1998-07-013817SENATE452101998-07-01The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Business4521452109:31:004521Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I move:That government business notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Tambling) for today, relating to the consideration of the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, be postponed till a later hour.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Were we told about that?LD4ALSTONSenator ALSTON—I cannot tell you that, but I assumed you were.AW5CARRSenator Carr—When was my office told about it?LD4ALSTONSenator ALSTON—I am happy to get further instructions. I assumed that it was discussed between the parties.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills4521r513Billsr514Consideration resumed from 30 June.4521TELEVISION BROADCASTING SERVICES (DIGITAL CONVERSION) BILL 1998The bill.09:32:004521Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—In the absence of Senator Schacht, who presumably will be with us shortly, there are a series of government amendments which have been circulated and essentially deal with the opposition's original proposals to split the bill. The government's amendments effectively result in addressing a number of opposition concerns.I see that Senator Schacht is now in the chamber. I am just indicating that you have some amendments which were designed in your terms to split the bill. The concern was to ensure that the matters were able to be properly dealt with by the parliament. We have some amendments which we believe address all of those issues and with which we believe the opposition agrees. I therefore propose that the package of amendments B98AU323.WB be dealt with first.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Let's call it `WB' from now on.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I understand they are in the process of being circulated. I thought they had been.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We have WB, but nothing else.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—We had better make sure you have the rest in the near future.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We have the government amendments.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Have they been circulated to all senators?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, they have. The amendments of 26 June have been circulated.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—On that basis, I propose we deal with that package of amendments first.09:34:004521Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I want to get this straight. The package of amendments being circulated is the one listed, which I have here, that is, B98AU323.WB. Is that what other senators have? It is the government's amendments—which they drafted in consultation with the opposition—on a whole range of areas.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—At the table we have only B98AU321.WB from the government and we have 1065 from the Greens.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—That is not the same one.09:35:004521Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The information I am now getting is that these are in the process of being circulated. The document to which Senator Schacht refers is the one that covers all of those matters and is the one which I propose be taken first.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We do not have it.09:36:004522Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Another sheet which has come through on behalf of the government and deals with the original equalisation plan is called B98AU321.WB, but that is not the one which Senator Alston was talking about. This is a separate amendment dealing with what we will call regional television arrangements, and has just come into my hand. Those amendments have also been agreed to between the government and the opposition.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—How nice!10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—That sheet was circulated on 26 June. It has been on the desk for some time.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I agree with Senator Alston. If this is a difficulty for other senators—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Just marginally; we don't know what we are talking about.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—That is what I am trying to come to, Senator Margetts. I agree with Senator Alston that the most appropriate way to deal with the committee stage is the amendments on B98AU323.WB. They deal with standards issues for datacasting, et cetera, and is now being circulated. I think it appropriate that we deal with that sheet first, but if other senators have not yet seen it, that will be a bit tricky. If Senator Alston and I want to explain that sheet while we are speaking, other speakers can read the amendments and then hear our explanation of why the government and the opposition have reached agreement. These amendments are in accordance with the publicly announced amendments which the opposition was seeking over a week ago to Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 this legislation.09:37:004522Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Madam Chair, for the benefit of the minor parties, particularly the Greens, might I indicate that all the amendments should have been circulated by now but, as I understand it, there has been a technical hold-up. Therefore, the only one that you should have is the one relating to the regional equalisation plan, and we are in a position to proceed with that immediately.The other amendments should be with senators in a matter of minutes. They deal with the broader issues we have just been discussing. I certainly apologise for the fact that these have not been in their possession before now.I think it is fair to say, however, that we have been responding to requests from interested parties, and we have been having discussions about the state of play and the issues that are outstanding so, to that extent, if senators have been in touch with my office, they would be aware of where these amendments are going and what is proposed to be done. But I certainly acknowledge that, at the end of the day, it is the government's responsibility to have circulated all proposed amendments in sufficient time. As I understand it, we are in a position now to deal with the regional equalisation plan because that amendment was circulated some time ago.09:39:004522Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—For a second I thought someone was trying to talk us into debating amendments which we did not have in front of us, which I thought would be thoroughly stupid. I would like to say that I will keep this in mind next time someone such as Senator Campbell abuses me for giving him only a day to see Greens' amendments.09:39:004522Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I want to endorse that. For the proper functioning of this place, all parties should be acquainted with amendments beforehand. There is a special situation here. This legislation has been coming on not for weeks but for months, and the government and opposition, if making conjoint amendments, should have flagged them to all parties. This is a case where the minor parties have become the major parties because they are actually watching the deal as it unfolds between the two major parties.We reiterate that this is no small matter. This is about digital television broadcasting and, ultimately, the whole range of digital communications which will affect the way in which every citizen in Australia is informed and interacts with the rest of the community. In fact, it will affect the way they will get their knowledge and express themselves on just about everything in the years ahead.There is big money, many billions of dollars, involved in this. There is big potential for things to go wrong as well as for things to go right. There is the inevitable conclusion, because both the major party blocs here are in favour of it, that for years to come the current media moguls, the people who have given us the most constricted choice of media outlets of any country in the world, arguably, will transfer that constricted choice across to digital broadcasting. The position here is that until the years 2006 or 2008 they will have it, and goodness knows how long after that, without any other players being allowed into the field.In the United States, for example, from the outset public broadcasters were assured of the opportunity to have a slice of the digital airwaves so that the public could have wider choice. In Australia, and in this Senate where we are representing Australians, we are cementing the limited choice that people will have, and we are cementing the power of the very few men who will control not just what we read and hear in so far as current affairs are concerned but in the entertainment field as well.It is not a healthy thing in a functioning democracy that the fourth estate should be given such limited control. This was a sterling opportunity to break open the restricted choice that there is in Australia, to go beyond Mr Packer, Mr Murdoch, Mr Stokes and a couple of other people, but the big parties are choosing not to take that on. Part of the reason for that is that they are in thrall of those very same people. You know you cannot win office in this country if you do not have at least two of the three gentlemen that I have just mentioned on side. Fortunately, with the other parties in this place, we are not caught by that imperative.Although we do not have the numbers, and although it will not change the outcome of the debate today, we can at least speak up for the ideal that there should be greater choice and that we should not be here dealing with a series of amendments which have been cobbled together overnight following an arrangement which has been struck between Labor and Liberal. No doubt Labor will say, `Well, we have made improvements here; we have saved the day.' But, if you take your eye off the minor differences between the two big parties and concentrate on the interests of the Australian electorate, you will find that Australian citizens and Australian voters have been let down because of the power of the media moguls to dictate, through the big parties, the outcomes in the parliament. That is an unhealthy thing, not just for choice of access to information generally for the Australian public but for democracy as well.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before I call Senator Lundy, can I just say that we now have three sets of government amendments before us. I intend to identify them by the last three digits of the numbers that appear at the top right of the sheet. Therefore, 321 is the regional equalisation plan; 322 is modifications to the National Transmission Network Sale Bill, and 323 is the one that relates to schedule 1, datacasting.09:44:004523Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—For shorthand purposes, can I suggest we call them datacasting and standards. It is not a complete description, but I think it is as good as we will get.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Senator Schacht. I presume everyone now has that clarified.09:45:004523Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I, too, would like to put forward some comments with respect to digital content in the broader context. Obviously, with the high level of technological determinism relating to this Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 , the question of content and future content providers is a highly pertinent one. I trust the minister is familiar with a recent report from the OECD working party on the information economy entitled Content as a new growth industry . I would like to draw the minister's attention to a couple of the critical clauses in that report. They go to the heart of several concerns expressed in the ability of many different sources to provide digital content in a range of formats in the new digital TV environment and other ways in which digital content is delivered to people's homes. As I said, this particular report looks at content as a new growth industry and states:. provides an initial analysis of the size, structure and dynamics of music and audiovisual content production and delivery and the changes occurring in the digitisation of these processes.The report goes on to say that it:. identifies the ways in which network-based content production and delivery acts as a basis for new economic growth and job creation;. identifies the changing structures of final consumption and revenue generation which are developing in network-based services.These three points are obviously highly pertinent to this current piece of legislation. I would also like to make references to other critical points raised in the report. One of them goes to the predictions of what the report refers to as close and informed observers of the Internet in both the research and corporate communities. They estimate in fact that full real time voice and video capabilities on the Internet will probably be available within three years.How this impacts upon the introduction of HDTV, I think, is something that must be considered in this forum, particularly because, with the structure of the current bill, the seven megahertz groups of spectrum that are