we have is instructions being issued by this minister to public servants—not just on behalf of himself but on behalf of his ministerial advisers and his chief of staff—that, in response to criticisms raised with the minister, the department should join with the minister in attacking the ABC. What the minister has instructed his department to do is to become more engaged with criticism for the ABC and to say that, when a complaint is being made about a third party with which it agrees, like the ABC, the department is currently not sufficiently supportive in its response.The real question here is: why does this government and this minister hate the ABC with such a passion? Why do they hate the ABC with such a passion? They do not like the ABC because it represents a threat to their notion of what is fair and reasonable. That is not to say that this coalition government does not have a view about balanced coverage in terms of public affairs. The difference is that they have a different view of what is balanced. They believe there are two sides to every question—there is a National Party side to the question and then there is a Liberal Party side to the question. There should be no other consideration of any other views in our society. We should not have an independent broadcaster capable of representing the broad range of values in our society. We should have a broadcaster that represents government views. That is their notion of what the ABC is all about.What we have seen throughout the life of this government is a consistent and persistent campaign of denigration against the ABC. What we have heard is senior ministers from the government denigrating the ABC—from the Treasurer (Mr Costello), who described the ABC as lacking accountability, to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who said that the ABC was, in his view, politically correct to a fault, to this minister, who says that the ABC budget was bloated. These are the sorts of attitudes we see expressed by these politicians in this coalition about what should be an institution defended by both sides in this parliament. What we have seen is a deliberate and systematic campaign by this government to undermine the integrity and the authority of the ABC. They have done so by reducing the resource provided to that body by this parliament and then back up that reduction in resource by a consistent campaign of abuse.As a consequence, $55 million per year has been withdrawn from the ABC. The budget for the ABC has been reduced from about $555 million to just under $500 million per year. As a direct consequence of this government's action, a whole range of programs and a whole range of services to regional Australia and to different communities within Australia have been removed by this government's actions. That is a direct consequence of taking away well in excess of 10 per cent per year of the budget provided to the ABC.In the arts area, we have had a whole series of programs removed, as we have in comedy, in drama, in sport and in documentaries. We have seen the services reduced in terms of the network services available. We have seen international services withdrawn. What do we get from this government? We get the consistent push that the bureaucracy now has to join in the holy jihad against the ABC and that the department has to join with the minister in its assault upon the independence and integrity of the ABC and seek to denigrate and abuse the ABC for doing nothing other than its job in terms of its charter and in terms of its capacity to represent the different views in our society. This government ought to be condemned and this minister ought to be condemned, because it is quite clear that he has been exposed here today. (Time expired)15:19:004412Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—That was an amazing performance by Senator Carr. People ought to be reminded that in the last year when the Labor Party was in government they exceeded their income. They spent $10.5 billion a year more than the money received from taxpayers. Anybody who runs a household budget knows that you cannot keep doing that. You cannot keep spending more money than you get in.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It was actually $12 billion a year every year for 10 years.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Yes. Senator Campbell reminds me that it was $12 billion a year more every year for 10 years. I would have got on to that. Every year they kept spending more. What they were doing was frittering away the inheritance we have been left by previous generations and borrowing from the next generation. Senator Carr tells us that we have taken money out of the ABC, but, Senator Carr, I want to know where the Labor Party is going to get the money to put back into the ABC. Are they going to borrow it from overseas, borrow it from foreign countries, borrow it from the next generation, borrow it from his kids, borrow it from Senator Ian Campbells's kids or borrow it from the kids of the future to pay for it today?AW5CARRSenator Carr—Why do you hate the ABC? Answer the question! Why do you hate the ABC?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—What we have to do is cut our cloth to fit. We have to be able to live within our means and we are not living within our means. When Senator Carr says we hate the ABC, one thing I did find of great concern to me when I was watching the last election campaign was that I saw one of the senior reporters talking about the seats and the results as they came in. A Labor seat fell—lots of Labor seats fell at the last election—and the ABC reporter said, `Oh, we have just lost another seat.'O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—We?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Yes. They said, `We have just lost another seat,' meaning Labor. That was an unbiased ABC reporter. It transpires that that unbiased ABC reporter is now a candidate for a state seat in Victoria. They pushed through the factional fights in Victoria. A candidate who had a claim on that seat has been pushed aside. So we have a Labor candidate in the seat of Northcote in Victoria who is an ex-ABC reporter who sat on that unbiased ABC report of the election and said, `We have just lost a seat.' That is not the sort of thing we want to hear.The other day I was talking to a friend of mine. She said that she had been incensed by something she had watched on the ABC and said it was so biased. This person is a swing ing voter. She said, `I am so upset about the fact that the ABC is biased.' I said, `Why don't you write to them? They have a thing called a code of practice. You can get a brochure and they will tell you how you can complain to the ABC. If you don't get a reply, then there's a process that goes on if you do not get a reply in so many days.' We rang up the ABC and guess what? There were no code of practice brochures available. I asked for them in the estimates committee and they said they would get them to me. I am still waiting.Do you know how I can get those forms? I can get them off the Internet. This person does not have access to the Internet. So I had to print one out and send it to her. So that is how easy it is to complain about bias in the ABC. You cannot get a code of practice from them. This should be our ABC that allows us to tell them whether we think they are biased. I am putting the ABC on notice: get those forms out so that when people ask us about how they can complain about bias in the ABC they can at least go through the right process.Also we heard in estimates that the committee to which you can complain about bias is absolutely stacked with journalists, not with people in the community. With all due respect to journalists, they are like politicians, although politicians better represent the community—they all have a particular view. I think the committee should be formed by people who can make an unbias, objective decision about whether there has been bias in the ABC. Maybe they could have one or two journalists, but to have a whole committee of journalists is not what we call cricket. So the ABC has a way to go.To say that we hate the ABC is wrong. What we want is an ABC which is unbiased, which presents the facts, which is a genuine broadcaster of apolitical information, not taking one view or the other. They should also make themselves available. I put on the record here that I have just written to Donald McDonald recently to thank him for the ABC's involvement and commitment to the International Year of Older Persons. I had cause to write to him and thank him for the plans they are already making for the Interna tional Year of Older Persons. As chairman of the committee responsible for the International Year of Older Persons, I am delighted that the ABC is going to be involved in that. (Time expired)15:24:004413Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Let me make a couple of comments about what Senator Patterson said. First of all, the body within the Senate which deals with complaints is the Privileges Committee. Let me tell you that the Privileges Committee is stacked with politicians. Does that mean that they cannot be fair and reasonable? Does that mean that they cannot actually be reasonable? Of course it does not. What a ridiculous thing to say.What about the ALP person who happens to be a journalist? Are you telling me that Mr Henshaw, who is now the Liberal Party candidate in the seat of Dickson and an ex-ABC talkback host in Queensland, was biased in favour of the Liberal Party when he was with the ABC? That is a pretty outrageous thing to say. I do not believe that he was biased, and I do not believe that that other person was biased either. People belong to political parties. It is the way it happens. People stand for election for political parties. You did. I did, and I am going to do it again. That is the way it happens. This is a democracy. In this country we are allowed to belong to political parties, and we are allowed to have jobs while we do that. We are allowed to stand for election.Let me turn to a few things the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) said. First of all, the minister said that it is only polite to answer letters. I may have this almost right—I am sure I have the gist of it right. If someone writes to me, then they expect me to write back and address their concerns. That is perfectly reasonable and correct. So they do. If you do not address their concerns, if you do not answer their letters, then that is the way you lose touch. That is all true.Let me ask the minister—unfortunately he is not here, but I am sure he is listening—what about the 17,000 people who wrote to him complaining about cuts to the ABC? They have not received a reply. The minister has not replied to them, and the department has not replied. Even though the department has been instructed to tell them how awful the ABC is, they have not replied. There was no reply at all. I think the minister could lose touch if he does not reply to those 17,000 people, and I think he should do it fairly soon.What about Mr Mansfield's inquiry which received 10,615 submissions—the vast majority of which were saying, `Do not destroy the ABC. Do not cut the ABC. Do not kill the funding of the ABC'? What happened? We got a lot of recommendations, some of which were quite good and others which did not even relate to the terms of reference for that inquiry.We heard about the minister's performance on election night when he was asked by a journalist, `Will you cut the funding to the ABC?' He said, `No, I'm sure the Prime Minister will stand by his promises, and he has promised not to do that.' The journalist asked, `What if you find that there is a big black hole and you have to find somewhere to get that money from?' He answered, `I'm sure the Prime Minister will stick by his promises.' I and I am sure everybody else listening to the ABC took that to mean that the ABC would not be slashed. What happened? Of course the ABC was slashed—$55 million was taken out of the ABC's budget in the first year.Let me make another point: $485 million includes the orchestras. It is not $500 million; it is $485 million, including the orchestras. It is $468 million when you take the orchestras out. The ABC does not have over $500 million; it has $468 million, which even Mr Mansfield pointed out was insufficient to run a national broadcasting organisation like the ABC. Even Mr Mansfield said that. So the government, I take it, does not agree with Mr Mansfield on that. But they agree with him on anything that he said would diminish the ABC.I know that there are a few people in the coalition who approve of the ABC, who like the ABC, and who want the ABC to stay where it is. But, obviously, there are many people in cabinet who do not. The ABC is to receive $20 million for digital funding when they need a minimum of $108 million. But if we are in government we just accept, don't we, that the commercial networks need $250 million? The ABC is getting $20 million versus $250 million. Obviously they cannot do anything with that.Rural and regional services are going to be an absolute disaster because there is no funding. The funding is not there to make rural and regional a viable place for the ABC to broadcast into. Cox Peninsula has been closed down. That was a totally ridiculous decision. Even though it is desperately necessary to have a short-wave service into Asia, the government cannot make themselves reverse that decision. The government has to get its act together. (Time expired)15:29:004414Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I would like to place on record at the start my dismay at the fact that you, Madam Deputy President, called two Labor speakers in a row, even though one of those Labor people was not in his seat. There were two senators on the other side.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Tierney, I would advise you not to reflect upon the chair. I consider what you have been saying is getting very close to that. Let us see how it pans out after the half hour, thank you very much.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Madam Deputy President, perhaps it would be appropriate to take the advice of the clerk on such matters in the future.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have taken advice from the clerk, Senator Tierney. You are going very close to reflecting upon my rulings and my calling. I would appreciate it if you would address the issue before the chair and not reflect, thank you.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Well, we are all reflecting on it. It is amazing that, after this question time and the issues that were raised in this question time today, this matter which started out as a matter of the correspondence of the minister for communications was actually raised by the Labor Party as the issue for taking note. Well, what a bankrupt party we have opposite. What a party with absolute ly no interest in the key issues facing this nation—and obviously a party with no policies. It is a pity we did not have Senator Carr actually coming up with what the Labor Party's policies are. What are your policies, Senator Carr? What are your policies on communications? All you got up and said during your rather inadequate contribution was that we hate the ABC. What absolute nonsense.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You confessed to it.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—No, I do not confess to that, Senator Carr, you fool. Obviously—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Tierney. Would you please withdraw.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I withdraw. What Senator Carr revealed was that the Labor Party has absolutely no policies in this area at all. All he could say was that we hate the ABC. What nonsense. What the Liberal Party and the National Party support is a vibrant, dynamic, unbiased ABC. We have great admiration for the programs of the ABC. With the tremendous variety of programs on television and the range of radio we have in this country, the support for the orchestras, this is a great national institution. And when you see what happens in places like the United States, you realise that Australia is absolutely streets ahead in public broadcasting. We want to see that continue, but we want to see it continue in a proper form—and the proper form is an unbiased ABC.I had the opportunity at a recent estimates committee to speak directly with the managing director, Mr Brian Johns, on this matter for an hour or so. We did go through a number of examples of bias on the ABC which are demonstrated and proven. Senator Patterson referred to one of these examples earlier on with regard to the enthusiastic ABC reporter at the election who talked about `our candidates winning and losing', linking themselves with the ALP.Senator Carr has got up and spoken on this matter today because his main concern is to protect that line of political bias at elections and at other times. Of course, we all remember the case of Kerry O'Brien chairing a debate with Paul Keating and Dr John Hewson and the bias that was obviously in that debate.I brought up with the managing director a more recent example of a satirical piece they did on the waterfront issue. When John Howard and the waterfront were mentioned, one of the audience got up and cheered. Do you know what the ABC did? They actually re-shot that scene so that the person who cheered was cut out. That has been very widely reported, but when I put that to the Managing Director of the ABC, no, he had not heard about it. I asked if anyone in the front row, anyone in the offices, knew about it, and he replied that no-one had heard about this instance. But it was yet another example of that bias. What we suggested at the estimates was that there are other ways of making sure that there is no bias in your national organisation—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Crippling the ABC.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—No, it is not a matter of crippling it, Senator Carr; it is a matter of putting proper, independent review procedures in place—just like they have at the BBC. At the BBC they have independent arm's-length complaints mechanisms that report directly to the board. What we suggest to the ABC is that they adopt these sorts of processes—not have things like their complaints unit, which has five out of six journalists in it. They are in the club. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I call Senator Ferguson.15:34:004415Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Thank you, Madam Deputy President.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. I rose in my place before Senator Ferguson. I spoke to you at the outset, Madam Deputy President, to indicate that I would be seeking the nod. I did so on each occasion down the line. What is going to happen now is that the Greens are not going to get a say in this debate, because we have not been acknowledged. There is nothing I can do about that.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sorry— QD4BROWNSenator Brown—And it is no good being sorry to someone who has been cut out of the debate, but I object to it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Your objection is noted, but I am having equal numbers on either side.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I would remind the chair that this is not a two-party chamber; that there is a coalition and a Labor Party but there are also Independents, there are the Democrats, and there are the Greens here. It is not good enough to go from one side to the other. Madam Deputy President, you have to acknowledge the other components of this chamber as well.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: Senator Brown knows full well that in taking note of answers the order has always been to have one speaker from that side and one from this side. If he wants to negotiate—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—We are not in that party. We are a separate party.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—If Senator Margetts could control herself—which, I know, is pretty impossible—I might continue with my point of order. The fact is that they could negotiate with the other people on that side. And you must remember, Senator Margetts, that there are 38 on that side of the chamber and there are 38, including Senator Harradine, on this side. I am quite sure that if Senator Harradine wanted to take part in taking note of answers as one of the 38 on this side, he would negotiate with the Liberal Party and we would quite possibly let him do it. But, Madam Deputy President, it is not out of order for you to call one from this side and one from that side—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I don't have to ask the Labor Party for our rights in this chamber.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. I take note of what you have said, Senator Brown. Senator Ferguson.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Perhaps if Senator Margetts watches what she has for lunch she might not come in here with an outburst quite like that, because I have never heard anything like it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. It is quite disorderly for the senator to be throwing off at another member of this place, particularly when she is agreeing, presumably, that she has not been given an opportunity to take part in this debate. He should withdraw such comments or get on with the topic at hand.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I ask Senator Ferguson not to reflect upon other members of the chamber and also to address his remarks to the chair.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I take your advice, Madam Deputy President, because we have already had the unedifying sight of Senator Schacht moving to take note of the answer given by Senator Alston. Senator Schacht seems to lead with a glass jaw every time he gets to his feet. Every time Senator Alston answers a question in relation to the ABC, up jumps Senator Schacht. He gets shot down in flames every time by the minister because Senator Schacht simply is the most incompetent shadow minister for communications that we have ever seen in this place.He was followed by Senator Carr. All that Senator Carr could say was how much we hate the ABC. There is simply nothing further from the truth. I happen to live in a country area and I know how much we rely on the ABC—and have constantly relied on them—for information, and the very good service which they still provide to rural Australia. All my life, I have been, and continue to be, a great supporter of them in those areas. Senator Carr certainly knows about hate. He hates Senator Conroy. He hates all of the splinter groups in the Left that oppose him. We have seen many reports of how this has happened. It has probably almost got to the stage of being reported on the ABC, Senator Carr, but they can't quite go that far, so we have to read it in the newspapers. That is not the sort of thing that the ABC would ever show because someone might accuse them of bias. We would not want anything like that to happen!Senator Bourne commented about the Privileges Committee and how it consists only of politicians. I say to Senator Bourne that at least when the Privileges Committee considers matters referred to it by this chamber, those matters are considered by committee members of all political persuasions. So there is a very balanced viewpoint whenever matters are investigated by the Privileges Committee and reported to this chamber.It is very difficult to compare the workings of the Privileges Committee with the sort of inquiry that she referred to which looked into the ABC. This government continues to support the ABC. I am sure that if Senator Brown had got up he would have liked to talk about the $1 million which this government has provided towards a permanent home for the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra in the Grand Chancellor Hotel. It is the only hotel that I know of which houses a symphony orchestra. I am sure that the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra's connections with the ABC and this government's gesture of contributing $1 million towards a permanent home for the orchestra are the sorts of things which Senator Brown would have wanted to congratulate this government on. I am sure that if Senator O'Brien had had the chance, he would have congratulated this government as well.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Deputy President, I take a point of order. I think it is quite unfair that my point of view is being misrepresented by a senator on the other side when I have not had, and will not have, an opportunity to reply. I know he is not going to be called to order, but I think he should be. There should be fairness in debate. If the Greens are not going to be acknowledged and given an opportunity to take part in important debates like this, we should not be misrepresented by members of the government.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: it is inappropriate for another senator to interrupt a senator who is speaking. There is an appropriate standing order under which Senator Brown could make that point. It is inappropriate to interrupt the senator when he is speaking.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, if you consider that you have been misrepresented, you will have the opportunity to make a personal explanation after the debate has concluded. Senator Ferguson, please do not reflect on any members of the Senate, if you were doing so. I was distracted and did not hear your comment.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Madam Deputy President, I was not reflecting on a senator. All I was suggesting as a debating point was that I was quite sure Senator Brown would like to congratulate this government. If he chooses to take offence at that, it probably reflects more on Senator Brown than on any comments I might have made.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Madam Deputy President, I take a point of order. That was a reflection on Senator Brown. I do not know what is going on here, but it is a load of nonsense and I would ask you to call Senator Ferguson to order.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Ferguson, would you address the subject, please.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Certainly, Madam Deputy President, I would be pleased to do so, because it is a subject that I was addressing when I was interrupted by Senator Brown, who has shown his true colours in trying to interrupt me on at least five occasions since I rose to take part in this debate. We listened to Senator Carr, Senator Bourne and every other senator who has spoken. We did not interrupt them; we let them have their say.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Deputy President, I take a point of order. The senator has not abided by your request that he get on with the subject. He is continuing to bait the Greens and members of the cross-bench for whom you have not allowed time to take part in this debate, which will conclude when he sits down. That is totally unfair, it is untoward and it should be stopped by you, Madam Deputy President.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Brown, since you recognised Senator Ferguson and not him, has basically jumped up and down on the playground floor like a petulant child who was not included in the game.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is a reflection. Would you please withdraw it?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Senator Ferguson has been within the standing orders. He has been addressing the topic. He was talking about the orchestra in Tasmania. He also raised the matter of whether Senator Brown would support the funding for the orchestra's accommodation. It is entirely within the bounds of this debate. Previous presiding officers, in relation to this half-hour debate, have said that the debate can be extremely wide ranging.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, before you resume your seat, would you like to withdraw your comments and your reflection upon Senator Brown.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Senator Brown has jumped up six times to interject against Senator Ferguson.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You also made some other comments which were unparliamentary.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—There is certainly an analogy between a schoolchild jumping up and down on the playground floor—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you please withdraw?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. It is a wide ranging debate.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I will try again. I am sure that as I get going—and I think I have 30 seconds left—Senator Brown will probably get up again and take another point of order because—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address the chair, please.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Madam Deputy President, I am addressing you. Senator Schacht has moved a motion to take note of Senator Alston's answer. This is just another example of what Senator Schacht does in this place. Every time he comes into this place and either asks a question or gets one of his colleagues to ask a question, he cannot wait, having had his argument shot down in flames by Senator Alston, to get up and take note of the answer. Can I reiterate that—(Time expired)15:46:004418Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—by leave—I wish to enlarge on something that I said during the debate. While I was speaking, I indicated that when I was in estimates I had contacted the ABC and asked the ABC for a code of practice. Just after I finished speaking, my office was phoned and told that they had sent me a letter with policies and the code of practice. I am not aware that this has arrived in my office. It may have come to the Melbourne office. If it has, I do not apologise, but I say that they now tell me they have sent it.At the time the constituent asked me how they could complain about bias. I did not have a code of practice. My office rang the ABC who said there were no code of practice pamphlets available. That was the answer I got. They rang my office back and told me that. So it means that there are some communications which need fixing up in the ABC so that officers know that those code of practice forms are available. If I have misrepresented the situation and they are available, it is on the basis of the advice that I was given by the ABC when we phoned. So, really, they need to give us the correct information.Question resolved in the affirmative.441810001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:44181482TW4Bourne 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 agreement.2. 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 substantive amendment is made, including the observance of international agreements including environment, labour, health and safety and human rights standards. 4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to enable full and proper public consultations to be held.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 1,482 citizens)4419437TW4Bourne 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 Indonesia's continued denial of human rights to the people of East Timor.Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:1. actively support all United Nations resolutions and initiatives on East Timor;2. actively support the right to self-determination of the people of East Timor;3. work for the immediate release of all Timorese political prisoners;4. repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and5. stop all military cooperation and commercial military activity with Indonesia.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 437 citizens)4419289WP6Lightfoot Sen PhillipTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows:The high level of concern within the General Aviation industry at the proposed introduction of location specific charging effective 1 July 1998.Your petitioners ask that the Senate should:Defer Location Specific Charging pending an assessment of the alternatives to charging equity across the General Aviation industry because Location Specific Charging has the potential to:Cause irreparable damage to Australia's $100 million aviation export training business,Destroy training programmes for Australian pilots,Depreciate Australia's reputation in the world aviation community.Senator LightfootUNKNOWNSenator Lightfoot(from 289 citizens)Petitions received.Notices441944194419Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the impending Cambodian elections on 26 July 1998 and the provision of Australian election monitors and technical electoral assistance to Cambodia, (ii) that Amnesty International has documented 62 cases of known extra-judicial killings in the events surrounding and following the violent events of July 1997, with additional documentation showing a further 20 unidentified victims of extra-judicial executions and seven disappearances, (iii) the problem of impunity in Cambodia resulting from the failure to bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations, including recent political killings, and the existence of legislation (the 1994 Law on Civil Servants) which provides for impunity for state employees, the repeal of which remains a matter of critical and urgent priority and is essential to the creation of an atmosphere conducive to the holding of free, fair and credible elections, and (iv) that very serious human rights violations in Cambodia have been committed by the Khmer Rouge, and that no senior Khmer Rouge leader has so far been brought to justice for acts of genocide and crimes against humanity between the years 1975 and 1979;(b) calls on the Cambodian Government to: (i) see that those responsible for politically-motivated killings are brought to trial, in order to provide an atmosphere of stability and security in the lead-up to national elections and to bring about an end to the culture of impunity, (ii) give full cooperation and support to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Phnom Penh, United Nations staff and the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative in Cambodia, and (iii) see that senior Khmer Rouge leaders are brought to account for their crimes; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) encourage the Cambodian Government to ensure the safety and freedom of movement of political candidates, (ii) support international efforts to bring senior Khmer Rouge leaders to trial, and (iii) support Association of South East Asian Nations regional initiatives to improve the human rights situation in Cambodia. 44204420Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the Mirrar people of the Kakadu region were recently successful in their application to have the Kakadu World Heritage Area inspected by the World Heritage Bureau of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization with a view to declaring it `in danger' due to the impact of the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine on the world heritage values of the Kakadu region, and (ii) during the meeting of the World Heritage Bureau in Paris on 23 June 1998, the Australian Government representative, Dr Peter Bridgewater, declared to the meeting that, `the Australian Government has not given any approval for the mining'; and(b) calls on the Government to either correct the statement by the supervising scientist, Dr Peter Bridgewater, or force Energy Resources Australia to cease any construction activity at the site.44204420O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No 1 standing in my name for four sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan Direction No. NPFD 17, made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991. I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.EU4O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEE—I thank the Senate. On 25 May 1998 I reported to the Senate on the committee's concerns with this direction, which imposed strict liability on each person on a boat at the time that it was apprehended, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the alleged breach or had even been on the boat at that time. The minister has now agreed to amend the direction to meet our concerns. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning this direction.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan Direction No. NPFD 17, made under the Fisheries Management Act 199114 May 1998The Hon John Anderson MPMinister for Primary Industries and EnergyParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995, Directions Nos NPFD 13-17 made under subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 .Directions Nos NPFD 13 and 14Paragraph 8(b) of NPFD 13, and paragraph 7(b) of NPFD 14, grant to the Senior Operations Officer at the Australian Fisheries Management Authority a discretion to exempt persons from the prohibitions on fishing contained in other parts of each Direction. The Directions, however, provide no guidelines for the exercise of a discretion that has significant commercial implications. Furthermore, there is no apparent provision for review of any exercise of the discretion adverse to the interests of commercial fishers.Directions Nos NPFD 15 and 16Paragraph 7(b) of NPFD 15, and subclause 6.2 of NPFD 16, provide for exemptions from prohibitions contained elsewhere in each Direction. However, in the case of these provisions, unlike those referred to above, it appears that an exemption will be given as a right to a person who has given the required notice. Is this the intention of these provisions?Direction No NPFD 17Subclause 4.2 appears to impose a liability for a breach of this Direction on each of the persons on the boat at the time that it was apprehended as being in alleged breach of the Direction. This would impose strict liability, as some members of the crew of a boat may have had nothing to do with the catching of particular fish, but might still be in breach of the Direction. Subclause 4.3 is equally harsh, as it imposes liability on every person who happens to be on a boat when it is apprehended for a breach of the Direction, even though that breach may have taken place prior to the person coming on board the boat. The Explanatory Statement does not provide an explanation for the use of strict liability in these cases. The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairman25 JUN 1998Senator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeI refer to your letter of 14 May 1998 concerning Directions made by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) under subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (the FM Act).The following answers to your questions are based on information provided by AFMA.Directions Nos NPFD 13 and 14Subclause 8(b) of NPFD 13 and subclause 7(b) of NPFD 14 do not provide exemptions from the prohibitions on fishing, but they do provide exemptions from the prohibitions on navigation through closed areas of the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF).I am advised that these exemptions typically apply where navigation through a closed area is needed because of vessel breakdown, distress or where a crew member has a serious injury or illness etc. Navigation through a closed area may also be needed, for instance, to access a regular anchorage, where a transit corridor to that area has not been provided for elsewhere in the Directions. This issue is dealt with briefly in the attached notice from AFMA to NPF operators dated 9 March 1998. [not incorporated]Nevertheless, after considering your comments, AFMA will develop, in consultation with the NPF Management Advisory Committee, guidelines for the exercise of the discretions in subclauses 8(b) and 7(b) and to advise NPF operators accordingly.As an exemption under these provisions is usually required at short notice, there would not be sufficient time for a formal appeal process. However AFMA has agreed to make provision in the guidelines, and if necessary amend the Directions, to allow for an application to be made to a senior AFMA officer, who was not involved in the original decision, for an expeditious review of a decision made under subclause 8(b) or 7(b).Directions Nos NPFD 15 and 16AFMA advises that occasional navigation through certain closed areas and gear trials are a necessity and present a low compliance risk, particularly where operators are required to give AFMA prior notification. For these reasons, the exemptions differ from those in Directions Nos NPFD 13 and 14 in that there is no need for a discretion to refuse an application so long as it complies with the requirements set out in the relevant Direction.Direction No NPFD 17AFMA advises that subclauses 4.2 and 4.3 of Direction No NPFD 17 impose strict liability because in most fishing operations proceeds of catch are shared between the owner, the master of the boat and the crew. However AFMA has reviewed these provisions in light of your concerns and advises that the Direction will be amended so that liability is limited to the master of the boat, as the person responsible for the boat's fishing operations.I trust these answers satisfactorily answer the questions you have raised.Yours sincerelyWarwick ParerMinister for Resources and Energy44214421Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That regulation 15 of the Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 104 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.44214421Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the concern of canegrowers and cane harvesters about sales tax on trucks used in cane haul-out activities, (ii) the unfairness of the current ramshackle sales tax regime that adversely impacts on productive industries like the sugar industry, (iii) that the Coalition's tax reform package will abolish all sales tax on inputs into business, such as cane haul-out vehicles, and that in value-added tax regimes any value-added tax on export commodities is rebated, and (iv) that the Australian Labor Party and the One Nation Party oppose such tax reforms which benefit rural industries; and (b) supports moves for tax reform as proposed by the Coalition.44224422Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the hepatitis C virus is commonly transmitted through blood-to-blood contact and that the most common means are from sharing needles or syringes or from unsafe tattooing or body piercing, (ii) less common means of transmission are from mother to baby at birth, sharing razors or toothbrushes or through sharps injuries, (iii) hepatitis C has not been found in the breastmilk of mothers with hepatitis C, (iv) fewer than one in 100 000 transmissions occurs through blood donation, (v) hepatitis C is not classified as a sexually transmitted disease, and (vi) research shows that sexual transmission of hepatitis C is rare;(b) calls on the Government to embark on a public awareness campaign about appropriate measures to prevent hepatitis C transmission and to correct recent misleading media articles which have suggested that hepatitis was a sexually transmitted disease;(c) urges the Minister for Health (Dr Wooldridge) to refrain from making statements, as he did when launching the report, Secondary Students, HIV/AIDS and Sexual Health, which suggest that unsafe sex increases the risks of catching hepatitis C; and(d) acknowledges the hurt and anxiety experienced by those who have hepatitis C and whose relationships are affected by misleading information on the virus.Business44224422Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Tambling for today, relating to the consideration of the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, be postponed till the next day of sitting. 4422Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4422Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1191 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to self-determination in West Papua, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4422Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1190 standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), be postponed till the next day of sitting.4422Motion (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) standing in the names of Senators Margetts and Cook for today, and No. 1187 (victims of torture) standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4422Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1189 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4422Motion (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.4423Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1146 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the retention of census data, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4423Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1192 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the captioning of broadcast services, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4423Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane) agreed to:That business of the Senate order of the day No. 3, relating to the presentation of the report of the committee on the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, be postponed till a later hour.Committees442344234423Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Hogg) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous4423Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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. Miscellaneous442315:58:004423Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1165 standing in my name, relating to the potential freezing of the wealth and assets held in Australia by ex-president Suharto and his family, be taken as formal.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Yes.Parliamentary Zone4423Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Ellison) agreed to:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority:(a) 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.Miscellaneous442310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, I believe you wish to say something about your motion that was not agreed to.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes, I have lost the opportunity to have a further debate on motion No. 1165 relating to the assets of President Suharto and his family. There was an objection to the motion, but I did not note where it came from. Madam Deputy President, I wonder whether you could tell me where it came from.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It came from me, in accordance with the policy we outlined.Miscellaneous4423Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the request of Senator Ellison) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous4424Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) a survey of members providing employment assistance conducted by Jobs Australia on 1 June 1998, and (ii) its concern that all members surveyed report great difficulties with the new Job Network; and(b) urges the Government to: (i) instigate appropriate monitoring processes to report on the experiences of Job Network participants, employers, jobseekers and providers, and (ii) order a review of the system to address these problems and ensure access to employment assistance for the hundreds of thousands of Australians seeking work.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Can I ask what happened to government business notice of motion No. 1?