going to be allocated will actually provide a means through which some suppliers of digital content can deliver their message. For this reason, Labor has sought to extract the definition of datacasting from this bill to allow for future, more comprehensive consideration.Given that datacasting currently embraces, as far as I can see, the way in which digital content is delivered via the Internet, it raises questions about to what degree we need to consider other means of delivering datacasting services over our existing infrastructure outside of that which is available through the spectrum on offer. To this end I have a number of questions which I would like to put to the minister. In the deferral of consideration of the definition of datacasting and in the interests of the potential of, I suppose, scope, openness and opportunity for other digital content providers, have you considered embracing in some context the provision of digital content through other infrastructures such as the telecommunications infrastructure for the purposes of the provision of digital content?I would like to refer to a letter I have received from the Australian Consumers Association, which I think sums up my point. They are concerned that the definitions of datacasting that currently exist within the legislation should encompass what is being supplied through a range of delivery mechanisms other than spectrum. Minister, firstly, is it your intention with respect to the consideration of datacasting to look at the provision of digital content via alternative products such as Web TV and existing Internet infrastructure and Internet content providers and embrace that within the guidelines and scope of the legislation? Secondly, if that is the case, what provisions and mechanisms do you intend to at least consider in terms of ensuring the openness and access to the means by which other content suppliers can use the infrastructure through which to deliver digital content?Minister, I leave you with those questions, and I look forward to your response. I would like to go on and make a couple of other points that were raised in this particular OECD report. The report itself identifies, by way of providing examples, the revenues attached to the various forms of content delivery in OECD countries. Of course—and I mentioned this in my speech on the second reading—the advertising revenues from TV based media are far in advance of any other form. Hence the delivery of digital content, be it in a datacast format or in a broadcast format, is obviously something that is worthy of consideration, particularly in the context of the potential growth of the content production industry.The report also refers to the growth of this particular industry and highlights the fact that the largest amount of growth overseas has occurred with small to medium enterprises. There the networks have been opened up in many respects to the content provided not by the larger corporations but by the small to medium enterprises. This has fuelled the jobs growth with respect to content provision in many of the other countries, and indeed mechanisms for ensuring their participation in the content delivery sector seem to have been lost in consideration of this bill to date. It draws my attention to the proposal to make the respective adjustments legislatively as a result of the outcome of the Blue Sky case and to what you will do as a government to protect and advance the content production sector here in Australia.The other point raised in this report which I think is relevant—again, which I have mentioned previously—relates to the various corporate alignments that are occurring, particularly with respect to telephone and cable companies in providing datacasting, television and video services to homes. The report cites examples in the US, where there has been a dramatic shift in some of the partnering arrangements between the providers of cable based content and telecommunications, and I cite the recent takeover by AT&T of TCI, a US cable company. The corporate plan—or what has been reported as the corporate plan—behind this particular merger, again is something that I think we need to anticipate, particularly in light of ninemsn's relationship with Telstra, in that the purpose for that is to provide a video-on-demand style service in conjunction with a telephony service to people's homes.The relevance of this point comes back to the technological determinism within the HDTV bill. What we are saying in this bill is that high definition television is something desirable for Australian consumers and, let us face it, it will be an enhanced product. It will also require significant expenditure in terms of infrastructure, being the new TV set, and the means by which perhaps you access datacasting services if the parliament takes decisions of that order. But what this bill does not deal with is the technological progression that is occurring with non-spectrum based delivery of digital content—and in effect, by locking up the digital spectrum and providing for a means by which datacasters access it under quite strident circumstances—it leaves open the opportunity for a whole range of digital content to be delivered, such as video on demand.There was an article in yesterday's paper of a new development by Cisco to provide a video-on-demand service through their TV IP product, so we already have an example where this style of service can be delivered through the telecommunications infrastructure. I think that these technological developments cannot be ignored when considering what we have before us. They construct very strong arguments for the logic behind separating out the definition of datacasting from this bill to allow a far more comprehensive consideration of it in the context of the technical definitions and for us as parliamentarians to gain a better understanding of the technology, the corporate environment of the technical progression, and the trends elsewhere that we can learn from and then make our assessments. We do not want to find ourselves, as a parliament, legislating for a specific technology in the face of trends which show the delivery of digital content is moving in a completely different direction elsewhere.Technology is difficult to deal with in any parliament and through any legislative process. I think one of the main concerns about this is the period of time that this bill seeks to cover in its determinations for the transition from analog to digital. Again, the commonsense behind reducing the exclusivity period goes some way to addressing those concerns about the length of time with which we are determining what will occur in the provision of digital content through spectrum.Finally, I would like to make a couple of general comments about content production and the opportunities that exist here. Because the minister also has the portfolios of arts and information economy, I believe he understands only too well the potential that the production of digital content has for Australian industry. In the context of intellectual property laws and our outstanding innovative software development, our outstanding arts, our creative population and the global reputa tion we already have established in the area of content lend themselves to ensuring that, in the construct of this piece of legislation and subsequent consideration of datacasting definitions and legislation, we need to be mindful of providing the most open and the most accessible ways through which developers and independent developers of content can deliver their product—in the first instance to an Australian market but in a second instance to a global market.It is for this reason that narrowing those opportunities by providing a monopolistic structure in which digital content can be provided would be so bad for Australian content providers and so bad for what is seen as the last opportunity for Australia to position itself in terms of information technology and its status as the largest growth industry in the world. With respect to jobs, this minister has a responsibility to ensure that the content providers—whatever their allegiances, whatever their product—have the opportunity to access digital spectrum or a digital pipe in whatever format that may emerge or be installed. (Time expired)10:00:004526Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I want to speak briefly about the deal that has been done here between the government and the ALP. I believe the entire framework needs to be examined. Like most people, I believe that speaking up on these kinds of issues about the major networks in Australia is political suicide, but here you go.The entire framework does need to be examined. The ALP's and the government's approach of reviewing certain sections and then allowing proclamations is predicated on an assumption that the framework of the bill is okay. It assumes that the handing over of the spectrum to the free-to-airs and giving them insulation from competition is the right way to go and there are just little bits and pieces that need tidying up.This really is not acceptable. The package should be reviewed as a whole. The Greens disagree with this assumption. It is not just little bit and pieces that require thorough investigation; it is the entire bill. Consequently, splitting the bill served no legitimate purpose, but the effect of the changes does not really lead to any real assessment of the transfer to digital conversion. There are a number of reasons why the Greens believe the optimal option would be to delay this bill, pending a more comprehensive consultation and investigative process.The government has taken the estimated costs of conversion from analog to digital terrestrial television broadcasting from FACTS without any independent assessment. FACTS do not express detail about how these figures are derived. The government has just taken these estimated costs for granted and based the linchpin of policy on this assessment. Based on these figures, the government has accepted the argument that, without free spectrum and without a ban on compensation, digital conversion could send the free-to-air operators to the wall. This argument should not be blindly accepted without independent assessment. We should not be proceeding with this so-called framework without the primary costs being assessed. Indeed, the ALP in their minority statement in the committee report on these bills stated:The commercial broadcasters have claimed that in order to meet the proposed start up date for digital television of 1 January 2001, it is essential that they be in a position to formulate their structural and purchasing plans as a matter of urgency. Whilst not making any judgement as to the validity of this claim, the Opposition is willing to support legislation that provides the minimum essential threshold elements for the introduction of digital television.Now, wouldn't you think that the ALP—the party of the workers—and the government would think to consider the validity of the claim before drafting a legislative framework or coming to a position on a bill that is squarely based on such a claim? It is preposterous that both the government and the opposition are happy to support a scheme that is actually based on an argument of questionable validity. Indeed, it is interesting to compare with the United States experience where broadcasters initially estimated S10 million per station but the cost is now seen as around $1 million.What are the options? The bill effectively promotes high definition television—HDTV—over all other possible commercial uses of DTTB. The bill mandates that free-to-air broadcasters will not be permitted to multi channel or provide subscription television services. The bill provides that free-to-airs can use spare spectrum for datacasting services at a fee.The potential of digital terrestrial television broadcasting is immense. The Greens think that the opportunities of enhanced programming, datacasting services, advance information services and direct terrestrial television access to material provided by the Internet are all positive and important things for Australia. But the government has positively promoted high digital TV above all of these other possibilities. They have positively failed to consult consumers on their preference. If this were really a consumer focus initiative, some of the following opportunities for consumers would have been considered: pay TV for people who do not have access to or cannot traditionally afford it; lots of Internet news, education and shopping services linked in with popular programming; or more companies involved in delivering mainstream digital TV services, including newspapers, phone companies, Internet companies and new broadcasters.But the government has not been committed to discussing consumer needs in a genuine fashion. Rather, the deal was struck in the absence of thorough consultation. It is noteworthy that when spectrum was allocated in the United States the perceived need for an emphasis on high digital TV evaporated.Perhaps what we are looking at is revenue raising and competition. The spectrum is a scarce public resource that has an incredible value. We have not even explored all the possibilities of this technology as yet. This is such an ironic piece of legislation in so far as we have a government pulling money left, right and centre out of essential services such as welfare, labour market programs, education and legal aid; yet they are prepared to give up millions in potential revenue gained by charging for use of the high digital TV spectrum so that the quality of a TV set is increased. It does seem to be an odd priority, and it does seem odd that Labor are largely going along with this. This government forces mobile phone operators to bid hundreds and millions of dollars in an auction for mobile spectrums. This money goes into the public kitty, and could be spent on socially worthwhile programs.Despite the prima facie advantages of competitive tendering, the government has not critically or thoroughly investigated the possibility of a competitive tendering process; yet they are willing to throw it out of the window as an option. This is worth considerably more than the debate over Australian National Lines and yet we have had a whole lot less debate from Labor on that issue as well.The bill also fails to address the possible opportunities that exist for Australian manufacturing and software development industries, and the contribution this can make to Australian employment and export earnings. Moreover, the government's position is incredibly hypocritical. Whatever happened to the usual fail-safe concept of competition policy such as has occurred with Telstra? What is going to happen when the ACCC and the National Competition Council get on to this one?The government's commitment to consultation and public process is highly questionable. There has been insignificant time and opportunity for consultation. Senator Alston announced the coalition's digital policy on 24 March 1998. The bills were only introduced into the House of Representatives on 8 April 1998. They were then referred to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee to report on 22 June 1998. This was an incredibly short time frame to deal with such a large and important issue.Knowledge is power. The government know this and, obviously, the opposition know this as well. Access to knowledge means access to the ability of people to find out what is going on in this country and to form opinions. The committee only had time to hold three public inquiries, all of which were held in Canberra. The Greens believe that, for substantive consultation to occur, the committee should seek a wider coverage of Australia and have more time to conduct its inquiry.The government has made substantial amendments to the legislation which high lights the fact that a wide range of different concerns have not been recognised, let alone incorporated, into the legislation. The emphasis on regulations in this bill indicates the grossly inadequate time to properly consider the various factors in this legislation. This is not good parliamentary process. What we see now is deferred proclamation. We end up with an `all or nothing' approach, and that is not good process either.I think it is part of the whole process by which the government sees the Senate as an obstruction. So the government avoids real debate and process, and we end up with the kind of wasteful, unaccountable nonsense that we are being asked to deal with today. There are so many unknowns in this legislative framework, because the government has not had time to really sort out the issues and be prescriptive. Instead, it has opted to leave it to regulations that can only be disallowed or accepted—there is no room for amendments or suggestions.Telecommunications cannot be considered a luxury in this day and age; telecommunications are a clear necessity. This legislation is not something that we should be pushing through in a rush and locking in a framework that benefits only certain players. We are constantly hearing about the woes of the bush. We know that there is movement away from rural and regional centres—this includes young people and people looking for work, as well as essential services such as banks and transport. The advent of digital technology gives us an opportunity to attempt to address some of these issues. It gives us the opportunity to provide real options for people in the bush in terms of education and other information services for employment purposes. But neither the government nor the opposition have the commitment to assessing the options available to Australia. This bill should not be going through in its current form. The Greens will not be facilitating the deal between the government and the opposition—they can have that to themselves; they can have that on their own conscience and on their own records. The Greens will not be supporting this compromise that leaves the most contentious and crucial tenets locked in until later. The so-called bare bones approach bestows great advantage on commercial TV networks. The commercial TV stations want their closed deal sewn up before the election and before there is time for a proper review of the deal.As I said during the second reading debate, the commercial TV stations are concerned that, if a thorough investigation takes place, their deal will be in jeopardy. But closed shop arrangements are not the way to go in this kind of technology in this age. An investigation may reveal that Australians can enjoy all the fruits of digital television through another method of introduction. Why are we hurrying now? This so-called bare bones approach also bestows great advantage on the government and the opposition. The two major parties want to deliver their part of the closed shop deal to the TV stations in time for the election. It would be a fortuitous thing if the major TV moguls were feeling generous towards both parties in the lead-up to the election as opposed to those other very uncomfortable, nasty people in the Senate who want to review legislation carefully. It would be a shame if the same free-to-air television stations—that can be exceptionally critical or exceptionally supportive of a political party, depending on the directions from the top—were given such a big advantage right now. It is a very expensive `you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' kind of deal. The effect of this legislation is that the digital television spectrum worth billions of dollars is being handed over for nothing. The ALP's amendments are inconsistent. The claim is that they want to get the bare bones of the bill through, but the result of the amendments will allow a bizarre set of things to remain. These bare bones elements look more like a set of election sweeteners for the communications industry. The deal is going to be pretty helpful for a positive spin in prospective election coverage. There is something in there for regional broadcasters—to show that commitment to the bush. There is a rollback of the closed shop to 2006—to show the Consumers Association that they have not been forgotten. Everyone has been remembered by Santa this Christmas in July. So the ALP are really the all round good guys.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Of course we are.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes, right. They have this nice deal with the government. How convenient when an election is looming. A cynic might say there is a lot to gain from the position that the ALP has taken. Election proximity makes it good politics to have a set of amendments that show some level of commitment to everyone. How nice—except that the future will blame you both. However, by that stage the election results will be over, and you will be safe, one way or the other, or you will be out. In the meantime, you are prepared to pay whatever it costs from the community's pocket to get that result.10:14:004529Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I just wanted to raise a housekeeping matter. Since I last spoke, and while Senator Margetts and Senator Lundy were speaking, more sheets of amendments have been circulated. Mr Temporary Chairman, I think we should acknowledge them and make sure that we have a title on them so that we can then sort them into the order in which they are being moved.The ones that have been circulated since we last discussed circulation are, first of all, the Democrat amendment, which is sheet 1062 in the name of Senator Bourne. That basically deals with amendments vis-a-vis the ABC, SBS and so on. Then there is one in the name of the opposition—sheet 1071—which has two amendments on it. One deals with the industry development policy and the other relates to the exclusivity ban. It seeks to reduce that ban for new commercial television licences from 2008 to 2006 and that there will not be a review of that decision until that time.I understand that they are the complete range of amendments that have been circulated. Perhaps we could get some agreement from the government on the order in which they want to put these amendments. Senator Alston has already indicated that sheet 323, which we call datacasting and standards, be the first group of amendments we deal with. I ask that he then indicate the order of amend ments on the other sheets after that to help senators prepare themselves for discussions.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—Senator Schacht, the amendments that you have talked about are the ones that have been circulated. There are also government amendments that have been circulated as well.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Which one's that? We have already identified those.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There are four lots of amendments. We have had half an hour talking about the wonders of modern technology but it still seems as though we are going to have to sort out exactly in what order we are going to deal with these because we have no running sheet.10:16:004529Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Mr Temporary Chairman, I have asked for a running sheet, but I think I can indicate the order orally. I suggest that a logical sequence would be to deal with sheet 323 first on datacasting and standards. We should secondly deal with the exclusivity period, which is opposition amendment 1071(2). We should then deal with regional equalisation, which is 321—the government's amendment. We will then deal with solus markets, which is 579; national transmission network regulations, 322; the opposition's industry plan amendment, 1071(1) and, finally, the Australian content and ABC/SBS amendment from the Democrats, which is 1062.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We are just checking. There seems to be one amendment that we do not have—that is 579.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That is solus markets. I have one ending 580.WB. Solus markets is 580, isn't it, on the sheet circulated?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It should be 580, not 579. Is that right?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If everybody is happy with that, we will proceed that way and get ourselves organised. Are you happy with that, Senator Bourne?10:18:004530Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Yes. I want to make a few general remarks. I will keep them reasonably short. I must say that I have been very concerned about the passage of this legislation, not because I do not think it is inevitable that we will go to digital—I do—but because it is probably sensible to know under what conditions, and that has been the problem. We have not known exactly what conditions we could be going to with digital. So much in this legislation is left to review and to delegated legislation.In fact, I had intended to move an amendment to the original package that the ALP was going to move to ensure that the start-up date of digital could not commence until the very complicated aspects of digital high definition broadcast, enhanced broadcast, multi-channelling, datacasting and all of that was dealt with by legislation and enshrined in legislation, not just in regulation. As a last resort, as I am sure everybody knows because they have seen it on the Notice Paper, I was going to move a motion to send off to a Senate committee everything that had not been resolved in the whole process of digital.The outcome that we have come to today does not fill me with as much dread as it does Senator Margetts. What it does—I hope this is the case; I have looked at it very carefully and I cannot see that it is anything else—is, in effect, give us something like an 18-month exposure draft on this legislation. I am very pleased with the outcome that both houses of parliament will have to vote on the proclamation date. In the end that gives us 18 months to discuss all of this, to discuss everything that is in this legislation, particularly section 4 about standards. It gives us the time, and it gives the whole community in Australia the time, to work out what is going on in the changeover to digital. That is something that was not in the original legislation. That was the thing I feared most about it.I do still fear the impact of having regulations for standards, which are incredibly important. I believe they should be in legislation, but we do have the safety net of not voting for proclamation until the regulations are right. What will happen now is that, in 18 months, when this comes back before the parliament, both houses will be able to see exactly what is in those regulations. If what is in those regulations is not a reasonable outcome according to both houses, then one house will not pass those regulations until there is a reasonable outcome. I know there will be considerable