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It was postponed until the next day of sitting.Matters of Public Importance4424442410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lees, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The failure of competition policy to deliver better outcomes for consumers in energy markets, particularly because of the enthusiasm of the South Australian and New South Wales Governments to use competition policy as an excuse to privatise essential public assets like power stations.I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concur rence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.16:02:004424Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats today to address this issue of public importance which relates to the failure of competition policy in this country to deliver better outcomes for consumers, specifically in energy markets. Today, I would like to talk a bit about competition policy and privatisation. One seems to beget the other.South Australian Premier, John Olsen, from my home state, has argued that, if South Australia fails to privatise its electricity industry, it could actually put at risk the $1 billion bonus payments that South Australia was supposed to receive from the federal government. We actually believe that the National Competition Council has debunked Premier John Olsen's claim, but the same sort of ideology that says the market is best which underpins competition policy also underpins privatisation.So let us start by taking the whole argument for allowing competition among suppliers of electricity. This argument has actually allowed the biggest users of electricity, big corporations, to negotiate supply contracts that have cut the price of power by up to 30 per cent. But, as the Council of Small Business Organisations chief, Rob Bastion, has pointed out in a recent speech, small business has not had the same access to similar discounts. Frankly, even if small businesses get access to alternative suppliers, they are unlikely to have the same kind of buying power to attract the bulk discounts.Households are even less likely to win such benefits from a contestable market. So big businesses end up being the primary beneficiaries, and let us remember who initiated, or proposed, competition policy in the first place in this country—Fred Hilmer. So it is probably understandable that big businesses are winning.A national market for electricity also has significant environmental consequences. This is another consequence that the Australian Democrats are concerned about. We still remember when the federal and state Labor governments wanted to connect Queensland to the national grid via Eastlink, ignoring the environmental consequences of doing so, ignoring all those environmental consequences of cutting such a link through bushland and over settled rural communities.But it can only get worse. When South Australia fully connects to the national grid, ETSA will be forced to compete, on price, against the Victorian power utilities. South Australia's gas fired power stations are the cleanest in Australia. That is something we are very proud of. Victoria's, however, which rely on brown coal, spew out as much as four to five times the amount of greenhouse gases for each kilowatt of power. Yet these environmental factors, or these environmental costs, are not factored into any equation, and South Australia will be forced to buy, on price, more dirty power at the expense of clean power. They are going to be forced to do so because of the price considerations. The development of other cleaner power sources around Australia will also be put at threat.I would like to return to the claim by Premier Olsen in my home state of South Australia that competition policy must mean privatisation, a claim that he seems to share with a number of people in this country, including the Labor Premier in New South Wales, Premier Bob Carr. Both have argued that privatisation is necessary to reduce state debt and to deliver more efficiency in their respective markets, especially in relation to electricity. My Democrat colleagues in the South Australian parliament, under the leadership of Mike Elliott MLC, have spent four months going through Premier Olsen's arguments for the privatisation of ETSA, and they have found them to be bunkum.Let us take the debt argument to begin with. Premier John Olsen says South Australia has a debt problem, yet the figures show that South Australia's net debt to gross state product ratio is now the second lowest in 40 years and is less than half the level it was in 1970. Analyses by economists, such as John Quiggin and John Spoer, show that the sale of ETSA will actually leave our state financially worse off when retained earnings and interest payments from ETSA are taken into account. The loss to the public sector could be as much as $120 million to $180 million a year. That is hardly a good deal.Then there is the question of the control of ETSA. Privatisation, particularly that of state utilities, has become a case of passing assets not just from public to private ownership but from Australian to foreign ownership—again, another area that the Australian Democrats are particularly concerned about. Thus, the Victorian power industry is now largely owned by American power companies. Queensland's largest power station is owned by a British-Canadian company. Even South Australia's, my home state's, water utilities are now controlled by a French company.South Australia, instead of controlling our power utility locally, will again be a branch office town. The consequence is that we will find ourselves to be a branch office town. We will be subject to foreign ownership if we sell off our electricity supplier. It will happen much in the same way that we allowed water and other utilities to become foreign owned.Will consumers benefit? Will price cuts necessarily follow? We argue that these benefits to consumers already exist with the public control of these utilities. Across Australia are publicly owned utilities that have kept price rises at or near inflation for much of the last decade now by achieving better efficiencies and new technology. Contrast that with Britain, for example, where a recent World Bank study concluded that, as a result of the privatisation of power utilities:Power purchasers seem to be paying higher prices than they would have under continued public ownership.Because, I quote again:Higher company margins offset lower costs.In short, none of the arguments that the South Australian government has made, particularly in relation to the sale of ETSA, have been found to hold water, if you do not mind my mixing metaphors.The arguments from the New South Wales Labor government are not much better. I am not surprised that the premier, Mr Bob Carr, has failed to convince even his own party of the so-called benefits. The evidence from New South Wales is that the government pricing tribunal has successfully forced price cuts of 20 per cent or even more under the seven years of the Liberal government. They are enforcing further price cuts over the next five years under a Labor government. Indeed, if New South Wales power stations are operated at the same level of efficiency as the Queensland power stations, which, for the record, are also publicly owned, a further $100 million worth of savings could be delivered.But arguments do not seem to worry Mr Egan or his colleagues in the Australian Labor Party. I suspect that it is because he needs a slush fund in order to spend his way back into government. Some cynics might suggest that this is what former Prime Minister Paul Keating did along with former minister Kim Beazley when they flogged off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank to fund new spending. I put on the record again that the Australian Democrats voted against those sales.Despite the positive arguments, they seem to be catching, however. I notice that even in the Tasmanian parliament the Greens have been the latest victims. While not prepared to tick off a full privatisation of power, they are offering to support a long-term lease of the HEC, the Hydro-Electric Corporation, which, frankly, is pretty much the same thing, unfortunately. The slippery position of a party like the Greens in Tasmania can be contrasted with the position of parties such as the Australian Democrats, for example in South Australia and certainly at the federal level, where we have faced similar pressures but said no. You cannot essentially opt for a bit, the thin edge of the wedge, and allow the partial privatisation of a public utility, especially one that delivers in the public interest.In short, across Australia, Labor, Green and coalition politicians have all been eyeing off their power utilities as short-term revenue raisers. Rational arguments seem to be falling by the wayside, be they economic, environmental, or social, as governments rush to cash in the family silver. The Democrats say that enough is enough. We have never supported privatisation, such as this, that is not in the public interest.Privatisation and competition policy in this country have gone too far. Ideology has carried governments into reform and policies that are not in the long-term social, environmental or economic interest of all Australians. Privatisation and competition policy at the end of the day benefit the big end of town far more than ordinary consumers, and that is not a fair deal for Australians.16:11:004426Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—I rise on behalf of the government to say a few things about the electricity industry in response to the Australian Democrats' statement regarding, in particular, the failure of competition policy to deliver better outcomes for consumers. I want to give the history of the electricity industry in Australia rather than comment on the detail of what a particular state government, to wit the South Australian government, is currently proposing to do. The statement really concerns two issues in this industry. The first issue is that of competition. The second issue is about who owns the assets in that industry; that is, whether they should be privatised or in state hands. I agree with Senator Stott Despoja that they are quite separate issues.Before talking further about the industry, I should declare my interest. I have had a long interest in the electricity industry, going back well over 20 years. The first was as a major buyer of electricity for a pulp and paper company in two states. In more recent years, before coming to this place, about five years ago, I was involved with a major electricity supplier. In fact, I was chairman of the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania for four years.The major point I want to make to the Senate and those who are listening is that the threat of competition has forced enormous changes in the electricity industry throughout Australia over the last 15 years. There has been at least a doubling of productivity within this industry over the last 15 years. Prices have come down right across the board in those areas where competition has been allowed to flourish.What has happened? More than 15 years ago, we had state monopolies producing electricity in each of the states. They behaved just like any other monopoly. They were quite dictatorial, apart from when it suited politicians to interfere with what they were doing. I want to run through two examples quickly. Firstly, as a buyer of electricity, I had a major hand in establishing a pulp and paper mill at Albury in New South Wales 17 to 20 years ago. We had no sooner built the big industrial plant when the state Labor government doubled the price of electricity a year later. It made the plant immediately uneconomic. The plant would not have been built if we had known that that was going to happen, with the Labor government simply playing politics. Even though the Victorian electricity supplier was only 17 kilometres away and there was a line across the border, we were unable to buy cheap electricity from Victoria in order to keep the plant prospering in those times.That has now changed due to competition policy. Australia is the poorer for this. Why? If the mill had been allowed to compete and buy electricity from the other state, it would probably have doubled in size in the mid-1980s and Australia would have been importing less paper.The other key point that needs to be made about what happened in the 1980s is that, again driven by politics, the state governments made huge expansions in their state owned enterprises and wasted many billions of dollars increasing the capacity of electricity generation, particularly in the states of Victoria and New South Wales. Again, that was driven by politics rather than by the marketplace. In the late 1980s, an Industry Commission report brought to the attention of everyone involved in the business the fact that competition was effective in other parts of the world, particularly in North America and parts of Europe, and that there was no reason why competition could not be brought into the market in Australia. That was a blueprint for what could be done in Australia. That is what has happened since then. But, well before that, the threat of competition coming to Australia had driven substantial productivity increases in that industry.In 1991, COAG made the decision to form a competitive market in south-eastern Australia. There has been increased competition from that time. We are still going through the process of opening up the markets. Because of the complexity of the market, we are, of course, starting off with large customers and then slowly moving down to households. That process is well and truly under way. As a result, wholesale prices for electricity have come down by enormous amounts. The actual wholesale spot price in Victoria and New South Wales today is about a quarter of what it was for even long-term contracts 10 years ago in both New South Wales and Victoria.Contract prices have come down in those two states by at least 30 per cent over the last few years, and consumer prices have come down in real terms in Victoria by at least 10 per cent. They will come down further as competition bites and the options for small players to get into this complicated market become available for everybody.The other issue is privatisation. If you have a competitive market, it does not matter who owns the assets—the government or the private sector. There are large advantages for Australia if our governments, and particularly our state governments, see their way clear to get out of owning commercial assets which they run themselves. Why should they be taking commercial risks with commercial enterprises when there are willing investors in the private sector who would be only too pleased to do that?My earlier examples in relation to a particular company I was associated with and in regard to the marketplace putting in huge overcapacity and wasting scarce capital in Australia were political decisions, but if you have a competitive market there is no reason for governments to be involved. They can sell off the assets and basically retreat back to their core functions, while regulating and making sure that consumers get a good deal out of that market. That is what is happening.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What if they sell them as a monopoly?BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—As long as they are part of the grid, Senator, as long as there is competition across the grid and people have access to that grid, while it has to start with large firms, over time it will move down to smaller firms. There is no reason why very small entities cannot get access to that market and have competitive outcomes.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—That is not the case in Queensland and South Australia.BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—It is not the case in Queensland because Queensland has yet to join the national grid. You and I know that our state is yet to join the national grid, but the state government in Tasmania is committed to putting in a link across Bass Strait to take part in the national grid and in competition. Once that competition is there and is working effectively, there is no need for governments to be involved in owning those assets. It is also sensible for those governments, be they Commonwealth or state, to look to reducing their debt.You will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that over four years the Keating government built up debt of $70 billion, which we are in the process of reducing. We are now living within our income at Commonwealth level—which it did not do. State governments have been reducing their debts in order to reduce their interest payments and therefore to act more efficiently. That is giving power back to consumers, less tax is paid by consumers, and we have a much more efficient industry.16:19:004428Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—One of the contributions Hansonism has made to popular debate in Australia has been to render complex issues trivial and reduce the answers to them to slogans, and to find scapegoats to point to and then blame it all on the scapegoats. What is at the back of this debate to some extent—and I will not extend the whole allegation to the Australian Democrats on this occasion—is that the slogan they want the public to believe is that the Labor and Liberal parties are the same when it comes to competition policy. That is not true.There are substantial issues of principle, but the way in which you address those in the public interest is a matter that divides the parties quite considerably. The scapegoat to blame for the ills for electricity prices seems to be—at least in this motion—competition policy. I have heard residents around Australia say that competition policy is to blame for everything.The subject before us is competition policy and the electricity power generation, distribution and supply industry and whether or not Australians are getting cheaper electricity prices as a consequence of it; and whether the transitional costs of moving from the system we have to a more competitive outcome is being handled properly. Before I address that subject, I would like to say a word about competition policy.Some 20 per cent of all the goods and services we produce in this country are traded goods which are sold overseas. If Australia can lift the percentage of GNP it sells to foreigners, other people will consume what we produce in this country and our living standards and our quality of life and the number of jobs we offer to Australians will increase. As a consequence, in order to sell into foreign markets we need to be more nationally competitive. One of the things that you should ask yourself, when you look logically at how you make an economy as diverse and geographically widespread as Australia's more competitive, is how you can reduce input costs to industry.Electricity is a major input cost to all sectors of industry, whether they be farming, mining, manufacturing or service sector industries. Therefore, input costs from electricity were a prime target of the Labor government in order to reduce those costs to consumers, to households and to industry users as well. We came up with the proposition of a national electricity grid for Australia. We asked, `Why is it that the state grids in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia should be confined within the geographical limits of where a cartographer drew the lines of what bounds a state on a map of Australia? Why can't you make one national grid? Why can't you generate electricity from the most efficient source?' Back in the old days in South Australia at Leigh Creek you shovelled what looked like dirt into the generators, but it was dirty-burning brown coal, and the tonnage you had to put in to get a watt of energy out was a lot greater than the high energy, high calorific, clean- burning black coals of the eastern seaboard.So we set this task for a national electricity grid, which enabled the most efficient production to be shared between the states. We said as well that while that grid ought to remain in public ownership and be maintained efficiently, in an effort to lower the cost of the energy supply that goes into the grid, those who supply energy to the grid can be competitive between themselves so that there is genuine competition. We also said that the wholesaling of energy out of the grid should be competitive, too, so that you can sell energy from wherever it is produced, in whatever state, and have a competitive market between wholesalers of energy. Obviously that would work clearly and most demonstrably in the corporate sector where there are high net users of energy. But there ought to be a competitive market in the selling of it.It is right, as Senator Brian Gibson, a Liberal from Tasmania, said a moment ago, that energy costs have fallen. They have fallen remarkably. My own state of Western Australia remains isolated from the rest of this grid, and our energy costs are a lot higher. Our energy sources are either natural gas or brown coal from Collie, and they are not as efficient as the energy sources applied to the energy grid in the eastern states. Be that as it may, that is an unfortunate accident of geography.Our model was to create a structure such as that which competes at the energy supply end and at the distribution end—that is, the selling of it in wholesale—and which has a network in public ownership which is the canals or channels which this energy runs down. We now have the states of New South Wales and Victoria signed up to that package, but the other states have not yet committed themselves fully.Superimpose on top of that the debate about privatisation. I agree with Senator Gibson that it does not matter who owns the competitive units in this competitive structure. Whether it is publicly owned or privately owned is a matter of ideological choice; probably a mixture of both would be the better example. But that does not mean that if it is owned by the community, as a publicly owned good, it necessarily is less efficient or more efficient than one that is owned in the private sector. There might be a debate as to whether it is appropriate for the public sector to own power stations or whether it would be better to expend public sector administrative competence on other tasks. I do not think one would argue that owning a power station necessarily drains the public purse; it probably contributes to it.If one looks at the whole debate on the privatisation of Telstra, one can see that one of the reasons why we are solid in opposing its privatisation is that it is a clear case of where public ownership of a national utility is in the national interest; very strongly in the national interest. Coming back to electricity, by and large I abide by the idea that a mixture is better but, nonetheless, public ownership is a very appropriate way of proceeding.What has happened in the national competition debate—and no doubt this is part of the thinking of those who have put forward this motion—since we set the ground rules for it is that it has been taken over by those with an ideological or bureaucratic conviction that the important thing in this whole issue is to have competition policy. That is not the most important thing at all. Competition policy is a means to an end, and one always has to be careful about what is the end. The end here is: does it serve the national interest; does it reduce electricity prices; does it guarantee a more reliable supply; and does it meet the quality of life and economic tests? That is to say: does it bring into the net other forms of electricity generation that might be renewable energy sources of electricity generation?That has been our structure. If competition policy does not serve those goals, if it does not put more Australians into work, if it does not make the country more efficient or if it does not meet the quality of life tests, then competition policy is wrong, not those who want those better national outcomes. They are not wrong; they are the constant that is always right.We therefore say in answer to a number of the questions that have come up in this debate that, first of all, look at the two models—in New South Wales and in Victoria. What the Kennett government did in Victoria was to privatise its power authority straight-up. The Labor government in New South Wales is breaking it up into various competitive entities so that you get that contest which leads to greater efficiency, lower prices and more jobs in the broader community. But at this stage it is debating whether it should sell off those entities or not, and which ones it should sell. In other words, it has achieved the efficiency goals before it achieved the profit motive. The Victorian government went straight for the dollar, made a quid out of selling its assets, like selling the family silver, and pocketed those funds in its budget. In New South Wales the difference is—a stark difference in philosophy between the major parties—that it created the efficient market which reduces the cost to consumers immediately. That is, first and foremost, one of the most outstanding issues.A second point I make is that Senator Stott Despoja rightly pointed to the fact that in South Australia household consumers will have to pay more than large corporations that buy electricity off the same grid. That is because the South Australian government has negotiated preference deals with the industry sector, and their higher costs are paid by ordinary Australians in their household and domestic situations. She is quite right about that.Our approach, though, is different, and this is why I draw a line under it. Our approach is to have the negotiations at the big end of town—in the corporate sector—go ahead, and when you have the best deal for them, you then declare that as the ceiling, and the cost for household consumers cannot rise above that. It can be below that, but it cannot rise above it. In the first tier, negotiate with industry and set the price; in the second tier, provide the household supply price below the industry price. That is the Labor approach. That is the two-tier approach in this case, and that is the approach that is being adopted in New South Wales. So, at the end of the day, what we are about is creating the contest of competitive forces in the electricity supply area that actually reduces the cost of electricity to household consumers, makes their dollar go further and reduces the cost to business as well. (Time expired)16:31:004430Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Perhaps we make a mistake in assuming that people who are listening to this debate know what competition policy is, and I think we should not assume that everybody in this chamber knows what competition policy is. Those senators who were here in 1995 know that the Senate passed a bill which put competition policy into legislation. It was one of the largest and most overreaching pieces of legislation—affecting every piece of Australian life—that the Senate may have seen in a long time, if ever, but it had very little debate, considering the complexity and the overarching importance of it. Basically it involves a legislative review, which is still going on. That means that all legislation—state, federal and local—is being reviewed to see whether it is anti-competitive. That includes whether or not a child-care facility is anti-competitive because there might be rules that say that it should not be near a toxic waste dump—that kind of thing. The only legislation and services—state, federal and local—that are not being reviewed are those which have been exempted by legislation.We have seen no exemption legislation in this chamber. That means that all federal, state and local government laws and regulations are subject, at this stage, to competition policy. It is no good the Labor Party coming in and saying, `We didn't intend for it to be applicable to everything.' That is the reality; we have seen no exemption legislation.I have had arguments about what is exempt and what is not with the Treasury in Western Australia which, as with most states, is responsible for oversight of national competi tion policy in its state, and it said, `You shouldn't cite examples where local and regional areas are being hard-hit by competition policy and assume that it is part of competition policy.' Given that the legislation says that the principles of competition, privatisation and so on should apply to all government services, it is hard for anyone to logically argue that those processes, whether or not they are being forced or whether they are occurring voluntarily with governments at a state or local or federal level, are not part of competition policy.It is hard to argue what was and what was not intended. The Greens (WA) said very strongly in 1995 that the setting up of the legislative review under the National Competition Council, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as the watchdog, was such an amorphous system—it was so large, so comprehensive, so overwhelming—that we did not believe that it was set up properly. We did not believe that thought went into it. It was rushed through by Paul Keating before he lost government, and nobody knew how it would operate or whether it would have the proper checks and balances.It probably does not help to be right this far down the track. It is a relief to know that the ALP is now looking at reviewing the legislation to see what the impacts are or are likely to be. It is an ongoing process. It has not happened in the past—it is a process that is happening, like a big boulder that is coming down a hill and gathering moss as it is going. For instance, there has been a lot of mention of public interest, and that is no great help when you look at such things as the public interest under environment. The exemptions are that the competition policy must abide by government policies on environment. If government policies on environment are market oriented and they do not look after the environment, then competition policy per se is not obliged to look after interests of environmental sustainability.Specifically, we have been asked to deal with the issue of energy. It is a very important issue because, quite frankly, it has been argued that the way competition policy in the competitive market for electricity has been set up is incompatible, or can be used as an excuse to be incompatible, with reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.I would like to quote briefly from a paper from Ecological Economics by Mark Diesendorf. It says:In order to allow efficient energy use to compete on an equal basis with electricity supply, it is necessary to create a market for energy services, not electricity, at the retail level. To do this requires institutional changes. Correct pricing is not sufficient.There are many arguments in relation to the models that have been set up that prove that we should not go down the path of greenhouse gas reductions, and that includes the fact that the megabare and the gigabare models neglect the fact that `no regrets' policies are possible. They may require people to take a longer term approach.Sometimes these bring back their expenditure or their investment in three years, but these are not the kinds of approaches that governments are making because they are not taking innovative approaches. They are leaving things to the market, and the market may not have it in their interest to reduce production of greenhouse gases, and the market certainly may not have it in their interest to reduce the use of fossil fuels. So we are left with a situation where the market, as it is, is dictating and governments are not prepared to make those institutional changes which may signal the real changes we need to go into the future, and that is the problem. (Time expired)16:37:004431Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—The proposition put by Senator Stott Despoja in this matter of public importance is that competition policy has failed to deliver better outcomes for consumers in energy markets and that this, in part, is because of the enthusiasm of the South Australian and New South Wales governments to use competition policy as an excuse to privatise essential public assets like power stations. In responding to this proposition, let me first say that reform of the structure and regulation of the electricity supply industry aims to promote a more competitive industry, delivering lower electricity costs as well as a more efficient and sustainable use of capital and energy resources to improve Australia's domestic and international economic competitiveness and performance. The benefits of a deregulated, interconnected, competitive national electricity market are real for every Australian. Economy wide, these benefits have been estimated at approximately $5 billion per annum. That represents benefits of more than $1,100 per year for the average Australian family, and that is not to be ignored.Senator Stott Despoja in her address, and more recently Senator Margetts, raised the issue of environmental matters. There are clear environmental benefits in these proposals. The reforms create opportunities for access for new technologies and competitive alternative energy sources. Environmental benefits also result from more efficient and cost-effective energy utilisation and investment decisions. This exemplifies the Democrats' hypocrisy in putting up this matter of public importance today. The Democrats are continually urging us with regard to environmental care and sustainability, and are also always encouraging support for environmentally beneficial technology. The electricity reforms of the government and, indeed, of competition policy do exactly that: they encourage that alternative source of energy and the use of new environmentally sensitive technologies, yet the Democrats want to oppose these initiatives. The benefits for the environment are made clear in the statement made by the Prime Minister on climate change in November last year when he outlined the government's intention to accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid based power applications and to establish a firm market base for renewable supplies. The latter initiative on renewable energy goes well beyond the contribution to greenhouse gas reduction targets that the Australian government has set itself and recognises the central role of renewable energy. Again, the environmental benefits of competition policy with regard to the national power grid and electricity generation industry are clear for all to see.Most importantly, of course, there are benefits for the customers requiring electricity. The first benefit for customers of stimulating the emergence of an energy services industry and taking advantage of competition between energy sources is that it will provide customers with options of energy-efficient products to meet their demands. Another benefit is the giving to consumers of maximum choice of supplier, including the options I have already mentioned of environmentally friendly or green power. Again, the Democrats should note this in particular. Benefits for customers also include forcing the establishment of new, more efficient technologies by suppliers who will be competing for customers. There will be direct benefits as retail customers, currently paying fixed or regulated prices, increasingly have the option of using alternative suppliers coming into the market to provide them with supply options. At present only larger customers benefit from those options, but these wholesale customers have been able to negotiate contracts with suppliers for electricity supply that are significantly below pre-competitive market prices. From this July, about 50 per cent of electricity users will have a choice of supplier and by 2001 all customers in the national energy market will have this choice of supplier, so that will drive down the cost of electricity to all consumers.The Democrats also claim, as indicated in their MPI, that these market reforms are being used as an excuse for the privatisation programs of the states, and they particularly refer to New South Wales and South Australia. In fact, privatisation is not a requirement for market reforms. The national market reforms concern separation of generation transmission and distribution, and the introduction of a competitive electricity market. Furthermore, market reforms are also occurring in the gas industry, which is a privately owned industry already. This simply reinforces the point that it is absolute nonsense to link competition and the development of the national electricity market with privatisation.The issue of who owns the energy market assets is quite separate from the issue of the introduction of competition. Privatisation is desirable, because there are risks involved in operating electricity assets in a competitive market. Private sector investors are in a much better position to evaluate those risks than are governments. This has been made clear in the current debate in South Australia on the proposed privatisation of ETSA and Optima. Formerly in South Australia there was a predictable $200 million-plus dividend which the ETSA corporation earned for the South Australian government. But that dividend will become quite unstable, particularly as significant upgrading of the South Australian electricity generator technology—at expense to the taxpayer—would be required to maintain that dividend. It will also be placed in jeopardy because ETSA and Optima will no longer enjoy their monopoly share of the market. They will face competition from interstate private generators—potentially much more efficient private generators—coming into the South Australian market.Senator Stott Despoja mentioned the issue of debt in relation to the privatisation of ETSA, and that is important. It is important to retire South Australia's debt. Of course, it was as a result of our experience with another government instrumentality operating in a competitive commercial market—the State Bank—that was the source of that massive $7.2 billion debt that currently hinders South Australia. Five billion dollars from the sale of ETSA and Optima will substantially reduce that debt, reducing our current $2 million a day interest payments to about $½ million and freeing up about $660 million each and every year in South Australia's state government budget. Senator Stott Despoja said the debt is not important, but the structure of our debt is quite different now from what it was in the past. (Time expired)16:44:004433Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—We are debating the national competition policy in relation to the electricity industry with particular reference to South Australia and New South Wales. By way of background, the national competition policy emerged from a report known as the Hilmer report that was published in August 1993. A reform process was agreed on by the then Labor Prime Minister, Mr Keating, and the premiers in April 1995. There was a system of payments that were to be made available for following the process that was agreed upon.There are two main principles behind national competition policy. There was a recognition that there were many inefficient aspects of the economy that were preventing our Australian economy from functioning to its full potential. Senator Cook has referred to the fact that electricity is a very major component of costs to industry, particularly if we wish to value add a significant proportion of the resources, such as mining, in this country.Most particularly, governments argue that our manufacturing industry has been facing stiff competition from imports. Therefore, national competition policy is meant to put similar pressure on other sectors of the economy, particularly government owned business enterprises, to lift their performance. The second major principle, and one that is often overlooked in the current debate, is that consumers, not just business consumers but consumers generally, should benefit from a more efficient economy via lower prices.There is a process that has been established. Because of time, I will not go into that in great detail. But there is an important underlying philosophy, and it is important to recognise some of the limits of that philosophy of competition. If we are to maximise competitive markets, it is dependent upon a number of important preconditions. That will include the absence of any player in the market with market power, such as a monopoly or an oligopoly situation, and also the existence of perfect information. These assumptions often do not reflect the real world in which we live.Competition policy has been subject to a range of criticisms, and I will come to them briefly shortly. It is important that we do have efficient allocation of resources not just in a narrow economic sense. For example, in the context of energy, it is important that valuable—and they are valuable and scarce—economic resources such as coal and water are not wasted. That is also very important environmentally. So it is not just in a narrow economic context that the debate should be approached from.In the electricity industry, there is a background of cross-subsidies in the delivery of the product. That occurs at a number of levels. It occurs from one generation to another generation of Australians via the debt that is transferred. It occurs from rich to poor communities and from larger population centres to smaller rural and regional centres. Frankly, that is as it should be. That public benefit, or, if you like, the community service obligation, should continue to exist.In the context of social policy, it is important to ensure that, as a fundamental right in this country, everyone has connection to the power system at a reasonable cost, particularly in rural and regional areas of Australia. There is also another significant human element, and I refer to the work force in the electricity area itself. It is important that the wages and conditions provide a decent living for employees not only within society generally but also within the electricity industry. It is important to ensure that those workers are protected and that there is a reasonable balance of power in the negotiating process between employees and employers.There are a number of components of the reform process. One is commercialisation. The reforms are aimed at making the commercial objectives of the enterprise paramount. Another is corporatisation. There is the creation of a legal structure of an enterprise which functions legally separately and returns to the government, if the government is the shareholder, a return on capital. In relation to privatisation, the transfer of ownership of the enterprise from the government to the private sector may occur, and I stress the word `may'. I would stress that national competition policy does not necessarily mean privatisation. You can have an efficient public utility or public utilities competing against each other against efficient private companies. Indeed, the approach of privatisation under the competition policy umbrella is often used as an excuse to privatise assets. I will come to that a little later.It is an appropriate time for us to look at the public benefits from competition policy. We are some years down the track in the development of competition policy. Some areas of competition policy do need review. Certainly, the community needs to be much more included in the competition policy process. Unfortunately, most people do not hear about a particular measure until it has been decided at government or bureaucratic level. Much more effort is needed to convince the community of the benefits of the process. In some areas there has been undue haste in the process. It may be better to slow the process slightly to ensure community support for the process in general as well as for individual aspects of the process. It should certainly be more transparent.As I referred to earlier, there are a number of government decisions in relation to competition policy being used as an excuse. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Liberal government in the ACT used competition policy to break a promise to build a suburban swimming pool. The South Australian government has also used competition policy as an excuse to deregulate Sunday shopping in suburban Adelaide.There has also been reference to casinos. I note Premier Kennett in Victoria alluding to the fact that the implications of competition policy mean that, in that state, you either have zero casinos or two or more to meet national competition requirements. That is just not correct. There has been an extensive debate in the dairy industry and in respect of Australia Post, Sunday shopping, chemists and newsagents. I believe there is a substantial argument, on balance, in the sectors that I have mentioned that the public good outweighs the need for competition policy to apply.Turning to the electricity industry very briefly, I note that the South Australian Premier, Mr Olsen, has justified the breaking of his election promise not to privatise the state's electricity industry by saying that if he did not privatise it he would lose millions of dollars in competition policy money from Canberra. That is not correct. He is using it as an excuse in order to sell off the South Australian electricity assets as a monopoly to obtain a monopoly benefit.In New South Wales and Victoria, the electricity industry has undergone considerable change. There are important aspects in the transition towards a national electricity market. There are significant economic gains to be made from a national grid that at least incorporates South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. There is a question mark over Tasmania because the possible increase in return from its electricity corporation may not outweigh the cost of the grid connection, which is some $300 million. It is important to allow electricity suppliers to make whatever deal they can with their consumers, not just business consumers but consumers more broadly in the community, the household sector in particular.In the last two years, a fully regulated government sector has been subject to competitive arrangements. Large industry customers have been able to choose their electricity retailer based on price and quality criteria. In Victoria and New South Wales there are 25 electricity retailers competing at the moment for about 5,500 customers in those two states. There has been the separation of generation, transmission and distribution with the creation of a large number of retailers. Many are privately owned. As I said earlier in this debate, that does not necessarily have to occur. You do not have to privatise assets as a result of competition policy.I note also in respect of the South Australian government that they have reversed in principle support given last December for a $110 million plan to link its electricity grid with that of New South Wales. Why? Because the South Australian government wants to maximise the return from the proposed sale of its generating business, Optima Energy. But the consequences of this action of the South Australian government have been to short-change local consumers by preventing the importation into South Australia of cheaper New South Wales electricity.We have an appalling waste in respect of the export capacity of the proposed Westlink connection to the New South Wales grid. It will provide an important capacity for the importation of power from New South Wales, which has a vast overcapacity in its electricity generation. Queensland apparently refuses to accept the importation of power, to the detriment of its consumers. Voodoo interests were well entrenched in the Queensland National and Liberal parties long before the rise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. (Time expired)16:55:004435Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—This is certainly a matter of public importance as the electricity industry in Australia enters an exciting new era of competition right across the nation, including Tasmania, which will eventually be linked into the national grid system. Just briefly, the importance of this is that if you have a generating system that is isolated in a state like New South Wales you have to overbuild your capacity by about 25 per cent just to have the backup in case of failure of systems and excess demand. The great advantage of a national grid market is that you can do this balancing across all states, and you do not have to build excessive numbers of power stations, which I would have thought the Greens (WA) and the Democrats would welcome.New South Wales was initially, under the Greiner-Fahey government, moving in a very progressive direction in this area. The corporatisation and the split-up of the units of the old New South Wales Electricity Commission have proceeded apace, and we now have three competing generating units. The next step to ensure that we have competition with the other states is to privatise these units. This is a policy that is enthusiastically endorsed by the New South Wales coalition opposition. That is what they are going to do as soon as they get into power.Ironically enough, it is also supported by Premier Bob Carr and his Treasurer, Michael Egan, but they have been blocked and stymied on bringing about true competition in this market by the trade unions, which will not let the Premier do what he wants. The unions are actually blocking the privatisation of the power assets in New South Wales, even though this would lead to greater accountability and efficiency. The New South Wales Auditor-General, Tony Harris, has said that the government's current ownership of the electricity assets is `an unsustainable model'. Because privatisation is being blocked by unions, it is likely to carry on this way.To give you an example of one of the problems this creates, the power provided to this parliament, and all the power in Canberra that used to come from New South Wales, under the increasingly competitive market now comes from the La Trobe Valley. So New South Wales has already lost jobs because the ALP government in New South Wales is dragging the chain. Mr Harris himself questioned the capacity of corporatised agencies to cope with rapid change brought about by competition reforms. If we do not move on to the next step of privatisation, New South Wales will continue to lose market share and jobs to the more progressive Liberal state government in Victoria. In addition, the longer the Carr government puts off the privatisation of these assets, the less likely it is to get the estimated price of $25 billion. That money will remove a lot of the debt that has been built up in New South Wales and enable New South Wales to return to schools, roads and hospitals the services they desperately need.Energy Australia's own chief executive in New South Wales recognises the need for privatisation. In the Australian on 12 June, Paul Broad called `on the New South Wales government to privatise the state's electricity industry because it was losing value relative to its private sector Victorian competitors'. The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 June said:. . . the longer the industry unions and ALP members, therefore, resist the Carr Government's efforts to privatise the NSW Government-owned generators the worse the final deal for the unions—and NSW—will become.Obviously, privatisation, like competition, will deliver benefits to New South Wales. Yet, according to former ALP federal secretary Bob Hogg in the Financial Review on 27 May this year, this sale, which means so much for New South Wales, is being blocked, interestingly enough in his view, because of federal Labor's opposition to the Telstra sale. Referring to the sale, Mr Hogg said:It would make it very difficult for the Federal Leader of the Opposition to explain away the contradictory signals to the electorate—that it was alright to sell electricity but not telephony.However, he made it clear that after the federal election the New South Wales government might have a clearer path for privatisation. So the ALP is stopping the people of New South Wales from benefiting from privatisation, for political reasons. The Democrats are also trying to deny these benefits to the Australian people. Any delay to the government in enacting legislation that would enable competition to proceed in energy markets reduces the pace at which these benefits can be passed on to consumers.The coalition are not the only group or party to support this sort of energy reform. Since 1991 the Council of Australian Governments has recognised the need to deliver on the substantial benefits that major reforms of the structure and regulation of electricity and gas sectors can achieve. This reform is bipartisan and supported by the state governments.Reform will see a progressive introduction of a national electricity market. It is aimed to be in place by 2002. The benefits of a deregulated, interconnected and competitive national electricity market are substantial—not only in financial terms but also in terms of the environment, something which the Democrats should consider. Senator Lees has linked state privatisation programs with market reform—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Committees44364436443617:02:004436Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I present the 72nd report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Possible improper action against a person (Dr William De Maria) , together with a volume of submissions and documents.Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I seek leave to move a motion, make a statement and to give a notice of motion relating to the report.Leave granted.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.On 4 September 1997 the following matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges on a motion by Senator Bourne: having regard to the documents tabled by the President on 25 August 1997, whether any action was taken against Dr William De Maria in consequence of his communication with the Senate through Senator Woodley and, if so, whether any contempt was committed in taking that action.The matter concerns the tabling in the Senate of certain documents by Senator Woodley in the course of a speech on whistleblowers. Senator Woodley subsequently discovered that no arrangements had been made to table the documents, which contained adverse comment about certain staff within the University of Queensland. The documents had caused considerable disquiet to those staff, and Senator Woodley attempted to alleviate their concerns by tabling further documents responding to the original allegations. He also sought to withdraw the offending documents, but was advised that this was not possible.Following the tabling of both sets of documents, the University of Queensland took disciplinary action against Dr De Maria, on the basis of the documents he had submitted to Senator Woodley. Solicitors acting for Dr De Maria wrote to the President of the Senate, drawing the matter to her attention. It was then referred to the Committee of Privileges in the above terms.The first question which the committee was required to determine was whether the action taken against Dr De Maria would constitute a contempt on the basis that he was punished as a result of the submission of information to a senator with the intention that it be used within the Senate, and Senator Woodley's use of the information in the Senate.The committee concluded that, notwithstanding any concerns about the motives of Dr De Maria in obtaining parliamentary privilege from his submission of information to Senator Woodley, all actions taken by the University of Queensland against him constitute a contempt of the Senate.The committee also addressed the question whether any contempt was involved in Dr De Maria's having induced Senator Woodley to table the documents, thereby conferring absolute privilege on them. The committee concluded that it would be unsafe to make any such finding. The full findings are contained at paragraph 2.29 of the report.After the committee had determined its findings, it acquainted the University of Queensland and Dr De Maria of the findings. It received responses from both, including welcome advice from the university that it had discontinued the action against Dr De Maria. Accordingly, the committee recommends that no penalty be imposed.Pursuant to standing order 82, I now give notice that, not less than seven sitting days after today, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) endorse the findings contained in paragraph 2.29; and(b) adopt the recommendation contained in paragraph 2.31, of the 72nd report of the Committee of Privileges.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.4437443717:05:004437Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I present the 73rd report of the Committee of Privileges entitled Possible improper interference with a potential witness before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund , together with a volume of submissions and documents.Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I seek leave to move a motion relating to the report.Leave granted.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I move:That the Senate—(a) endorse the findings contained in paragraph 2.32; and (b) adopt the recommendations contained in paragraphs 2.36 and 2.42, of the 73rd report of the Privileges Committee.On 2 October 1997, the following matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges, on a motion by Senator Bolkus:(1) Whether the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, or any other person, sought, by force or threat, or by other improper means, to influence the Australian Law Reform Commission, and/or its President, Mr Alan Rose, in respect of evidence to be given, namely the making of a submission, and/or the giving of evidence in person, to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, and whether the Attorney-General, or any other person, induced the Commission, or its President, to refrain from giving that evidence.(2) Whether any contempt was committed in respect of this matter.The question central to the matter before the committee involves two competing principles: the duty imposed on one minister and his departmental officers to ensure that an organisation for which that minister has statutory responsibility acts lawfully, and the possibility of obstructing a parliamentary committee in the performance of its functions.In brief, on becoming apprised that the ALRC was intending to make a submission on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 to the native title committee without an active reference from the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) before it, officers of the department attempted to dissuade the ALRC from proceeding. The Attorney-General and senior departmental officers regarded the ALRC proposal to participate in the inquiry as being beyond its functions and powers. Although the President of the ALRC contested this interpretation of the ALRC's functions and powers, he decided to withdraw from further participation in the inquiry. It appears that no-one involved in the decision to withdraw from proceedings took account of the nature of the inquiry and the possible parliamentary privilege implications.Consequently, the committee has found that no contempt has been committed by either the Attorney-General or any of the senior officers of his department in seeking to persuade the President of the ALRC to withdraw from the proceedings of the native title committee. More detailed reasons for its findings are set out in the report, particularly in paragraphs 2.26 to 2.31.Given the incompatible interpretations of the ALRC's statutory functions, which was so much in evidence during the inquiry, the committee has recommended that this question be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.The committee also reminds senior officers of the Public Service and statutory authorities of their responsibilities to parliament, and recommends that an earlier resolution on this matter be reaffirmed by the Senate. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.443844384438Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present a statement on provisions in legislative instruments which may have been more appropriate for inclusion in an act. Also, on behalf of the committee, I present a statement on the scrutiny of Great Barrier Reef zoning plans, and I seek leave to incorporate the statements in Hansard .Leave granted.The statements read as follows—Statement on provisions in legislative instruments which may have been more appropriate for inclusion in an ActThe Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances scrutinises all disallowable legislative instruments to ensure compliance with personal rights and parliamentary propriety. An important aspect of parliamentary propriety, and one recognised by standing order 23, which establishes the terms of reference of the Committee, is that legislative instruments should not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. The Committee raises this issue less often than its other principles, but it is a fundamental part of Committee scrutiny.During the present Autumn sittings the Committee has considered two cases where legislative instruments provided for material which may have been more suitable for inclusion in a Bill, which is subject to all the rigours of parliamentary passage. Four sets of amendments of the Therapeutic Good Regulations, Statutory Rules 1997 Nos 398-401, were all made on the same day. The Committee scrutinised these in the usual way and found numbers of defects. These included fees of up to $5,600, the basis of which was not explained; absence of a time limit within which a public official must make a decision; unclear drafting; strict liability offences; unfair provisions affecting business operators; and duplication in making the four sets of regulations on the same day. The Committee had considerable and detailed correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the regulations and obtained explanations and a number of undertakings in relation to these problems, including an undertaking to amend before the end of this financial year.This statement, however, will describe our correspondence about another possible deficiency raised by the Committee, which was that the amendments, or at least some of them, may have been more appropriate to be addressed through an amendment of the enabling Act, where the changes would be subject to full parliamentary debate. One reason for the Committee's concern was the number and intensity of representations which Senators were receiving about one set of regulations in particular, the sole purpose of which was to prohibit the advertising of natural remedies as "drug free".The Committee wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, who replied that this set of amendments had been intentionally separated out from the pre-existing provisions but that it would not be appropriate to amend the enabling Act because these are amendments of existing regulations.The Committee replied to the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that, with great respect, the Committee did not share her view. For the purpose of the Committee's terms of reference it is irrelevant whether the regulations are principal or amending regulations. The Committee's mandate to ensure that legislative instruments do not contain matter more appropriate for an Act is an important safeguard for parliamentary propriety and one which the Committee is vigilant to enforce. The Committee pointed out that its very first Report in 1932 dealt with this aspect of its terms of reference and the Committee has received undertakings since that date from Ministers to include matters, initially included in legislative instruments, in Acts. These included amending instruments. The Committee further advised that the subject matter in the present regulations was contentious and the subject of considerable public disquiet. The Committee noted the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary that she had established a committee of review to examine the issues in this regulation and would table the results of the review in Parliament. The Committee would, however, appreciate advice that following this review the material in the regulation would be included in an Act. The Committee concluded its letter by advising that its actions in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations, like its actions in respect of all legislative instruments, are directed to protect personal rights and parliamentary propriety. The Committee did not deal with policy and did not have a view on the policy aspects of the regulations. It aim was to protect the rights of Parliament.The Senate disallowed Statutory Rules 1997 No.401 on 31 March 1998 on policy grounds.The second case presented a somewhat different problem in relation to material included in a legislative instrument which may have been more appropriate for inclusion in an Act. The Public Service Regulations (Amendment-Interim Reforms), Statutory Rules 1998 No.23, made on 18 February 1998, provided for important matters affecting the Australian Public Service at a time when far-reaching reforms for the APS had already been put into legislative form, in the Public Service Bill 1997. That Bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives on 26 June 1997 and , after being passed in the Senate with amendments, was introduced into the House of Representatives again on 5 March 1998. The Committee wrote to the Minister suggesting that it may be appropriate for the Regulations to be delayed until the fate of the Bill has been determined and for the Bill alone to deal with some of the matters also included in the Regulations.As an aside, to illustrate the breadth of matters which the Committee addresses, the Committee also wrote to the Minister about two other aspects of the Regulations. One regulation provided that the Public Service Commissioner must report to the Minister on the state of the service and that the Minister must present that report to the Parliament. There was, however, no provision specifying the time within which the Minister must present the report after it has been received. The Committee suggested that the Minister should be required to do this within seven sitting days of receipt. The Minister advised the Committee that the Regulations would be amended to include this requirement. Also, the Committee asked about apparent delay in bringing the regulations up to date, with some provisions obsolete for more than a decade. The Minister advised that the delay was unfortunate and should not occur again.In relation to including the material in the Bill the Minister advised that he agreed with the Committee that the preferable course would have been to include in the Act the substantive parts of the Regulations in relation to APS values, the Code of Conduct, public interest whistleblowing, the state of the service report and mobility arrangements. However, the House of Representatives had now rejected the Senate amendments and resolved that the Bill be laid aside. The Minister advised that, in the absence of the Bill, it was essential that these important issues are dealt with, to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and ethics of the APS.The Committee accepted this advice, but in the meantime, in order to protect its options, had given a notice of disallowance of the regulations. The Public Service and Merit Protection Commission, which administers the Regulations, then issued a circular to all Departments and agencies in the APS, advising that the notice had been given and of its effect. After the Committee withdrew the notice the PSMPC sent out a further circular. The Committee congratulates the Public Service Commissioner on this appropriate action, which represents an understanding of the role of the Committee and a commitment to parliamentary propriety.The Committee is grateful for the cooperation which it has received in its scrutiny in these two cases from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services, the Hon Trish Worth MP, and from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, the Hon David Kemp MP.Scrutiny of Great Barrier Reef Zoning PlansIn its scrutiny of legislative instruments to ensure that they comply with personal rights and parliamentary propriety the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances looks carefully at any instruments which may not be legally valid. Every year the Committee finds instances of such instruments, including those which are void because they purport to subdelegate legislative power. Generally any such subdelegation must be expressly authorised by the enabling Act. Invalidity on this ground is now particularly important because of the provisions of the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996, which will subject a broader range of legislative instruments to the safeguards of parliamentary control. This statement will report to the Senate on its scrutiny of a group of legislative instruments which illustrate problems in these areas and which are of continuing concern.The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority made three Zoning Plan Amendments on 23 September 1996, each of which subdelegated back to itself the power to control entry into areas of the Park and activities conducted there. These powers were broad and if legislative in nature appeared to be void unless expressly authorised by the enabling Act. Also, they purported to deal with the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef, which the Committee regards as an important issue, by the use of instruments which will not even be tabled in Parliament, much less be subject to disallowance.The Committee wrote to the Minister for advice about the validity of the Amendments and received an extremely brief reply which merely stated that the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) had assured the Minister that the subdelegations were administrative in nature and not legislative. The Committee wrote back to the Minister asking for a copy of the opinion, which the Minister duly provided. The opinion, from the Office of Legislative Drafting (OLD) of the AGD, confirmed that if the powers were legislative then they "certainly" should be provided for in the Zoning Plans themselves and thus be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and possible disallowance. However, according to the OLD opinion, they were administrative, because on an analysis of the circumstances they only apply the law in particular cases.The Committee was somewhat startled by this opinion, which on its analysis of the circumstances appeared to fly in the face of everything which the Committee understood about the difference between legislative and administrative powers. In any event, the Committee wrote back to the Minister advising that if the power was administrative then it should be subject to AAT review and asking for confirmation that this would be done and that the existence of AAT review would be fully publicised to all persons affected. The Committee also asked for advice on the number of times the powers had been exercised and of the nature of the exercise.The Minister replied to the Committee's letter to the effect that AAT review of these putative administrative decisions would not be provided, giving reasons for this which were, in the Committee's view, inadequate. The Committee wrote back to the Minister, advising that the view of the Committee was that the powers were legislative or, if they were not, then they should be subject to AAT review as set out in the Guidelines of the Administrative Review Council (ARC). The Committee, after studying the actual powers exercised, which banned or permitted fishing in particular areas for up to five years, also asked the Minister for advice that the Office of General Counsel of the AGD supported the view of OLD that the powers were not legislative.The Minister's reply attached an opinion from the Office of General Counsel that, at least in terms of the ARC guidelines, the powers were "clearly" of a legislative nature, "obviously" not directed towards the circumstances of particular persons, but applying generally to the community. They were in "sharp contrast" to decisions which would normally be directional as administrative. This opinion did not refer to the earlier opinion from OLD.The Committee wrote back to the Minister advising that it accepted this opinion from the Office of the General Counsel. The result of the opinion was that the subdelegations of power appear to be void, with the powers exercised under them void and all actions in reliance on the powers also void. The view of the Committee was therefore that the amendments of the Zoning Plans should be remade as soon as possible. This would not redress the invalidity of the past 14 months but would at last ensure that future management of the Great Barrier Reef is on a valid basis. The Committee concluded by advising the Minister that the present position is that his own legal advice was that the Amendments are void or, on the best possible interpretation of his view, in breach of ARC guidelines. The Committee emphasised that action should be taken as soon as possible to correct this unsatisfactory position.The Minister replied with another opinion from the Office of General Counsel that the powers were legislative but would be likely to survive a court challenge to their validity on the ground of subdelegation. This opinion did not mention either the first opinion from OLD or the previous advice from the General Counsel.The Committee wrote back to the Minister noting that his own unambiguous legal advice was that the subdelegations were legislative for the purposes of the ARC guidelines and that under the guidelines they should therefore be subject to disallowance by either House of the Parliament. The Committee asked the Minister if he would confirm that this was the case. The Committee also asked the Minister for advice that he was taking steps as a matter of priority to ensure that the powers are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, suggesting that the present position was unacceptable not only from the position of the ARC guidelines, but also from principles of sound public administration and parliamentary propriety.The Minister's reply was to the effect that the powers were of a legislative nature, but that he did not intend to make them subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister suggested that we conclude our correspondence.The Committee now reports to the Senate on what it regards as the present unsatisfactory position, in which legislative instruments affecting important areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for periods of up to five years are probably void and in any event are not subject to tabling or disallowance. The Committee was also disturbed by the various opinions from the AGD in its scrutiny of these instruments. In summary, one opinion from OLD advised that the powers should "certainly" be included in the disallowable Zoning Plans if they were legislative but in fact they were administrative. The next opinion, this time from the Office of General Counsel, advised that the powers were "clearly" legislative, at least for the purposes of the ARC guidelines. The third opinion, also from the Office of General Counsel, advised that the powers were legislative but valid. The Committee notes that discussion of contemporary legal issues includes the concept of "jurisdiction shopping". It appears that within the AGD that jurisdiction shopping is a definite option.There is another disturbing aspect of this matter. This is that the opinion from OLD advised that it was in accordance with advice being purposed in relation to the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996. Presumably this advice is that the powers are not legislative for the purposes of that Bill, which provides that the Attorney-General may issue conclusive certificates that an instrument is or is not legislative. These certificates may only be challenged on the grounds of procedural validity, not on their merits, and even that must be done by a Federal Court action which the Committee understands would cost a lot of money. If this is the case then that advice from OLD would have to be withdrawn in the light of the opinions from the Office of General Counsel that the powers in question are legislative and fresh advice given that the powers are legislative for the purposes of the Bill. The Committee will pursue this with the Attorney-General and if necessary report again to the Senate.The Committee is grateful for the cooperation which it has received in it scrutiny of these instruments from the Minister for the Environment, Senator the Hon Robert Hill.444144414441Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Calvert and the Joint Committee on Public Works, I present the following reports: No. 3 of 1998—East Coast Armament Complex, Point Wilson, Victoria; No. 4 of 1998—Development of the Eastern Region Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown, New South Wales; and No. 5 of 1998—Redevelopment of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland. I move:That the Senate take note of the reports.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The first report which I have tabled concerns the proposed construction at an East Coast Armament Complex at Point Wilson, Victoria.This proposal involves the construction of a facility at Point Wilson to support ammunitioning and deammunitioning of the Navy's warships and for a Defence import facility for explosive ordnance. The extent of the proposal involves explosive and non-explosive storehouses, a transit facility, container parking and truck holding bays, an administration centre, a workshop security checkpoint, an isolation facility, engineering services and civil works.In addition, the existing jetty, which is nearly two kilometres long, and wharf amenities are proposed for refurbishment.When referred to the Committee, the estimated out turn cost of the proposal was $72.27 million.The Committee has recommended that the proposal not proceed as proposed.The report traces the history of this proposal, which has its origins in the need to close, what Defence have called, the Sydney Ammunition Pipeline. This involves transporting ordnance by truck and by barge from the ordnance storage facilities in western Sydney to the fleet base at Garden Island.At present, the importation of explosive ordnance takes place through Point Wilson.It was submitted that Point Wilson was the only site that could provide both a deammunitioning facility and a 1000 tonne Net Explosives Quantity container import facility.In terms of the Navy's operational requirements the Committee found that Point Wilson is highly unsatisfactory due to:. the distance from the Fleet Base in Sydney Harbour and the Navy's exercise area off Jervis Bay;. the depth of water available for its largest ship, which would not allow berthing when fully loaded; and. the lengthy road journey to Kingswood and return to allow for servicing of the unloaded weaponry.The Committee also found that berthing facilities at Point Wilson require extensive upgrading to provide a long term loading and unloading capability for the importation of explosive ordnance and the ammunitioning and deammunitioning of Naval vessels.These disadvantages were considered acceptable to the Department of Defence on the understanding that no suitable 1000 tonne Net Explosive Quantity facility existed elsewhere.Inquiries by the Committee have established that such a licensed facility, Port Alma in Queensland, exists.In fact, most consignments of Defence ordnance, transported on specialised chartered container ships, berth at Port Alma before proceeding to Point Wilson. Port Alma is fully licensed for a 1500 tonne Net Explosive Quantity. The Committee recognises that Port Alma would impose an additional distance for land transportation.However, this is offset by reduced sea transport and the fact that very small quantities of containers, approximately 100 per annum, are involved.A slight increase in freight costs easily outweighs the $24.757 million required to upgrade Point Wilson to provide a long term import facility.Based on these factors, once the need for a dual facility is discounted and because the Navy requirement for deammunitioning is approximately 30 tonnes Net Explosive Quantity, the Committee concluded that numerous deep water facilities closer to Sydney capable of meeting this criterion are available and should be investigated.One such location is Twofold Bay, which offers excellent low cost or free land for on-shore facilities and buffer zones both for the current proposal and for future expansion.The Committee has therefore recommended that the Department of Defence should re-examine the works in this reference and undertake further investigations into alternatives covered in the report with a view to referring a revised proposal for an armament complex to the Committee at a later date.The second report which I have tabled involves the proposed development of the Eastern Region Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown, NSW.In brief, this involves proposal the construction of a new facility at RAAF Base Williamtown to enable the No 41 Wing Headquarters and Number 3 Control and Reporting Unit to be collocated and integratedWhen referred to the Committee, the estimated out turn cost of the proposal was $18 million.The Committee has recommended that this proposal should proceed.The Committee has concluded that there is a need to provide facilities for No 41 Wing and its subordinate units to improve their operational effectiveness.A purpose-designed Sector Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown would be available to backup the one in Northern Australia, in keeping with the accepted concept of a layered air defence system.Construction of a new facility would ensure compatibility with new equipment being acquired and the new facility would be purpose-built to suit contemporary operational needs. The remaining conclusions address savings which would stem from the proposal in addition to enhanced operational effectiveness.The report also recommends the need for urgent Commonwealth, State and local government action to address the question of responsibilities for flood mitigation measures and to combine forces to undertake the necessary measures.The third report which I have tabled concerns the proposed redevelopment of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley.When referred to the Committee, the estimated out turn cost of the proposed work was $73.7 million.The Committee has recommended that the project should proceed as proposed.As one of the RAAF's major airbases, RAAF Base Amberley is the home base of the RAAF's Strike Reconnaissance Group and supports a variety of other Air Force units.Despite investments in new facilities which have been made over the past three decades, many of the existing Base facilities are over 50 years old.Some buildings used for the support of F-111 aircraft are converted buildings constructed during the Second World War.An examination of the future direction of the Base undertaken by the Department of Defence, identified deficiencies which adversely affect the ability of the Base to perform its designated roles in a safe and flexible manner.The Committee has therefore concluded that a need exists to redevelop or provide new facilities at RAAF Base Amberley to enhance operational, training, aircraft maintenance, logistics, domestic, and ancillary capabilities.The scope of the proposed work can be justified as addressing shortcomings in the existing facilities and infrastructure that have contributed to inefficient work practices and reduced productivity levels.The new work will contribute to increased compliance with modern health and safety standards.A number of heritage buildings are proposed to be demolished to make way for new facilities or because they will no longer be required when the project is completed.Arising from concerns expressed by a number of heritage organisations, the Committee has therefore recommended that the Department of Defence should consult further with Heritage Authorities before demolishing these buildings.Similarly, because a number of highly toxic substances are used in the maintenance of F-111 aircraft the Committee has recommended that as part of the project, the Department of Defence should undertake a detailed study of liquid trade waste generation, its storage, treatment and disposal to eliminate any risks of toxic substances entering waterways adjacent to the Base or entering the watertable.I commend the reports to the Senate.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.444344434443Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 362 entitled General and Specific Purpose Payments to States , and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—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—Madam President, the Australian States and Territories are dependent on funding from the Commonwealth for a significant proportion of their expenditure.The financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth to State and local governments is a substantial component of both the outlays of the Commonwealth and the revenues of the other levels of government. It accounted for approximately 20 per cent of the total outlays of the Commonwealth general government sector in 1996-97. It also represented approximately 37 per cent of the total revenues of the State general government sector and 19 per cent of that of the local general government sector.Madam President, all Commonwealth payments to the States and Territories are made as Specific Purpose Payments or General Purpose Payments. The grants are contingent upon the fulfilment of a wide range of terms and conditions.The conditions which the Commonwealth usually attaches to the use of SPP funds are generally set out in Commonwealth legislation, in agreements concluded between the parties, or in other program documentation. While conditions are not imposed on the States' use of GPPs, some conditions are attached to the receipt of those funds. These conditions are set out in States Grants (General Purposes) legislation.Madam President, the JCPAA was asked by the Senate to report on conditions which may appropriately be attached to SPPs and GPPs.From its examination of SPP program administrative arrangements, the Committee reached a number of conclusions regarding SPP payments and conditions which may appropriately be attached to them. In particular, Madam President, the Committee believes that Commonwealth departments should draw upon the ideal features, which it has set out in this report, in preparing specific conditions to be attached to individual SPPs under their administration.For example, Madam President, the Committee believes that for efficient and effective management of SPP programs, it is important that SPP program objectives are specified in terms of clear, achievable and measurable outcomes, that the roles of the parties to SPP arrangements and their responsibilities for particular program management activities are clearly defined, and that SPP financial accountability requirements are as streamlined as possible.Turning now to General Purpose Payments, Madam President, the Committee examined the four payment conditions which the States are currently required to meet for receipt of GPP funds. The most significant of the four conditions requires the States to comply with obligations relating to the implementation of national competition policy and related industry reforms. The Commonwealth will make payments totalling some $16 billion over nine years to the States if they make satisfactory progress in implementing the reforms.The case of national competition payments indicates that conditional GPP funding can advance broader agreed reform agendas under particular circumstances. This suggests to the Committee that there is potential for greater conditional GPP funding in the future, particularly where there is shared Commonwealth and State commitment to regulatory reform; where there are demonstrable economic or other benefits to the Australian people and the national economy; and where agreed funding conditions satisfactorily address the particular interests of the Commonwealth and the States.Other GPP payment conditions require the States to make payments to the Commonwealth in the form of fiscal contributions and higher education superannuation contributions. The States are also required to make payments for any Commonwealth grants to higher education student organisations as a consequence of State actions preventing or hindering the collection of student organisation fees. Each of these conditions was enacted to deal with special circumstances and is not likely to have more general application to GPP funding in the future.The Committee therefore concluded that there is little to be gained from attempting to prescribe a definitive list of specific conditions which might appropriately be applied to hypothetical future conditional GPP funding arrangements. Those conditions would need to be determined for each case.Madam President, the report also addresses conditions relating to the role of State Auditors-General. The Committee found that problems have been encountered by State Auditors-General when financial audit and acquittal responsibilities are imposed on them under SPP agreements between the Commonwealth and the States.The Committee believes that, in the interests of enhancing the public accountability of Commonwealth and State government agencies for SPP programs, without compromising the statutory independence of State Auditors-General, it is important that responsibilities for the financial certification of SPP payments are not imposed on State Auditors-General. It is also important that opportunities for the conduct of co-ordinated or joint audits of SPP programs by the Commonwealth and State Auditors-General continue to be actively pursued.Madam President, the JCPAA was also asked to inquire into `recent developments concerning the Victorian Auditor-General'. Although the Committee found this part of the terms of reference to be imprecise, the Committee has taken it to allude to the review of the Victorian Audit Act 1994 which was initiated by the Victorian Government in 1996. In the Committee's view, this is a matter which falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the State of Victoria; the JCPAA's mandate is limited to the Commonwealth sphere.Madam President, this Committee, like its predecessor the JCPA, has been very mindful of its duties and responsibilities as set out under its Act. The JCPA, in inquiring into the administration of SPPs in 1994 and 1995, did not comment on the administrative practices of the non-Commonwealth parties to SPP agreements. Accordingly, the JCPAA has not addressed the issue of `recent developments concerning the Victorian Auditor-General' in this report.Madam President, this report has drawn attention to the range of conditions attached to general purpose and specific purpose payments, and identified ideal features of these conditions. It has highlighted the significant and special place of Auditors-General in the overall accountability framework for the administration of these payments. Finally, Madam President, constitutionally the Commonwealth may grant financial assistance to the States and Territories on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit. It is the Parliament which is ultimately both the arbiter of the conditions attached to general and specific purpose payments and the institution to which government agencies are accountable for the administration of those payments.In conclusion, I wish to thank the secretariat staff who have assisted in the production of this report:—Gillian Gould, Laura Gillies, and in particular, Russell Lapthorne from the Australian National Audit Office, and the Secretary to the Committee, Margot Kerley.Madam President, I commend the Report to the Senate.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills4445Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill: Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 Bills4445r3984445Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that the House had made the amendments requested by the Senate to the bill.4445Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Committees4445444544454445Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—(5.13 p.m.)—I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Commercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my statement in Hansard and then to make some remarks.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—On 30 October 1996, the Senate referred this matter to the Committee for inquiry and report by 26 May 1997. On that date the Committee tabled an interim report which stated that the subject was a complex one which warranted an extensive review and which sought an extension of time to report. In the course of the inquiry the Committee received 341 submissions and held 14 public hearings and 11 inspections, covering all states of Australia.The degree to which individual members of the public accept commercial utilisation of wildlife varies greatly and the submissions sent to the Committee revealed a high degree of disagreement about the ethical desirability of commercial utilisation of wildlife, aside from any impact on the environment, economics or biodiversity. The report that has resulted from this inquiry reflects the complex nature of this subject; it is a comprehensive report covering both issues arising from the commercial use of wildlife, in the first part, and the various wildlife industries in the second part.The use of wildlife by people is not new. More recently, however, commercial use of wildlife has come about through the deliberate placement of a value on a species to provide an incentive to preserve that species and indirectly its habitat.There is a second reason for increasing interest in commercial use of wildlife in Australia and this is that wildlife industries may offer opportunities to broaden the income-base of rural businesses. Degradation of marginal agricultural land which has resulted in reduced productivity and increased fluctuation in profitability of traditional income sources has led to an upsurge in interest in alternative agriculture enterprises.As well as a commercial impetus, there is an ecological reason for this movement: the realisation that the Australian landscape is for the most part better suited to production of indigenous species of plants and animals than exotic species.The term `commercial utilisation of wildlife' encompasses a spectrum of activities, ranging from high intensity use such as farming of animals and the manufacture of products from those animals, to low intensity, supportive `management' of wild populations for benign purposes such as ecotourism. There are a number of broad types of commercial utilisation of wildlife, each with its own term: hunting, harvesting, ranching, farming, and nature-based or ecotourism.The economic use of Australian native wildlife has been limited in the past by a number of factors including government regulations, lack of entrepreneurs and lack of markets. Thus commercial activities have come about in an ad hoc way, rather than through coordinated or systematic processes. While each state and territory has legislation which controls the keeping and movement of wildlife, the Federal government plays a critical role in the control of exports through its administration of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 . All state governments and the Federal government support ecologically sustainable commercial utilisation of wildlife in policy and in practice, although they vary in the extent of their support.The report discusses the value of wildlife to society and notes that opponents of commercial use of wildlife reject the notion that wildlife should have a financial value placed on it, arguing instead that wildlife has an `intrinsic' value so society should accept responsibility to preserve wildlife on that basis.In contrast, proponents of commercial utilisation of wildlife believe that not only can wildlife have a monetary value placed on it, but that it must.The Committee also received evidence, however, that while many people believe that attributing a purely intrinsic worth to wildlife or habitat is in itself an argument to preserve it, the practical reality is that in many cases this philosophy has not resulted in its protection, particularly on private lands. The Committee received evidence arguing that it is important for wildlife, and particularly habitat, to have some economic value placed on it, if only to ensure that it can compete on an equal basis with other land uses which already have an economic value and which, by default, are seen to be more important.The Committee's report examines in detail the environmental impact of commercial use of wildlife, the economic viability of the various commercial activities and the impact of State and Federal government laws. In terms of the environment, the Committee has concluded that the future of biodiversity conservation in Australia depends in part on finding mechanisms, and particularly financial incentives, for natural habitat to be restored and conserved on private lands. The Committee concludes that, if appropriately managed, commercial utilisation of wildlife could potentially provide one such mechanism. The Committee believes that the concept of replacing traditional farmed animals with native wildlife in marginal agriculture lands has merit and supports the suggestion that experimental trials be conducted.In terms of economic factors, the Committee considered the role of market forces on sustainable use of wildlife, the economic benefits that may arise from commercial utilisation of wildlife and the public sector costs incurred. As with any new industry, the economic viability of emerging wildlife industries may be uncertain. However, compared to industries based on inanimate resources or services, economic uncertainty in wildlife industries is exacerbated by two factors: the inherent unreliability of supply; and the fickle nature of demand for wildlife products.Because many wildlife industries are relatively new and often supply niche markets, their economic importance to Australia is largely unquantified. However, this information is critical to any assessment of the significance of these industries to regional economies and to the general economy of Australia. The Committee recommends that the Government monitor the environmental, social and economic impacts of commercial utilisation of wildlife so that a balance sheet can be constructed to assess the full impact of wildlife industries on the Australian economy. The Committee also alerts Federal and State Governments to the fact that industries based on commercial utilisation of wildlife have the potential to result in high public sector costs and the consequent need to fully monitor those costs.The Committee concludes that the related issues of property rights in wildlife assets and public investment in biodiversity conservation are of considerable importance. The Committee believes that the current and potential role of the private sector in biodiversity conservation is significant, but currently considerably undervalued. The Committee recommends that the Federal Government investigate ways in which private sector investment in biodiversity conservation can be supported and encouraged. The Committee received evidence on the model of sustainable use of wildlife as used in southern Africa, whereby in some areas ownership of wildlife is transferred to local landowners, and recommends that the Government examine the appropriateness of such a model in Australia.In examining the adequacy of government regulations on the commercial utilisation of wildlife the Committee found a number of different views. The first view was that presented by animal rights groups and some conservation groups which argued that the current legislation was flawed because it allowed for the exportation of wildlife products and thus failed to adequately protect all native animals.The second view, which came primarily from industry groups, was that many statutory requirements were unnecessarily restrictive to their businesses. Three types of problems were encountered: first, inflexibility in statutory arrangements; second, an overall excess of administrative procedures, compliance with which was costly and time-consuming; and third, inconsistencies between state arrangements, and between state and Federal arrangements leading to a call for a national approach to commercial utilisation of wildlife.The Committee is concerned that duplicated and onerous administrative procedures are unnecessarily hindering legitimate industries in Australia and recommends that State and Federal Governments together review all administrative procedures relating to commercial utilisation of wildlife in Australia with a view to increasing their efficiency so as to ensure that there are no unnecessary hindrances to industry.Third, many conservation groups, scientists and amateur biologists argued that some regulations were counter-productive to the conservation of wildlife and maintenance of biodiversity. The Committee believes that governments should make greater efforts to recognise the contributions made by biologists. The Committee recommends to Federal and State Governments that they review wildlife regulations with a view to facilitating the work of professional and amateur scientists so that they can actively contribute to biodiversity conservation.Fourth, animal rights groups and the RSPCA argued that the current system of voluntary codes of practice did not contain sufficient legislative strength and that there was insufficient industry self-regulation to protect the welfare of individual animals subject to commercial use. The Committee is particularly concerned about animal welfare and recommends that some aspects of the system need strengthening.Of all matters considered by the Committee, the most controversial was the issue of whether international trade in live fauna should be permitted. Strong arguments were presented by both proponents and opponents of live trade and the debate centred on whether legalising the export of live animals would act to reduce incentives for illegal trade.In short, while the Committee appreciates that there could be a threat to biodiversity should trade in live animals result in an increase in illegal activities, the Committee did receive evidence demonstrating a number of benefits which may arise should illegal activities decline as a result of the opening up of legalised trade. In considering the question of whether live exportation of wildlife should be legally available to commercial interests, the Committee notes that prohibition of trade has not prevented smuggling of live animals or eggs overseas and that private enterprise in other count ries has benefited from commercial use of Australian species.The Committee believes that the current prohibitionist policy does not work to fully protect wildlife from illegal activities, although the extent to which it does not work is difficult to ascertain. The Committee notes that the Federal Government is currently undertaking a review of all environmental legislation and recommends that the Government include in that review consideration of other policy options for wildlife protection. These range from reversing the onus of proof so that those who keep live wildlife must be certified to do so, to putting more resources into the detection and prosecution of those keeping wildlife illegally, to increasing penalties for illegal activities regarding native wildlife.In the second part of the report the Committee considered the various individual wildlife industries. These include: kangaroos, emus, crocodiles, brushtail possums, birds, marine and coastal species, reptiles, amphibians, insects, native plants, essential oils and bushfoods. The Committee also examined zoos and wildlife parks, nature-based tourism and hunting activities. In addition, the Committee looked at indigenous use of wildlife both on a subsistence use basis and on a commercial basis and made a number of recommendations in this area.Finally, I wish to refer to an article on the Senate's Wildlife report which was written by a News Limited employee, Gerard McManus, and published in all of Rupert Murdoch's Sunday newspapers—the Sunday Herald-Sun and the Sunday Mail,These reports, quoted an unnamed `source' claiming that the Committee would recommend lifting bans on the export of Australian native wildlife.The reports were given high prominence and accompanied by pictures of wildlife—in inverted commas—"for sale".I contacted the editor of the Sun-Herald, informed him that the reports were factually incorrect and requested a correction.I received a letter from the editor, Mr Russell Robinson, which informed me that despite the paper being informed by the Chair of the Wildlife Inquiry that the Committee would not recommend the legalisation of wildlife exports, the paper quote "stood by its story".I believe that this sort of irresponsible journalism is absolutely appalling. It is bad enough that the reporter concerned made an error of judgement by quoting a source who did not have the authority to substantiate the claims made and that the reporter did not seek to confirm the claims made. But to refuse to correct such a widely distributed and high profile story is unprofessional, unethical, irresponsible and just plain sloppy journalism. I inform the Senate that as Chair of this Inquiry that was shamefully misrepresented by Rupert Murdoch's Sunday newspaper, that I will be pursuing the people responsible.But I want to use this opportunity to condemn this particular media reporting which brings shame and disrepute on the parliamentary press gallery which has a long standing reputation for ethical and professional political journalism in Australia.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I particularly want to draw attention to a couple of matters in the report and issues surrounding the report. I want to acknowledge the work of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in conducting this inquiry. It was very controversial and a very difficult inquiry to deal with. We received over 300 submissions. I understand that if we stacked all the submissions on top of one another, including all the extra submissions we received, they would reach over a metre high, which is quite a lot of material to get through.The secretariat of the committee did an absolutely amazing job in reading those submissions, taking full account of them and incorporating in the report the various opinions which, clearly, came from different ends of the spectrum. It is very important that I compliment and thank the committee secretary, Andrew Snedden, and the author of this report, Pippa Carron, for her work on what is a very far-reaching and comprehensive report. I believe that they have done an absolutely amazing job. I would also like to thank Judith West who did a lot of the hack work associated with this particular report.I want to comment on the media attention which has been given to this report, and there was a lot of attention. Let me say, in the first instance, that most of this was highly responsible. Although, on many occasions, the media wanted to know the recommendations, I indicated to them that it was not possible to have those recommendations canvassed until the report was presented and, almost to a person, that was observed. But there were a couple of media reports that I believe were totally irresponsible and I want to refer to those now.An article on the Senate's wildlife report, written by a News Ltd employee, Gerard McManus, was published in all of Rupert Murdoch's Sunday newspapers—the Sunday Herald-Sun and the Sunday Mail. These reports quoted an unnamed `source' claiming that the committee would recommend lifting bans on the export of Australian native wildlife. The reports were given high prominence, accompanied by pictures of wildlife which were captioned, in inverted commas, `For sale'.I contacted the editor of the Sunday Herald-Sun, informing him that the reports were factually incorrect and requested a correction. I received a letter from the editor, Mr Russell Robinson, which informed me that, despite the paper being informed by the chair of the wildlife inquiry that the committee would not recommend the legislation of wildlife exports, the paper `stood by its story'.I believe that this sort of irresponsible journalism is absolutely appalling. It is bad enough that the reporter concerned made an error of judgment by quoting a source who did not have the authority to substantiate the claims made and that the reporter did not seek to confirm the claims made. I might add that that `source' was nobody in the secretariat of the committee. I want to place that on record, in case it could be inferred.That the author refused to correct such a widely distributed and high-profile story is unprofessional, unethical, irresponsible and just plain sloppy journalism. I inform the Senate that, as chair of this inquiry which was so shamefully misrepresented by Rupert Murdoch's Sunday newspaper, I will be pursuing the people responsible. But I want to use this opportunity to condemn this particular item of media reporting which brings shame and disrepute on the parliamentary press gallery which has a longstanding reputation for ethical and professional political journalism in Australia.I do not want to go over all of the issues which are canvassed in the tabling statement which has been incorporated, but I will underline a few issues. This inquiry took about 18 months. It was referred to the committee for inquiry and report on 26 May 1997. On that date, the committee tabled an interim report which stated that the subject was a complex one which warranted an extensive review and which sought an extension of time to report. In the course of the inquiry, as I said previously, the committee received 341 submissions and held 14 public hearings and 11 inspections, covering all states of Australia, including Tasmania and, I might add, Kangaroo Island in the Great Australian Bight.Let me underline that there is an increasing interest in the commercial use of wildlife in Australia and that wildlife industries may offer opportunities to broaden the income base of rural businesses. Degradation of marginal agricultural land, which has resulted in reduced productivity and increased fluctuation in profitability of traditional income sources, has led to an upsurge of interest in alternative agricultural enterprises. Many of these are under way and the committee was surprised to find so many different ways in which wildlife is commercialised in Australia. When one talks about the commercial use of wildlife one thinks immediately, perhaps, of kangaroos or emus; but we discovered that in fact there is a wide variety and very large range of commercial uses for wildlife.Let me draw particular attention to the activities of Dr John Walmsley in South Australia and the very interesting work he is doing which undoubtedly has had great benefits in terms of biodiversity, reconstruction of degraded habitat and the recovery of threatened species. The fact is that he has been able to do that as a private citizen and as a commercial enterprise. Through his company, Earth Sanctuaries, he is expanding that work. It is very interesting to see someone who, although a commercial operator, has such a commitment to the environment. Nevertheless, Dr Walmsley is very controversial and is, probably, one of those people who always engenders debate. If anyone wants to see someone who is using the commercial utilisation of wildlife in a way which is enhancing all of the goals we share then, certainly, they should look at what he is doing. Many others are also commercially utilising wildlife in many different ways.I commend the whole report to readers so they may be able to get an overview of what is happening and also understand the committee's various recommendations which came out of the evidence we received. As I said, it was a difficult job for the committee because we received evidence from many different perspectives. To try to bring all that together so that it all the evidence was treated equitably was a difficult job, but I believe the author of the report, Dr Carron, actually did achieve that. People may not agree with everthing, but I would say to them that, before they criticise the report, they had better read it because that is the only way they will be able to address seriously the issues raised in the report. All of those who were witnesses to the inquiry and all of those who were involved in the inquiry would certainly agree that this is a serious issue and I believe it is addressed in a serious way by this report.17:23:004449Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I commend the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for its report on the Commercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife . This is a very important report which will be of great interest to the many Australians who are concerned about the welfare of wildlife and native species in this country—not least those who apparently, quite deceptively, have been alarmed by the recent stories in the press that Senator Woodley referred to indicating that this committee was going to, if not open the flood gates, at least open the door to the commercial exploitation of Australia's wildlife through export for money. I for one am very reassured to hear that the committee is not advocating anything of the sort.We live on a planet which has seen the rapid extinguishment of species. Scientists estimate that, of the 30 million of our fellow species on this planet, some quarter will have gone to extinction in the lifetime of the current generation. Major amongst the factors in that are the loss of forests and the degradation of native vegetation cover. Australia has a record on that which is as abhorrent as the record of many countries elsewhere around the world. I need only cite the loss of 400,000 or 500,000 hectares of native vegetation cover in Queensland per annum under successive Labor and Liberal governments to point to the tragedy of the loss of ecosystems and, there fore, the