pressure. There is considerable pressure now, but I think we are all big enough and nasty enough to be able to withstand that sort of pressure until we get it right. I hope that is the case.I have already talked in my speech on the second reading debate about what our basis of understanding on digital is, so I will not go through that again. I am still worried about the fast-tracking, but I am much happier about the changes to the proclamation date. I congratulate the minister for that. I understand it was his office or the department that came up with that. I think that is excellent.I ask the minister when he believes the reviews will start. I am sure he will answer that some time during the course of the committee debate. I am concerned, as I am sure we all are—I know the government is—that the parliament can reach agreement which will provide the least possible disruption to the viewing public. I am pleased to see that the government has said that they have the same objective.The debate will be very interesting over the next 18 months. It will be very interesting once the reviews begin, as long as they are open and people are able to have input. I would like to ask the minister whether he believes there will be public input; I hope so. I think we have to take a lot of notice, too, of the monetary cost to the public of having to buy new equipment. We all know what the estimations are of the cost of the new sets and the black boxes. I do not know about anybody listening, but I do not have $1,500 at the moment that I could use on a black box to change my TV over, but I am going to need it sooner or later. I suppose the minister has the same crystal ball I have, but I would be interested in his views on the costs of changing to digitisation.As I said, I believe this is an exposure draft. I think it will work like that. I hope that having faith in the two major parties is not misplaced in that they are not going to do something horrible in 18 months. I believe they will not. I believe we now will have so much public debate—obviously there is debate going on now—on what people want, what is in section 4 in relation to standards, what are reasonable standards, including standards on captioning and a lot of other things. I hope that in 18 months—in fact, I confidently expect, which is perhaps going a little too far—we will have something that will work.The minister mentioned NTN regulations on 322 coming before my amendments on the national broadcasters and Australian content. I do have a couple of amendments at the end of my amendment sheet on NTN regulations. I take it I should move those at the same time the minister moves his. Would that be correct?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ferguson)—That is for the committee to decide, Senator Bourne. I do not have any objections to that. You will decide as a committee. They are the amendments at the end of sheet 1062?TW4BOURNESenator Bourne—Yes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I think we will look at that as we come to it, Senator Bourne. By then we might have the running sheet in order.10:25:004531Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I want to make some general remarks about the content of these amendments in response to Senator Margetts in particular. She said that the government and the opposition have reached a deal over this bill. I want to make it very clear that the government has agreed to the amendments that we had announced publicly two or three weeks ago and gave form to a couple of weeks ago.As far as we are concerned, we are very pleased that the government have accepted the thrust of all of our amendments and that the government have assisted. After our discussions, they supported, in principle, our amendments that we had announced over the last couple of weeks, subject to how they were drafted—and that is a drafting matter, not a matter of substance about the intent of them. We have accepted their cooperation, and I want to put on record here that the cooperation from Senator Alston, his staff and departmental officers was most useful.But I want to make it clear to Senator Margetts that we did not get into an auction with the government about what our amendments were. We announced our amendments because we thought they were the best in the circumstances. They were debated seriously and at some length in the shadow ministry, in the Labor Party caucus committee on communications, and in the full caucus. They were not arrived at lightly. They were not arrived at as a deal; they were arrived at because we believed this would be the best way we could go forward with the government's bill.I do agree with Senator Margetts that the process of this bill could have been much better handled. When the government had reached its decision, from its cabinet and party room processes, on what the content of the bill was, the bill should have been put out as an exposure draft bill for at least two or three months for all the interested players in the community, not just the media moguls, to have a look at the intent, structure and implications of the bill. We all accept that there are long-term implications for communications and broadcasting in Australia. There are also implications, as Senator Kate Lundy has said in her remarks today, for information technology and whether this is the way that we can deliver over a period of time the so-called information superhighway to all Australians.We believe the government should have put out an exposure draft for two or three months. When that was completed, the bill should have then gone to a Senate committee for another month or so, within reason, for there to be debate within the committee and debate between the various interested parties, whether they be media representatives, community organisations, consumer organisations or anybody else who has a view. The committee would then have had an opportunity to hear and debate those views.We complained at the very beginning that the 3½-week timetable the government gave the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee was far too short to get decent submissions in in time and to give people a chance to have those submissions heard at a public hearing. I have to say to Senator Kay Patterson, as well as to opposition members and others, that, given the constraints the government put on us, we did the best we could, but it was not the best process overall.As a result of that process, the opposition made it clear that we fundamentally agreed with the introduction of digital television and digital communications in Australia. There is no argument about that. We agree with that policy decision. We agreed from the outset that, to achieve the best way for this to occur in Australia, you could not ignore the fact that there are existing broadcasters—television stations, both commercial and national—that were in the marketplace with licence arrangements and that they themselves would drive the uptake of digital television in Australia.But the opposition did not see the uptake of digital television, in particular high definition television, as an end in itself just for entertainment purposes. We believe that, once there is a significant uptake of HDTV in Australia in a digital format, we will improve the communications system and make Australia a better place for people to have access to the new broadband, on-line services called the `information superhighway'.In terms of broad economic restructuring of Australia, this would be a major economic advantage, an international competitive advantage. We are about ensuring that all Australians get access to it, not just the rich, not just the favoured few in the cities or in the better suburbs of the cities. That is an issue that we will follow through—that is, in conjunction with our telecommunications policy there has to be the issue of access for everybody. But we accept that, to drive the uptake, you have to have the existing television broadcasters, both commercial and national, out there leading the way because they are the ones who have the best access to the market.So, once we reached that decision—though we disagreed with the process of the timing, which was ridiculously short—we then looked at the other things in the package that the government put before us that we disagreed with. We announced our amendments, and the indication today before you is that the government has, in fact, accepted all of our amendments—not as a deal, but it has accepted the validity of our amendments.We are delighted the government has accepted our amendments, but I say to Senator Margetts that it was not a deal where we cross-traded. We said, `These are our amendments. We believe they improve the content of the bill, as far as the bill can be improved within the philosophical approach, the policy approach, of introducing digital. These are our amendments.' I just want to emphasise that point. When we get to the actual issues of where we disagree, we will deal with those as they arise in the various amendments.The first basic amendment that we have agreed to deal with—I know we are still making general remarks, but I will mention it now—is the amendment moved on behalf of the government, which is on sheet 323, which we have called `datacasting and standards'. Although this is moved in the government's name, this is the opposition's amendment—we put it to the government.When we put our initial amendments, which we drafted, to the government, the government officers—and I thank them for this—suggested that the best way to achieve the intent of our amendments was to do it in the way described in these amendments. That is, on the issues of datacasting and standards, the government's review, which we believe is appropriate, will take place and will be completed a year earlier than proposed in the initial government bill. When that review is completed and recommendations are made about datacasting and standards, a report will be tabled in parliament. If the government wants to then proceed in either way—with those recommendations or not—it has to get a resolution of both houses of parliament. So that means, Senator Margetts, if you are still here, if the Greens are still here, in the next 18 months—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You two are still voting the same way! It means nothing whatsoever—nothing.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I have to say, Senator Margetts, that it may be true that the numbers may be against you on something you want to raise. But I imagine that when this review comes out there will be a significant public debate about its content and its recommendations. You and I, and everybody else on all sides, will be lobbied very hard from the various interest groups, whether they be media players, consumer associations, technical people, manufacturers or whatever. It will be an open, public debate.In the end, all of us will have to make up our minds as to whether we vote in this chamber to allow the proclamation to take place. If we do not like the government's proposal, we will not vote for it and it will have to amend and negotiate a proclamation resolution that will get through the Senate, whoever the government of the day is—and I hope that, in 18 months time, I, on behalf of the Labor Party, will be the minister dealing with this issue in this chamber.But I expect that unfortunately the Labor Party will not have a majority in the Senate. It will still be a mixture of minority parties and the opposition to reach a consensus on what that structure should be. But, Senator Margetts, the opposition has achieved a process where you are still in the game—where all senators are still in the game—to debate what those standards and what datacasting should be.That is a very significant achievement compared with the original government bill, which was to leave all of this to the review and then the minister would table regulations which you could either disallow or accept. A disallowance motion is like having a gun at your head—you can disallow the regulation and the government puts the next set of regulations in, and it keeps going and saying, `If, in the end, you don't accept the regulations, nothing is going to happen at all.'DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—This is a very big gun to our head. In the end it is `Take it or leave it.' 4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—We did not want to have an all or nothing approach through disallowance of regulation. This way, Senator Margetts, you are in the game of negotiating. It may well be that—and I cannot guarantee you—the Democrats and the Labor Party may reach an agreement, or the Democrats and the government may reach an agreement, on what that resolution or proclamation should be. That is the way it is in the Senate. You have to live with it; I have to live with it.But the point is that everybody is going to have an opportunity to debate it as a bill—that is, what should be the content—before it is agreed to carry the proclamation. That is a significant difference to the government's proposal. We put it up—not as a deal, but as a proposition—saying, `If you don't agree to that, we will vote to void that part of the bill completely.' That was our initial amendment. I am very proud of the fact that the opposition's position has been accepted by the government, but not as a deal. This is what we put and this is what has been