threat of the loss of species and the sending towards extinction of species which currently might be seen as safe. One only has to look at the performance of the current government—not least the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill—which has expanded woodchipping in native forests in Victoria and Tasmania and no doubt shortly through the regional forest agreement in Western Australia, to be concerned about the rapid loss of wildlife in this wonderful country of ours.There are many other invidious threats. The recent import of a fox into Tasmania—which is currently being hunted in the Burnie region—presents a phenomenal threat to the rich diversity of wildlife in Tasmania, including marsupials which have a stronghold in Tasmania. The same species on the mainland have gone to extinction or are close to extinction because of the depredation of foxes on the mainland. We spend far too little of the nation's monetary resources protecting one of the most important parts of our nation's pride and make-up—that is, the wildlife which has been the subject of this report.I for one am very concerned about the implications of the commercial utilisation of wildlife. During the proceedings of this committee, we visited an abattoir, if you like, or a processing works in Tasmania which is experimenting in the exportation of brush-tailed possums. The brush-tailed possums are caught in cages and transported in boxes within a day or so to the processing site. There they are stunned with a gun through the forehead. They are skinned and their carcasses are prepared for export to Asia, where they are sold as tree fox or under other appellations and are replacing the near extinct species which are thought to be medicinal, including as an aphrodisiac, for parts of the population in Asia. In other words, their species are extinct or nearly extinct so we set up a wildlife trade in our species, which are nothing like theirs but which will do as a substitute. These species have none of the medicinal properties that were supposed to be in the species hounded to near extinction or extinction in Asia, but we go along with this subterfuge so someone can make money out of it.I have been criticised roundly by Cherry Ripe in the Australian for daring to speak up on this matter, but I intend to continue to do so because it is a matter that many Australians are alarmed about. Are we bequeathing to future generations a world in which the only large species which survive are those which have a price, which have a human use or which can be given over to us as the ultimate predator on this planet? If that is the philosophy—and it seems to be the philosophy at least of this age of economic rationalism—then we as a species are ultimately going to suffer enormously at our own hands due to the spiritual deprivation and deprivation of soul resulting from the loss of wildlife, the diminution of the variety of life and our failure to accept our responsibility to pass on to future generations the wealth of wildlife and the richness this brings to human beings as they search for meaning in their own existences untold years down the line from now.So it is a very critical matter. I am pleased that so much has gone into this inquiry. It is, no doubt, not the end of the line. It is not going to stop the loss of species, the exploitation of species or the viewing of species as simply a matter of worth when they have a dollar value attached to them. It is up to all of us as parliamentarians to be part of a vigorous, ongoing debate which has as its aim the saving of the species which we enjoy in Australia and our contribution towards a global effort to rescue from extinction the grand variety of life there is on this planet.That is one of the reasons we Greens are here, of course. We take an attitude that this is fundamentally important. We take an attitude that the diversity of life on the planet—both we and the ecosystems—is inextricably part of the one grand design of life on this planet. When we exploit one, we ultimately exploit the other. If we exploit one to extinction, we threaten another, even ourselves, with extinction further down the line—if not physical extinction, extinction of the soul and the spirit, those things which make us as human beings happy and fulfilled in our life on this planet.I congratulate the committee—everybody who worked on this committee, everybody who made submissions to it. I recommend that the public and other parliamentarians read the report. I can assure everybody—I do not need to say this, but maybe the assurance is there—that we are never going to be rid of this problem of loss of wildlife and, therefore, loss of part of the nation's richness, unless we tackle the fundamental problem of economic rationalism and the religion of the age which says, `Nothing has value, unless it has monetary value.' That is something we have to tackle in our own hearts, if we are going to tackle the real problem of the loss of species on this planet and in our own magnificent country.17:32:004451Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to return to the tabling of the JCPAA report on General and specific purpose payments to the states .10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Senator Allison, can I just see if anybody else wishes to speak on this report before we take up your request?17:32:004451Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I just wish to say a few words. I hope I will not delay Senator Allison too long. Whilst I respect my colleague, Greens Senator Bob Brown, and his views, which, in many instances, are quite correct, I have to say I cannot agree with him on the issue of whether or not we ought allow—indeed, ought not foster—the commercialisation and utilisation of some wildlife.In some parts of Australia, it is probably better that we enter into—and we already have, in many instances—farming of what was, if you like, formerly wildlife of this country. In terms of ecological sustainability, that is a better move, in some instances, than the introduction, as we have seen, of sheep and cattle in some areas simply because of the nature of the soil and the region.Let us go to some of the issues with regard to commercialisation of wildlife. For a long time, in my state—as is the case in many other states—we have seen commercial activities operating in various forms and to varying degrees, albeit there has probably never been an appropriate management system in place. I have been one to participate in those activities. If I express a particular interest in this, that is it. I have participated mainly because I needed the money and/or, in the case of some game, a source of food. But it is something that we need to be very thoughtful about, and it can work.Senator Brown was talking about brush-tailed possums and the fact that they are trapped. He did not say that, in many instances, there are significant numbers of brush-tailed possums—to the extent that they basically eat themselves out of house and home, particularly where they find themselves on farming property that is pastured. They are destroying a lot of the trees, unfortunately, as Senator Brown would know, down through the midlands of Tasmania simply because we as human beings have obviously taken away too many trees in the first place. But the possums have not declined in number, rather they have increased in number in Tasmania by virtue of the fact that they have access to a greater food source as a result of farming. It is, therefore, quite acceptable on the basis that it is managed appropriately for there to be a commercial activity involved in that.What really annoys me is that we have other measures in place—namely, poisoning and/or shooting of many of the wildlife species—on the basis of pest control or vermin control and we leave them to waste. That is a sad reflection on us in terms of the management of any ecological system. In my view, there is nothing wrong with that if you can utilise it on the basis that you can ecologically maintain it. I do support that concept very much because I believe that it is very important.In many instances, we have done exactly the opposite, but I think that, in this day and age, in terms of environmental matters, people generally have moved to the extent that they have a far better understanding and acceptance of the fact that we do have to act with a significant degree of responsibility. But it does not say that we cannot enter into commercial activities that may well be to the benefit of some species of wildlife, and possums are but one.In Tasmania, two wallaby species have been targeted for commercial activities in the past. They also thrived as a result of land clearing and the introduction of farming. They have increased rather than decreased in number. It is not unreasonable that we, in a very well-managed way, allow for a commercial activity in that sense. Again, in the name of vermin control, poisons are laid and wallabies are shot and left to waste. I find that totally unacceptable when there are employment opportunities—albeit declining, as a result of conservation activities which have led to a decline in the requirement for fur and/or hide products. Some of the wallaby skins that are destroyed in vermin control programs could earn money for the unemployed and the country generally. They could be turned into a very valuable commodity.I will have to check, but I am sure that I see Australian Democrats and Greens senators carrying leather wallets and leather handbags et cetera.1X4WESTSenator West—And leather shoes.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—And wearing leather shoes. I do not know what shoes Senator Brown is wearing. If there is a capacity for us to in a very sensitive, structured and managed way commercially utilise wildlife, we should use it. As I said at the outset, I accept some of the comments made by Senator Brown. We can do these things. In some areas, it is probably better that we do it in a managed way. It is better for the overall use of the land in particular. There is an opportunity and it should not be wasted on the basis of our ideological views. We should take a very sensitive and well-managed approach. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.4452445217:40:004452Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—by leave—The Australian Democrats are disappointed, although I must say not surprised, by the JCPAA's report on whether conditions might be imposed by the Commonwealth on specific purpose payments to the states relating to the independence of auditors-general. The JCPAA would not have been our choice of committee to deal with this issue. Firstly, the Democrats have a limited role on the committee. Secondly, we think it is not in the interests of either major party to find that such a condition could or should be imposed on the states. The executive of the coalition, and of the ALP for that matter, despite their rhetoric, actually like the idea of auditors-general being somewhat nobbled. Governments of both persuasions to varying degrees do not like to be criticised, and that is precisely what auditors-general generally do.The condition the Democrats would like to have put on the states grants bills, which are the vehicles for Commonwealth money flowing to the states, is simple. It is that the Commonwealth auditor-general be satisfied that Commonwealth money will be protected by audit by an independent auditor-general. That is the least that Australians should be able to expect.Three times we have put amendments which would impose that condition and three times the coalition and the Labor Party have voted against those amendments. What triggered our action in the first place was the Victorian state government's extraordinary step to effectively remove the auditor-general from his vital role of executing performance audits. The excuse given by the Victorian state government was that it had to comply with the national competition policy introduced, as we all know, by the Labor government and strongly supported by the Liberal and National parties.Of course, auditors-general around Australia customarily contract out audit functions; there is absolutely nothing new about that. Premier Kennett was not satisfied. Here was a perfect vehicle for nobbling the Victorian auditor-general, who, it turns out, had much to criticise the Victorian state government for. The Premier stripped him of his department and central role as the sole decider of who and what is to be audited. Mr Kennett pretends that this gives the auditor-general a more direct line of reporting to the parliament. We all know that that is nonsense. Mr Baragwanath knew he was being nobbled. Not a public servant given to overstatement, he spoke, and I quote him at the conclusionof the review process undertaken by the three-person team set up by the Victorian government, which included a director of the Crown Casino and former director of KPMG, one of which stands to gain from less scrutiny of government's performance in relation to gambling and the other, who comes from the very sector, which stands to gain from more audits being done by the private sector. And it is necessary to spell out those influences brought to bear on accountability in Victoria. Last year, after the review team had done its work, Mr Baragwanath said:I am more convinced than ever that the direction proposed by the review team will lead to a situation in which a future parliament, if confronted by either an oppressive or a corrupt government, would be relatively impotent and not privy to information which would allow it to call such a government to account. The team's model has been postulated in a report which is devoid of empirical evidence and is characterised by unsubstantiated assertions, textual inconsistencies, uncertainty as to the likely outcomes and recommendations based on minority views.They might be minority views, but they are very influential views. Auditors-general everywhere agreed that this was an attack on the accountability of government. The Labor Party agreed that it was an attack on accountability, but it would not support our amendments which would have put a condition on the handing over of money to the state government which, again to use Mr Baragwanath's words:. . . would be relatively impotent and not privy to information which would allow it to call such a government to account.The first reason for the ALP not supporting our amendments was that this was not an appropriate bill. We then tried with the Commonwealth Auditor-General's bill—that was the suggestion by the ALP. However, it seems that that was not appropriate either, so we went back to a states grants bill. Again, the answer was no, and the matter was referred to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.It was our view at the time that the Senate Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration would have been more appropriate. I do not wish to take anything away from the JCPAA, but this committee almost always reaches a consensus, I understand and, given the domination by the two major parties, neither of which is really willing to take on the states over this issue, we have a very thorough but a very cautious report which, not surprisingly, recommends the status quo. Again, I take nothing away from this report. In fact, it is a very interesting read and very useful for someone like me who has only been in the parliament for a short period of time.The report starts by reminding us of section 96 of the constitution which gives the Commonwealth parliament the power to grant financial assistance to any state on such terms and conditions as the parliament sees fit. It points to the institutional arrangements between the states and Commonwealth governments which are supposed to deal with intergovernmental financial relations, and it cites the Premiers Conference, COAG and the Commonwealth-States grants commission.However, we saw no action on the attack on the independence of the Victorian Auditor-General at these forums. Perhaps it was there and perhaps we do not know about it. These meetings are closed to the public and anything but transparent, so we do not actually know what was said, but my guess is that nothing was said. Intergovernmental forums like the Premiers Conference have not been very successful lately either. With health funding, the Commonwealth-state disability agreement and housing agreement, the list of agreements which have not been agreed goes on and on. It is very unlikely that the Kennett government would have said, `What a great idea! Put conditions on our grants so that we cannot do what we want to do.'The report canvasses the idea that joint audits might be undertaken, such as happened with better cities funding. With respect, that idea is not likely to restore the independence of the Auditor-General in Victoria. It is a nice idea for the future, but it will not reassure Victorians that their money is being protected from corruption. Again, executive government wins out. I think the major parties both look forward to a time when the Auditor-General will be less critical, less able to delve into the workings of the executives.Federal Labor is unwilling to assist the Labor opposition in Victoria to achieve its claimed objectives, which were clearly spelt out by Mr Brumby in his flyer to households in Victoria. I will mention a couple of points from that. Labor promised that the Office of the Auditor-General would be re-established under the direct control of the Auditor-General, who would be responsible for staffing the office and for other resourcing decisions within the office. The Auditor-General would have the sole power to carry out, or to designate an auditor to carry out, the external audit on all public sector agencies over which the government has control, significant influence or to which it has financial exposure. It also says that the Auditor-General would not be subject to any direction on how to carry out audits. It has been a very long time since the ALP has had control over the upper House in Victoria.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I think it was one week in our whole history.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Precisely! Thank you, Senator Schacht. This was a real chance to act for the many Victorians who are concerned about the future under a nobbled Auditor-General. I think it is a great pity that this report and this investigation have come to nothing.Bills4454s1714454Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.17:50:004454Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—Labor will be supporting this bill.The Bill inserts a transitional provision to allow companies which had given notice of a sharehold ers meeting prior to the passage of the Company Law Review Bill 1997 (CLRB), to be exempted from the new requirement to give a minimum of 28 days notice for shareholder meetings.The need for this bill arose from the Senate's amendment to the Company Law Review Bill 1997 on 25 June 1998, which increased the minimum notice period for the calling of shareholder meetings from the 21 days proposed in the Bill, to 28 days. The current provisions in the Corporations Law require a 14 day notice period.The 28 day notice requirement is in line with best practice in a number of other countries, including the USA and the UK and is considered to be an improvement in shareholder transparency and fairness.However, the recent amendment has created a transitional problem for companies which had already given a notice of meeting under the old provisions or in anticipation of the 21 day period.For example, I understand that Coca-Cola Amatil (CCA) had previously given notice to the Australian Stock Exchange that it would be holding a shareholders meeting, but had allowed for 21 days notice in anticipation of the passage of the CLRB in an unamended form.The Senate's amendment would mean that CCA's proposed meeting would be invalid and would have to be reconvened, causing CCA to incur a large additional expense.In the interests of avoiding the unnecessary expense which would ultimately be passed on the CCA shareholders, as well as shareholders of Companies which many be in a similar position, this non-controversial Bill would exemptCCA and companies in a similar position from the new provisions, thus allowing them to avoid the additional costs.Labor believes this bill inserts an appropriate transitional amendment which will avoid disadvantaging shareholders of companies that have already given a notice of meeting which does not comply with the new provisions.The bill is not intended to open a loophole for companies which have not already-given notice. Companies which have not already issued a meeting notice will have to comply with the new 28 day rule after commencement.This bill amends an amendment which was made to the Company Law Review Bill 1997 .Those that participated in or heard the debate on that bill will remember that the Senate agreed to a range of amendments concerning the regulation of Companies, including a Labor amendment to require annual directors' reports to shareholders to disclose the remuneration of company directors and the top five named officers of the company.Those amendments would appear to be quite timely given the comments reported in the weekend papers by Mr Bill Jocelyn, the retiring Chief Executive of GlO Insurance company, about executive salaries in the financial services industry.Mr Jocelyn was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today as saying:". . . generally speaking, the chief executives in the financial services industry are overpaid relative to what it is the community ought to pay them.Labor's amendment to the Corporations Law will force directors to discuss the policies behind remuneration of directors and executive officers and, importantly, the relationship between a company's performance and the remuneration packages paid out.That means if a company does not perform but a director is still well remunerated, the directors will have to publicly justify the decision to remunerate senior officers to shareholders.Mr Jocelyn's comments are well timed and coincide with Labor's Corporations Law amendments to require more adequate disclosure of remuneration packages and policies, particularly in relation to the performance of a company, to shareholders.This is in line with best practice in advanced economies and should result in greater transparency and accountability.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.4455The bill.17:52:004455Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I have one quick question in relation to the Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 1998Company Law Review Bill 1997 . AMP seemed to believe that it was going to have a problem buying its own shares in its float. It was revealed last week that in actual fact AMP reached some commercial arrangement with one of the companies. Is the parliamentary secretary in a position to enlighten the chamber as to whether or not that was a questionable situation?17:52:004455Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I do not have that information to hand. I can say, however, that I only brought this bill on on the strict understanding that there was a total understanding between all parties that there would be no debate at any stage of this bill. I am happy to find out about that for you, Senator Conroy, but I wish this bill to have a very speedy passage through the committee stage and all other stages.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.4455Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Bills4455r513Billsr5144455Debate resumed from 26 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.Upon which Senator Quirke had moved by way of amendment:At the end of the motion, add: "and that the Senate is of the opinion that:(a) the Government has provided insufficient time and opportunity for a wide public consultation process to examine the impact of the introduction of digital broadcasting into Australia;(b) the Government introduced this Bill with undue haste which is reflected by the fact that it was necessary to circulate substantial amendments even before the resumption of the second reading debate in the House of Representatives;(c) the Australian Broadcasting Authority provided advice that indicated that legislation could be tabled in Parliament in October 1998 providing for a digital broadcasting commencement date of 1 January 2000, and the Government has given no reasons for ignoring this advice;(d) given that the Government received the digital broadcasting report of the Australian Broadcasting Authority in July 1997 and then took over eight months to make a public announcement on its proposed frame work for digital broadcasting, its claim that the legislation needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency is disingenuous;(e) the Government's legislation does not address the enormous potential that is presented for industry development in Australia through the migration into a digital broadcasting environment—opportunities will exist for Australian manufacturing and software development industries and the contribution this can make to Australian employment and export earnings should be recognised and supported in the legislation;(f) the Government's legislation does not provide sufficient recognition for the particular infrastructure issues faced throughout regional areas, and just as digital broadcasting provides special opportunities for access to new services in rural and regional Australia, disproportionate expenditure will be required to ensure that the capacity exists for the development of appropriate infrastructure; and(g) the Parliament's consideration of this Bill must place paramount importance on the interests of the broader Australian community and consumers, and given the impact that digital broadcasting will have on the delivery and reception of television and other broadband and online services, any attempt to hasten the legislative process without proper parliamentary scrutiny, public debate and discussion, could jeopardise those interests".17:53:004456Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I foreshadow that I will move an amendment in the following terms:At the end of the motion, add: "and that, in view of the need for further consultation, the bills be referred to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in October 1998".My general comments are that this legislation has huge ramifications, and the public is not aware of them. Groups representing public interests have not had adequate time to have input into this crucial legislation. What we are seeing here is a change from current television and other services to digital technology, which makes the change from analog mobiles to digital mobiles look like a pup. It has extraordinary ramifications for the whole of society not just through the television that we will be watching in the coming decades but also through the whole panoply of potential digital communications, which includes person to person, home to office, city to city, and city to outer space communications for that matter. I think that nothing and no-one will not be touched by this technology and therefore by this legislation.But how many out there in the public know what is going on? For example, how many people know that a very limited club will be given the right through this legislation to the television services coming out of it for a good many years to come—that exclusive club being the current licence holders for television broadcasts.Here is a grand opportunity to broaden the ownership, the—if you like—variety and the delivery of television services to the Australian public. It is known that we have one of the most constricted and owner-concentrated media in the world. We should be using this as a grand opportunity to open up the airwaves to new players and therefore to a greater variety of choice for the public; we ought to be fostering that. For example, the government ought to be behind public broadcasting from community groups. They have been much more successful in the United States in having such public broadcasters coming from special community groups and getting a slice of the action than we are in Australia with a nil result. Community groups here will not be getting a slice of the action for years, if not decades, to come. That is the first thing; this should have been an opportunity to reduce, not confirm, the concentration of media ownership in this country.The second thing is that Labor appears to be trading far too cheaply on this opportunity. The job of opposition here is to act in the public interest, not in the interest of the big media moguls. I have read a lot in the last few days, particularly following Senator Conroy's speech, about how Labor is here trying to abuse one or other of the media moguls in the public interest. But where is the result? Why isn't Labor using this opportunity to insist on improved Australian made children's programming content on television services? Why isn't Labor using this opportunity for protection of Australian made entertainment products against the New Zealand cheapies, which can now flood and compete on the market after the High Court decision? Why isn't there even a requirement in this legislation—tweaked by Labor at its insistence in the talks that it is having with the government on this—that the networks give tangible evidence and commitments that they will be spending the capital on establishing the digital networks they are talking about?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That is in our amendment.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is in your amendment, Senator Schacht, but if the amendment fails, you will still be passing the legislation; I will bet my bonnet on it.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—No, no.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—If I am wrong on that—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You are absolutely wrong. If it is not carried, we will reject the bill at the third reading.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am glad to hear that, Senator Schacht.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That has just knocked your speech over, has it?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No, it has not, because what I am going to do next, of course, is to challenge you with amendments which do improve the content that the commercial networks are required to provide, and particularly the Australian made content—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Have you circulated it?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am saying that I am now going to provide you with that challenge, Senator Schacht.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That's the Blue Sky decision, is it?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No, that is not the Blue Sky decision.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Madam Acting Deputy President, I have a point of order. I ask that Senator Brown direct his remarks through the chair rather than conducting a conversation with Senator Schacht.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Senator Brown, you probably do not need to be reminded, but I think the point raised by Senator Troeth is proper. Could you direct your remarks through the chair and resist temptation.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, it would be in order, but we are having a very handy conversation here just the same, Madam Deputy President. I am just putting to the Labor Party, firstly, that I am pleased they are going to put some conditions on capital spending and a timetable for that as a prerequisite to their accepting this legislation. I have provided them now with the challenge to ensure that they also support requirements that there be improved native content on our television services, and I cited children's programming as an example.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Native content? Do you mean indigenous people content?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Through you, Madam Deputy President, native content means native Australian as against American imports.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That is actually called local content.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—I rise to reiterate my former point of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Troeth, I have already reminded Senator Brown of it.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—On the point of order, I am trying to explain to Senator Brown, very sensibly, by gentle interjection, the correction of a number of matters which will help the government with the passage of this bill. I know that it might be slightly disorderly, but we are actually helping the government. I want to put it on the record that I am not being obstructionist in making these interjections—we are clarifying a number of positions.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You should be addressing the point of order, Senator Schacht, and there is no point of order. If you have a useful contribution to make, senators, there is an appropriate way and time to do it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You are totally correct, Madam Acting Deputy President, and I thank you for that protection and instruction. The real test for Labor is going to be whether it supports the amendment that I have just foreshadowed, which will give some time for community input between now and October so that the appropriate committee can look at the sorts of amendments that Labor was apparently coming to seeing eye to eye with the Greens on.I will be very interested to see how much the big media networks are screwed down as far as their commitment to implementing the expenditure for the arrival of digital television broadcasting in this country. Nevertheless, I do not go along with Labor in just reducing the timetable for that implementation. I believe that right from the outset there should have been an opening up of the competition against the current very select few TV broadcasters in the main. There even should have been government assistance to ensure that such competitors were there, because competition in the media is the lifeblood of the flow of proper information. It is an essential and basic tenet of democracy as we see it.As far as the ABC is concerned, I would like to have seen an amendment to ensure that the transmitter for Radio Australia near Darwin was part of the parcel of obligations coming from government on the delivery of broadcasting services on behalf of the Australian community. Some may think that is not within the narrow purview of this legislation, but I think the opportunity has to be taken when it can, when a government has done the wrong thing and cut out a vital service to this country, to ensure that it puts it back in. The few million dollars that are required to keep Radio Australia going are chickenfeed compared with the amount of money that is going to be made in profits from those who get the exclusive few licences that the government is going to extend for digital television broadcasting and, further down the line, for a whole range of other programs.This is a grand opportunity to do something about reducing, rather than confirming or enhancing, the very limited media ownership and control of the airwaves that we have in Australia. I doubt that we are going to see this opportunity taken by either of the big parties to secure that end.I am pleased to hear that the Labor Party is going to insist on amendments or it will not pass the legislation. I will be listening to the debate in the committee stages very carefully to see how far the Labor Party is prepared to go towards the much stronger position of the Greens regarding the obligation of commercial broadcasters in particular to provide a much wider service to the Australian public, to protect the interests of regional viewers so that they are not left out of this change of technology, and to ensure that there is better Australian content in programming in this country. Why should we simply be subject to the increasing bombardment of programs coming from overseas, not least the violent nature of programs that are fed to us from the American so-called entertainment networks?It is a grand opportunity; I do not think the public recognises what an opportunity it is. There has not been sufficient time for the public or the media watchdogs for the public to feed in to this legislation, and that is why I foreshadowed the amendment that we put it to a committee so that, come October, we will be in a much better position to reflect what the public really thinks.The imminence of an election seems to concentrate the mind on changes to the electoral legislation—we have seen a bit of that in recent times—and also on the potential for enhancing the interests of those who already control the media. As far as the Greens are concerned, we are here as watchdogs to help steady the impulse on both those counts in this parliament.18:06:004458Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Digital television represents the cutting edge of technology and communications. It not only represents a new age of television but it is a cornerstone of convergence. Perhaps it is also the most significant step in generating the innovative milieu of a learning economy in Australia.In this process, the government has been solely focused upon the technology involved in HDTV and the way in which it will be physically provided. While the introduction of new technology is neutral, its application is political and this bill could be described as the most short-sighted attempt at managing information technology that could have possibly been produced.This ad hoc piecemeal approach to the new digital era that is exemplified by this bill highlights the lack of a forward thinking policy and regulatory framework for the information society. The real issue in this debate is the way in which we as the Australian parliament shape future communications and the future communications environment. We will have many opportunities in this new environment, in particular the ability to unify rural and regional Australia with the metropolitan cities in terms of both the industrial and technological economies. For regional Australians, it would mean equal access to the same services that now exist in cities. For rural business, it would integrate them at a central level into the powerhouse of the Australian economy. In the report entitled The global information economy: the way ahead, it claims:The information industries are important as industries in their own right because of their size and growth potential. But it is their potential to contribute to the productivity and competitiveness of businesses throughout the economy that is of the greatest significance.If correctly introduced, digital services will remove the differences that now isolate regional Australia. Regional Australia would be, for the first time, centrally included within the industrial and technological heartland that has only ever existed around the major metropolitan cities.This momentous change also provides unparalleled opportunities for education across all areas of our society. With HDTV, people that have never before had access to services such as the Internet will now be included in all aspects of the information age. The departmental report from the information industries task force points out:Information and communication technologies are an important enabler, underpinning productivity and competitiveness in every industry. It is through their enabling role that the information industries can contribute most significantly to Australia's future economic growth, employment and productivity.According to the report, the key point in achieving this is `an open and competitive market for information and communication technology products and services'. The report goes on to state:Government leaders must accept the need for the information industries to be competitive. There must be greater awareness that information and communication technologies are inevitably transforming the economy, that the productivity and competitiveness of Australian businesses in all industries throughout the economy will depend upon best practice application of best of breed systems and solutions, and that this will not happen unless the Australian information industries are themselves innovative, financially sound and world competitive. Government must provide leadership and lead by example.In the case of digital television, the government has certainly not led by example. The decision by the Howard coalition government to extend the ban on any new commercial television free-to-air broadcast licences being issued until 2008 will effectively allow existing broadcasters to shape the future of this industry. It is far more concerned with a cost-benefit analysis discussion rather than the merits of this technology. There is a war going on about control of this pipeline of information at all levels of its development. Corporations are desperately trying to maintain control over what is available on this pipeline and how it can be accessed, and to position themselves to operate the toll gates.Much of the debate around this bill has focused on the availability of the technology and the costs of its introduction. This aspect is only the beginning, and one of the least important aspects of this process. This is a highly political development in the future communications environment that we will live in. The opportunities are enormous, but the risks are also vast. Right now, we have the opportunity to shape the most important factor of our future lives: the way we communicate with each other, learn and develop as a nation.This is a role that is central to government, yet the Howard government is avoiding its responsibility. We have to get the digital screen into homes to drive the development of the Australian digital content industry and networked software industry. Software is where the value added gains will be and is the area where we have competitive skills. This is the key industry development issue.We may have a minister for the information economy, but we do not have a policy or regulatory regime for the information economy. If we did, we would not just be putting another bandaid on the outmoded Broadcasting Services Act; we would not be pretending that we can settle this broadcasting matter without also fixing up the communications regime. We still have an analog era approach to new digital imperatives: it is time we moved out of the comfort zone of the analog 1950s into the digital 1990s.Structural adjustment policies need to ensure that the entire convergence value chain is established in Australia. This includes the need to get the digital screen into people's homes to provide access to all kinds of digital services. The government's legislation is based on service definitions which are already being eroded. It attempts to entrench legacy industry arrangements which cannot be sustained in the medium term.To give the existing commercial television networks access to this technology for an exclusive period is to both deny access to potential competitors and to give a head start to the huge media conglomerates that already control most of the information delivery in Australia. The benefits of digital television come primarily from diversity: the diversity of communication streams and the convergence of a diversity of media.The government has given this legislation immense priority. The reasons for this are obvious. The decision to restrict competition and free-to-air television until 2008 will give unparalleled advantage to the existing licence holders. The government explains that the decision is to compensate for the high cost of conversion to digital television. If this is true, then how will new entrants into the marketplace fare after 2008 when they have to face not only the high cost of building a network but also competing against existing and firmly established operators?In its submission to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, the Fairfax group highlighted the dangers of the government's approach. They said:This approach could be interpreted as offering an implicit subsidy inherent in the `gifting' of a valuable resource to incumbent broadcasters to ensure the ABA decision has the best chance of success.This term until 2008 will give an advantage of several years head start to these broadcasters in the lucrative information technology industry. The future of this industry is in a combination of several different forms of media—in essence, multimedia. Digital television will allow these licence holders to operate several forms of communication through the one transmission network. In the future the television will also carry Internet capabilities and have on-line shopping, amongst other uses. It will include a pipeline with two-way communication capabilities.In its submission to the Senate committee on these bills, the Fairfax group pointed out that the use of this digital spectrum will be ever increasing. Using Professor Richard Ducey's words:. . . digital television allows us to reinvent what we mean by television. Nobody says that television broadcasting has to be radio with pictures. It could be computer software. It could be instructions on how to run a smart house. It could be how to run electronic books.It has the capacity to reshape the way in which we function as a community in all its aspects—socially, politically and economically.The Howard government, with its ban until 2008, will have effectively given these companies almost a decade to determine and manipulate the way in which this technology is used. More importantly, it will also deteriorate the role government can play in the process of digitisation. The government will be corrupted along with the process. Fairfax also related to this in its submission when it said:The risks to government should be clear enough. Prescribing industry development compromises government's role as a planner, regulator and policy maker, and implicates government in the commercial fortunes of the participants. In effect, Government, more than industry, becomes responsible for delivering HDTV to the community. In this new communications environment, we will see a very vast convergence of multimedia. Even today the difference between Internet, television, newspapers and other forms of media is becoming increasingly smaller. The learning economy is about this convergence and is very different from the economy we are used to living and working in. The OECD compares the learning economy as follows:In contrast with the neoclassical view of the firm as a simple economic robot, modern evolutionary economics now see it as a searching, learning mechanism. It survives and improves by continually reinventing itself. It consists of a pool of assets, including both physical assets and intangible ones such as capabilities, and intelligence, which learns from the environment and modifies the resources.This technology is vitally important for regional Australia. It represents a generation change and the availability of information and entertainment for Australians. For regional Australia to miss out would be a travesty that would represent the final denial of regional Australia ever having the same access to services as metropolitan Australia.I fundamentally believe that regional Australia is entitled to communications services comparable to those available to Australians living in metropolitan areas. The government has also acknowledged this directive but is very lax in its approach to fulfilling the objective. Regional is simply not the same as metropolitan. It requires distinct approaches, distinct technologies, distinct market structures and distinct regulatory incentives.It is clear the regional broadcasters will be forced to pay up to twice the cost of installing the network for digital television in regional areas. The vast distances and area that those broadcasters cover places them at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to their metropolitan rivals. For example, the cost for the larger regional licence areas is around $300 million. In addition to this will be the $176 million facing them in dual operating costs for eight years while they continue the existing analog transmission. The added factor that makes these costs significantly high is the fact that the revenue base in regional networks is much lower than the metropolitan areas. In a recent media release on 24 June, Telecasters Australia indicated that:One thing must be made absolutely clear: regional Australia achieving digital equality with metropolitan Australia by 2004 is simply a hoax. As the legislation stands, the government's targets for the rollout of digital services in regional Australia are unaffordable and unachievable.I also note with some relief that the government has taken on board some of the concerns of regional broadcasters in recent days. The government has conceded that regional Australia has no hope of achieving the equality that Minister Alston has expounded. But what is new about this change to the legislation? It is certainly the right thing to do, but, as always with this government, rural and regional Australia is but an afterthought.We need a regional communication strategy which addresses the delivery of all kinds of communications services to those in regional areas. Instead, we have a piecemeal approach driven by the Telstra sale imperative and the major metropolitan media interests which simply is not exploiting the opportunities presented by convergence. There is no recognition that satellite broadcasting and telecommunications are likely to be integrated within the next two or three years and that this will have profound implications for the delivery of new data services in rural and remote areas.I urge the government to support the Australian Labor Party amendments. There must be competition in high definition television, and it must be at a balance with the development period. This technology must be made available to all Australians. Particularly in light of the enormous economic and social change that high definition television will bring, it is vital that rural and regional Australia are included in the process. HDTV represents a generational shift in the way we will conduct our lives, and all Australians must have the opportunity to participate in this change. The Australian government must get the policy settings right from the outset if every Australian is to have the opportunity to benefit from the knowledge based society of the 21st century.18:24:004461West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I do not want to take a great deal of time, but in the time between now and the suspension for dinner I would like to reflect on some of the concerns of operators of television services in rural and regional and remoter areas of Australia. Whilst in New South Wales a lot of the regional services are aggregated—and we enjoy the luxury of the three commercial television stations, plus SBS and ABC—there are a number of areas in this country, particularly in western New South Wales, that do not have that luxury; they only have smaller independent television stations providing them with a service. In the last 24 hours I have received correspondence from the Mayor of Broken Hill, who is very concerned about what the impact might be on the people of Broken Hill.RD4BROWNHILLSenator Brownhill—Old Blackie, eh?1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Yes, our friend Peter Black, the Mayor of Broken Hill, is very concerned and very dedicated to making sure that people understand the concerns of his local community. It is a local community that is isolated from many other places—20,000-odd people live there—but they do relish the service that they get from Broken Hill Telecasters Ltd. They get local news bulletins. They get local services. It is only a small area, as I say, but these networks are very concerned about the impact that this may have if the smaller independents do not get access to a moratorium that the commercial stations in the metropolitan areas are being offered in this bill.They have grave concerns because this will impact upon their financial viability. In the long run, if their financial viability does not work out, one of two things will happen: they will be taken over by somebody or they will cease to be a service. Something must be done by this government to look at allowing a moratorium for these independents. I am aware that this is covered by the opposition amendments. I hope that the government is listening to rural communities as the television stations seek to access the same moratorium that the big players in the city areas have access to.It is much easier for the big players in the city areas to absorb the costs that are going to be brought about by this improvement in technology and television service. I think it is interesting to look at some of the figures that I have been given. In the smaller regional markets, with their lower revenue bases and sparser populations, the relative impact of capital expenditure required is vastly greater to that in the metropolitan markets. One of the regionals in South Australia has quoted that it costs $342 per TV home served to provide this update, as opposed to $64 in the metropolitan areas. It is quite obvious that this difference is made greater if the comparison is made on the basis of market capitalisations of the operators in the two markets. This must affect the viability and the ability of these regional services to provide a service and to update their equipment into the future to be able to meet the deadlines.The lack of a moratorium for the regional services will cause commercial uncertainty in the operating environment just at a time when the operators need to raise the investment capital required to introduce digital services. Also, the entry of new licenses into the market would severely impact on localism in programming—local news content. We all know that in regional areas we like to sit down at 6 o'clock at night to listen to the local news, the news that relates to what is happening in our region and maybe our community. Localism in programming is vitally important.The entry of new licenses will impact upon access to local news services, community service announcements and the affordability of advertising for local businesses and industries in those smaller regional communities. Operators would be forced to cut costs by greater use of cheaper material from outside regional communities. This would impact on local people. It will also have an impact upon people's ability to attract national advertisers if they have to raise the cost of advertising. It will also have an impact upon people's ability to lodge advertising with the smaller stations.I know that a joint submission was made to the inquiry by the Spencer Gulf Telecasters, the Broken Hill Telecasters, the South East Telecasters and Riverland Television. I think it behoves the committee and the government to look very carefully at the submission from those regional telecasters, because they are providing services in the more difficult to service rural and regional areas. They are not necessarily providing services to the remoter areas, but they are certainly providing services to regional areas. It is of vital importance that those television stations have the same rights and competition protection and assistance afforded to them that the large metropolitan stations have.