accepted in the amendments on sheet 323. We are delighted with that process which we believe is a far better process than that in the original bill.I want to describe very quickly for the record the various amendments that are on sheet 323. Amendment 1 is put forward in the government's name but they are basically the opposition's amendments. Amendment 1 removes incidental and directly linked services in relation to commercial television. This has the effect of allowing commercial television to broadcast an identical signal in digital as it does in analog.Amendment 2 changes the review date from 1 January 2001 to 1 January 2000. It brings forward the first review which now includes extra elements that the opposition have pushed forward to be completed by 1 January 2000. Amendment 3 removes the condition from the definition of datacasting services—that the service is not of a kind specified in regulations. This takes away capacity to use regulations in limiting the definition of datacasting.Amendment 4 removes incidental and directly linked services from national television and removes the multi-channelling paragraph. This has the effect of only allow ing the national broadcaster to broadcast an identical signal in digital as it does in analog. Amendment 5 adds the proclamation date provision. This renders inoperable part 4, which deals with standards, until a date to be fixed by proclamation. The proclamation can only be made after a resolution passed by both houses of parliament and this can only be done after the minister has tabled all the reports required under the review by 2000. Amendment 6 changes the review heading date from 1 January 2001 to 1 January 2000. Amendment 7 removes paragraph (a) from the 2000 review. This paragraph provides for regulations relating to incidental and directly linked services and datacasting services.Amendment 8 adds to the review the requirement to report on amendments for incidental and directly linked services on commercial and national television—that is, the ABC and SBS. This provides the capacity for the review to report on legislative amendments required for commercial and national television to provide digital broadcasting services that are incidentally and directly linked. It adds to the review the requirement to report on amendments for multi-channelling on national television. This will provide for reporting of legislative amendments which will be required to allow the ABC and SBS to engage in multi-channelling. Amendment 8 also adds to the review the requirement to report on amendments for datacasting services. This will provide for reporting of legislative amendments required to govern datacasting services. Amendment 8 also adds to the review the requirement to report on amendments for standards. This will provide for the reporting on the legislative amendments required in all the standards areas.Amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12 insert the proclamation date requirement throughout relevant sections of the Radiocommunications Act. This provides for amendments to the Radiocommunications Act which are necessary to facilitate transmission licences for datacasting to remain inoperable until a date fixed by proclamation. (Extension of time granted)Finally, amendment 13 inserts express prohibition on the Australian Communications Authority to issue a transmitter licence for the purpose of datacasting. This ensures that licences for datacasting cannot be issued until after a date fixed by proclamation. I thank the Senate for giving me the opportunity to put on the record the explanation of amendments on sheet 323 which are, in effect, the opposition's amendments.10:42:004534Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Methinks Senator Schacht protesteth too loud. It is not necessary to cross-issue deal on something as juicy as telecommunications. Quite clearly, I think these are the kinds of issues between the major parties that we see the Australian community getting so angry about. The point is not whether the Greens have been cut out of this debate; it is whether the community has been cut out of the debate. If there is agreement at this stage between the two major parties, there are financial commitments being made by the major television operators and the networks.Given that cross-agreement between the two major parties and the amount of money that is involved with the investment—all of those things—what is the likelihood that this deal will be blown up even if there were strong community concern during this review on the done deal? The answer is very little. It is, in fact, an all or nothing deal. Deferred proclamation does not really give us much leeway to change the way we have put the legislation together. The argument that has been given by Senator Schacht is that the best possible way is for us to deal with the review now and then to put the legislation together later. That is a nonsense. And it is really an abrogation of proper process.For all that he protests, I believe that Senator Schacht has basically cut the community—not the Greens—out of this debate, giving the appearance that they will be able to talk later after the deal has all been signed. Terrific—absolutely terrific. The networks know that you guys are happy with the deal. The networks know that nothing short of a total revolution is going to change that. The reality is that all the rest is just embellishment from hereon in.10:44:004535Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I do not want to delay the Senate unduly. I take this opportunity, in view of what Senator Margetts has again said, to emphasise, firstly, that there was no deal between us and the government. We told the government what our amendments were, and we are very pleased to say that they have accepted them. Secondly, I want to say to Senator Margetts that the Labor Party took the policy decision of favouring the introduction of digital television. We believe that it was an appropriate decision to make, despite the fact that we disagree with how this legislation was produced.We also made it clear several weeks ago when this legislation emerged that we support the free to airs getting an allocation of seven megahertz each to move to HDTV. We support them having a simulcast period. We have a subsequent amendment reducing the period of exclusivity for any new commercial licences. It is yet to be debated. We also support the start-up date of 1 January 2001. We believe that it is a reasonable decision to take in broad policy terms.Our amendments are aimed at removing all the detail about what the standards will be, what datacasting will be, what multi-channelling will be, and what enhancement of the signal will be until the government has an opportunity to complete its reviews. If the reviews are no good, everyone in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the community will have a chance to publicly debate that review.Senator Margetts also suggested that we have been interested in talking only to media moguls. The opposition listened to and took on board the comments of anybody in the community who approached it with interest from any angle, including the Australian Consumers Association. I have indicated previously that, in evidence to the committee, Mara Bun said that if the commercial television networks do not use the spectrum for HDTV, they should lose it; that is, they should use it or lose it. Standards will be laid down in the review about the introduction of HDTV. There will be a process of setting targets for the introduction of the hours involved. That is still to come. It will be a disallowable instrument in this area. Standards will be set regarding the number of hours each week, month and year for HDTV. There will be a public debate about it. If the television stations do not meet the requirements laid down as a disallowable instrument, they will lose the spectrum. It is in this legislation. If I have it wrong, I have missed something in the reading of the legislation.The Australian Consumers Association made a very strong plea that these broadcasters should not be given access to the seven megahertz as an absolute gift forever to do with what they will. If they do not use it for HDTV, which is the intent of this bill and certainly the intent of the opposition, they will lose it. That is the result of the discussion with the Australian Consumers Association and the evidence they gave the Senate committee, which I attended. The Australian Consumers Association made a very compelling case in using the phrase `use it or lose it', and we support it.Regional television turned up and made a number of representations. Whether they were in the aggregated markets or in the so-called solus markets, both had different issues, which we will deal with shortly. As a result of what they put to us, the opposition has moved a number of amendments and we did not have any great dispute with the government once we had a discussion about those amendments. Again, there was a difference of opinion between what the solus market commercial television operators wanted and what the aggregated television broadcasters wanted. It was a bit different from what the metropolitan commercial broadcasters wanted via the dominant influence of FACTS.The three different levels of television broadcasters all had a different view about the need for the introduction of digital television. I am proud that the opposition differentiated those needs and has moved amendments accordingly. They are before us now in this package of amendments. They are what we put on the table, not as a deal but as a reasonable outcome to help the different levels of television commercial broadcasters.New datacasters from both the Internet association and individual companies such as Ozemail gave excellent evidence about the need to rapidly develop datacasting in Australia as a new form of information distribution. Their evidence was compelling. As a result of that evidence, we have proposed the amendments that are before us now on sheet 323. They state that we do not want the definition of datacasting left to a review that, at best, would make it a disallowable instrument. We want that review to define datacasting and to bring back a tabled report in the parliament. We will then vote for it as part of a motion. If we disagree with the review and the datacasters, free to airs and Consumer Association disagree, that will be part of the debate.The datacasters made an excellent case for the development of datacasting, which involves separate licences. We also had to sort out what will be allowed to the free to airs to use for datacasting with their seven megahertz when they are not in HDTV. This was unclear in the evidence given both by FACTS about what they thought they could do and what the government said it believed its legislation would do in the definition. I sat for three days trying to find out what it stood for. There was no agreement about what the legislation at that stage stood for. Datacasters said that it meant one thing, the free to airs said that it meant another and the department said that it meant something in between. To me, that was a recipe for utter confusion and endless litigation before the ABA, the Federal Court or someone else.By having this review and having it report back here, the parliament will decide the final definition of datacasting. It was clear that the datacasters want to do some things with datacasting that some of us might believe is broadcasting. Some of the things the broadcasters want to do with their datacasting channel could be seen as datacasting, where they would move into a whole new area. The government said that if the free to air commercial television stations want to go into datacasting, they will have to pay a licence fee similar to the one charged to those who have a special datacasting licence.To the opposition, that seemed far too indefinite and might lead to forgoing increased revenue to the government. I am not sure about that, but that is another part of the review that will come back to us. Again, we will decide that issue. On the issues of multi-channelling and enhancement, I think that what FACTS described as enhancement means multi-channelling. I have to give Mr Branigan his due; he was quite open at the hearing. When he described enhancement, I said, `Mr Branigan, I think you're describing multi-channelling, which this bill is aimed at preventing you from doing.'They gave the example of what they would see as enhancement. For example, a commercial television station in Melbourne at news time would have a signal going out all over the metropolitan market of Melbourne, including Geelong. They would want, by way of a separate signal, to put the same news service out but with a somewhat changed content to include specific items for the Geelong area. It would be on two different channels at the same time. The consumer, in the way it was described, would choose between two different channels.I said that, to me, it was multi-channelling. Mr Branigan said, `No, it's not. It's enhancing the first signal.' I think that if a consumer is pressing a button to get two different signals at the same time, that is multi-channelling. We want the review to deal with that definition, otherwise there will be an enormous brawl over the issue of enhancement and it will be used as a loophole to get the commercial television stations into multi-channelling, which