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Debate (on motion by Senator Alston) adjourned.Bills4463r4084463Consideration resumed from 25 June.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998 , and amendments 1 to 5 on sheet 974 and replacement amendment 2 on sheet 1060 moved by Senator Faulkner for the opposition.19:31:004463Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I just clarify and confirm that the government does not support this package of amendments from the opposition. We have indicated our agreement with the other side of the chamber that we want transparency, we want disclosure. We have reacted promptly and quickly to the advice from the Electoral Commission to the extent that there is a problem for them in ensuring that associated entities are properly revealed. We have accepted the amendment that the AEC itself put forward on this matter—and that has now been agreed to by the chamber. We have also got the mechanism for full audits of the parties. If the motivation for this amendment—that is, the Greenfields loan to the Liberal Party—is not a loan but a gift, that will be revealed in the audit and dealt with accordingly.So we do think we have moved to ensure full transparency in relation to associated entities, that these amendments from the ALP go too far—they are too much of a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and there is unacceptable vagueness in some of the wording of these amendments, particularly in relation to the definition of associated entities. The period of disclosure being made at any time has a retrospective effect. We see other problems in the actual mechanics of some of these amendments. In any event, we believe that what the government has done on this issue is eminently reasonable and satisfactory, and there is no need to go beyond that in a way which we think may have unintended consequences and not work as effectively as the ALP may hope.19:33:004463Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens take the contrary view from the government on this. They are very important amendments. As the opposition has clearly put it in the previous session when we were discussing this last week, the effect of these amendments is to ensure that people cannot get around the intention of the relevant legislation when they are making donations to political parties of any kind.The matter in hand is a device by which people or entities, corporations, are finding that they may be able to subvert the intention of the act by making `loans' to political parties. There may or may not be any intention to call in those loans further down the track. There may be no intention to ever call in those loans, so that, in effect, what is happening is that a donation can be made to political parties—and this can be many tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars; it could be millions of dollars—without disclosure being required because, instead of being a straight-out gift, they are seen as a loan.That was not the intention of the legislation. That is not what disclosure is about. This is a potential device for hiding donations going to political parties. And, of course, the intention of donations is always to have strings attached, to get rewards. Corporations, in particular, do not make donations to the big political parties—and we are really here talking about the coalition or the Labor Party—without the expectation that it is going to advantage their political situation.In reality, it would be quite irresponsible for a board of a corporation to allocate a sizeable loan—a woodchip corporation, a mining corporation, some other form of developer—to a potential government party, without expecting there was a return, without expecting that this was a good investment of the shareholders' money. So be it. Let the people within corporations who decide how much is going to the big parties determine what is in the interests of the shareholders. But how are the shareholders, let alone the wider public, going to know about it if there is no disclosure?As with taxation, in this matter of disclosure of political donations, there is always someone trying to find a device to get around the law—at least, the spirit of the law. There is always somebody trying to effectively cheat the public. That is what it is about—the public of Australia—and in this situation it is about cheating them of disclosure.I cannot understand why the government does not think that tighter laws are better in this case—tighter laws than the ones they have accepted by way of amendment. The opposition has come up with those tighter laws, and the reality is that Senator Harradine is crucial in this regard. It is crucial to the good workings of democracy that his vote is cast in favour of these amendments. It will make the difference as to whether or not the amendments get up. As has already been indicated in the debate, the opposition amendments are being supported by the Greens and by the Democrats. The crucial vote in this matter will be with the Independent senator from Tasmania.19:37:004464Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I remind the committee that we had this debate last week. The opposition put their case very fully. At the time I responded in a supportive fashion and the Australian Democrats will continue to support the amendments.19:38:004464Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I make the point to the committee that I have moved opposition amendments 1 to 5. I will seek to have the questions on the amendments put separately—opposition amendment 1, and then, as a block, amendments 2 to 5. As the committee would be aware, I moved those amendments in that manner to facilitate the debate.I say, particularly to Senator Harradine, that I do appreciate in relation to amendment 1 that there are issues in relation to the question of the definition of `associated entity' and I do acknowledge that the AEC has some difficulties in that area. I am certainly not aware of any concerns that have been expressed in relation to the thrust of the opposition's amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, which I was starting to canvass a little earlier when the committee was last debating this matter. We believe that there is a need to amend the act to change the disclosure period, so that in the event that a loan like the Greenfields loan is forgiven, thus becoming a gift, its donors must still be disclosed, even if the gift is outside the same disclosure period as the original donations. I spoke about that matter at some length previously.In relation to the opposition's amendments 3 to 5, I am not aware of any suggestion at all that these are not embraced and supported by the Australian Electoral Commission. I do not think there is any suggestion that that has been the case, and certainly the minister has not indicated that. I accept that the AEC argues about the question of definition, and that is why I have asked for the votes on the amendments to be separated in this way, although I believe the opposition's amendments would significantly strengthen the Electoral Act if they were accepted by the committee.Our final amendments go to the issue of the receipt of loans. The primary problem we have with the $4,650,000 Greenfields loan is that we have no evidence—nor has anyone else any evidence—to prove that it is a loan given on commercial terms. We do know from their annual return that the Liberal Party made a payment of $100,000 to the Greenfields Foundation. However, we do not know when that payment was made. It may have been used as some sort of establishment grant to set up the Greenfields Foundation. Even if it is a repayment on a loan, it certainly would have to be at a very lucrative inter est rate of around 2½ per cent. There does not appear to be any indication that there is any commercial rate of interest or that the loan was made on a commercial basis, and the evidence mounts for such a loan being forgiven.These are important issues. During questioning in Senate estimates committee hearings—and I think this is an important point to make—the AEC conceded that a 2½ per cent interest rate on a loan would give reasonable grounds to assume that the loan was not on a commercial basis and possibly even constituted a gift. We acknowledge that, without the adequate level of information, without a proper information base, it is very difficult to determine whether that is the case.These amendments—and I would be very surprised if they are not supported by the Australian Electoral Commission—would prohibit a loan from being received from anyone other than a registered financial institution—that guarantees its commercial nature—unless certain information is disclosed. What is wrong with that principle? It is really fundamental, basic information, like the terms and conditions of the loan, and details about the individuals and organisations from whom the loan was received.I believe that this information would have to greatly assist the Australian Electoral Commission in their investigation and their proper dealings with—if necessary, pursuit of—suspected associated entities. It is incredible that we are seeing this sort of cover-up in the debate on this bill. But as far as the government and the Greenfields Foundation are concerned, if they are really fair dinkum, if they want to prove that there is nothing wrong here, there is no rort going on, there is no manipulation of the electoral system at all, if they want to show that they are not using forgivable loans as gifts, they should not have anything at all to fear from these important amendments that are before the committee.I strongly put to the committee that these amendments are worthy of support. I particularly direct these comments to Senator Harradine, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman: even if you accept arguments, which I certainly acknowledge, that the AEC does not embrace the definitional question in amendment 1, I am strongly of the view—and, certainly, not a skerrick of evidence has been provided to the committee to suggest otherwise—that the other amendments that have been moved in the name of the opposition are worthy of support. They are an important step in ensuring integrity in the disclosure provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.It is important to make the point that we in the opposition have spoken to the Australian Electoral Commission. We have worked hard to get these amendments right. We have tried to ensure that the drafting is as good as it could be. I do not believe that the government could possibly have any negative advice, or advice indicating that our amendments 2 to 5 should not be supported, from the Australian Electoral Commission. I would be very surprised if any fair-minded and reasonable person would not argue that they are an important step forward in terms of protecting the integrity of the disclosure provisions of the Act. For that reason, I ask for the committee's support of these amendments.Questions have arisen about amendment No. 1, which I outlined in my previous contribution when we last dealt with the committee stage of this bill. The amendment relates to a proposal to improve the current definition of `operates wholly or mainly for the benefit of one or more registered political parties'. The Labor Party wants to change that because we think this is a loophole that can be exploited. We think it is unsatisfactory. I know the AEC have got concerns about that, but the spirit of these amendments is to ensure there are no loopholes that can be exploited. That is why our proposal reads `to operate wholly or to a significant extent for the benefit of one or more registered political parties'. I commend these amendments to the committee. I ask the committee if amendment No. 1, which stands in the name of the opposition, could be put separately as a question before the committee.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Prior to putting that question to the committee, let me clarify the situation with regard to what you have moved. You had, indeed, moved amendments 1 to 5 but you have moved it in the form of a revised 2, hence the confusion at the beginning. Senator Faulkner has requested that amendment No. 1 be put separately. Question put: That amendment No. 1 (Senator Faulkner's ) be agreed to.19:54:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)30Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Crossin, P. M. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W. *Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Cook, P. F. S. Chapman, H. G. P.Cooney, B. Ferris, J.Crowley, R. A. Vanstone, A. E.Forshaw, M. G. Calvert, P. H.Gibbs, B. Campbell, I. G.O'Brien, K. W. K. Brownhill, D. G. C.Quirke, J. A. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the amendments Nos 2 to 5 (Senator Faulkner's ) be agreed to.20:01:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)31Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Colston, M. A.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. *Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W.Bishop, M. Calvert, P. H.Collins, J. M. A. Vanstone, A. E.Conroy, S. Hill, R. M.Cook, P. F. S. Brownhill, D. G. C.Cooney, B. Ferris, J.Crossin, P. M. Chapman, H. G. P.Hogg, J. Campbell, I. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. While the opposition would acknowledge that the last two divisions were lost—the first one, in relation to opposition amendment No. 1, by two votes, although the tellers' record originally showed four votes. The last vote ought to have been lost, and was lost, by my count, on a tied vote, but you have announced the result as 31 ayes and 32 noes when in fact I believe it was 31 ayes and 31 noes. In the previous division, you announced, I think, 30 ayes and 34 noes. It was 30 ayes and 32 noes. I think Senator Heffernan might be seeing double here. We obviously have no alternative here but to check the division lists.The point here, of course, is that both these votes would have been lost by the opposition, but I believe that Senator Heffernan is making some mistakes here in the pairing arrangements. Obviously he has got a long way in the Liberal Party because he just counts votes that he does not have. I do draw that to the attention of the committee. I do not mind losing. In fact, I am used to losing in politics. But, frankly, I think Senator Heffernan can do a better job than the one he has just performed most recently in those two divisions. Senator Minchin should really give him a talking to. It would not have happened in your day, Senator Minchin.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—On the point of order: the whips are able to correct the voting sheets if it does not alter the end result. If as you say, Senator Faulkner, something like that has occurred, it will be in the hands of the whips to correct.20:08:004467Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—We will oppose schedule 1, item 142, in the following terms:(6) Schedule 1, item 142, page 34 (lines 8 to 12), TO BE OPPOSED .I want to refer, if I may, to page 102 of the 1996 federal election report. That report says that political parties are required to lodge returns of election expenditure in addition to annual disclosure returns. The Liberal Party submitted that the two returns involved unnecessary duplication and that the election returns should be abolished. Similarly, the Labor Party submitted that the party should be able to lodge the audited annual accounts in place of both the annual return and the election return.While the Australian Electoral Commission expressed strong support for audited annual returns, it advised that it would only support the lodging of parties' internal audited accounts if those accounts provided `full and timely disclosure in a simple and easy to understand format'. On the election return, the AEC noted that this return was abolished when the more detailed annual return was introduced. It was then reintroduced when the requirement to lodge claims for election funding was removed. The AEC does not object to the election return again being abolished.The Australian Democrats said at pages 161 and 162 of the report:Requiring the disclosure of electoral expenditure by political parties provides a valuable cross-check on donations received. The double reporting requirement ensures that parties do not expend more money than they report to receive by donation and other legitimate means.In its recommendation 135, the Commission on Government in Western Australia recommended that post-electoral returns of electoral expenditure be required. A distinction was therefore made between election returns and annual returns.Our recommendations were that we would only support those recommendations in the majority report if there was no significant loss or diminution in transparency and in detailed disclosure requirements. We have had a good look at this. In our view, there is a diminution. I accept that the minister will probably argue that it is either an improvement or that, if there is a diminution, it is minor. Nevertheless, we are opposed to it on the grounds of it reducing accountability.20:11:004467Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The government does not support this amendment. We are fulfilling the joint standing committee recommendation, which I believe had the support of both the government and the opposition. Requiring political parties to lodge both returns of election expenditure as well as their very detailed annual returns was an unjustified intrusion by the state into the affairs of the parties and was quite an unnecessary duplication of their reporting requirements. They have to report everything in their annual return. To also impose on voluntary organisations—that is, political parties—a completely redundant requirement that they report again overlapping expenditure in another return is unnecessary. For those reasons, we do not support it. We maintain the position as put to us by the joint standing committee, which, as I say, had the support of both opposition and government members.20:12:004468Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Greens support the Australian Democrats' amendment. The minister says that it is an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of the parties. Good glory! The electorate forks out $30 million after elections in the public funding of the parties, yet the minister is saying that we must not intrude too much into the affairs of the political parties. It is public money that we are talking about. The Greens support maximum accountability and, therefore, this amendment.20:13:004468Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I agree with Senator Brown that the sentiment behind the terminology `an unnecessary intrusion by the state into the affairs of the political parties' is not something to be embraced. However, the point the minister makes about this being an unnecessary duplication is a fair one. That is the reason the opposition will oppose the Australian Democrats' amendment on this occasion. We obviously think that one or two more intrusions by the state—for example, looking at loans by Greenfields—might to do a hell of a lot to improve the integrity of the electoral process in this country.Senator Minchin interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—We expect from Senator Minchin this ideological, extreme right-wing rhetoric. It is a desperate clawback on his part, given the position the Liberal Party finds itself in. On this occasion, even though you mounted the case poorly, there is an important issue in relation to duplication. This is just a better administrative procedure. It is for that reason that the opposition will oppose the Democrat amendment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 142, stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, I inform the committee about Senator Heffernan, the acting government whip, and the two divisions I drew attention to. In relation to the first division, which he got wrong by two votes, he improperly counted Senator Hill and Senator Brownhill, both of whom were paired. In the second division, he improperly counted Senator Brownhill. A simple arithmetic course or a training session is called for for Senator Heffernan, who is proving to be a very ordinary government whip.20:16:004468Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—The Democrats oppose items 143 to 146, on page 34 (line 13) to page 35 (line 5) in schedule 1. With the previous amendment, I was aware of the opinion of the government and the ALP because of the majority report. However, you would accept that I am obliged by my minority to put my position, and I accordingly did. I have the same problem with amendment 7, on sheet 852, which opposes the items. Exactly the same case can be made, and I am sure that I will get exactly the same case in return.20:16:004468Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Not surprisingly, the government opposes Democrat amendment 7. We believe that, in its amendments to the Electoral Act, the bill is appropriate. It is, again, in response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and its recommendations which, from recollection, had both government and opposition support. Items 143 to 145, which are opposed by the Democrats, simply provide that registered parties may lodge annual returns of expenditure in the approved form or lodge their audited financial statements in a form which meets the requirements as approved by the Electoral Commission.That seems eminently reasonable and sensible. I do not really understand the opposition. I also think that item 146 is an eminently sensible proposition, which says that political parties should no longer be required to report amounts paid out by them in the detail that is currently required. It says that they should just list their total expenditure. As was put to us by both the Liberal and Labor parties, there is no public policy justification for requiring that essentially third parties who sell goods and services to political parties should be put into returns in this way.It is difficult to see what the public benefit and public policy purpose of such a requirement is. Item 146 maintains the requirement to record total expenditure on those sorts of things by the political parties, without having to put that Fred Bloggs, the plumber, came and fixed the toilet and that it cost the party $500—without that sort of thing having to be disclosed every year. We oppose Democrat amendment No. 7.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, items 143 to 146 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.20:18:004469Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(8) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 14) after item 143, insert:143A At the end of section 314ABAdd:(2) A return under this section must be accompanied by an auditor's certificate.Amendment No. 8 refers to section 314AB, which we have just been dealing with. It says, `A return under this section must be accompanied by an auditor's certificate.' I remind the Senate of a passage I read earlier from page 102 of the 1996 federal election report in which, at paragraph 8.22, it said that the AEC expressed strong support for audited annual returns. The AEC has indeed expressed that strong support, and senators who follow these matters would be familiar with the booklet entitled Funding and disclosure report: election `96 , issued by the AEC, which is a very valuable document. Since representatives of the AEC are present, I compliment you on it.In terms of Democrat amendment No. 8, the AEC had said with regard to that matter—and I will use its words because they are quite adequate for the purpose—that:For disclosure to be effective, the returns lodged with the AEC must be accurate and complete at the time that they are placed on the public record. While the act contains penalty provisions for persons knowingly lodging incomplete returns, this cannot guard against genuine errors.It has been the AEC's experience that some errors have not been advised to it or uncovered as part of its audit program until some time after the public release of the returns, thus effectively, albeit inadvertently—and I am not sure that the AEC is right on that `inadvertently', incidentally—avoiding public scrutiny.It is well beyond the AEC's current resources to undertake audits of returns in the period between their receipt and public display. There is a strong public interest argument that disclosure returns of political parties, and perhaps associated entities, should carry some guarantee that they are free from errors and omissions at the time that they go on display. Requiring parties to submit disclosure returns which have been certified by a registered auditor would address this concern.The AEC's recommendation No. 6 says:Political party annual returns be accompanied by a report from an accredited auditor.That is a very particular recommendation and one which I would urge the Senate—and especially the opposition, since it was in full accountability mode earlier—to support. Every political party, to my knowledge—certainly ours, and I would expect all others—is audited. Every political party has access to an auditor. A great deal of additional expense or trouble does not need to be taken for an auditor's certificate to be provided but, most particularly, it would assist the AEC enormously in establishing that the facts before it have been verified and are reasonable in the critical matter of accountability and of providing a full record.20:22:004470Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—On balance, the government is not in a position to support this amendment. I am not saying that at some point Senator Murray may not wish to have this matter considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and to have all parties present evidence to that committee as to how they think it would work, what the implications would be for the parties, how expensive it might be and how much it would require them to change their current procedures. I think that process should be gone through in some detail. At the moment, the parties do submit their returns, and there are significant penalties for submitting false returns. The AEC audits the parties on a regular basis anyway and, of course, that would expose any falsities or problems with any of the returns that are being submitted.Again, I do not think there is any evidence brought to this parliament that justifies at this stage this sort of imposition on the parties, given the current circumstances they must deal with and the current requirements they must meet. I think we would need further evidence of circumstances which necessitate this, and I think if it is to be considered in the future, it is appropriate and proper for the bodies that will be significantly affected by it—the political parties all round Australia—to come before us and give evidence as to what it would mean for them and how, if you are going to do something like this, it might work. At this stage, I am sorry, we are not in a position to agree to that amendment.20:23:004470Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I think that is not an unreasonable contribution that the minister has made. Given that parties are required to lodge audited accounts, if there is to be a change like this—and I think that some of the arguments in relation to this may well be persuasive—it would be sensible for the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to have a look at it, seek some views from any interested parties and take it from there.On the surface it does appear as if it is again duplicating some of the processes that have occurred previously. But I think that if a case can be made here that this might be an enhancement in terms of accountability, then maybe it is one that can be looked at in the future.20:24:004470Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I do not go along with that. Senator Murray for the Democrats has explained to the committee that it is not too difficult having to furnish audited accounts, to provide an auditor's certificate. What could be more logical? The minister says, `Well, the Australian Electoral Commission can audit the accounts to check that they are all right.' What better way to start than by having a certificate to validate the parties' own auditing.I remind the committee again that what is involved here, amongst other things, is some $30 million post-election that is paid to the parties for electoral funding—principally to the big parties that are turning against this motion—out of the public pocket. It is quite outrageous that a simple move like this to tighten up scrutiny, to validate scrutiny, to have experts put their names on the line as to the audited accounts of parties is not being supported. The Greens will certainly be supporting this amendment by the Democrats.Amendment not agreed to.20:26:004470Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My running sheet says that I am now on sheet 852, amendment 9. It lists amendments 9 and 10 as being run together, but I would like to deal with them separately. I refer senators participating in the debate to sheet 852. I want you to look at amendment 9, which is on page 3, because I intend to withdraw part of that amendment. If you look at the top of page 4 on sheet 852, you will see that after (d) it has 145C after section 314AC and then the paragraph ends at 314AC; please excise that entire section.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Are you moving that formally, Senator?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—That is how I would like to amend my amendment, and then I would like to move it formally.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You can just move it in that form.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I move:(9) Schedule 1, page 35 (after line 3), after item 145, insert:145A After subsection 314AC(2)Insert:(2A) The return must identify which of the amounts received are donations.145B At the end of section 314ACAdd:(4) An agent must return any sum which has been purportedly paid out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation unless it is accompanied by a declaration, in an approved form, setting out: (a) details of the beneficial and ultimate control of the trust estate, including by trustees; and (b) the identities of the beneficiaries of the trust estate, including: (i) in the case of individuals—their countries of residence; and (ii) in the case of beneficiaries which are not individuals—their countries of incorporation or registration, as the case may be; and (c) details of any relationships with other entities; and (d) the percentage distribution of income within the trust; and (e) any changes during the relevant financial year to the information identified in paragraphs (a) to (d).(5) An agent must return any sum which has been purportedly paid by a club, whether the club is an incorporated body or not, unless it is accompanied by a declaration in an approved form, setting out: (a) the purposes for which the club exists; and (b) the identities of office-bearers within the club; and (c) details of any relationships with other entities; and (d) the name and address (not being a post-office box) of any person or organisation which was the original source of the funds paid by the club to the party.The amendment you have before you now has two parts, essentially. The first part refers to 145A after subsection 314AC(2), which says:(2A) The return must identify which of the amounts received are donations. I refer you again to the AEC's Funding and disclosure report:election `96 , and to their recommendation 5. In the preamble to recommendation 5 it says in part:There is always considerable interest from journalists and political parties, particularly in relation to donations. Donations, however, are not separately identified from other receipts in the returns.That is quite extraordinary, really.This can lead to confusion and in some cases misreporting by journalists (in one instance a disclosure of the maturity of an investment was reported as being a donation from the bank involved in the transaction). It also complicates the task for the AEC when attempting to identify donors who are required to lodge disclosure returns.Recommendation 5 said:In their annual returns political parties be required to identify donations separately from other receipts.That is exactly what we have said. We are just a small party. We run on volunteers; we do not have highly paid officials, but every donation that comes in is recorded separately, and so are other receipts. It would surely be in the interests of all parties concerned—the AEC, journalists and anybody else who is looking at this—if this was identified separately. I assume that the instance in which the AEC indicates there was a problem would have affected one of the major parties. I cannot recall it as having been something that arose from us. I have a suspicion that it is not on this side of the chamber; it might be on the other side of the chamber. But the fact is that it is a problem, and we think it could be resolved.The second section of the amendment before you, which is put into the same section because it runs on to 145B, refers to the very matter which Senator Faulkner outlined earlier, and that is the question of how trusts are dealt with. I refer you to page 161 of my minority report to the 1996 federal election report, where we said:It is also most desirable to remove any lingering doubts concerning Trusts. One of the roles they play in political donations is as a screening device,—which they do, incidentally, in other forms of business and organisational life—hiding the true source of donations. There are legislative precedents for requiring disclosure by such bodies. The hidden donations from trusts and foundations, sometimes with a foreign source, are of particular concern, and any loophole must be closed.You might ask: what is the legislative precedent? The legislative precedent is the Export Market Development Grants Act, which requires these kinds of disclosures.We are asking the Senate to support that an agent must return any sum, unless it is accompanied by a declaration in an approved form, because the only way to punish someone who is not behaving properly is to make him give back the money which, purportedly, has been paid out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation. The AEC would develop the declaration, and that is what the political party would have to receive. They would hold that declaration, and it would be nobody's business but theirs unless the AEC wished to see it.The declaration would be in an approved form setting out the details of the beneficial and ultimate control of the trust estate, including by the trustees, because we, as representatives of the people, in these broader issues of disclosure, do not want trust funds behind which lurk mysterious figures. It is not beyond the bounds of belief to think they could be foreign figures—people, for instance, who support open gun laws or who have a particular view on society which is not in the interests of Australia in its democratic and progressive form.We think the ultimate and beneficial control of the trust estate should be disclosed, including by the trustees. The identities of the beneficiaries of the trust estate should be included and, in the case of individuals, their countries of residence, because that is relevant to where a donation comes from—whether it is from Australians, from foreigners, or from some militia outfit in the boondocks of America. In the case of beneficiaries which are not individuals, their countries of incorporation or registration, as the case may be, should be disclosed, as well as details of any relationships with other entities, the percentage distribution of income within the trust, and any changes during the relevant financial year to the information identified in paragraphs (a) to (d).Any corporation that pays a donation across has to disclose these things. You know exactly who owns a corporation, who the shareholders are, and who receives the income returns. It is all there to be seen, so why shouldn't it be the same for a trust?In item 5 we say the same things about clubs, because there are clubs which are constituted to raise funds for political parties. We think the political party receiving the funds should have a declaration, in an approved form, setting out the purposes for which the club exists, the identities of office bearers within the club, details of any relationships with other entities, and the name and address—not being a post office box—of any person or organisation which was the original source of the funds paid by the club to the party.Those are designed to stop the system whereby there is limited disclosure. Those two things addressing the issue of trusts and clubs are designed to deal with the situation where donations are made by blind entities which cannot be properly identified, and that is their purpose. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate gave a very impassioned defence of his earlier amendments on exactly these lines, and these are a different form of presentation. As I say, they have their roots in legislative precedent; they certainly have their roots in the intention of the act.These are matters which have clearly been decided previously by the Senate and by the House of Representatives. The House and the Senate have said that they want full disclosure; they want an open and transparent political system. These amendments go to the heart of that issue of making sure that full disclosure, full accountability, full openness and full transparency are available to the society as a whole for the protection of our political system and for the protection of our people. That is why we have put these amendments to you. We clearly warned you of our intent in recommendation 9.4 way back in June 1997 when our minority report was published, and we are now putting it before you. I commend the amendment to the Senate.20:36:004473Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Again, I regret to inform Senator Murray that the government is not in a position to support this amendment. Amendment 145A requires that the return must identify which of the amounts received are donations. The act currently has very stringent requirements on disclosure of amounts received by political parties in each financial year and sets out in detail the requirements the parties must meet in relation to the amounts received by the parties. That is all there for everybody to see—every amount received of $1,500 or more from any person. We think that is adequate, and again I do not really understand the argument that the parties should have to go through and identify, in each case, which amount received happens to fall into a definition of `donation' as opposed to any other amount received. It is all there. Virtually every amount a party receives is, in effect, a donation, given that they are not, in most cases, businesses of any kind—so every amount they receive is, by and large, of the nature of a donation. I really cannot see the public policy purpose served by this particular amendment. I do not think the case has been adequately made out. In relation to item 145B, you are saying that party agents, the servants of the parties, are going to be guilty of an offence if they receive moneys from trusts or clubs where the trust or club has not supplied very detailed information to the parties. I think that is what it means. If the agent gets a donation from a trust or a club, he has to receive a declaration from that trust or club setting out all this quite insignificant detail.I do not know what happens then. I suppose you are then going to wait for the auditors come along and see whether every single donation from every club or trust that is $1,500 or more has the appropriate declaration with it and whether that declaration meets these requirements. Then somebody—presumably the AEC—is going to have to make a decision as to whether the declaration meets all these requirements. It has items in it such as that it has to set out `details of any relationships with other entities'. Frankly, I do not know what that means. I am a pretty rusty sort of a lawyer, but I think that one is going to be extremely difficult for anybody to police. It also refers to `the percentage distribution of income within the trust'—there is a whole range of requirements.I would have to say that, by and large, the Liberal Party as far as I am aware—from my many years working for the Liberal Party—does not generally receive money from trusts and clubs. So my comments are not based on self-interest but on my reasonably intimate understanding of who gives money to the Liberal Party. To the extent that any trust was an associated entity, it is picked up by the quite significant associated entity requirements that we have just augmented.Again, I do not see that there is such a massive problem with the current disclosure requirements that justify going to quite extraordinary lengths, frankly, to discourage any club or trust that might give money to a political party to continue doing so. This is not something that would particularly affect the Liberal Party. We just think it is going way over the top without the appropriate justification. It is putting party agents in an extremely difficult position in relation to any moneys they receive from any trust or club. So I regret that, on balance, we cannot support it.20:40:004473Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I put a question to the minister in view of the statement he has made, which he might like to correct. My records show that in 1992-93 the 500 Club gave the coalition $505,000; in 1993-94, $249,000; in 1994-95, $685,487; and, in 1995-96, $411,912. I think I understood you to say that the Liberal Party does not have much to do with clubs. But, just at a quick glance, I think that is $1½ million.20:40:004473Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I do not feel that I need to correct my statement. The Liberal Party is not in receipt of moneys from trusts and clubs in the general sense of that word. It is well known that within the Liberal Party there are 500 Clubs which are made up of members of the party who are prepared to join—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Very rich!JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—the party at the level of $500 per annum. There are not that many of them, but it is very naked. John Elliott is well known as the chairman of the 500 Club in Victoria. The activities of those basically internal Liberal Party clubs are very naked, very well known and very public. Indeed, their office-bearers, as Senator Conroy knows, are very public; they do not hide their light.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—They don't hide much.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—I appreciate what you are saying, Senator Murray, but I do not think that undermines or contradicts what I was saying about the Liberal Party in general. Indeed, we do not hide the fundraising activities of our internal 500 Clubs.20:42:004474Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Senator Murray is probably on a similar wavelength here to what the opposition has been on about in relation to the Greenfields Foundation. I do note that the amendment states:An agent must return any sum which has been purportedly paid out of a trust fund or out of the funds of a foundation unless it is accompanied by a declaration, in an approved form, setting out . . .et cetera. I think Senator Murray's admonition of the minister was quite in order in this regard. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Liberal Party is certainly willing to exploit any loophole it can on these sorts of issues.Can I say this to Senator Murray: as I understand it, your original proposal was to bring these amendments forward to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . That is what the opposition had thought you were going to do, and it is what the opposition still thinks is more appropriate than doing it here. However, given the defeat of the very important amendments in relation to the Greenfields Foundation and the very transparent attempts by the Liberal Party to cover up the details of a $4.65 million loan to the Liberal Party, I have become even more tempted by the amendments that you have moved.I have only one problem with these amendments, and that is that I am not certain about all the implications of them. I would like an opportunity to look at the implications and perhaps discuss them—if I find any—informally with you. I cannot go any further in this debate than to say that, Senator Murray, but the spirit of what you are trying to achieve is certainly embraced by the opposition. For its part, the opposition is happy to discuss with you, in the lead-up to the debate on the next bill, some of the implications of these amendments and perhaps work with you further in refining them.Your motivation is a motivation that is shared by the Labor Party. I am concerned that I am not aware of all the implications at this time, but I think they are appropriately moved to the second bill. If you are interested in talking further to us about them, then I am certainly willing to enter into some discussions with you in the same spirit about where you are trying to go. I do accept that you are moving in this direction with goodwill. There is some similarity in what you are trying to achieve and what we have been trying to achieve in relation to tightening the Greenfields loopholes.20:45:004474Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I congratulate Senator Murray and the Democrats for these amendments. We are dealing with the only vehicle for getting them up before a double dissolution election—if that were coming down the line. That is why I think it is important that we take it on board now. Who knows what will happen in the next few weeks? It is not in the hands of this place to determine whether or not we will be back here in August to deal with this legislation. What we do know is that there is a high potential for an election. That circumstance means the certainty of the changing hands of many millions of dollars. It would be better that this form of accountability that Senator Murray has brought forward were known to donors, not least to the coalition, in that event. That is why the Greens will be strongly supporting these amendments.The government might think that $1½ million over a few years from 500 Clubs, the members of which pay $500 or more annually to the Liberal Party, is not such a big thing—if only the Greens, and I have no doubt the Democrats, had access to that sort of money and to that sort of patronage on a big scale. I agree with the sentiment of the Democrats that, if that sort of money is being put into political parties, there should be clear accountability for it. The same goes with trusts. We have heard about the Greenfields set-up where $4½ million is apparently going through to the coalition—laundered in a way—and from whence it came cannot be identified. Here is the opportunity to help pin down—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, it wouldn't help with that.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is a step towards it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You might be right there. I accept that. That is why I am saying that I think it is moving in the same direction probably, but no-one really knows the full implications.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes. Senator Faulkner from the opposition is saying that he is concerned about the unknown implications of the amendment. I can understand that. We always have to be aware of that. I am concerned about the implications of not having the amendment up. We know that there are smart people out there who are practising devious methods to put millions of dollars into the coffers of the coalition without being identified. We need to be on their tracks. That raises the smell of corruption and contamination of the political system. We should be hunting it down wherever we can. The thing that snuffs that out is transparency, accountability and publication of the facts. I again congratulate the Democrats and Senator Murray for providing this vehicle for helping to do just that. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Murray's ) be agreed to.20:53:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.44Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Heffernan, W. *Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.O'Chee, W. G. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.20:57:004475Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I withdraw Democrats amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 11, on sheet 852, refers to subsection 316(2C), which states:Failure of the agent or nominee to attend under subsection (2B) does not affect the powers of the authorised officer to conduct the proceeding under paragraph (2A)(d).This amendment refers to the very real difficulty that political parties or anyone has with accessing donations returns. I do not know how many senators within the chamber at present have had the joy of trying to go to the library and work their way through the donations returns to establish exactly what is going on, and they are presented in an exceptionally difficult format. The minister throughout this debate has said that where a good case has been put he would like to see those particular amendments referred to the joint standing committee or, alternatively, considered in the next bill.Minister, this is one of those situations where the accessibility of information which is already in the AEC's hands is difficult, and we have suggested a means of dealing with it. I think that what I would rather do, if I may, is ask you to ask the AEC to have a look at it and to advise you as to whether this is an appropriate matter to refer to the joint standing committee.It is a problem, Minister, identified after the report into the 1996 election came down from the joint standing committee, but it is a very real problem as to how material is made available and presented. So if you are willing to consider it on that basis, I would be more than willing to withdraw it for the purposes of this debate.21:00:004476Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—My advice and my understanding of Democrat amendment 11 is that it really is not very different from the government amendment in relation to the powers of the AEC and associated entities. So my understanding is that Democrat amendment 11 is redundant and that it does not achieve any greater purpose than the government amendment that the Senate has already agreed to. So could you enlighten me?21:01:004476Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My apologies, Minister, for being somewhat inarticulate in the way I expressed it. As you might recall, when I hopped up I said that I was likely to withdraw it. Then when I flicked over to the second page I realised the reason I wished to retain it. I am referring particularly to the items under (3) which refer to the fact that the information would be available on computer disk. As you know, with modern scanning methods, it is easily possible to take a hard copy and put it back onto a computer disk—that sort of thing. It is my intention to withdraw item 11, but I would draw your attention to the fact that at present it is very difficult to deal with donations returns particularly but also with general returns, in the form we are given them. I would merely like to request that you perhaps consider asking the AEC to look at this matter in due course.21:02:004476Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I am happy to do so. The advice I have received from the AEC is that they do have some difficulties with this. They think it could be quite expensive. But I am certainly prepared to have a discussion involving you and the AEC where we can talk this through at the earliest opportunity.21:02:004476Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, I thank you for that. I accordingly withdraw amendment 11 on sheet 852. I move:Schedule 1, page 35 (after line 7), after item 147, insert:147A After paragraph 328(1)(a)Insert:(aa) the name and address (not being a post-office box) of the person or organisation which was the original source of the funds to pay for the advertisement, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice appears at the end thereof; andI refer to this amendment as the Tuckey amendment. I am not acquainted with a view as to whether Mr Tuckey holds me in extraordinary esteem or not. I am sure he does. I am sure I am one of his most loved parliamentarians. However, he did put a submission to the committee which I thought was not well enough dealt with. It was a situation where he was occasioned considerable anguish during the last election. We were opponents in that election but, as you know, the Democrats support fair elections.Mr Tuckey remarked in his submission—in fact, I believe there was an attempt to take it to law, and the AEC may be better acquainted with the situation than I am—that an advertising campaign was launched against him and they were unable to identify who had started it, who had funded it or where it came from. It was misleading, untruthful and, as I say, caused him considerable anguish. I do not think any person contesting an election should be subject to that sort of occasion.So this amendment was an attempt to address that. The amendment does say:the name and address (not being a post-office box) of the person or organisation which was the original source of the funds to pay for the advertisement, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice appears at the end thereof;At present we say, `Authorised by Nick Minchin of the Liberal Party'. It is plain who is authorising it, and who is paying the funds. But if it is authorised by Mr X, we are simply of the view that Mr X should identify where the money comes from. That was not so in the Tuckey offence. Once again, Minister, this is put up as an issue of fairness. Once again, if you feel unable at this time to address it in full, I would perhaps suggest that the matter could be looked at again by both the AEC and the joint committee to see if that proposed amendment fixes the problem.21:05:004477Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I do recollect Mr Tuckey's evidence before the committee where he described to us this election campaign which he felt was anonymous and that perhaps the committee could look at it. The committee did note—and I think this had government and opposition support—that, while we understood the problem he was trying to deal with, we did not think the solution was really workable.There are a number of problems with it. In most cases, parties receive general donations to support their election campaigns and then engage in election advertising. There is no necessary correlation between the donation and the advertisement. It is certainly very rare that you would allocate a donation to a particular advertisement. So it is not normal for there to be a particular source of an advertisement of the kind described—handbill, pamphlet or poster—in this amendment. So I am not quite sure how it would work in practice.It would also mean, if you were able to identify the particular source of the money, having a third piece of information on the handbill or poster or whatever it is. You already have to put the person who authorises it and takes responsibility for the contents as well as the name and address of the printer. Now we are going to add a third item: the name of the person who is the original source of the funds.I think that is unnecessary and probably unworkable. We do have extensive disclosure provisions. Donors to parties that end up using all of that pool of funds to pay for ads are all disclosed. We are disclosing who takes responsibility for the ad. I have not changed my view; it was the view that I held as a member of that committee. It was a view shared by all government and opposition members. While we sympathised with the problem—and I guess all of us involved in politics have seen this—where ads appear and we have difficulty identifying or finding the person who does authorise the ad, I do not think this is the way to solve that problem.21:07:004477Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I say to Senator Murray that I am absolutely relaxed if the minister wants to send it off to the committee for a further look at it. I would require an awful lot more convincing than I have had to date. I do see this as a very unrealistic proposal, but if the committee is to look at it, that is fine. The idea here, as I understand it, is that, along with authorisations, the source of funds to pay for electoral advertisements needs to appear. That is the basic thrust of this amendment. I have to say, Senator Murray, that I do see this as a very unrealistic one. However, if it is sent to the committee and we are going to have another look at it, I am happy to engage in that in a serious way. But I would need a lot more convincing than I have had to date to bite this one off. This one seems to me to be a very unrealistic amendment.Amendment not agreed to.21:09:004477Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule 1, page 35 (after line 20), after item 149, insert:149A After subsection 329(1) Insert: (1A) A person must not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, any electoral advertisement containing a statement, purporting to be a statement of fact, that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent.(4) Schedule 1, item 152, page 36 (line 2), at the end of the item, add ", substitute `or (1A)'".(5) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 2), after item 152, insert:152A Subsection 329(5) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (5A) In a prosecution of a person for an offence against subsection (4) by virtue of a contravention of subsection (1) or (1A), it is a defence if the person proves that he or she: (a) took no part in determining the content of the matter, thing or advertisement; and (b) could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter, thing or advertisement was inaccurate or misleading or likely to mislead an elector in relation to the casting of a vote.This is a matter which is dear to our hearts and we hope one day to win the battle. I would suspect that those of you who have been in this chamber longer than I have heard the Democrats move forms of this amendment. Every time an electoral bill is dealt with, I would expect the Democrats to move the truth in advertising amendments.I spoke about these at some length during the second reading debate. I think these issues are well understood by every senator. I have the impression—Senator Minchin can acquaint me with his views himself—that Senator Minchin has some sympathy for this kind of approach. It will be interesting to hear how Senator Minchin responds. For those who are students of these matters, I did write at length, on pages 152 to 155 of my minority report, on this matter of truth in advertising. I remind you all again that it works in South Australian legislation exceptionally well. Amendment 3 reads:A person must not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, any electoral advertisement containing a statement, purporting to be a statement of fact, that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent.I think that qualification is critical because, plainly, in the rush and hurry of campaigns, there will certainly be errors made, but it is material errors that we are concerned about. Amendment 4 is merely a consequential amendment. Amendment 5 reads:In a prosecution of a person for an offence against subsection (4) . . . it is a defence if the person proves that he or she: (a) took no part in determining the content of the matter, thing or advertisement; and (b) could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter, thing or advertisement was inaccurate or misleading or likely to mislead an elector in relation to the casting of a vote.Those words are very carefully chosen. Those words, and the elements within those amendments, have been tested over time by the Democrats with amendments, in previous debates, in the content of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 1983-84 when it had these issues within it, and in a subsequent prosecution of this case by us. I think it is a case that is well known to you all. The minister, who is from South Australia, would certainly understand the issues. Rather than speak any further, I will wait and hear his response.21:13:004478Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—Given the pressure of government business, I will not indulge in lengthy comments on a matter which I have considered at great length during my political career. As state director in South Australia for eight years, I obviously had to work under this legislation. I did not have any difficulty with that, and fortunately was never prosecuted—unlike, regrettably, one of my friends in the Labor Party, Terry Cameron, who was successfully prosecuted. I note that the just retired state director of the South Australian Liberal Party has been charged. As well, I think a couple of Labor Party people have been charged with offences under this provision.Having worked successfully under it in South Australia, and personally believing that it is, on balance, a reasonable proposition, I supported it when it was brought before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. As a member of that committee, I supported the recommendation of that committee that a provision of this kind be included in the Electoral Act. I guess that is based on my own personal experience of having worked with this in South Australia. The fact is that I am only one voice in the government and the government, on balance, in response to the joint standing committee report, decided not to support that amendment. I quote from the government response:The Government firmly believes that political advertising should be truthful in its content. However, any legislation introduced to enforce this principle would be difficult to enforce and could be open to challenge.Previous Committees have found that it was not possible to legislate to control political advertising and that voters, using whatever assistance they see fit from the media and other sources, remain the most appropriate arbiters of the worth of political claims.So the government did seriously consider this matter and, as a member of that committee and as the responsible minister, I was keen to ensure the government did give due weight to the committee's recommendations and consider this very frankly and honestly. But, on balance, the weight of opinion within the government was not to introduce a provision of this kind because it was not satisfied that provisions of this kind are fully workable and they may contradict the proper freedoms which we grant to parties and candidates to seek to persuade voters to their cause.It is quite different from advertising for particular products. You are advocating ideas and reasons why you should support one party and not another and it is not easy to apply the normal disciplines of trade practices, with respect to products and services, to political advocacy. So I understand those on both sides of the political divide—people from the government and opposition of good intent and integrity who support truth in political advertising, but who nevertheless do not support a provision of this kind in the electoral act. All I can do, Senator Murray, is indicate—as I have said—my own personal sentiments but point out that the government is not in a position to support this.21:16:004479Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—We have had the minister humiliated here, to the extent that he had to run out the `I'm just one voice in government' defence. I did not think I would ever hear you roll that one out.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—I am very humble.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Well, that is not very humble. That is truly pathetic as an excuse. Senator Minchin supports this, but he is just one voice in government. This, from the man who is running the numbers now for Mr Howard against Mr Costello. `Oh, I'm just one voice in government.' But, we hear, a very influential voice in government, Senator Minchin. We hear that you are the difference between Mr Howard's remaining Prime Minister and Mr Costello's stepping up. That is what we hear. But it could be, minister, that you have misled the committee. `I'm just one voice in government.'1X4WESTSenator West—Why is he going red?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Oh, I don't know that he would. No, he has got no shame. That excuse has been rolled out because Senator Minchin has argued for something like Senator Murray proposes, and has consistently done so.I might remind the committee that the government campaigned quite heavily before and during the last election on the need for legislation to deal with misleading statements of fact and truth in political advertising. Senator `just one voice in government' Minchin in fact got his colleagues on the joint standing committee to back him up on this.This is, of course, a backdown from the government on the eve of an election where we are probably going to see the sort of campaign that we saw in embryonic form with the Wik advertising campaign—the great Australian dream campaign—that the opposition exposed. That backfired, of course. We take a different view to this. I am not just one voice in the opposition. We collectively say that the existing provisions of the Act, section 329(1) on misleading or deceptive publications, do cover the issue.We also say to Senator Murray that attempting to legislate here—to go further than the existing act, to go to a definition of truth versus untruth—would be extremely controversial. I think it would be almost unenforceable. It would be very much open to challenge. It is something that, on behalf of the opposition, I am not willing to support.I understand why Senator Murray is trying to achieve this. I note the view of the AEC who said that they believe there is little point in regulating the factual content of political advertising if remedies are not available when the damage is actually occurring. I also note that the AEC consistently has argued that its reputation for neutrality would be impaired if it were to be given responsibility for truth in advertising provisions.I appreciate what Senator Murray is trying to do here. It will not be supported by the opposition. But, Senator Murray, I will give you this commitment through the chair: never, ever will we descend to the defence of `Oh, we are just one voice in government' or, `Oh, we are just one voice in opposition and that is why we are not willing to adopt a consistent position that we had previously'. This is a breach of probably non-core commitments. We assume they were not core commitments that were made by the government prior to the last election. It is just a breach of another commitment made on many occasions during the election campaign. It is just a breach of what they argued for at the joint standing committee. But, I understand the reason why. Because, after all, Senator Minchin is only just one voice in government. But what an influential and powerful voice he is. Just ask the Prime Minister because Senator Minchin is the only person who stands between John Howard and Mr Costello becoming Prime Minister.21:21:004480Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We have heard, not from the mover of this motion, Senator Murray, but from the leader of the government on this matter, Senator Minchin, that there has been successful prosecution under exactly the same provisions in the South Australian legislation and that other prosecutions are pending. I have no doubt that we would have both the government and the opposition up on their feet defending any effort to really pull the rug from under the need for there to be truth in advertising legislation, although we will be coming to Made in Australia legislation a little further down the line, where I think the currency is being devalued by the legislation that we will be looking at. I will be speaking about that a little later.It is not just buyer beware; it is buyer—citizen—be defended by the law. Unscrupulous people out there who try to sell you materials or goods and who try to take your money off you by telling lies, being deceitful or being misleading run the risk of being caught and punished. But when it comes to voters, it is not quite the same. Although there is provision for insisting on non-misleading advertising, when it comes to putting some teeth into that—as Senator Murray and the Democrats are doing here—the big parties say, `Ooh. That's unenforceable. That would create all sorts of problems.' We must remember that we are in the situation where we have compulsory voting. In an age where increasing numbers of citizens change their votes from election to election, voters have a right to go to the booth expecting that the material they have been handed to persuade them is dinkum and honest and does not set out to deceive them in so far as the facts are concerned.Here we have both of the big parties saying, `We're not going to go as far as these Democrats amendments to bring the national legislation in line with South Australian legislation'—legislation which we have heard, from no less than the minister himself, is working. We even have the minister saying, `Left to my own devices, I would support this, but I have been rolled in the party room and I can't.' Let me say to Senator Minchin that, if we had the opposition on side, all he would have to do is walk over here and then the public's expectation that there would be truth in advertising at election time would be fulfilled through legislation. But that is not going to happen.These Democrat amendments are not going to be supported here because, firstly, Senator Minchin is locked into the party machine, which made a decision about this legislation behind closed doors without debating it and, secondly, the opposition, in its own deliberations on this, has come up with the same conclusion as the majority of the coalition—that is, `This legislation is too tough. It might catch out one of us or one of them.' Truth and politics, we are told, do not mix too well and we are seeing a good example of at least nervous nellieness about that here in the chamber tonight. We have got to be a bit better than that. We have to try to defend the truth because we have to defend the electors' right to be informed correctly in the run to the ballot box, to not be deliberately misled and to not be given facts which are untrue and which were knowingly put before them by somebody, with a view to unscrupulously changing votes, who recognised that they were untrue.It is a pretty important matter and it is a pretty sad moment when neither of the big parties can support a very simple, just and proper amendment such as this so that voters can be defended from lies, deceit and deliberate misleading in the run to elections. I commend the Democrats and think the position of the major parties on this is indefensible.21:27:004481Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have two brief things to say. Firstly, I am sure you do not need my help, Senator Minchin, but I appreciated your honesty and I am glad you were able to express your personal view as you did. It may not be a good defence but at least we know how you feel about it. Secondly, for those of you who are interested in the charges in South Australia on poll counts, it is on page 10 of the Advertiser today, funnily enough, Tuesday 30 June, the end of the financial year. It relates to misleading and untruthful activities and allegations against the Labor Party. So in that instance, the Labor Party are the beneficiaries of the law.Amendments not agreed to.21:28:004481Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 35 (after line 27), after item 150, insert:150A After section 328 Insert:328A Government advertising (1) A person must not: (a) during the period of 6 months preceding the day on which the House of Representatives is due to expire; or (b) if the writ for a general election is issued before the period of 6 months preceding the day on which the House of Representatives is due to expire—during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act; authorise: (c) under any law of the Commonwealth, the expenditure of public money on advertising; or (d) the publication of any advertisement about Commonwealth government programs or policies, including matters which affect the rights, benefits and obligations of people; except in accordance with this section. Penalty: (a) if the offender is a natural person—$5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both; or (b) if the offender is a body corporate—$20,000. (2) The publication of an advertisement is permitted under this section if the advertisement is paid for, or is to be paid for, with public money and any of the following apply: (a) the advertisement is otherwise required or permitted by this Act to be published; (b) the advertisement is necessary to inform the public of changes to statutes or delegated legislation; (c) the advertisement is necessary for the carrying on of commercial services provided by government agencies; (d) the advertisement is for the purposes of recruitment of staff or officeholders; (e) the advertisement calls for tenders; (f) the advertisement relates to a public inquiry; (g) the advertisement contains a notice that is required by statute to be published; (h) the advertisement relates to a community service and the non-publication of the advertisement would be to the public detriment. (3) In this section: advertising means the production of material designed to disseminate information through printed, audio, audio-visual or other electronic media and includes the use of consultants or agencies with expertise in: (a) public relations; or (b) market research; or (c) advertising; or (d) other specialist areas; in the development of such material. public money means: (a) money in the custody or under the control of the Commonwealth; or (b) money in the custody or under the control of any person acting for or on behalf of the Commonwealth in respect of the custody or control of the money; including such money that is held on trust for, or otherwise for the benefit or, a person other than the Commonwealth.Senator Faulkner has requested that I move this amendment now so as to ensure that the debate moves along as fast as possible, and I am happy to comply with that request. This amendment arises out of recent events and its fate is entirely in the hands of the major parties as to whether they agree or disagree. I do not expect to be surprised by their opposing it because it really is an attack on any incumbent government. What the amendment seeks to do is to prevent an incumbent government using government advertising to push party political policy.As we know, there is a great deal of debate on tax policy currently. I think the story is that some $10 million worth of taxpayers' funds are going to be pushing out a particular view that the government has come to, and the opposition in estimates have been quite vigorous about that. However, whilst they may be vigorous in estimates, I doubt they would like to see the practice stopped because when they are in government it works quite nicely for them, too.However, on straightforward accountability grounds, we feel obliged to put this before the Senate so at least it can be known that it was put up and that there was a reaction. The amendment does say that:(1) A person must not:(a) during the period of 6 months preceding the day on which the House of Representatives is due to expire; or(b) if the writ for a general election is issued before the period of 6 months preceding the day on which the House of Representatives is due to expire—during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act;authorise:(c) under any law of the Commonwealth, the expenditure of public money on advertising; or(d) the publication of any advertisement about Commonwealth government programs or policies, including matters which affect the rights, benefits and obligations of people;Items 2 and 3 of that amendment go on to indicate the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to advertise. Of course, there is a definition of advertising and public money, the purpose being to allow the government to continue to use its advertising funds for the appropriate activities of government but not for political party purposes. I do not need to say much more than that. The issue would be well understood by all participants here.21:31:004482Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The government does not support this particular amendment. I am pleased that Senator Faulkner has suggested we do speed this along, which I hope will relieve us of a 20-minute diatribe about government advertising. There are other occasions for that. I presume that, having instructed Senator Murray not to prolong the debate, you yourself will not do that either.There is a bipartisan convention that all government advertising ceases as soon as the election is called, except that which is service advertising. I just do not know quite how this would work in practice. You are saying six months before the House expires—so, presumably, that would be November this year because I do not think the House expires until May next year. Any election held before November will not be caught by this anyway.Quite sensibly, of course, you are providing exemptions to it, but there is a whole range of exemptions. I do not know quite who determines whether an advertisement or advertising campaign falls under the particular category of exemption. Who is going to police that? How is that going to work in practice?Without going into any detail, I, of course, will defend, if I have to, the government's ongoing advertising of its changes to various government policies and programs which do necessitate communicating with electors, and the only way to do that is by mass advertising. It is quite legitimate for governments to inform the community of changes to policy and why they are being made. In any event, all government advertising stops the minute an election is called. In opposition, we complained about a lot of the former Keating government's advertising but, as the current opposition does, you make your case in the political marketplace. If you, as an opposition, believe that a government is engaging in quasi political advertising, you go out and make your case in the political marketplace and seek to convince voters that the government is abusing its entitlements. If you can convince the voters of that, good luck to you. As I say, it stops the day the election is called. I do not think this is a workable proposition, Senator Murray.21:33:004483Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I suspect this is not a workable proposition either for a couple of reasons. If the six months prior to the expiration of the House of Representatives applied to the lead-up to the election that Mr Howard is currently contemplating, that would not begin until 29 October this year.As to the so-called relevant period in your amendment, this is from the issue of the writ until the close of polls on polling day, which effectively is the caretaker period that Senator Minchin talks about when one would hope that such politically partisan government advertising would not be run in any case. The minister draws a distinction between what he describes as `service advertising', to use his words, and other advertising. It is for those technical reasons, I have to say, Senator Murray, that the opposition will not support the amendment you have moved.But we do have a situation where this government is engaging in absolutely massive taxpayer funded advertising and a very significant quantitative and qualitative research program to both inform that advertising and, we believe, inform the Liberal Party's federal election campaign. Through the Senate estimates committee process, we have been able to expose at least $40 million worth of advertising that can only be described as politically partisan election advertising that is motivated only because of the proximity of a federal election campaign. Of course, there have been the examples of the youth allowances and the tax campaign that is about to be on a television screen near you in the next few days, and so it goes on. So this government has really stretched this issue far beyond what has been any experience we have seen in the Australian political process.Frankly, the government is simply having an enormous research program paid for by the taxpayer. That research, both quantitative and qualitative, has still not been made available to all Australians. It has not been tabled in the parliament. I hope by the end of this sitting week—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You wish.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am sure Senator Ray also hopes that that material will be—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I'll give you tens.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I am not going to take it. I hope that it will be provided by the government. This is paid for by the taxpayer to inform these advertising campaigns. Why should that material not be made available so that everyone has the benefit of seeing what this qualitative and quantitative research is saying? It would be most beneficial, and certainly it would be in the public interest.The Liberal Party just has no shame on these sorts of things. An enormous number of advertising campaigns are being conducted by the Liberal Party. The only reason for it is a partisan motivation. We have already been able to gain some of that material in that we have had a small amount provided through questions on notice. Other material has been obtained by the opposition as a result of FOI requests. I am hoping that still more will be made available for the benefit of all members of parliament and the Australian public. However, I am not holding my breath for that to occur.This is a particularly low-life political operation that we have in relation to advertising. Heaven knows what will happen to the advertising accounts when this massive amount of political advertising is pulled off the screens and the caretaker provisions cut in. One can only assume because of the amount of money that has not been disclosed in the Greenfields Foundation's loans that it will be quickly replaced by advertising for the Liberal and National parties paid for, on this occasion, by the coalition parties themselves. The point about this current advertising is that the taxpayer is funding the bill and it ought to be the Liberal Party. It ought to be Sir Robert Menzies House and John McEwen House.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—The second mob can't afford anything.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Does it still exist? They are going broke.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—They've got their headquarters here in Parliament House.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I know that they are going broke.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—They rented the premises to Pauline Hanson.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Sir Robert Menzies House and the National Party ought to be paying for this type of advertising. It is the most blatant that we have ever seen in this country in the lead-up to an election campaign. It is the most unsubtle that we have ever seen, and the government stands condemned for it.The problem Senator Murray has is that his amendment will not be able to deal with that issue. Senator Minchin is probably right when he says that the only way to deal with it is the way that the Labor Party has been approaching it, which is by exposing the coalition government. This is not publicly available information. It is about hounding the govern ment until finally, inch by inch, you eke out the information and they have to front up. But we will continue to do that right through to the time when John Howard finally decides to call the election.I am advised that Senator Minchin still has the numbers for John Howard over Peter Costello at this stage. Senator Minchin is very worried about spending all this time in the committee stage debate, because I have been informed by a couple of his colleagues that there is an awful lot of shoring up to do. I understand that things are very shaky. There are a lot of very paranoid people in the oval office at the moment. The Prime Minister and his staff are very worried.JX4MINCHINSenator Minchin—You're the one who knows about knocking off prime ministers.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—It is a long time since you have ever found a Labor leader in his first term as prime minister scoring the sort of approval ratings that Mr Howard is scoring at the moment. Keep at it, because you will need all the government advertising that you can get. We will continue to expose the Howard government. Before it was elected, it talked about lifting parliamentary standards and ministerial accountability. Mr Howard rode into government on a white charger and said that this sort of thing would not happen. This is the most blatant misuse of taxpayers' money that we have ever seen in the lead-up to an election campaign.The problem for Senator Murray is that his amendment does not deal with the very important issue that is currently before us at this time of the political cycle. Nevertheless, I understand why Senator Murray is trying to achieve this. This is something that we will need to look at after the election campaign in light of the misuse and abuse of these advertising campaigns. There are absolutely no constraints on any of the research that is informing these campaigns. What assurances do we have that it will not fall into the wrong hands at Robert Menzies House? What assurances do we have that Liberal Party apparatchiks will not be misusing that research? The Labor Party will continue to try to hold the government accountable on this and expose this blatant rort and, most importantly, blatant misuse of taxpayers' money.21:45:004485Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Briefly, Senator Faulkner has amused me a couple of times tonight. The latest was when he suggested to me that we should hurry up, and then he spoke for 15 minutes.Senator Minchin interjecting—3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—He did not instruct me, Senator Minchin, but I picked up the left hook from you, thank you very much—I will return it in due course. The rejection of this amendment does not surprise me because I think it suits whichever government is in power not to have this kind of legislation restricting its activities. I put down a challenge to the opposition: if it feels so strongly about this matter, then when the next electoral bill comes up, I suggest that the opposition provides an amendment that it considers is workable to deal with this issue. That is what I look forward to arising from this debate.21:47:004485Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The great problem with Senator Murray's amendment is definitional. It does not actually do the job he wants it to do. There are probably three forms of government advertising. The first is what I would call standard advertising, such as defence force recruiting and advertising for tenders, and that should continue, even during a caretaker period of government. The second form of advertising is basically an information exercise, and the government can bask in the reflected glow of that type of advertising. That sort of advertising is usually, on balance, suspended from the issuing of the writs.The third type of advertising is blatant electioneering, which I have to say has been pioneered more by state governments than by federal governments over the years. You need look no further than what has been done by Mr Jeffrey Kennett. Tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been expended on glossy leaflets and reports and TV and radio advertising in Victoria.The problem with Senator Murray's amendment and that `6 months preceding' an election period is that, if that became law a government would time all its advertising campaigns and then go six months early, as they were planning to do in this particular period. At the moment, there is not just a colossal amount of government advertising in the pipeline, but it is all bunched up—it is targeted for July as much as possible. If you asked the government to average out its advertising expenditure for the calendar year 1998, it would bubble along, take a massive leap up—like the measurement of an earthquake—and then drop back down.It is timed to get that advertising in at what the government regards as a crucial time for its electoral cycle. Your amendment would not pick that up, unfortunately. Therefore, it is not just a question of the major parties ganging up on the poor old minor parties and bashing them up again. That occurs on occasions with electoral bills, although often your rights are also protected—although that is rarely acknowledged—but on this occasion it is really definitional. I do not want to revisit the idea of truth in advertising, but I must be about the only person in the chamber who cannot philosophically define truth. It is not something that I necessarily think judges are any better at, but we will not return to that particular debate.The real problem in the way advertising is handled by this government is that it has a secret manual. That manual says, `Look, let's have a political advertising campaign.' Normally, these are based on legislative change or a conscious and hard decision of cabinet, but what the government is doing with the tax thing is neither. It will not have a legislative base or a cabinet decision; it will just go out and research and run advertising that anticipates its decision, because the government is keeping its tax package hidden. That is why it stands out as one of the most blatant exercises in Commonwealth history. Also, the fact that it has funding of $10 million re-emphasises the point that it is simply a political campaign.To get back to the government's manual, what is it? The government says, `We've got a campaign coming up. As much as possible, why don't we go out and research it in quantitative and qualitative ways? Gee, I wonder who is good at that?' Then they sit around and puzzle for ages and come up with the name of Mark Textor, Liberal Party pollster. He gets given the work. He may not ask political questions, but certainly, if he pads out his account, he will do cheaper research for the Liberal Party later.Mark Textor is the bloke they sent to England to advise the Major government on how to get re-elected. If anything would dent their credibility, it would have been that. They usually get Mark Textor to do the research.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It is a similar task this time.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, it is a very similar task. Then when it comes to the advertising, you have to spread it around. There are 1,100 names in the database. It is surprising how often the names of Ted Horton, Mark Pearson, Toby Ralph and John King come up, either at Needhams or Lintas. It is amazing how much work Lintas has got in the last few months. Three major campaigns are coming up on the government payroll, and it just happened to get them. Did it get them by objective means? Is it public servants who choose Lintas? Of course it is not. It is a political committee.And what a fair and just committee it is. It is chaired by Senator Minchin. Who else is on it? Petro Georgiou, a former state secretary in Victoria, is on it, and I think the third member is Mr Tony Nutt, a former state director of the New South Wales branch—a very splendid one, I might say; he has a better record than the other two. They are on the committee, and they are the ones who choose who gets the work.Guess who gets the work? It is the good old boys. That team gets the work every time. I understand that they are in for something like another five contracts, although you may want to deny that. That gives them a good living, but this is not just a question of money. These are prestige accounts. These are accounts that are like notches on the belt. They can go into their advertising pitches around the country and say, `We ran the immunisation campaign' or `We ran the youth care campaign' or `We ran the tax campaign', and it looks tremen dously good on the CV of those companies. It may not be massively profitable but, in general, there is a reasonable profit to be made.We never want to return to the days where Needhams get the contract in a fix and then produce the most woeful ads one could imagine, just black and white on reels which any amateur could come up with overnight—several hundred thousand dollars was the eventual cost.So what they do, Senator Murray, is go back to the manual, they get their favourite researcher in and they get their favourite advertising companies in—the very people that will be the backbone of their campaign in the next federal election. But your amendment, unfortunately, will not obliterate that as a fact.I thought Leader Faulkner made some rather disappointing comments about Senator Minchin being needed in the chamber. Senator Minchin does not need to be in the chamber propping up numbers or anything else. He knows as well as I do that there is one way of telling if a Liberal Party leader is in trouble: Senator Richard Alston is always the last one to jump off the wharf onto the departing boat. So all Senator Minchin needs to do is to keep his eye on him. But I have some advice for you, Senator Minchin: if Senator Alston jumps, you want to be one second right behind him.Amendment not agreed to.21:54:004486Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I withdraw amendments 13 and 14 on sheet 852.21:54:004486Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPSpecial Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I appreciate very much Senator Murray's cooperation in trying to achieve the government's legislative timetable. Government amendments 12, 13 and 19 deal with the Court of Disputed Returns and the requirement that the court should make its decision quickly. I think they are non-controversial and have cross-party support. Then there are amendments 14 and 20. Amendment 14 relates to the preliminary scrutiny of the declaration of votes, again, I think, a very significant amendment and one that has cross-party support. Amendment 16 relates to a very mechanical amendment about the referendum bill. Again, this is one that is technical and non-controversial. I seek leave to move these amendments.Leave granted.JX4Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHIN—I move:(12) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 26), after item 163, insert:163A Subsection 354(1) After "refer it for trial", insert "to the Federal Court of Australia or".163B Subsection 354(2) After "referred for trial", insert "to the Federal Court of Australia or".163C Subsection 354(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) The High Court may refer part of a petition in respect of an election or return, being a part that consists of a question or questions of fact, to either of the following courts: (a) the Federal Court of Australia; (b) the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which the election was held or the return made. (4) Subject to any directions by the High Court, if the High Court refers part of a petition to a court (the other court ) under subsection (3): (a) the other court has jurisdiction to deal with the part of the petition that has been referred; and (b) the other court has, in respect of the petition, the powers and functions of the Court of Disputed Returns, other than the powers referred to in paragraphs 360(1)(v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) and in section 379; and (c) subject to any directions by the High Court, further proceedings in relation to the part of the petition are as directed by the other court. (5) The High Court may have regard to the findings of the other court in dealing with the petition and may in its discretion receive further evidence on questions of fact. (6) The jurisdiction conferred by this section may be exercised by a single Justice or Judge. (13) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 2), after item 164, insert:164A After section 363 Insert:363A Court must make its decision quickly The Court of Disputed Returns must make its decision on a petition as quickly as is reasonable in the circumstances.(14) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:167 Subparagraph 10(b) of Schedule 3 Before "12", insert "11A or".168 Subparagraph 11(b) of Schedule 3 Before "12", insert "11A or".169 After paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 Insert: 11A. This paragraph applies to an envelope if the DRO is satisfied: (a) that the elector who signed the certificate or declaration on the envelope is not enrolled for the Division; and (b) after making enquiry: (i) that the elector was, at the time of voting, entitled to be enrolled for a Subdivision of the Division; and (ii) that, if the Division had not been divided into Subdivisions, the omission of the elector's name from the Roll for the Division would have been due to an error made by an officer, or to a mistake of fact. 11B. Subparagraph 11A(b) does not apply if: (a) more than one election (excluding the election to which the scrutiny relates) has been held since the omission from the Roll; or (b) where there has been a redistribution of the State or Territory that includes the Division since the last election but one before the election to which the scrutiny relates, the omission from the Roll was made before the last such redistribution.170 Paragraph 14 of Schedule 3 Omit "paragraph 13", substitute "paragraphs 11B and 13".(16) Schedule 2, page 39 (after line 8), after item 1, insert:1A Paragraph 4(2)(b) Omit "issue of the writ", substitute "close of the Rolls". (19) Schedule 2, page 44 (after line 4), after item 21, insert:21A After section 107 Insert:107AA Court must make decision quickly The Court must make its decision on a petition as quickly as is reasonable in the circumstances.(20) Schedule 2, page 47 (after line 3), at the end of the Schedule, add:37 Subparagraph 10(b) of Schedule 4 Before "11", insert "10A or".38 After paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 Insert: 10A. This paragraph applies to an envelope if the DRO is satisfied: (a) that the elector who signed the certificate or declaration on the envelope is not enrolled for the Division; and (b) after making enquiry: (i) that the elector was, at the time of voting, entitled to be enrolled for a Subdivision of the Division; and (ii) that, if the Division had not been divided into Subdivisions, the omission of the elector's name from the Roll for the Division would have been due to an error made by an officer, or to a mistake of fact. 10B. Subparagraph 10A(b) does not apply if: (a) more than one election (excluding the election to which the scrutiny relates) has been held since the omission from the Roll; or (b) where there has been a redistribution of the State or Territory that includes the Division since the last election but one before the election to which the scrutiny relates, the omission from the Roll was made before the last such redistribution.39 Paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 Omit "paragraph 12", substitute "paragraphs 10B and 12".21:55:004488Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—These amendments are supported by the opposition. The amendments in relation to subdivisional voting, I think, are important amendments that are certainly worthy of the support of all senators in the chamber.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.4488Bill (on motion by Senator Minchin) read a third time.Bills4488r513Billsr5144488Debate resumed.(Quorum formed)22:00:004488Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I rise to close the debate on the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 and the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 . I want to say briefly that the first thing to remember is that this is about benefits for consumers, and our interest is ensuring that not only do—B36NEALSenator Neal—Oh, yeah; everybody believes that!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You might laugh. You may not watch much television, but I can assure you that digital television is the way of the future. That is being increasingly recognised around the world, certainly in major broadcasting markets such as the US and the UK, from which a substantial proportion of the programs that are shown on Australian television are obtained. Those countries have already announced the implementation of digital television, and we are very keen to ensure that consumers do benefit from good quality service, better service—B36NEALSenator Neal—At the taxpayers' expense.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, it is not at any taxpayer expense at all. They are the ones who are funding it. The government is committed to ensuring that both broadcasters and the ordinary viewing public have certainty and the least possible disruption in the provision of television broadcasting services in Australian homes. I am very pleased that it has now been acknowledged on all sides as an important commitment that Australia should move into the 21st century, in terms of digital television, as quickly as possible.Demand for digital equipment is increasing rapidly. Without the certainty of this legislation, broadcasters will not be able to place orders for vital equipment and, as a result, might fall to the back of the international queue. In evidence to the Senate committee, FACTS advised that a three-month delay in passing this legislation would result in a six-month delay in the introduction of digital television in Australia. We do not want that, and I trust that the opposition does not want it either.We recognise that digital transmission technology has the capacity to provide a range of possible types of services. Our policy allows for the introduction of those new types of services and also sets time limits on the conversion period. The government understands the concerns that have been expressed about some concepts such as datacasting, multi-channelling and enhanced programming, and we accept that it will be necessary for a series of reviews to take place before we are in a position to bed down those details. But I think the parameters are clear—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What is Kerry's view?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—You can bag as many media organisations as you like. We are simply interested in ensuring that we will have high quality, world-class digital television in this country as quickly as possible. If you don't want to watch it, don't watch it. We stress that the central elements of this bill result from the recommendations of the Australian Broadcasting Authority in a public report, which I am sure none of you bothered to read, back in July 1997. The views of—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—You don't even sign off cabinet submissions.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If you do not know the difference between signed and signed off I will not bother explaining it to you again. I thought you lost that debate comprehensively a long time ago. The views of the stakeholders have been well known. They have had ample opportunity to put them before yet another inquiry conducted by the Senate, and I think that has resulted in a very useful exercise. It has certainly enabled the government to give further attention to some of these important issues. We have indicated—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Have they threatened to cancel your invite to the wedding?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I have more important things to do than attend those sorts of social functions, I can assure you. You will not learn much about policy at social events. Let me give you a tip: you will learn more in the Collingwood outer than you will going along to those sorts of activities.The concerns of the regional television proprietors I think are well known. We do acknowledge that there will be additional burdens that will have to be borne by them, and there will need to be some specific measures to address those concerns. We will be tabling a regional equalisation plan, which will set out the measures the government will take to facilitate the provision of digital services in regional areas. The bill does allow the ABA to determine different conversion schemes for remote areas, and we think it is important to look further at how viewers in underserved regions and remote areas can have access to the same number of television services as their metropolitan counterparts.I want to conclude by thanking the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for its work in conducting hearings and for putting up with Senator Schacht at great and painful lengths. The fact is that we were able to accomplish all that was required, and I think the end result—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Yeah, that is a whitewash.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If it is a whitewash, you will not be supporting it, is that right? We have got it right. You will get the amendments tomorrow. We have all the right policy principles in place. You want to rabbit on about doing it in haste. The fact is—AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about the amendments?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The amendments are at the margin. The principles are all enshrined, and I can assure you that this is a package that will stand the test of time. I wish I could say the same for a lot of you, but I cannot. This package will endure and will be yet another great monument to the way in which we have led the broadcasting and telecommunications revolution in this country.Amendment (Senator Quirke's) agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Brown) proposed:At the end of the motion, add "and that, in view of the need for further consultation, the bills be referred to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in October 1998". Question put.22:11:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)2Brown, B. Margetts, D. *57Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, M. Bourne, V.