I know is the government's intent. The opposition's intent is not to allow multi-channelling. We want them to get into HDTV. So that is another area in which we think the review proposed on sheet 323 is very effective. It will give this parliament the final say on the decision as to what the definition of enhancing a digital signal is.I believe that, in the circumstances, this is a very good outcome for the opposition parties, whoever they may be in the Senate any time in the next couple of years. It also means that the government cannot smash this stuff through on behalf of any particular commercial television station. I think those are excellent outcomes in these amendments.We have also included an amendment dealing with multi-channelling for the ABC. The opposition has already taken the view that we believe the ABC and SBS should be able to multi-channel so long as it is not in conflict with their charter obligations. We also believe that the ABC and SBS must do their bit to get the uptake of HDTV. They will be bound, as far as we are concerned, to get into HDTV programming for their viewers. But when they are not in HDTV, like the commercials, they should be able, we believe, to multi-channel to meet their charter obligations to provide minority interest programming and so on.We do not believe it is automatically an excuse for them to get into commercial operations to sell off a multi-channel to another commercial operator. We believe that would be contrary to their charter. But if they can make a good case in this review that they should be able to have some flexibility, that will come back to the Senate and it will be debated at that time. That cannot go ahead either way unless a majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives agree.I believe that is an excellent protection. Let the review get on with it; let the ABC and SBS argue their case. But we are not giving them carte blanche on it. We want the definitions of commerciality carefully constructed for them so that it is not contrary to their charter obligations. I think that is a good outcome, Senator Margetts. I believe that the structure, in the circumstances, contained on sheet 323—effectively, our amendment—is an excellent outcome.I agree with you, Senator Margetts: we believe this legislation should not have been rushed through. I put on the record that the ABA discussion paper of July last year on the introduction of digital television said that this legislation did not have to be introduced until October this year, for a start-up date of 1 January 2000. The government has said that we have got to get it through now. I suspect—and I agree with you on this, Senator Margetts—they are under pressure from the commercial television stations. They want this legislation pushed through as quickly as possible and the period of public discussion telescoped down.I agree with you that that process would have been better, but when the government insists on this legislation being dealt with, we have dealt with it, we believe, on the basis that we believe in the principle of introduction, but we are refining it in such a way that there will be no way that the commercial television stations can walk away, quietly off on the side, with an additional commercial asset. I believe that the opposition has got these amendments accepted by the government in order to achieve the best possible outcome in all the circumstances.10:58:004537Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam Temporary Chairman, you will be pleased to know that I do not intend to continue stringing this out longer than necessary. What Senator Schacht has been doing has epitomised the problem here. He is diverting attention from the main game—that is, that they have accepted the framework, that they understand the community wanted that exposure draft, that the community wanted to debate the framework. Senator Schacht quoted the Australian Consumers Association, but let me remind Senator Schacht that the Australian Consumers Association clearly stated that competitive tendering had not been discussed in any real sense in the whole process.We are setting up a framework. We will fill in the middle. We will put together the little bits; we may have some say in that. But the reality is that the government has got what it wants. The networks have got what they want. They have got a framework which they know is set in concrete. That is the problem with this process. Senator Schacht has admitted that it would be better if it were put as an exposure draft for three months and that in October we would look at it and deal with it in a proper process. This is not, and never has been, a proper process.In that sense, whatever Senator Schacht says still does not hide the fact that this should not be put through now in this form. The framework should not be set in concrete. It is the framework which is in contention. The basic justice and equity of the framework are in contention. The rest is largely a case of fiddling at the edges. I realise that there are important issues at the edges, but basically the Australian public, the community and equity in television communications have been the losers.11:00:004538Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I have one question of the minister concerning amendment No. 8. I had discussions with the ABC last night—I know that the opposition did and I assume the government did as well. They had three suggested changes to paragraph (dc) in amendment (8), which I accepted. I think the opposition did but I am not sure about the government. The ABC suggests that the words `the Commonwealth should be made' at the end of the first line of paragraph (dc) should be replaced with `the Commonwealth are required in order to allow a national broadcaster'. Also the words `the broadcast of the programs fulfils' in paragraph (dc)(ii) should be changed to `the broadcast of the programs is in accordance with the charter' and the word `responsibilities' should be taken out. Paragraph (dc)(ii) would then read `the broadcast of the programs is in accordance with the charter of the national broadcaster'. I am not sure whether the minister has looked at those possible changes to his amendment. Last night, when I spoke the ABC representatives, it seemed to me that they were reasonable changes. I would be interested to hear the minister's view on that.11:02:004538Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (lines 10 to 19), omit paragraph (m), substitute: (m) if there is a simulcast period for the licence area of the licence—the licensee will not broadcast a television program in digital mode during the simulcast period for the licence area unless the program is broadcast simultaneously by the licensee in analog mode in that area;(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (line 13), omit "2001", substitute "2000". (3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 6 to 12), omit the definition of datacasting service , substitute: datacasting service means a service (other than a broadcasting service) that delivers information (whether in the form of data, text, speech, images or in any other form) to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that information, where the delivery of the service uses the broadcasting services bands.(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 33 (line 26) to page 34 (line 8), omit subclause (1), substitute:(1) If there is a simulcast period for a coverage area, a national broadcaster must not broadcast a television program in digital mode in that area during the simulcast period for that area unless the program is broadcast simultaneously by the national broadcaster in analog mode in that area.(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 40 (after line 14), after clause 41, insert:41A This Part not to have effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation(1) This Part has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation.(2) A Proclamation under subclause (1) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved.(3) A Proclamation under subclause (1) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4).(6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 53 (line 4), omit "2001", substitute "2000".Note: The heading to clause 59 is altered by omitting "2001 " and substituting "2000 ".(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 53 (lines 6 to 12), omit paragraph (a).(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 53 (after line 24), after paragraph (d), insert: (da) whether any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth should be made in order to allow a commercial television broadcasting licensee to broadcast a television program in digital mode during the simulcast period for a licence area, where the program is incidental and directly linked to a program that is broadcast simultaneous ly by the licensee in both analog mode and digital mode in that area; (db) whether any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth should be made in order to allow a national broadcaster to broadcast a television program in digital mode during the simulcast period for a coverage area, where the program is incidental and directly linked to a program that is broadcast simultaneously by the national broadcaster in both analog mode and digital mode in that area; (dc) the extent to which any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth should be made in order to allow a national broadcaster, during the simulcast period for a coverage area, to use multi-channel transmission capacity to broadcast television programs in digital mode in that area, where: (i) the programs are in addition to programs that are broadcast simultaneously by the national broadcaster in both analog mode and digital mode in that area; and (ii) the broadcast of the programs fulfils the charter responsibilities of the national broadcaster; (dd) whether any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth should be made to deal with the scope of the services that are categorised as datacasting services; (de) whether any amendments of Part 4 of this Schedule should be made;(9) Schedule 2, item 6, page 59 (after line 9), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) Subsection (1) has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation.(1B) A Proclamation under subsection (1A) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved.(1C) A Proclamation under subsection (1A) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.(10) Schedule 2, item 6, page 59 (after line 28), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) Subsection (2) has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation.(2B) A Proclamation under subsection (2A) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved.(2C) A Proclamation under subsection (2A) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.(11) Schedule 2, item 7, page 60 (after line 16), after subsection (3), insert:(3A) Subsection (3) has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation.(3B) A Proclamation under subsection (3A) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved.(3C) A Proclamation under subsection (3A) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.(12) Schedule 2, item 8, page 61 (after line 4), at the end of section 102A, add:(4) Subsection (3) has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation.(5) A Proclamation under subsection (4) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved.(6) A Proclamation under subsection (4) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.(13) Schedule 2, page 62 (after line 28), at the end of the Schedule, add: 20 After Division 8 of Part 3.3Insert:Division 9—Licences authorising the provision of datacasting services131AD Licences authorising the provision of datacasting services(1) The ACA must not issue a transmitter licence authorising the operation of a transmitter for transmitting datacasting services in digital mode using a part of the spectrum covered by a determination under subsection 34(3) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 .(2) Subsection (1) ceases to have effect on a day to be fixed by Proclamation.(3) A Proclamation under subsection (2) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved.(4) A Proclamation under subsection (2) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.I will deal with some of the matters raised both in terms of the preamble and specifically on the amendment sheet. Senator Lundy's concerns about digital content are obviously ones that exercise all our minds. I was pleased that she did not suggest that somehow this legislation might restrict the capacity of content providers to service their markets through a variety of technologies because clearly that is not what we have in mind. I think Labor has amply demonstrated the futility of technology-specific legislation which is limiting, the amp phase-out being one classic example.This legislation is aimed at enabling digital terrestrial television to occur but not in any shape or form to limit other forms of technology delivery. So whether it be satellite, MDS or cable, there is nothing in the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 that will restrict the proliferation of digital content. Indeed, that will occur to the maximum extent possible, unless otherwise constrained by legislation, which we do not have in mind. All this is doing is saying at the moment that the Broadcasting Services Act allows television only in analog form. We want to extend that to digital and we want to go further and recognise some of the new technology developments—multichannelling, datacasting, convergence—and all of their implications, which will then lead to a much broader use of terrestrial services to disseminate content.I am aware to the OECD report. Someone in the industry kindly sent me a short summary of it recently. I think it offers us a great deal of confidence that there will be growth in all of the areas you mentioned. Certainly, the bill essentially proposes point-to-multipoint distribution, so video on demand being point to point would probably not be picked up by this legislation. Otherwise, it makes spectrum available which will encourage new entrants to come in and offer a whole range of services that might result from interactive digital television, web casting and the like and, to that extent, offer enormous new opportunities for digital providers.I will not deal with Senator Margetts's more fanciful conspiracy theories, but I do want to deal with some of the more extraordinary and breathtaking ambit claims put forward by Senator Schacht. I understand why he desperately wants to claim ownership of these amendments.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It is true.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Let us just deal in facts and we will let others judge. This needs to be understood. Essentially, what the Labor Party had in mind was that the bare bones of the digital bill should be allowed through, which would simply allow the free to air broadcasters to migrate from analog to digital, so they were given guaranteed spectrum. They were guaranteed a simulcast period, they were given some period of exclusivity, which is an industry protection mechanism to some extent. Otherwise all of the new and exciting possibilities that result from enhancements, from convergence, multichannelling, datacasting and even closed captioning—which I would have thought Senator Stott-Despoja would have been pretty appalled about—were simply trashed. They were thrown out, put to one side, maybe never to surface again. That had the very serious effect of throwing any baby out with the bathwater.We acknowledge that there are ways in which the matters can be brought back to the parliament and in the scheme of things, if it is done by legislation rather than regulation, that will give the parliament more flexibility. That is probably a move that will not make any significant change to the approach that we intended to adopt. It was always our intention to have a whole range of these issues—not just the ones I have mentioned, but retransmission, under-served areas, spectrum—examined by way of review and for those reviews not only to result in reports but the reports to be the basis of legislation or regulation brought back to the parliament.The Labor approach would have simply not ensured any of that. All that it would have done would be to have allowed a very ersatz version of digital television to go forward. We would have been an international laughing stock because the US, the UK and all those others who are rapidly wanting to embrace digital technology and digital television would have had datacasting and we would simply have been locked into this higher grade version of the analog network.I think Labor eventually realised that was simply an untenable proposition. What we have now achieved through government amendments—not ones that Senator Schacht likes to pretend to reflect are opposition amendments—is rewritten back into your preferred form all of these things such as datacasting, HDTV, multi-channelling, enhancement, closed captioning—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—The same effect. You cannot do anything without the approval of parliament.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—All I am saying is that that is a separate issue.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—No. We were always out to make sure one way or the other that you have to come back to parliament.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No. There was no requirement to come back to parliament under your model.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—But they would not have been able to do anything else. They would have forced you to do something else.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—That is exactly right. Thank you very much, Senator Schacht. Game, set and match.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What you should do is put up the white flag. You have put up the white flag, Richard.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Your approach would only have allowed the analog free to air to convert to second-class digital and that would have been that. There would have been no requirement to have gone beyond second-class digital television. That is just plain—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You are sounding like General Custer at Little Big Horn as the arrows went through.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Order, Senator Schacht!LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Madam Chair, the great virtue of any exchange of this sort is that the matter can be determined independently by looking at the evidence. All you have got to do is look at Senator Schacht's press release and Senator Schacht's proposed amendments and you will see that there was no guarantee at all that anything would ever come back into the parliament. All that you were guaranteed—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It would not have been able to do anything else.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Exactly right. If some heavy hitter came to you and said, `Listen, we have got what we want, thank you very much. We don't need datacasting, we don't need some of these other enhancements or, if we do, maybe they could be put off well into the future', there would have been no obligation on you to come back to the parliament. We have achieved a very significant step forward by writing back into the legislation all of those new and exciting technology developments that at least Senator Lundy appreciates are not only time critical but absolutely important in terms of ensuring consumer demand for these new services. So I am delighted that you are supporting our amend ments and, as I say, the record will speak for itself.I should just say in passing, use it or lose it—which you seem to think was discovered by you during the Senate committee when the ACA brought it forward—was our commitment from day one. We have never had any thought other than that. As far as the record is concerned, once again, I think it will become clear that you are a late arrival at the party.Similarly, with datacasting and other definitions, the fact is the whole purpose of reviews was to determine what was meant, where the boundary lines ought to be drawn. You seem to think you can get up in a Senate committee and skewer a few hapless people who have not yet been able to draft a form of words that could be put before the parliament—in other words, who have got a few ideas on what they think it means. That is simply underlining our point.The whole purpose of the review exercise was to decide what ought to be meant by datacasting, enhanced services, et cetera. You have your reviews, you let every man and his dog have a say on it, and then you bring back a distilled proposition which the parliament can support. That is precisely what we had in mind. Yet here you were slamming people for not having reached that refined stage. No-one expected them to. We did not. We simply wanted these principles to be adopted.I am delighted that now, in every shape and form, you have accepted not only our framework but each and every building block supporting it. You have rabbited on, saying, `Oh, there's not enough time; we don't know which way to go; we are running around like headless chooks.' At the end of the day you have given a ringing endorsement, not only to the basic framework but also to every critical aspect of it. You have played at the margins; you have tweaked a few basic numerals—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What did we do with the exclusivity band?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—As I am saying, you are tweaking that, but, in terms of all the underlying principles, the real building blocks for the digital revolution, you have given it a huge tick, and we are very grateful. If I could move on, and I know Senator Schacht would like to spend all day on these sorts of things—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I will, if you keep telling lies like this.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I am happy for the record to speak for itself. As far as Senator Bourne is concerned, can I say that we agree that you can make the amendments to (dc), requiring, and also to (dc)(ii), in accordance with the charter. There are the two points. We are happy to amend the schedule to that extent, and I assume we can proceed on that basis. Perhaps Senator Bourne can formally move those on the run.As I understand it, Senator Bourne's proposal is that at the end of the first line in paragraph (dc) the word `should' should be replaced with `are required'. Then, in (dc)(ii), instead of the words `fulfil the charter responsibilities', we should insert `in accordance with the charter'. I seek leave to amend my amendment.Leave granted.11:15:004542Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I have two quite specific questions to the minister in relation to these amendments. The first goes to the definition of datacasting in the context of the referral of datacasting considerations to the review. Does it embrace the delivery of datacast services through all forms of delivery, including analog, cable, NDS satellite, enhanced telecommunications services such as ISDN, and indeed the telecommunications network? I guess what I am seeking, Minister, is whether or not you see your review embracing all means by which datacast services are delivered to people's homes.11:16:004542Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The short answer is no. This is only for the purpose of defining datacasting for the purposes of terrestrial television. To the extent that there is a need to redefine it or adopt the same definition for other technologies, that will be a matter for a later date. But at the present time it only arises in the context of digital terrestrial television. We are drawing a broad distinction, if you like, between conventional television and the Internet. That is the most basic demarcation. We simply want to ensure that, in deciding what is permissible under the heading of datacasting, we do not impinge on broadcasting. So the definition is couched more in terms of the negative, but it is only ever in the context of terrestrial television. As I say, if it becomes relevant elsewhere, we can address it then.11:17:004543Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My second question goes to the issue then of providing datacasting services across this range of potential infrastructures, if you like, specifically with respect to other providers of content who seek to invest in providing content, indeed through the digital spectrum, but who are not party to the arrangements by which the clusters of seven megahertz are currently being allocated. Can you explain to the committee on what terms and under what conditions will the digital spectrum be available to datacasters who are currently outside the scope of the seven megahertz allocations, and under what terms would they get access to this prior to the review being conducted?11:17:004543Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The spectrum is being made available only for the purposes of terrestrial transmission. So whether it is the existing free to air networks or new entrants, we are defining, or identifying, for the first time a new concept in terms of datacasting, which needs to be defined in order to ensure that it does not encroach on broadcasting. But that does not in any way preclude those who might be wanting to transmit content by other means—satellite, wireless or any other means—from providing a whole suite of services.The Internet is already out there. The Internet is being delivered by cable, by satellite. It may well be carrying precisely what we ultimately define as datacasting. At this point in time there is effectively no limit on that. The reason we are seeking to introduce this new concept in the terrestrial area is that we are looking at the extent to which traditional broadcasters should also be allowed to become datacasters. If they are not broadcasters, they are not affected. So there are a lot of people out there probably datacasting their heads off, and no-one is worrying about it.11:19:004543Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Thank you, Minister, I think that clarifies my question: it does go to those outside the embrace of this legislation in that I am talking about content providers who are not currently broadcasters. From what I understand from what you have just said, if you are not currently embraced as a broadcaster by this legislation and the allocation of a seven megahertz cluster of spectrum, then in fact there is a commercial means by which those providers of content could currently access the digital spectrum for the purposes of datacasting. I am seeking a final clarification on that point.