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. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Herron, J.Hogg, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Lundy, K.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.Newman, J. 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.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the negative.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.Ordered that consideration of these bills in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills4490r527449022:15:004490Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I present the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings and move:That the report be printed.22:16:004490O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I wish to speak only briefly to indicate that the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee pursuant to the Selection of Bills Committee report, and the committee was originally to report by 5 p.m. today. In fact, the matter was postponed because the committee was not in a position to report. This was a very rushed process. This bill was referred by the Selection of Bills Committee last Wednesday, with the closing of submissions on Friday. There was a hearing on Monday which concluded at 7.30 p.m., the Hansard of which was not available until 4 p.m.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Today?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Today, yes. The committee's draft report was not with the opposition until 5.15 p.m. The evidence from the Taxation Office, which was relevant to the consideration of the committee, was not received by my office until approximately 6 p.m. The committee met at 6.45 p.m. and, unfortunately, no member of the opposition was available to attend that meeting, given that the notice regarding the meeting was communicated to us late in the day.We have prepared and submitted a minority report in a very short space of time. We had requested that this particular report be deferred until tomorrow on the basis that we did not believe we had adequate time to prepare a proper report. Given that the report is being presented at 10.15 and, as I understand it, could easily have been deferred until sometime tomorrow morning, I think it is rather unfortunate that the government did not have the grace to allow for the extension of the period for the committee to report on this bill given that the timetable of the report—that is, presenting the report now rather than tomorrow—will have no bearing on the actual timetable for the debate of this bill.The only issue that might have arisen prior to the presentation of the report were it deferred until some hour tomorrow morning was that perhaps we would have been debating whether the bill will be exempted from the cut-off. If we are debating that tomorrow morning, it may still be that this bill is not exempted from the cut-off in which case it will not be debated in this session and will be debated in the next session in which the Senate sits. That is a matter which none of us has any certainty about at the moment, but we hear certain things in the media which indicate that perhaps we are likely to be here in August.Nevertheless, we are talking about a bill which affects an export industry which returns billions of dollars to the Australian economy and affects thousands of rural producers and thousands of wheat growers. For this bill to be dealt with in this way, particularly in relation to the reporting of the committee and for the committee to have been given such an inadequate timetable, means that—I make no apologies for this—the opposition's minority report is not what I would have wished it to be in normal circumstances.But the reality was that we had an extremely short timetable in which to prepare a minority report. There are still issues which warrant, in my view, serious consideration. There are issues which industry representatives have indicated they would want satisfaction for before they were satisfied the bill should pass in those circumstances. I think it is important that I draw that matter to the Senate's attention in terms of the tabling of this report and the resolution that the bill be printed.22:20:004491Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I want to make one brief comment in terms of the processes as the chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The recommendation for the reference was from the opposition. The program was put to the Selection of Bills Committee by the whip of the opposition. The program under which we dealt with the report was a recommendation that came to the parliament from the Selection of Bills Committee. It was your own program that was put down by the opposition in terms of dealing with this bill and that timetable. The rest of the legislation in terms of what is before us and this report will be debated at the proper time when the legislation comes before us.Question resolved in the affirmative.22:22:004491Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—by leave—I thank the Senate for its indulgence. I rise to support the remarks of Senator O'Brien, as he has quite clearly outlined the difficulties under which the opposition has been placed in this matter. I also concede there have been difficulties under which all members of the committee have been placed with respect to this matter, not the least of whom would be Senator Crane, the chair. The reason for that is the government's incompetence in dealing with this legislation.This is a most serious matter. This legislation has its genesis in the proposals to restructure the Australian Wheat Board. The first set of legislation came before the parliament last year. Senators will remember that it was the opposition's recommendation at that time that, because of the serious issues that were still unresolved within the industry—I repeat: within the industry—the original legislation, the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1997, be withdrawn and that the whole package of legislation be brought back before this parliament this year.We were told that it was likely that the legislation, which is now the subject of consideration of the committee's report, would be available probably in May of this year. That was our recommendation, but our recommendation was not picked up. What ultimately happened was that the parliament debated and dealt with the first tranche of the legislation involving the restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board. But, as I said, there were very serious outstanding issues still to be resolved—issues which went to the structure of the new companies and the share allocation of the company to replace the Australian Wheat Board; issues relating to the appropriate way in which the wheat industry fund should be dealt with; and particularly important issues regarding the taxation treatment of grower funds within the wheat industry fund.Those issues were on the table and were still not resolved at the time the legislation was dealt with by this parliament last year. We were assured at the time that those issues would be resolved before the second set of legislation came before the parliament. Here it is now, 30 June, the end of the financial year and we have a situation where the committee has met and taken evidence from grower organisations around this country and it is still abundantly clear that there is no agreement across the broad range of organisations within the wheat industry. Even those organisations that support this legislation have raised serious reservations.In conclusion, Senator Crane's analysis of how this matter has come before the committee is incorrect. We have cooperated all the way with the government. It is on their hands that the legislation has not been dealt with.Adjournment4492Motion (by Senator Parer) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.449222:26:004492Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—One Nation has of recent times been the subject of numerous speeches and commentaries, and tonight I wish to add my few thoughts. The degree of support One Nation ostensibly enjoys and the reasons for it are the subject matter of my contribution this evening. At the outset let me place on record my concern at and repulsion of One Nation's policies. In so doing, I do not seek to con demn those who have voted in Queensland or indicated support through opinion polls.The policy elitism of recent years has been the factor in some members of our community expressing discontent with the established parties, which especially includes the Greens WA and the Democrats, who under the previous government were able to have too great a say about the issues of the day thereby often denying the aspirations of the vast bulk of Australians, some of whom are now rebelling. This political and policy elitism was, and still is, very destructive of our social fabric. The former Democrat leader admits to as much in an article in the Australian of Thursday, 18 June 1998. The Democrats are typical of that elitism, playing up to obscure policy positions and demanding their adoption in exchange for support at the expense of mainstream aspirations.The Greens WA are also typical of that elitism. The Tasmanian Green senator yesterday asked a question oozing with smarmy elitism—exactly the behaviour and attitude which so many are now rebelling against. Allow me to remind the Senate what the question was. It stated: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'?That kind of question is hurtful and divisive to many thousands within our Australian community. If you do not spend all your time in the wilderness and, in fact, you do bother to mix with real people, as I and my colleagues on this side do, you readily understand that many thousands of our fellow Australians use that pronunciation for their country in the pubs, clubs, the RSLs, at churches, at parents and friends groups, at the football—you name it. There are thousands of Australians who pronounce `Australia' in the fashion of the leader of One Nation.How she pronounces words is completely and utterly irrelevant to the debate. The Green WA attempt at personal humiliation because of a perceived lack of elocution should not disqualify any of us from partaking in the future of this country. That sort of question was typical of the divisiveness which I condemn One Nation for.On the basis of the Greens senator's concern about elocution, I suppose people like Dr Hewson and Robert Tickner, as two examples, should have been disqualified from participating in the national debate. The Greens senator may want us all to speak the Queen's English—a laudable aim but hardly vital. And the personal and immature attack of the Greens senator will undoubtedly drive more support to One Nation. Rather than concentrating on elocution, I suggest that we as a nation ought to be concentrating on content.The task for this country is not to engage in schoolyard bullyboy behaviour—trying to tease somebody about the way they speak—but rather to engage in the clash of ideas and vision for this nation. The strident commentaries of the Left and their fellow travellers have led to counter overreaction by elements of the community to the contrived overreaction by the Left to the policy positions of the day.Just take the 10-point plan, for example. The 10-point plan now looks so distinctly moderate next to One Nation's one-point plan, which is to totally abolish native title, a horrid prospect for this country. Yet our approach—which was moderate, which was considered, which was mature, which did take into account the possible reactions by different sides of the community—was pilloried by elements of the media who sought to portray it as extreme and racist, which it clearly is not. Those who need to live with native title and who do live with native title knew those allegations to be false. Unfortunately, what happens is that when moderate solutions are not successful otherwise moderate sensible people are seduced and/or driven by more extreme elements into the arms of more extreme solutions.A case in point is the avoiding of environmental issues by the major parties. As a result, the Green movement started. Similarly, if the mainstream view is not reflective of the aspirations of the people, you will then get other extreme organisations forming such as One Nation.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—And the Liberals.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Bartlett makes that marvellous interjection that the Liberal Party is somehow an extremist party—that from the person who claims to be the national campaign coordinator of the Australian Democrats reflects very poorly—3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—A substantial claim.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—on the Australian Democrats and, of course, indicates why their standing in the polls is receiving a substantial decline.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Look at One Nation in Tasmania, Senator Abetz.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Madam President, isn't it amazing how the Australian Democrats go to you and ask you for protection against interjections during question time and other occasions and then have the audacity to engage in exactly the same behaviour which they so piously object to in the media? And for the record, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja was the interjector and the worst offender.I will not allow myself to be distracted too much. In relation to the issue of the English language being spoken by our migrants, can I suggest that the One Nation policy is both hurtful and extreme. It would have meant that people such as Sir Arvi Parbo, Victor Chang and others may not have been able to come into this country and make the substantial contribution that they have made. And there would be very many Australians who feel very uncomfortable with One Nation's comments in relation to the speaking of the English language, because a lot of people within the community at large who are making a contribution today would have come to this country in the position of being hardly able to speak one word or a few words of English. So for One Nation to make those comments I find to be hurtful, distasteful and very divisive.I can understand their concern if their view is that migrants ought to be taught English and assisted with the language, because that is so vital if you are to participate within society. So what they ought to be arguing for, rather than their extremist policy, is the encouragement of migrants and the Australian migrant English program which the minister for immigration runs.There are other matters that I wanted to canvass. Time has run out, but what we as a nation need to do is not engage in the sort of petty politicking of the Greens senator during question time yesterday. What we have to deal with is the real issues, the real content, and debunk the policies of One Nation once and for all to ensure that they do not get any stronger foothold in this country.449422:36:004494Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I rise tonight to speak on a matter that is very important to a whole host of small businesses around this country involved in a whole range of activities, including the music industry. Primarily, I want to speak about government proposals in copyright amendment legislation to change the laws of this country that apply to copyright and, in particular, those that relate to the music industry.But there are two very important points to be made about how the government has gone about this. They brought in two bills: Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 and Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 . The first bill proposes to amend laws that relate to labelling and packaging. If those bills are passed by this chamber, they will have an immense effect on many small businesses around the country that have developed their business on the basis of a particular brand, label of a product or name of a product.As a member of parliament, I have received numerous letters from many of these businesses, saying that they were basically unaware of the government's intention to introduce such legislation. For many of them—some of them have developed their businesses over a long period—it would mean a significant decline in their business, or it could wipe them out altogether.As I say, I have received letters from the small business community. It is also interesting to note that a letter has been circulated to some members of parliament from the Sydney Olympic Games Organising Committee that goes to this very question of sponsorship and the impact that this legislation which has been proposed by the government could have on potential sponsors, particularly name brand sponsors like Nike, Adidas and others, who might be providing sponsorship through local businesses—the agents, agencies or distributors of those products in this country.I could not let it pass without saying something about fishing, for which I have a great love. I refer to people who have developed a business by distributing certain imported fishing products. Whilst we are developing a very capable and a very good domestic industry in the manufacture of fishing products, we still need to import them to a large degree. There is a national distributor for, say, Shimano fishing reels, which are considered to be among the top brand of fishing reels in various aspects of fishing—although, I have to say, not in my particular pursuit. They produce very good equipment and they are distributed through a national distributor and then there are sub-distributors in each state. Those people can, in effect, be wiped out by this government's legislative proposals. I have heard that the government intends to amend Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 1). To what extent, I do not know.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, the bill is on the Notice Paper . You should not be talking about the bill itself. You can canvass the issue, but not the bill.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I do apologise, Madam President. I refer to the government's policy proposal for this type of activity—that is, the current copyright laws in this country—and how it will affect businesses in this country. Having built up a business, they then have expenditure that relates to advertising, transport and all sorts of other things that go to generating employment within our community. I think the government has fundamentally underestimated just how important are the proposals that they intend to put and the effect that they will have.This is no more so than in the music industry. In the music industry, it would seem that the minister's view is to pursue a commitment given by the present government prior to the last election because they felt that it was a good thing to do politically; that it would deliver them some kudos politically to provide cheaper CDs to the Australian public. Everybody is in favour of cheaper everything; we all know that. But the reality is that, when it came down to it, the Senate committee which held an inquiry into this proposal found that all of the claims of the government, including those of the ACCC, were found wanting, on the basis of substantive evidence that these claims about cheaper CDs could not be supported.The minister made a few modifications to what he proposed. He said to the Australian public and to the music industry, `To protect you against the importation of pirated CDs, to protect you against all sorts of other manner of things illegal, we will reverse the onus of proof. That's what we'll do.' He said publicly, on any number of occasions, in radio interviews, et cetera, that that is what he would do. Unfortunately for the minister, the Attorney-General's Department said something quite different. They told the Senate committee that they could not and would not reverse the onus of proof.I recall asking the minister a question in this place as to what was meant by the reversal of onus of proof. He said that he did not really know, that he did not really have an opinion about that. It was rather odd that he had a number of opinions about it and how it could be achieved when he made those comments publicly. The reversal of onus of proof clearly means that you require a person—in this case, say, an importer—to prove that the product they intend to import does not breach the laws of this country. That is squarely what it means.In reality, even with what the government proposes to do, there is a very major legal problem for the music industry and the people in it. Even today, under the existing copyright laws, there is a major problem for the existing music industry to prove that the CDs that are imported into this country are illegal. It is only under the present copyright laws that there exists the possibility for them to even catch up with imported products. The copyright laws are restrictive, but they are restric tive for a very good, sound reason. The minister originally promoted the fact that the copyright laws had been changed in this country and in that country. In some countries, they have changed them back. Indeed, in one country, after 10 years of having the free market approach, they changed the law back because it had in effect wiped out their music industry.So that is what we need to avoid as a country. I suppose the fact is that, as you pointed out, I should not talk about the bills and it is against the standing orders to do so. But I am puzzled at the moment as to what the government is intending to do with their proposals. I have heard all sorts of things, like the government intends to slip off the agenda one proposal that relates to Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 1) but continue on the basis of the other because they think the other is more politically acceptable because the kids and mums out there will all go for cheaper CDs. Well, I say to the government: you have a responsibility to govern in the interests of the country—that is, all of the country—and you should not apply unjustifiable, indefensible processes. (Time expired)449522:46:004495Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I begin my adjournment speech tonight, not by dignifying Senator Abetz's comments. I can understand his spurious attacks on the Democrats, because he may be feeling a little vulnerable. I rise to actually support his comment that we should not mock the language of others. I should put on the record that the reason I interjected was to save the senator losing the flow of his arguments, as could have been the case had I taken a point of order when he was adversely reflecting on members of the Senate.I rise tonight to debate an issue that is often considered taboo in our community. I begin by commending the funding that is provided under the national illicit drugs strategy, whereby $27.7 million has been allocated to non-government organisations to treat drug problems, focusing on the prevention of illicit substance use abuse amongst young people in particular. I note that the funding applications actually close on 13 July this year.In Australia we have just had Treatment Works week, which actually coincided with the United Nations International Day against Drug Abuse on 26 June. I take this opportunity to congratulate not only all of those who were involved in that particular program but all of those who are in the front line around Australia in attempting to reduce drug-related harm. I think it takes special people to work in that particular field.Many social workers, health workers and youth workers have pointed out that criminality hampers education about drug abuse. In fact, one of the few media sources where I have actually heard realistic discussion about drug abuse and indeed the dangers of smoking marijuana and ways of getting help to stop has been Triple J. By freeing up police and legal resources used in the apprehension and punishment of marijuana users, we would have more funds available for health and social services. Illegality of drugs prohibits people from seeking help for addictions. It promotes secrecy, isolation and marginalisation.As Hazel Hawke has said, `We all need to be a little more honest about drug use'. The use of marijuana in our community is now widespread. Research demonstrates this: almost half of Australia's teenagers have tried marijuana and more than 10 per cent smoke at least once a week. We need to recognise these facts. A 1994 survey even showed that 35 per cent of Young Liberals and 34 per cent of members of federal parliament have, at some stage, smoked marijuana. Had they been caught, of course, it is unlikely that they would actually be here. Since they were arbitrarily lucky enough to escape punishment, I think they owe it to others not as fortunate to be a little more honest about whether or not they support existing laws in relation to drugs.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—But they didn't inhale.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I take that interjection—Senator Evans insists they did not inhale. But the possession of a criminal record by those who have inhaled or those who have been caught inhaling is a severe and serious penalty.There are paradoxes and there are inconsistencies in how decision-makers treat different drugs and drug problems. Alcohol and tobacco, which of course are legal drugs, are sold in clearly marked containers specifying the associated health risks, content and purity. Such a system applied to currently illegal drugs possibly would be an integral step towards reducing death by overdose.The Australian Democrats support harm minimisation over zero tolerance in relation to drug use. We believe drug abuse is a social and a health problem that should be addressed through medical and social services, not through the law and justice systems. We oppose the idea of making those people who choose to use marijuana criminals. We oppose the idea that otherwise law-abiding citizens should be turned into criminals for the personal use of a drug which is, according to the research, in widespread use—and has been in widespread use for many years.Although there are a number of groups on record who support our policy—the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform; even the AMA are on record supporting drug reform—the Democrats are the only major political party which has actually been prepared to put out a policy, state our beliefs and identify where we stand on this issue. In addition to the high levels of support for decriminalisation of marijuana by the bodies I have just mentioned, a 1994 poll of federal politicians found that more than half of them were in favour of decriminalisation.The South Australian government—in 1986—and, of course, the ACT government have relaxed laws in relation to marijuana. In effect, this is decriminalisation for small amounts. A report in May 1998 actually demonstrated that this change in South Australia's marijuana laws did not lead to an increase in use compared with other states. Since the 1970s, report after report has recommended decriminalisation of marijuana.I recently received a letter from a person in relation to our drugs policy who made some significant points about the existing government laws and policy. I quote:There can be little argument that abuse of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, is bad for an individual's health and detrimental to society. However, such harm is exacerbated by making substances illegal and hence, denying users access to health care and treatment programs. Today, despite the millions of dollars spent on law enforcement, drugs are available in nearly every city. In fact, marijuana is more readily available to school-age persons than alcohol—the black market is unlikely to ask for proof of age.This young person finished off by saying:End the war on drugs, release the prisoners, educate us.When reports show that 24 per cent of young people have used marijuana before they turn 16, we are clearly crying out for responsible public health education about this drug, for rational public debate, not only in the community and in the media but in the parliament.The Democrats are concerned about the fact that half the teenage population are risking criminal records because of the existing drug laws, but we are also concerned about the 10 per cent of teenagers who are smoking more than once a week.In February 1998 the World Health Organisation concluded that cannabis was safer than alcohol and tobacco. That report, I might add, was unsuccessfully suppressed despite political pressure. We do not pretend that marijuana is a harmless substance. It is relatively benign in comparison to alcohol or heroin, but we do bear in mind that 70 per cent of females aged 14 to 24 years of age and 50 per cent of males usually consume alcohol in quantities which are hazardous or harmful. We are particularly concerned about statistics such as those from 1996 which showed that about 200 15- to 24-year-olds died due to heroin. That was a substantial increase from 1988.There is a problem in mixing drugs. We know that it is unlikely that you could die from marijuana, except through a secondary source, but mixing drugs is risky. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the marijuana being used today is a great deal more potent than that which may have been commonly available 20 years ago.So the use of marijuana is not without serious health implications or issues—issues that we feel could be more readily addressed and more easily addressed if the use of marijuana was decriminalised. One of the reasons we support decriminalisation is that we believe there are potential dangers with marijuana use. The responsible use of any drug requires education. In a climate of fear and deception, where marijuana is swept under the table and where any drug debate is considered taboo, these serious health issues are not being properly addressed. A report to the United Nations General Assembly's special session on drugs earlier this year called for a shift in drug control policies from punishment to public health issues. It has been suggested that the global war on drugs is causing more harm than drug abuse itself.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) described the government's Tough on Drugs strategy launched in November last year as a balance between law enforcement and education, treatment and research. I believe that the balance is still far too much in favour of law enforcement. Justice James Woods noted that illicit drugs:. . . have an enormous impact on corrupting police, particularly police who are otherwise decent, law-abiding and efficient detectives.Drug issues are highly political, not least because the drug trade is highly lucrative. The drug economy is created by prohibition, which makes the commodity being illegally traded increasingly valuable.We live on the largest island in the world. We are not going to be successful in shutting off the supply of this drug, but we can do something about demand, particularly abuse, overuse and misuse. We can help people avoid drug abuse. Criminalising them is not the way. Marijuana and other drugs can do great harm—we acknowledge that—but prohibition and punishment is not preventing drug use. We call for a debate on these issues—not only a debate in the parliament but a rational debate in the community and the media. We believe we should be shifting the balance from criminalisation and treating this as a criminal issue to treating it as a social and health issue.449822:55:004498Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—It is quite fortuitous that Senator Stott Despoja has tonight raised the issue of drugs, particularly from the demand side, because I want to speak about the supply side. I want to speak about illicit drugs in the community.The fight against drugs should unite governments of all persuasions and not be used for political point scoring. It is a problem that should be tackled as a community, a community made up of people of all races, all walks of life and in fact all political parties. That is the point I wish to discuss tonight—that the fight against illicit drugs in New South Wales is being hampered by the Carr government's half-hearted commitment to work with the federal government, while it is constantly blaming the Commonwealth for the policy failures of the New South Wales government.For example, how hypocritical is it of Bob Carr and his government to take money confiscated from drug dealers and channel it into other areas? That is precisely what the Carr government has done. Mr Carr's police minister, Mr Whelan, told a recent parliamentary budget estimates committee that the Crime Commission, the body established to seize assets obtained through criminal activities, has taken a record $9.3 million from drug dealers since the legislation was widened last year to include organised crime. That amount is $4 million higher than for any previous year. Bob Carr, who likes to use any and every opportunity to try to deflect attention from his own incompetency, should surely practise what he preaches and use the funds in the war against drugs. After all, they were seized from people who profited from the misery of drugs.But Mr Whelan told the estimates committee that the proceeds from the sale of confiscated goods will be used to fund anti-crime measures, such as the government's $700,000 campaign to educate the public about the new laws in New South Wales covering the carry ing of knives. While this is a very worthy cause, surely Bob Carr should stick by his principles and use seized drug assets to combat drug use. It is not as if New South Wales is travelling at the front of the pack in combating illicit drugs. Victoria has arrested more heroin dealers in the past two years than New South Wales. New South Wales spends less per capita on law and order than any state other than Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. The real recurrent expenditure by New South Wales is $194 per head, compared with $210 for Victoria, $218 for Western Australia, $213 for South Australia and $195 for Tasmania. These are not the Commonwealth's figures. These are the figures published by the steering committee for the review of Commonwealth-state service provision. It is just another example of how the Carr government is failing the people of New South Wales.Obviously, Mr Carr's short-term memory problems have precluded him from acknowledging the government's Tough on Drugs strategy. That initiative was initially costed at $87.5 million over three years when it was announced last year, but such is the Commonwealth's commitment to the strategy that in this year's budget the funding was lifted to $215 million over five years.Just what a menace illicit drugs are can be gleaned from statistics released by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia. It found that in 1996 there were 634 heroin related deaths in Australia; up to 66 per cent of prisoners reported they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they committed their major crimes; more than 25 per cent of prisoners have a major drug problem; up to 80 per cent of property crime in New South Wales is drug related; illicit drugs are associated with more than 40,500 hospital bed days in Australia each year; on any given day specialist agencies provide residential or counselling services to more than 9,000 illicit drug users; and spending on illicit drugs amounts to some $57 billion a year.The Commonwealth is seriously committed to this fight, which is why it has increased spending to battle drugs. The additional spending will be broken into $50 million over four years for ways to address the use of drugs. This includes $21 million to strengthen the capacity of non-government treatment services to better assist those people with drug addiction and to help break the cycle of drug dependency and criminal behaviour; $4.36 million to evaluate and promote best practice in the treatment of illicit drug dependence; $15.5 million for a community-wide education and information campaign to discourage a new generation of drug users and addicts; and, $3.5 million to develop a strategic early warning system to alert governments to emerging drug problems. On top of this, there will be $50 million spent to find ways of tackling the supply side of the drug trade.Once again, Bob Carr's selective memory was in evidence when all these initiatives were announced. He seemed to forget that the Commonwealth has already funded three strike force teams, and three strike force teams are based in New South Wales. The funding from the Commonwealth for strike force teams is $15.5 million, more than the funds for the new strike force teams announced in the latest round of announcements for the drug strategy.The Commonwealth provided the funds for these new strike force teams because it recognises Sydney is a major gateway for the importation of drugs. In fact, the establishment of strike force teams could have led to calls from other states that they were being disadvantaged, but it did not because they recognised that the Commonwealth's strategy against drugs is not about winning votes but about saving lives and restoring shattered hopes.Bob Carr also likes to claim that the Commonwealth has cut expenditure for Australian Customs in its drug detection activities. Again, he is making up exaggerated stories to try to create a smokescreen to hide his own government's failures in the battle against drugs. The reality is that, between 1991 and 1995, the number of personnel in Customs fell by more than 700. Those years—1991 to 1995—were, of course, years of the Labor government but, under the coalition, things have steadily improved. In fact, Customs resources have been particularly targeted towards areas where they are likely to be of greatest benefit.For example, in the 1996 budget, $26 million was provided over three years for technology specifically designed to aid in drug detection and interception. The coalition has also upgraded the Customs marine fleet, which enables the department to undertake surveillance up to 300 nautical miles off the coast, and there has been increased funding to match the increase in passenger movements in and out of Australia.But it is in the area of heroin seizures that the result is most spectacular. In 1996 to 1997, Customs seized $40.6 million worth, compared with $15.4 million worth the previous year. The $40 million figure represents just under 170 kilos of seized heroin.Let us look at what that means in terms of use: 300 grams of heroin represents 6,000 hits, or one hit for every student in 10 large high schools; one kilo represents 20,000 hits, or 10 hits for every professional football player in Australia; five kilos represents 100,000 hits, or one hit for everyone who might go to an Australian Rules grand final at the MCG; 32 kilos, the amount seized in one haul in 1997, represents 650,000 hits, or one hit for every person in the Northern Territory and Tasmania; and, 78 kilos, the amount seized in Sydney in May 1997, represents one hit for every household in Sydney, or one hit for every 15- to 19-year-old person in Australia.It is clear then just what an impact the seizure of 170 kilos has on the illicit drug market, but still Bob Carr cannot bring himself to be positive. Bob Carr must stop his constant whine and whinge routine and, instead of his fatuous excuses, get stuck into the battle against drugs. His commitment seems to waiver.For instance, how can you be serious about the battle against drugs when you have police stations, such as that at Canterbury in Sydney, advising that they will be open only from nine to five on normal business days? Does Mr Carr really think that they are the only hours in which traffickers traffic? Instead of looking for cheap shots, Mr Carr should be directing his energy and attention to a positive and constructive approach to combating the flow of drugs into this country.The Commonwealth has already clearly spelt out its commitment to this objective through strategies, policing and funding. It is time Bob Carr did the same. The deaths of 634 Australians a year from heroin, most of them tragically young, should wake us all up to see that the problem is too important and too urgent to be reduced to the level of political tit for tat.23:05:004500Senate adjourned at 11.05 p.m.Documents45004500The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Commonwealth programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 1995-96— Handbook summary. Individual program descriptions.Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statement and supporting applications of issues—May 1998.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act—Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Australia's health 1998—Sixth biennial report.Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act—Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for the period 1 October to 31 December 1997 (NSB.QRM 41).Provision for running costs borrowings—Statement and supporting applications of issues—May 1998.Treaties—Bilateral — Text, together with national interest analyses— Agreement on Medical Treatment for Temporary Visitors between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand, done at Melbourne on 4 May 1998. Exchange of Notes, done at Canberra on 4 June 1998, constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America to further extend in force the Agreement relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap of 9 December 1966, as amended. Exchange of Notes, done at Canberra on 28 May 1998, constituting an Implementing Arrangement, between the Government of Australia and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) concerning Plutonium Transfers, under the Agreement with EURATOM concerning Transfers of Nuclear Material from Australia to EURATOM, and accompanying side Letter No. 2, of 21 September 1981, and the Implementing Arrangement concerning Plutonium Transfers of 8 September 1993. Treaty between Australia and the Republic of Poland on Extradition, done at Canberra on 3 June 1998. Regulation impact statement— Agreement on Mutual Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings, between Australia and the European Community. [Text of the Agreement and national interest analysis tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 26 May 1998. Revised national interest analysis tabled on 3 June 1998 ]Multilateral — Text, together with national interest analyses— Amendments, done at Oman in May 1998, to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling of 2 December 1946. Protocol done at Port Moresby on 29 April 1998 concerning the Peace Monitoring Group made pursuant to and amending the Agreement between Australia, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, New Zealand and Vanuatu concerning the neutral Truce Monitoring Group for Bougainville of 5 December 1997. Text, together with national interest analysis and regulation impact statement— International Telecommunication Union Final Acts of the World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC-95), done at Geneva on 17 November 1995—Partial Revision of the Radio Regulations of 5 December 1979. United Nations— Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination—Communication—No. 7/1995—Decisions: Paul Barbaro v. Australia . Committee on the Rights of the Child—Australia's first report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child— Australia's response to issues raised by the Committee, August 1997. Concluding observations of the Committee: Australia, 21 October 1997. Correspondence to the Committee regarding corrections to the draft summary records of the 403rd, 404th and 405th meetings, dated 10 and 16 October 1997 and 24 March 1998. Summary records of meetings— 403rd, Geneva, 24 September 1997. 404th, Geneva, 25 September 1997. 405th, Geneva, 25 September 1997. Tabling statement by the Attorney-General (Mr Williams). Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—Communications— No. 102/1998—Outline. No. 106/1998—Outline. Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Communications— No. 560/1993—Views: A v. Australia. No. 560/1993—Views: A v. Australia —Australian government response. No. 579/1994—Decisions: Klaus Werenbeck v. Australia. No. 692/1996—Views: A. R. J. v. Australia . No. 706/1996—Views: Mrs G. T. v. Australia . No. 737/1997—Outline. No. 762/1997—Outline. No. 772/1997— Outline. No. 776/1997—Outline. No. 802/1998—Outline.4501The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Air Force Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 134Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 160.Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposals Nos 13 and 14 of 1998. Australian Communications Authority Act—Radiocommunications (Charges) Determination No. 1 of 1997 (Amendment No. 2 of 1998).Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 143.Child Support (Assessment) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 164.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemptions Nos CASA 17/98 and CASA 25/98.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 161.Dried Fruits Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 144.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 137 and 138.Honey Levy Act (No. 1), Honey Levy Act (No. 2) and Honey Export Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 145.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 163.International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 135 and 136.Marine Navigation Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 166.Marine Navigation Levy Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 165.Marine Navigation (Regulatory Functions) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 167.Migration Act— General direction under section 499—General Direction No. 7 of 1998. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 139.National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act—Kakadu National Park— Comments on the representations on the fourth plan of management in respect of Kakadu National Park. Plan of management, dated June 1998. Representations on the fourth plan of management in respect of Kakadu National Park.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 141.Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 140.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 151 and 155. Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Deer Slaughter Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 150.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Grain Legumes Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 154.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Oilseeds Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 153.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Wheat Industry Fund Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 158.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Horticultural Export Charge Act and Horticultural Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 148, 149, 152, 156 and 157.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Horticultural Levy Act, Horticultural Export Charge Act and National Residue Survey Administration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 146.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act and National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 147.Radiocommunications Act— VHF High Band Frequency Band Plan (148 to 174 MHz) (Variation) 1998. VHF Mid Band Frequency Band Plan (70 to 87.5 MHz) (Variation) 1998.Rice Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 142.Social Security Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 159.Telecommunications Act— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 133. Telecommunications Numbering Plan Amendment (No. 2) 1998.Trade Practices Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 162.Answers to Questions on Notice4503The following answers to questions were circulated:4503(Question No. 1141)11414503Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 17 April 1998:(1) Given that nine departments have now answered in full the questions placed on notice on 16 October 1997 (questions on notice 902-916, Senate Notice Paper of 21 October 1997) relating to qualitative or quantitative research, on what basis was it decided that the department would not authorise the money, time and effort involved to assemble the information required to provide an answer to the question.(2) What qualitative or quantitative research has been undertaken by the department and its agencies since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) What was the nature of the research undertaken (sample sizes, questionnaire length, evaluation); and (b) to whom were the results of the research available.(4) In each instance, which firm or firms have been engaged to undertake this work.(5) In each instance, what has been the cost of the work undertaken.4503Parer, Sen WarwickSenator ParerKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) In December 1997, I advised that I was not prepared to authorise the utilisation of Departmental resources to provide a complete answer as I was concerned that the question could take in the `day to day research' of the portfolio.On the basis that the scope of the question is limited to research conducted by external agencies, I have asked my Department to compile the information to answer the honourable senator's questions.The following information details research conducted for the portfolio programs by external agencies between 3 March 1996 and October 1997.Program:Department of Industry, Science and Tourism Survey of AusIndustry client firms: research and development programs2. Survey of AusIndustry client firms: research and development programs.3. (a) 280 firms surveyed—140 responded—4 pages. To determine impact of program on grant recipients.(b) To AusIndustry Leadership Group only4. AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd; (AGB McNair).5. $54 650Survey of AusIndustry client firms: enterprise development programs2. Survey of AusIndustry client firms: enterprise development programs3. (a) 400 surveyed—147 responded—5 pages. To determine impact of program on recipients of EDP.(b)To AusIndustry Leadership Group only4. AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd; (AGB McNair).5. $54 650Survey on attitudes to business networking within the manufacturing and service sectors2. Survey on attitudes to business networking within the manufacturing and service sectors3. (a) 459 representatives from service sector SMEs—402 from manufacturing SMEs Telephone interviews(b) internal review4. AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd; (AGB McNair).5. $63 000Research and Development programs2. Benchmark research into awareness, attitudes and practice relating to Research and Development programs of AusIndustry3. (a) 650 telephone interviews—12 pages(b) AusIndustry Leadership Group; IR&D Board4. Worthington di Marzio Pty Ltd5. $50,000R & D Advertising Concepts2. R&D advertising concepts3. (a) 2 focus groups—2 pages. The extent to which the print conveyed the intended message and the importance of R&D Communications and Marketing Unit (b) IR&D Board; Office of Government Information and Advertising4. Office of Government Information and Advertising; Worthington di Marzio Pty Ltd5. $6,300Business Networks Program2. An investigation of the structure and operational characteristics of four networks participating in the business networks program.3. (a)4 networks—45 pages.(b) Offered over Business Networks Program website—no other publication.4. Elizabeth Fulop5. $15,000The Power PC Platform2. An examination of the process of formation and operation of an industry alliance which managed to develop a line of products to exploit the Power PC platform ahead of its global competitors.3. (a) Limited study into how two companies had progressed a particular technology into a particular market.(b) Availability of report was advertised on the Business Networks Program website.4. John Matthews5. $15,000Network Functioning2. An analytical examination of what constitutes a network, and what elements contribute to effective network functioning3. (a)literature review.(b) Offered Business Networks Program website—no other publication4. Stuart Clegg5. $15,000Networking Strategies2. An examination of different networking strategies employed in three different Asian economies.3. (a) literature review.(b) Offered over Business Networks Program website—no other publication4. Rene Kienzle/Mark Shadur5. $15,000Exploration of management competencies2. To explore the management competencies and practices of successful small and medium sized enterprise owners/managers within a regional.3. (a)243 respondents. 5 pages.(b) Offered over Business Networks Program website—no other publication 4. Bob Arnull5. $15,000Identification of nature of relationships in networks2. To identify the nature of the relationships which exist in networks and in particular to consider how these relationships can lead to success or failure for the network.3. (a)22 networks.(b) Offered over Business Networks Program website—no other publication4. Alan Buttery5. $15,000Effectiveness of the business network governance mechanisms2. To provide information on the usage and perceived effectiveness of the business network governance mechanisms3. (a) All 104 accredited network brokers in the BNP surveyed, 55 responded.(b) Offered over Business Networks Program website—no other publication4. Scott Holmes; Sharyn Smith; Ian Zimmer.5. $15,000R & D new information communications technologies2. Researching and developing the use and application of new information and communications technologies to support the operations of participants in the Business Network Program.3. (a) business networks brokers. 9 pages.(b) Not published4. Igor Hawryszkiewycz5. $15,000Quantifying awareness and understanding of business networking2. To quantify the awareness and understanding of business networking3. (a) 861 SMEs. telephone interviews(b) internal review4. AGB McNair/Scott Holmes5. No costEvaluation of HPCC Program2. Evaluation of the High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Technology Diffusion Program.3. (a) Sample size: the initial survey, consisting of structured telephone interviews, covered 200 firms. Seventeen in-depth interviews were also conducted with senior management in selected companies. Management of 9 HPCC centres was interviewed in depth. Questionnaire length: 7 Pages, covering 16 major questions containing various sub-sections.The final survey and reporting of results will take place in October of 1998.(b) The results of the research were available to the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism and to the bodies receiving funding under the program..4. Woolcott Research Pty Ltd5. The total cost of the work will be $148 500, paid as follows:April 1997—$54,000(Initial payment); January 1998—$16,000; May 1998—$20,000; October 1998—$58,000IT&T Strategic Alliance Networking Grant2. Survey to establish and promote strategic alliance networking among IT&T firms.3. (a) Participants in the survey were primarily members of small and medium sized enterprises established in most States, but also included multi-national enterprises in Australia.Sample size: Over 70 IT&T firms distributed over most States.Questionnaire length: 33 questions.(b) The results of the research will be available to the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, which commissioned the project.4. Australian Information Industry Association Ltd5. The total value of the grant including research activity was $120,000.Management of the Australian Photonics Project2. To review Australia's industry base involved in, or having the potential to benefit from, photonics technology.3. (a) The project involved in part: undertaking a small study of Australian industry using photonics/opto-electronics technology; and organising several workshops (Sydney and Melbourne) at which industry discussed an issues paper and the establishment of an industry forum.The research project involved open-ended interviews with representatives of industry and the research community, as well as the analysis of published material.(b) The research was presented to industry through workshops held in Sydney and Melbourne.4. The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering of the University of Sydney.5. The total cost of the work was $35 000.Consultancy on behalf of the Australian Building Code2. Educational needs of practitioners. 3. (a) Key stakeholders (including industry bodies, professional associations, education providers, government bodies in each state and territory and building practitioners) were contacted by mail and asked a series of questions. Over 150 parties were contacted.(b) A discussion paper was prepared and circulated. Focus group meetings were subsequently held in all capital cities and 1 regional centre. Feedback was provided to participants at the focus groups meetings. The results of the information were analysed by the consultants and included in their working papers (which have subsequently been incorporated into a consolidated document containing the proposed education directions for the ABCB.The results of the research will be available when the Education Strategy is released later this year.4. Impact Consulting Group.5. $38,200.00Developing a financial model for Australian building and construction firms2. Financial model for Australian building and construction firms to use in international urban development projects.3. (a) The research undertaken by the consultant was qualitative information obtained from discussions with industry service providers. Survey's and/or questionnaires were not used.(b) Three reports have been prepared and are currently being finalised by the consultant. These reports are:. Industry Advice:Model for Australian Industry Involvement in International Urban and Infrastructure Development in Indonesia;. Kasiba Driyorejo Preliminary Feasibility Study Report; and Study Report.. The Kasiba Driyorejo Preliminary Feasibility Study Report and Industry Advice Report will be made available to Australian building and construction firms, financiers and government.4. Hassell Pty Ltd.5. $180,000.00.Risk, liability and insurance—proposed launch and re-entry of aerospace vehicles2. A study into the risk, liability and insurance aspects associated with the proposed launch and re-entry of Kistler aerospace vehicles from and into Australian territory.3. (a) In June 1997 the company produced The Report on the Risk, Liability & Insurance Aspects of the Proposed Launch & Re-entry in Australia of the Kistler Aerospace Vehicle. (b) The report was ordered exclusively for internal working needs of the Space Policy Unit. Its length is 16,423 words.4. Willis Corroon Inspace5. $30,000.00Economic effects and outcomes of current proposals2. Research of economic effects and outcomes, costs and benefits to Australia of proposals for commercial space launches.3. (a) A report analysing the viability and benefits of various proposals was produced in June 1997.(b) The report is commercial-in-confidence information. It was intended exclusively for internal working needs of the Space Policy Unit. The length of the report is 11,082 words.4. Price Waterhouse5. $30,000.00Automotive Industry2. Study on strategic importance of the Australian automotive industry3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. Australian Automotive Intelligence5. $46,000Automotive industry productivity study2. Automotive industry productivity study3. (a)Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. Ernst & Young5. $188,029Automotive industry technology and skills2. Study of the technology and skills base of the automotive industry3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. Invetech Operations5. $68,150Assessment of technology base of automotive industry2. Assessment of technology base of automotive industry in relation to the non auto-motive industry.3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. Invetech Operations5. $15,000Light metals benchmarking study2. Light metals benchmarking study 3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. KPMG Peat Marwick5. $120,000Forest products benchmarking study2. Forest products benchmarking study3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. Margules Groome Poyry5. $162,000Australia as a regional financial services centre2. Study on Australia as a regional financial services centre3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. Allen Consulting and Arthur Andersen5. $266,250Evaluation of Very High Speed Train (VHST) project2. Evaluation of Very High Speed Train (VHST) project: summary report3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. Catalyst Communications5. $16,947Review of International Best Practice in Adoption and Management of Technology2. Case Study for the Department's Review of International Best Practice in the Adoption and Management of Technology3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. Griffith University, Centre for Technology Management5. $3,400Processed foods market2. Processed foods market access study3. (a) Evaluation study(b) results of research for internal use4. International Trade Strategies5. $31,8301997 International Visitor Survey2. A survey of international visitors prior to their departure from Australian international airports during 1997.3. (a) A sample of 20,000 visitors were interviewed on departure from Australia. (b) BTR analyses the data and produces statistical reports which are available to the general public.4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Services).5. The 1997 contract price is $874,998.1996 International Visitor Survey2. A survey of international visitors prior to their departure from Australian international airports during 1996.3. (a) A sample of 12,000 visitors to be interviewed prior to departure(b) BTR analyses the data and produces statistical reports which are available to the general public4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd).5. The 1996 contract price was $727,100.1995 International Visitor Survey2. A survey of international visitors prior to their departure from Australian international airports during 1995.3. (a) A sample of 12,000 visitors to be interviewed prior to departure.(b) BTR analyses the data and produces statistical reports which are available to the general public4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd)5. The 1995 contract price was $709,500.1996 International Visitor Survey Ecotourism Supplement.2. Conducted as a supplement to the 1996 International Visitors Survey over the period 1 January to 31 March 1996.3. (a) The survey was conducted by BTR on behalf of DIST. The sample size was approximately 750.(b) A report is being prepared by BTR for DIST and may be published for general availability.4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd).5. The contract price was $34,500.1995-96 Backpacker Visitor Survey2. Conducted as a supplement to the 1995 and 1996 International Visitor Survey over the period July 1995 to June 1996.3. (a) Conducted by BTR and commissioned by DIST. The sample size was 1000.(b) BTR published a report for general availability 4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd).5. The contract price was $97,000.1995-96 International Visitor Survey: supplementary survey of rural tourism2. Conducted as a supplement to the 1995 and 1996 International Visitor Surveys over the period July 1995 to June 1996.3. (a) Conducted by BTR and commissioned by DIST. The sample size was 3800.(b) BTR is analysing the data and will publish a report for general availability.4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd).5. The contract price was $26,9001996 International Visitor Survey: supplementary survey of international telephone calls.2. The survey was conducted as a supplement to the 1996 IVS over the period 1 April 1996 to 30 September 1996.3. (a) Commissioned by Telstra. The sample size was 6,000.(b) Results were supplied exclusively to Telstra4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd).5. The contract price was $29,700.1996 International Visitor Survey: supplementary survey on Aboriginal arts2. Conducted as a supplement to the 1996 IVS over the period 1 October to 31 December 1996. The sample size was 2,600.3. (a) Conducted for the Australia Council. The sample size was 2,600.(b) Results were supplied to the Australia Council.4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd).5. The contract price was $18,750.1996 International Visitor Survey: supplementary survey on cultural attitudes and motivations2. Conducted as a supplement to the 1996 IVS over the period 1 July to 31 December 1996. The sample size was 2,329.3.(a) Conducted for the Department of Communications and the Arts (DoCA). The sample size was 2,329.(b) BTR is analysing the data and will publish a report for general availability.4. AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now AC Nielsen Research Pty Ltd).5. The contract price was $36,790. Provision of assistance for development of the National Visitor Survey2. Assistance in development of the National Visitor Survey3. (a) Provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for BTR acting on behalf of the Commonwealth and all State and Territory tourism authorities.(b) The results of the survey were made available to BTR and the steering group responsible for development of the National Visitor Survey. The steering group included tourism research managers of Commonwealth, State and Territory tourism authorities.4. Australian Bureau of Statistics5. $18,530.1996-97 Domestic Tourism Monitor2. Survey of Domestic Tourism3. (a) A sample of approximately 62,500 Australian residents, interviewed at home about travel that they have done in Australia. Conducted as a component of an Omnibus survey of consumer opinion. The length of interview varies according to the number of trips and other aspects of the visitor's travel in Australia. Detailed tabulations of data are produced for the Bureau of Tourism Research (BTR)(b) The detailed data produced for BTR is provided to Commonwealth, State and Territory Tourism Authorities who collectively fund the survey. BTR analyses the data and produces statistical reports which are available to the general public.4. Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd5. The contract price was $395,800.1995-96 Domestic Tourism Monitor2. Survey of Domestic Tourism3. (a) A sample of approximately 62,500 Australian residents, interviewed at home about travel that they have done in Australia. Conducted as a component of an Omnibus survey of consumer opinion. The length of interview varies according to the number of trips and other aspects of the visitor's travel in Australia. Detailed tabulations of data are produced for the Bureau of Tourism Research (BTR)(b) The detailed data produced for BTR is provided to Commonwealth, State and Territory Tourism Authorities who collectively fund the survey. BTR analyses the data and produces statistical reports which are available to the general public.4. Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd5. The contract price was $378,430. Domestic Tourism Monitor: Supplementary survey of rural tourism, April 1996 to March 19972. Conducted as a supplement to the 1995-96 and 1996-97 DTM over the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997.3. (a) Conducted for DIST. The sample size was 11,840.(b) BTR is analysing the data and will publish a report for general availability.4. Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd5. The contract price was $89,125.Production of tables for the Domestic Tourism Monitor annual 1994-952. Publication tables were produced for inclusion in the 1994-95 annual DTM report.3. (a) Tables prepared for BTR on behalf of the Commonwealth and all State and Territory tourism authorities.(b) The tables were for inclusion in the Domestic Tourism Monitor annual publication. This publication, produced by BTR, is available to the general public.4. Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd.5. The contract price was $7,020.Analysis of the Domestic Tourism Monitor break in data series2. Statistical analysis of the size and nature of the break in series which occurred in the Domestic Tourism Monitor as a result of a change in survey contractor.3. (a) A statistical analysis of the size and nature of the break in series that occurred in the DTM as a result of a change in survey contractor. this break occurred in 1994, when the survey contractor changed from being AGB McNair Pty Ltd (now ACNielson Research Pty Ltd) to Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd. A consulting report titled "The effect on Domestic Tourism Trends Caused by Changing DTM Consultant from 1994/95" was prepared by CSIRO in April 1997.(b) The report was supplied to Commonwealth, State and Territory government tourism research managers and other interested parties on request.4. CSIRO.5. The contract price was $6,500Surveys of Tourism Accommodation2. Survey of Tourism Accommodation Developments—June 19963. (a) The ABS surveyed several hundred developer around Australia asking the location, size and value of hotel/motel and other tourism accommodation projects under construction. The intention is to provide information about the impending supply of new accommodation. (b) The survey results are published by the ABS and used by the Tourism Forecasting Council and potential investors to better inform markets about the need for further developments.4. Australian Bureau of Statistics5 $16,500.Surveys of Tourism Accommodation2. Survey of Tourism Accommodation Developments—February 19973. (a) The ABS surveyed several hundred developer around Australia asking the location, size and value of hotel/motel and other tourism accommodation projects under construction. The intention is to provide information about the impending supply of new accommodation.(b) The survey results are published by the ABS and used by the Tourism Forecasting Council and potential investors to better inform markets about the need for further developments.4. Australian Bureau of Statistics5 $16,500.Survey of Travel Agents2. Survey of travel agents relating to their use of Information Technology3. (a) A telephone survey of 326 travel agents was undertaken; respondents were asked to respond to 18 questions and the consultant provided a number of conclusions on the use of IT by travel agents(b) The results of the research are available to the Department and may be supplied to other organisations where appropriate.4. ACA Research P/L5. $5,000Rural and Remote Households2. Research related to the consumer education needs of households located in "rural and remote" Australia.3. (a) The consultant used a sample of 1000 households randomly selected from across "rural and remote" Australia. The questionnaire contained 34 questions, of which, 15 were used to establish demographics and the remaining 19 related to consumer issues. The consultant prepared an evaluation report of her analysis for publication.(b) The evaluation report has been published as The Consumer Needs of Rural and Remote Australians which was distributed to all members and senators, state and territory consumer affairs agencies, some Federal Departments and community and consumer groups. The executive summary of the report is posted on the Departmental "home page". The report is available to the public free on request. 4. Lisa Bourke—James Cook University.5. $17,800Nursery Furniture—Injury Data2. Review and analysis of recent Australian and international literature and data on injuries associated with nursery furniture and bunk beds.3. (a) The consultant produced a comprehensive report of findings including a summary of the relevant data available in Australia and internationally.(b) The comprehensive report was provided to the Department. The Department convened a reference group of consumer agencies, child safety experts and industry representatives to review the report and develop strategies to address identified problems. The strategies included the production and distribution to the Australian public of brochures and booklets containing information on nursery furniture safety issues. In addition the consultant's report was published in the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) series.4. Monash University5. $19,900Study on Science and Technology Education in Primary SchoolsThe study comprised three separate segments conducted by:(i) Anchorage Educational Services(ii) McBryde Trading Pty Ltd(iii) Professor Peter J. Fensham2. Anchorage Educational Services (AES) undertook a number of case studies for the ASTEC study.3. (i) (a) AES visited seven schools in the NT and eight in Qld. The research was by way of structured interviews with principals, teachers and children. On average about 20 topics were discussed with principals and teachers and 10 with students. Roughly speaking, this could equate with 20 and 10 questions respectively. AES provided its report to ASTEC.(b) This report was not released publicly but instead provided an input to ASTEC's larger report which was released publicly in May 1997. ASTEC's study also formed the basis of two presentations to the Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council (PMSEC).(ii) (a) McBryde Trading Pty Ltd did similar work to AES but for Tasmania. Eight schools were visited. Approximately 20 topics were discussed with principals and teachers and 10 with students.(b) The report of MT P/L was to ASTEC who used it as an input to their larger report. (iii) (a) Prof Fensham wrote a review of the academic literature in relation to teaching science and technology to younger children. There was no questionnaire used.(b) His report was used as input to the ASTEC study. Although Fensham's report is ASTEC's property, the Council did grant Fensham permission to publish his report in a not-for-profit manner.4. (i) Anchorage Educational Services(ii) McBryde Trading Pty Ltd(iii) Professor Peter J. Fensham5. (i) $2,650(ii) $6,974(iii) $12,000Competitiveness Study on Australia's Information Industries2. A qualitative consultancy to analyse and report on, and recommend actions to improve the competitiveness of, the Australian Information Industries.3. (a) Research was undertaken through examination of private and published data, workshops, face to face interviews with around 200 senior information industry executives in Australia and overseas, and interviews with industry bodies. As part of this process interviews were held with 30 multinational companies in Japan and the USA, in order to contrast and validate their perceptions of the investment attractiveness of Australia and the attractiveness of its domestic market. No questionnaire was administered.(b) The results of this research are in a publicly available report: Spectator or Serious Player?: Competitiveness of Australia's Information Industries, published in March, 1997.4. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry was engaged to organise this consultancy. The consultancy work was awarded by the Chamber to a consortium of the Allen Consulting Group Pty Ltd and Allen & Buckeridge Pty Ltd, on 6 September 1996. The report was published in March 1997.5. $500,000Program: IP AustraliaStaff attitude survey2. This survey was conducted in April 1997 to enable AIPO to obtain a baseline measurement of employee perceptions and attitudes across a range of key cultural and performance dimensions using key questions which focus on AIPO's vision, values and strategic objectives.3. (a) The survey consisted of 56 questions based on the Australian Quality Council criteria. It was a bi-variant survey which provided measures of the perceptions of employees as to what areas of performance were important to AIPO and how well AIPO was performing in these areas. The survey provided an opportunity for AIPO to benchmark itself against other high performance organisations and provide the ability to measure AIPO's performance over time. It also provided employees with the opportunity to communicate openly and honestly with senior management.The survey was open to all employees and some 559 out of 750 took part.(b) The results of the survey were available to all employees. The results were used as part of an ongoing program of measurement of performance based on the Australian Quality Council criteria. It provided the basis for a plan to improve performance in key areas of the Australian Quality Council criteria.4. Falls Corporate Research5. $12,000Survey of telephone traffic on the State Office Network 1300 number2. This research comprised analysing telephone traffic volumes and measuring the rate of successful calls to the State Office Network's 1300 number.3. (a) Two reports were commissioned (in November 1996 and April 1998), and Telstra's MIS system was also installed in August 1997 to provide data on a monthly basis.(b) The reports and data are available to management at IP Australia.4. Telstra5. $6,000General Client Survey2. This survey began in November 1995 and continued after 3 March 1996.3. (a) It comprised 35 in-depth open-ended discussions and 350 telephone questionnaires of 20 questions (depending on the segment). The results were evaluated to determine:. customer recognition of AIPO's name and services;. behaviour with respect to industrial property;. customer satisfaction;. strategies for improving communication and services.(b) Results of the research were made available to all staff of IP Australia and key stakeholders.4. Woolcott Research P/L5. $84,900New Business and Service Delivery2. New business and service delivery3. (a) This survey was conducted in 1997, and comprised 115 in-depth open-ended discussions and 868 telephone questionnaires of approximately 30 questions. The following evaluation occurred: Focus ObjectivesState OfficeAIPOTrade MarksTrade MarksAIPO Patents. profile of State Office customers . assess customer needs and motivationsMotivations and uses (include effectiveness) for information packsCustomer satisfaction 1. issues and identification 1. satisfaction measurementAssess inexperienced and potential users needs, attitudes and intentionsAssess reaction to the service standards outlined in Customer Service Charter(b) Results of the research were made available to all staff of IP Australia and key stakeholders.4. Woolcott Research P/L5. $84,300Organisational Self Assessment (Guided)—Australia Quality Awards Framework2. This guided self assessment (GSA) occurred in August 1996.3 (a) The Assessment comprised three major steps:. qualitative research (focus groups);. data collation and analysis and development of recommendations (AQC);. implementation planningThe GSA involved 142 participants, and focused on the methods that management used to organise its systems and people to achieve the organisational purpose and goals. There were 191 questions targeted at three main organisational areas:. organisation-wide approach and systems perspective;. department-wide approach and implementation;. effectiveness of implementation at section level(b) Results of the research were made available to all staff via presentations and a written report summarising the key findings including strengths and opportunities.4. The Australian Quality Council5. $21,000Program: Australian Tourist CommissionTravel Australia Business Show Survey2. Travel Australia Business Show Survey3. (a) Self completion questionnaires from 400 buyer and seller delegates in order to ascertain the overall level of satisfaction with the Business Show and to provide an indication of the user's needs for future events.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A21,750. Australian Tourism Exchange (ATE) Evaluation2. Australian Tourism Exchange (ATE) Evaluation3 (a) Self completion questionnaires from 600 buyer and seller delegates as well as another 100 executive interviews in order to ascertain the overall level of satisfaction with ATE and to provide an indication of the user's needs for future events.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A34,700.Japan Continuous Tracking Study2. Japan Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face continuos tracking study with 40 participants per week in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Sutherland Smith Ringham.5. $A254,427.Taiwan Continuous Tracking Study2. Taiwan Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face continuous tracking study with 40 participants per week in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Sutherland Smith Ringham.5. $A166,183.UK Continuous Tracking Study2. UK Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face continuous tracking study with 40 participants per week in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Sutherland Smith Ringham. 5. $A80,953.USA Continuous Tracking Study2. USA Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face continuous tracking study with 40 participants per week in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Sutherland Smith Ringham.5. $A173,064.New Zealand Continuous Tracking Study2. New Zealand Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face continuous tracking study with 40 participants per week in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Sutherland Smith Ringham.5. $A195 913.Germany Continuous Tracking Study2. Germany Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face omnibus study with 1000 participants in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A90,900.Singapore Continuous Tracking Study2. Singapore Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face omnibus study with 950 participants in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A58,000.Thailand Continuous Tracking Study2. Thailand Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face omnibus study with 1000 participants in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign. (b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A49,660.Hong Kong Continuous Tracking Study2. Hong Kong Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face omnibus study with 950 participants in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A46,450.Malaysia Continuous Tracking Study2. Malaysia Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face omnibus study with 900 participants in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A55,800.Indonesia Continuous Tracking Study2. Indonesia Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face omnibus study with 1000 participants in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A69,850.Korea Continuous Tracking Study2. Korea Continuous Tracking Study3. (a) Face to face omnibus study with 900 participants in order to establish the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $A52,700.New Zealand Concept Development Research 2. New Zealand Concept Development Research3. (a) Eight mini group qualitative discussion groups to evaluate creative concept compliance with brand and advertising strategies and to determine ability to motivate audience to consider travelling to Australia.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Colmar Brunton Research New Zealand.5. $NZ65,250.New Zealand Advertising Pre-Testing Research2. New Zealand Advertising Pre-Testing Research3. (a) Face to face interviews with 100 participants to evaluate advertisements' compliance with the brand and advertising strategies and to determine ability to motivate audience to consider travelling to Australia.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Millward Brown.5. $A23,900.Japan Advertising Strategy Research2. Japan Advertising Strategy Research3. (a) Six focus group discussions as well as in depth interviews with 10 participants to identify the most persuasive appeals that will motivate travel to Australia and to explore holiday decision making process.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. UTIL Inc.5. Yen 6,000,010.USA Conversion Study2. USA Conversion Study3. (a) Telephone interviews with 860 participants in order to profile American long haul travellers attitudes towards travel and to Australia as a destination.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Yankelovich Partners.5. $A165,000.Community Attitudes to International Tourism2. Community Attitudes to International Tourism 3. (a) Nine focus groups across urban and rural Australia in order to explore community attitudes to international tourism and perceptions of social, economic and environmental impacts.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Keys Young.5. $A76,800.Asia Concept Development Research2. Asia Concept Development Research3. (a) Six focus groups in five markets (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand), as well as 200 central location interviews in Taiwan and Hong Kong to explore the most persuasive appeals that will motivate travel to Australia and to evaluate the creative concepts' compliance with overall strategy.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Frank Small and Associates.5. $US204,640.Japan Concept Development Study2. Japan Concept Development Study3. (a) Six focus groups as well as ten in-depth interviews in Tokyo to evaluate the creative concepts' compliance with the specified brand and advertising strategies.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. UTIL Inc.5. Yen 5,536,560.Japan Advertising Post Test Research2. Japan Advertising Post Test Research3. (a) Face to face interviews with 300 participants to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising campaign in Japan.(b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Millward Brown.5. $A57,252.Visiting Journalists Program Evaluation2. Visiting Journalists Program Evaluation3. (a) Self complete questionnaire to explore the most efficient process needed to organise a visiting journalist program. (b) The results of the research were for the Australian Tourist Commission Board and management as well as State/Territory tourism authorities and industry partners.4. Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler.5. $A8,500.Program: Australian Institute of Marine ScienceFish Recruitment Surveys2. To count fish recruits on the Great Barrier Reef3. (a) Underwater fish counts(b) Results made public.4. Sea Research5. $280,000Prawn Biotechnology2. Bioanalysis of prawn material3. (a) Study and analysis of prawn material(b) Results incorporated in research publications4. University of New South Wales5. $20,000Program: Australian Nuclear Science and Technology OrganisationCommunity Attitudes Survey2. Community Attitudes Survey3. (a) Survey carried out in February 1997. Sample size: 915. Questionnaire length: 22 primary questions, some with sub-questions. Evaluation: 85pps.(b) Results available to the public.4. Keys Young5. $41,000Program: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationIncreased cropping in higher rainfall zones on sheep production2. Examination of the economic impact of increased cropping in higher rainfall zones on sheep production.3. (a) Analysis of available data(b) CSIRO4. Mr John Young, economics consultant of Farming Systems Analysis Service5. $2,110Public Attitude Survey2. The survey was testing the public's awareness of CSIRO and seeking information on their attitudes to science and technology3. (a) Sample size 1060 respondents. Nine questions testing awareness of CSIRO and attitudes to science and technology, asked as sub-part of regular national omnibus survey of the general public on various topics.(b) The public were made aware of responses to general science and technology questions through a media release. Answers to questions about CSIRO were available to CSIRO staff.4. AGB McNair5. $17,400CSIRO Post Exit Survey2. Survey of staff following departure from CSIRO.3. (a) Sample Size: 605. Questionnaire Length: 6 PagesEvaluation: Performed by HRM Consulting.(b) Chief Executive and Executive Committee CSIROUnions via Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.4. HRM Consulting Pty Ltd ACN 010 451 377.5. $6,714.79Food Processing Industry2. Research into experiences, perceptions and preferences of past, current and potential customers in the food processing industry on behalf of CSIRO's Food Processing Sector3. (a) All exploratory research, questionnaire design, mailing list development, and data analysis was undertaken by CSIRO staff.(b) CSIRO4. Two external suppliers were used to support this activity: a mailing house, Direct Effect, was used to mail out approximately 120 questionnaires. A database designer, Masterware, developed a Filemaker Pro database format for input of data by CSIRO staff.5. The costs totalled $3499Software Introduction2. BCAider—Market analysis for software introduction.3. (a) Sample size of 80—face to face and desktop. 2 page questionnaire. and NatHERS—market analysis for software introduction. Sample size of 30—face to face. 2 page questionnaire.(b) Confidential reports presented to CSIRO.4. Both projects undertaken by Insight Marketing Strategy Ltd.5. $5,000 and $4,000 respectivelyDietary Intake2. A survey was undertaken of dietary intakes of 400 consumers in Japan, Korea and Taiwan.3. (a) Information was gathered through an interview process with each interview lasting 1 hour. The survey was designed and analysed by CSIRO Human Nutrition. Data collection was undertaken by a contractor.(b) The results were released only to the Meat Research Corporation, the client which commissioned the research.4. Research in Japan and Taiwan was undertaken by Frank Small and Associates (Australian Company) Research in Korea was undertaken by Rearck Pty Ltd (Australian Company).5. Fee for Frank Small and Associates: $68,745; Fee for Rearck Pty Ltd: $28,830; Total: $97,575.Petroleum Industry2. The research involved the development of a methodology for quantifying the results of past research and identifying the potential impact of new projects in reducing production costs for the petroleum industry, particularly focusing on the issues facing the Australian petroleum industry.3. (a) The methodology was applied to a number of case studies and used in discussing the future research directions for CSIRO Petroleum with industry representatives. Information was obtained by direct interviews with a sample of companies representing the diversity of industry users of research (not by questionnaires) and rigorous economic modelling techniques applied to determine the value adding capability of successful research projects.b) The information has been compiled into a report entitled "Report of a Series of Activities Concerned with the Value and Capability of CSIRO Petroleum", which is an internal CSIRO document. From the results of this study CSIRO Petroleum has documented its research capabilities into a marketing document entitled "A Statement to the Petroleum Industry on CSIRO's Capability". This was launched at the annual meeting of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association meeting held in Canberra in March 1998; a copy being provided to all 850 industry delegates attending the conference. The document has been reprinted and is being used extensively in marketing the capabilities of CSIRO Petroleum to potential collaborators as well as industry users of our expertise.4. ACIL Consulting Pty Ltd, were engaged to undertake the study and assist in the production of the Capability Statement.5. The cost of undertaking the Value of Research study and the development of the Capability study was $83,000.Staff Survey2. A pre-merger survey of two CSIRO Divisions Staff Satisfaction was undertaken in the first half of 1997 to establish a benchmark against which post-merger performance could be measured. 3. (a) The effectiveness or otherwise of issues such as Divisional Management, Program/Project Management, support activities, Performance Planning and Evaluation processes, communication, IT, CRC activities, commercial performance etc were measured. All staff were invited to respond to a questionnaire.(b) A comprehensive report containing an analysis of the survey findings on a Program by Program basis was widely available to all staff.4. The Statistical Consulting Centre, University of Melbourne.5. $7,000Living Microalgae Collection2. CSIRO Living Microalgae Collection;. The nature of the consultancy was to develop a strategy to market the collection and prepare a capabilities document.3. (a) see 2(b) The results were made available within CSIRO Division of Marine Research to the Project Leader of Microalgal Collection and Biotechnology Project and the Program Leader of the Aquaculture and Biotechnology Research Program.4. Eureka Communications Pty Ltd.5. $93,100Australian Resource Information and Environment Satellite (ARIES)2. To conduct a quantitative survey of remote sensing users in Australia and overseas and to assess interest in hyperspectral satellite imagery.3. (a) Survey research(b) The research was used by the ARIES consortium in determining the feasibility of the project.4. Marketshare Pty Ltd.5. Total cost $17,000Customer Survey2. Survey of potential users of ARIES information.3. (a) 300 two page questionnaires were sent to both Australian and overseas potential users with a total of 140 questionnaires returned.(b) The results were made available to the ARIES consortium.4. Marketshare Pty Ltd.5. Total cost: $17,000.Commercialising the rock mechanics laboratory2. Rock Mechanics Laboratory; survey of the possibility of commercialising the rock mechanics laboratory3. (a) qualitative survey of the possibility of commercialising the rock mechanics laboratory; 20 respondents, Australia wide. (b) Research results made available to management and staff associated with the rock mechanics laboratory.4. Insight Plus5. $625Sector Marketing Plan2. Sector Marketing Plan; preparation of background material for Sector Marketing plan.3. (a) preparation of background material for Sector Marketing plan(b) Results made available to senior CSIRO Sector management.4. Marketshare Pty Ltd5. $9,987Program: Australian Customs ServiceOrganisational Self-Assessment (OSA)2. The purpose of this research is to evaluate Customs performance against the seven Australian Quality Award Criteria.3. (a) Research was carried out in November 1996 and February 1997. Data analysis, resulting reports and Executive action planning all occurred during the period March 1997-August 1997. A questionnaire was used to obtain quantitative data. Separate questionnaires were used for staff, managers and the Executive. A total sample of 659 staff (15% of population) participated.(b) The ensuing reports were made available to the Minister for Customs, the Executive and all Customs staff.4. Australian Quality Council5. $45,100Industry Survey (IS)2. The purpose of this survey was to measure industry attitudes to Customs. This survey focussed on those industries involved in the inward movement of cargo and excise producers.3. (a) The overall survey was conducted in three phases; Qualitative Research, Industry Survey, and Industry Contact Officers Survey.(b) Three reports were produced (one for each phase of the survey) and distributed to the Minister for Customs, all industry representatives that participated in the depth interviews, the relevant peak industry bodies and Customs staff, using a mixture of electronic and hard copy.4. AC Nielsen5. $69,500Low Value Goods Survey2. Low Value Goods Survey (LVGS)3. (a) Customs identified in 1997 that a survey of low value goods was required to determine the volume of low-value consignments, the revenue forgone because of the low value exemptions, and the degree of abuse of these conditions due to undervaluation, etc. A random sample of arriving low-value import consignments was inspected and the details recorded by Customs officers. The survey involved Customs inspections, not questionnaires/interviews. The sample size was 4107 consignments, spread over several different consignment types.(b) The results were supplied to the JCPA, both in writing and in presentations at public hearings. Access by interested parties will be via the final JCPA public report.4. AC Nielsen5. Initial Design phase (to Oct 97): $17,450/Survey conduct and report: $74,661 (Post Oct 97)Diesel Fuel Review and Control2. Diesel Fuel Review and Control (DFR&C)3. (a) In March 1997, a questionnaire was prepared and sent to 2023 Diesel Fuel Mining claimants. The survey was a pilot for the collection of operational data on Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme (DFRS) claimants for risk assessment purposes. The questionnaire included 24 questions. The form was in machine-readable format and the majority of the questions required the claimant to only cross the appropriate box/es.(b) The information gained from the survey will be used for internal research and profiling purposes for the DFRS.4. Hermes Precisa Australia5. $18,990Customs Advice for Travellers2. Customs Advice for Travellers (CAT)3. (a) To examine the content, distribution and effectiveness of the Customs Information for Travellers booklet. Eureka Strategic Research (ESR) conducted a total of eight focus group discussions (six with travellers & two with ticket sellers). Travellers groups focused on younger travellers (18-39 years) and travellers aged 40-59 years with groups consisting of "novice" and experienced travellers. Participants in the ticket seller discussions included wholesale and retail travel agents and airline ticket issuers.(b) Results of the research are available to Customs.4. Eureka Strategic Research5. $29,728Program: Australian Sports CommissionParticipation Levels in Sport2. Participation and activity levels of Australians in sport and recreation, through the Population Survey Monitor administered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.3. (a) Questions included in the 1996/97 Population Survey Monitor administered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The methodology included sample of 12,000 private dwellings resulting in 26,320 persons being interviewed. In each household surveyed, details on participation in sport and physical activities were obtained for every person aged 15 yrs and over. Interviewees were asked about activity related to a period in the 12 months prior to the interview.(b) Publicly available. The results are published in ABS #4177.0 Participation in Sport and Physical Activities. Feb 19984. Australian Bureau of Statistics5. $93,000Injury Prevention and Management2. Development of educational material on injury prevention and management, based on children's current knowledge of, and participation in, safe physical recreational activities: Stage 2, collection of baseline data.3. (a) Survey of 5,000 boys and girls in years 7 and 10 at 127 schools in Adelaide. Data was collected on :. activities undertaken by the students. hours of participation. where participation took place. with whom participation took place. how many injuries were sustained from participation. where these injuries were located on the body. severity of injuries. children's awareness of `sportsafe' practices.(b) The research is still current. However, results will be published by the University of South Australia and will be publicly available4. The School of Physiotherapy, University of South Australia5. $15,000Body composition, metabolic and hormonal responses of post menopausal women2. Body composition, metabolic and hormonal responses of post menopausal women to varied, compared with unvaried strength training.3. (a) Twenty-one volunteer post-menopausal women undertook supervised strength training programs over a period of a year. During this time they were tested for body composition, resting metabolic rate, resting fat utilisation, basal serum hormone levels, body strength, dynamic balance, leg power, agility, self-esteem and feelings about training. (b) The research is currently nearing publication. Results will be publicly available and actively promoted by the researcher to strength and conditioning coaches.4. The Anatomy and Physiology Department, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology5. $10,000Evaluation of the Active Australia Pilot Schools Project2. This research aimed to evaluate the process, rather than the impact, of the Active Australia Pilot Schools Project.3. (a) The evaluation also aimed to identify whether teachers could successfully measure their students' perceived physical activity levels and attitudes. Evaluation took place in 25 schools in the Australian Capital Territory through questionnaires and interviews with teachers.(b) The results will be publicly available and used by the Australian Sports Commission and Federal and State education systems to further develop the practices required to effectively deliver the Active Australia Schools project.4. The Sport and Physical Activity Research Centre (SPARC), Edith Cowan University5. 13,000Volunteer Involvement Program2. Volunteer Involvement Program (VIP) : Effects on Organisational Motivation, Effectiveness of Current Resources and Barriers to VIP access.3. (a) The research was undertaken to assess awareness in the volunteer sector of the sport and recreation community of the VIP and the impact of the program on that community.(b) Information used for subsequent direction of the national program. Promoted in the volunteer sports community.4. University of Ballarat5. $18,670Girls' Beliefs about Sport2. Girls' Beliefs about Sport. What influences these beliefs?3. (a) Literature review covering key areas of media coverage, significant others, teachers and schools, sport gender stereotyping, history and girl's views about themselves(b) Publicly available.4. Claudia Fantone5.—Female participation in sport2. Media coverage of female participation in sport 3. (a) Literature review covering areas such as mass media, public perception, televised sporting media, radio, print, sports photography, girls, dominant culture, sponsorship arrangements.(b) Publicly available.4. Madeline Oakes5. $400Body Image2. Body Image3. (a) Literature Review covering areas such as self esteem, socialisation, gender weight control, fitness industry, body separation, exercise motivation, sex appeal, body shape, eating disorders.(b) Publicly available.4. Madeline Oakes5. $400Women Sport and the Media2. "An Illusory Image"—Women Sport and the Media3. (a) Data collected from press, radio and television media over 2 week period of 24 June to 7 July 1997.(b) Publicly available.4. University of Canberra5. $5,800Improving sports participation of females from ethnic backgrounds2. Strategies to improve sports participation of females from ethnic backgrounds.3. (a) A survey of many community groups for ethnic women to determine the reasons why they do not participate in sport and thereby determine strategies to improve participation rates.(b) Publicly available.4. University of Technology, Sydney5. $27,180Effectiveness of the Sports Search Program2. An investigation of the effectiveness of sports search in promoting the participating of students in a broad range of sports3. (a) A 3 year project surveying all schools in Australia with the "Sport Search" program, followed by interviews with program co-ordinators within a "selection" of those schools followed further by interviews with students and parents to determine effectiveness of the program.(b) Publicly available.4. University of Wollongong5. $30,000Epidemiology of Sports Injuries in Australia 2. The epidemiology of sports injuries in Australia.3. (a) A survey of the type, severity and frequency of sports injuries presenting to 7 sports medicine clinics in Victoria over a two year period.(b) Publicly available.4. Monash University5. $26,300Exercise, menstrual function and bone health in female rowers2. Exercise, menstrual function and bone health in female rowers3. (a) This study looked at the health management (including weight regulation practices) and performance of 12 female and 19 male "lightweight" rowers over a full competitive season and its effect on bone density and (in the case of females) menstrual function.(b) Publicly available.4. University of Melbourne5. $18,190Mild head injuries in Australian Rules football2. Mild head injuries in Australian Rules football3. (a) All reported cases (to club medico's) of concussive head injuries in senior AFL competition were referred to a special clinic in an attempt to develop a new investigative medical procedure.(b) Publicly available.4. Dr Paul McCrory5. $20,500Bloodlactate/pH transition thresholds2. The objective determination and application of bloodlactate/pH transition thresholds.3. (a) Ten elite cyclists and 10 elite rowers were tested to determine training thresholds using two measures of blood acidity (pH and La).(b) Publicly available.4. South Australian Sports Institute5. $9,387Concurrent strength and endurance training2. Concurrent strength and endurance training—a conditioning dilemma3. (a) A study of 60 non-elite athletes to determine if muscle strength and endurance can be developed concurrently. Current belief is that athletes with a long history of just strength or just endurance training cannot develop both strength and endurance concurrently.(b) Publicly available.4. University of Queensland5. $15,408 Influence of skill on the strategic decision making and emotional states of golfers2. The influence of skill on the strategic decision making and emotional states of golfers.3. (a) Golfers of varying skill level were required to talk into a micro cassette recorder verbally portraying their thoughts. Analysis of the tapes would determine positive and negative emotional states, strategies for lay-up shots, measured against performance and skill level of the golfer.(b) Publicly available4. Curtin University of Technology5. $2,000Fundamental motor skill development2. The effects of fundamental motor skill development on the performance of related sport specific skills.3. (a) 250 children aged between 4 and 15 years were assessed to determine the relationship between improvement in fundamental motor skill (over-arm throw & side-arm throw) and the effect on performance of related sport specific skills (tennis serve, javelin throw, baseball pitch, etc.).(b) Publicly available.4. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology5. $2,850Program: Australian Sports Drug AgencyCoaches Survey2. Conducted to provide ASDA and others within the sporting arena with valuable information about the values and needs of coaches. This information will help ASDA to develop educational strategies and resources and enable coaches to become more comprehensively involved in the fight against drugs in sport.3. (a) 652 Questionnaires were mailed to Elite Coaches asking 45 questions.(b) Results available to Coaches, National Sporting Organisations and the general public.4. Peak Performance Consultants5. $25,252Staff Survey2. Conducted to determine the current levels of staff satisfaction with various aspects of the working environment at ASDA as a place of employment.3. (a) 5 staff were given a survey containing 48 questions and 75 casual field employees were sent a survey containing 35 questions.(b) results available to staff and for internal use.4. Dr Leigh Tooth, PhD, Statistical Consultant5. $1,425Sports Drug Testing Report2. To inform ASDA's testing policies and targeting to develop a deterrence `model' for athlete populations.3. (a) two components of the research were:. a review of drug testing; and. a review of public health deterrence models(b) results available to staff and for internal use4. Centre for Health Promotion & Research5. $10,000Athlete Survey2. Conducted to assist ASDA in addressing issues of importance to Australian athletes and to evaluate the effectiveness of its activities.3. (a) 1866 elite athletes received the survey asking 58 questions(b) results available to Athletes, National Sporting Organisations and the general public.4. Dr Leigh Tooth, PhD, Statistical Consultant5. $6,068.