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I am sorry; I did not quite appreciate the nub of the question. I did hear some of the surrounding material. Could you rephrase the question?7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Minister, what I am seeking a final clarification on is whether those providers of a datacasting service at the moment, who are currently outside the legislation in that they are not broadcasters and are not the recipients of any spectrum, currently have through commercial or other means access to purchase or lease, or get a hold of, a certain amount of digital spectrum through which to deliver their datacasting service.11:21:004543Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am sorry; I did not appreciate that point. The answer is that to the extent that they wanted to acquire spectrum, they would do it through the Radio Communications Act price based allocation mechanisms, and we do not believe there will be a shortage of that.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It will be auctioned?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Yes. As we have said, there will be plenty of spectrum for new entrants in terms of datacasting.11:21:004543Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Again, I am just trying to make sure I understand this completely, Minister. During the Senate inquiry we heard that there was to be a clump, if you like, of digital spectrum available for the purposes of non-broadcasters' distribution of digital content via the spectrum. Are you in a position to identify how much spectrum? From recollection, I think I remember the department talking about up to 20 megahertz. Could you clarify the quantities that will be available and give an assurance that there is no period of time in relation to the review or any other proposed legislative mechanism by which such content providers could access that proportion of spectrum if it indeed exists?11:23:004544Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—There is no doubt that it exists. From memory, I thought that, in the Sydney area particularly, there was something like 30 to 40 megahertz available. The important thing to remember is that the great bulk of the—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—For broadcasting?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, available to new entrants for datacasting beyond the equivalent or adjacent blocks that the current free to airs would have access to for that period. The overwhelming bulk of the seven megahertz would be used for high definition television. If you are merely a datacaster you need only a very small proportion, so you could probably run a fully-fledged datacasting service with less than one megahertz. Therefore, we would expect that there would be a multiplicity of new entrants, and all the evidence has been that there is more than enough available. In fact, just recalling the 500-megahertz auction, there was very little interest in that. It went for about $1 million, and the general industry view was that there was no hurry because there was going to be a surplus of spectrum available for non-broadcast purposes.11:25:004544Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Going back to your response to my earlier question about the scope of the definition of datacasting in the impending review embracing other delivery mechanisms of digital content, you responded that the review would look only quite narrow ly at the way digital content was transmitted through the digital terrestrial television. Minister, in light of the various alignments and the new technologies that open the door to the possibility of broadcasters delivering a datacasting service—not through digital terrestrial television but through a mechanism that incorporates other forms of delivery, be it the existing telecommunications infrastructure, the existing cable or pay TV infrastructure or, indeed, satellite infrastructure—I am asking you to consider that that also needs to be embraced in the review.I have taken the time in my contributions to refer to these convergences of technologies that currently are occurring. I can identify a series of products and directions of corporations—like AT&T and their partnership with TCI, ninemsn and their relationship in developing the Web TV or Microsoft based product, and the one I spoke about this morning of Cisco's IP TV—which all incorporate the delivery of what potentially could be defined as broadcast services through alternative means, and therefore could provide the broadcasters embraced in your HDTV legislation with a means of delivering datacasting and digital content through other infrastructure.11:27:004544Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—For example, Cisco's model is simply a proprietary alternative to Web TV, which is the Microsoft brand name. These are simply examples of the Internet being translated to a television sized screen. There will be, no doubt, further progress in terms of technological developments, and they will all be considered when convergence is part of the review process. So a lot of these things will come under the microscope in due course but, at the present time, if we take what we generally think is the starting point for the concept of datacasting, those players are already datacasting. It is just that it is not particularly relevant in terms of legislation. No-one is proposing to stop them from doing that. We generally think that it is good because it is expanding the boundaries.The reason we are having a review in this area is that we want to distinguish between broadcasters pursuing their traditional trade of broadcasting and moving across to another area which not only would be the subject of taxation, because the existing free to air players and the new entrants would have to pay equal revenue, but also to ensure that the boundary line did not enable the new entrants to be de facto broadcasters. That is why it is relevant only in the current context, but that does not in any way mean that we are constraining the use of other technologies for datacasting purposes. In practice, it is already happening. There is a proliferation of web sites, there are innumerable service providers—over 600 in this country—and they are all facilitating what you could loosely describe as datacasting by other means.11:29:004545Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I certainly understand the point that you are making, Minister, but I suppose what I am putting to you is a suggestion that this review process provides a unique opportunity to address, quite specifically, the implications of the convergence of these technologies. I have one further question. I know I keep saying that, but your answers to my questions are provoking more queries.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Convergence will be one of those matters that will be specifically reviewed, so you will have every opportunity to address all of those issues.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Could you say that on the record, Minister?11:29:004545Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I think you will find that convergence is one of those matters referred to in the amendments.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Try 59(b). This must be one of our amendments.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—The bill states that one of the reviews that must be conducted is:whether any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth should be made in order to deal with convergence between broadcasting services and other services;You can say that that is simply confined to the broadcasting sector, but in practice I would have thought you would have to take account of all other technology development.11:31:004545Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—That is part of the review up to the year 2000.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—There are lot of separate—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Yes, I know. Is that one of those reviews that has to be laid on the table of the parliament—as part of the proclamation arrangements?11:32:004545Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Clause (4) says that copies of a report are to be `laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report'.11:32:004545Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Minister, the report of the review on this issue of convergence will have to be laid on the table of the parliament before the year 2000—the reporting date is up to 2000 and before the proclamation takes place.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—It has to be tabled within 15 sitting days, so that may be well before the year 2000.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—So what this means is that if someone chooses in the Senate or in the community to put this issue of the convergence definition into this review as part of a package of discussion about the carriage of the resolution on proclamation they can raise that issue in the Senate and put part of it. And if the Senate or the House of Representatives decides to do it, so be it, even though that is not automatically directly going to be a consequence of it. But people can, when they get that report on convergence, say, `We are not happy with the review or not happy with the outcome and the recommendations. Minister, before we agree to vote on your proclamation, we want this amendment done on convergence.' That is how it works?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Yes.11:33:004545Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—On the matter of the seven megahertz spectrum for those broad casters who currently will receive an allocation under this bill: if they have the opportunity to provide a datacasting service and use a cross-relationship or cross-promotion with their broadcasting service, what provisions exist in the bill to ensure that those who have access to datacasting services through other means as well do not suffer a competitive disadvantage?11:34:004546Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—There is nothing specific there that deals with it but, clearly, to the extent that it constituted possible anti-competitive conduct, then the ACCC would have an overriding view on it and would play a watchdog role. So it may well be that players would approach the ACCC to ensure that what they had in mind was not likely to contravene or provoke any inquiries.11:35:004546Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—This final question goes to the issue of standards in terms of any infrastructure required such as set-top boxes for the presentation of digital content—perhaps in conjunction with the provision of that content either over the telecommunications structure or indeed post-review through the digital terrestrial TV signal. With the bringing together of that product, if you like, on television screens, a decision has to be made about the standard through which that signal is developed. If the delivery of digital datacasting content can be blended now, prior to this review, and presented on the TV screen—as we have explained, we know this technology is currently available through web TV and other mechanisms—how will the government have a say in what standards are developed for the presentation of that digital content prior to this review taking place in the interests of not establishing any particular exclusivity to one content provider, given the relationship between some of the multinational content providers and the actual standards that they utilise within their technology?11:36:004546Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I think we have made it plain that we expect inter-operability between set-top boxes—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It will be plain if you do not.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Exactly. And that means that it will not be acceptable for people to develop proprietary standards that are incompatible. As I understand it, there is not currently a debate about differing standards in relation to datacasting. There is now industry agreement that DVB should be the preferred digital standard, and therefore in due course that will presumably be put in legislation or it will be a matter of regulation to ensure that that occurs.What normally happens with other industry standards is that, as differences emerge which have the potential to result in incompatibility, pressure arises for the government or a standards body to effectively arbitrate.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Is that Standards Australia?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I am just talking hypothetically, because at this point in time I am not aware of any issue or choice in terms of standards for datacasting. But if that issue arose and some of the concerns that you express became real ones, then clearly as part of the report back process and any subsequent legislation we would have to give consideration to whether we should be mandating any particular standard.But particularly with the pace of change in this area, the last thing you want to do is to decide prematurely what standards you propose to adopt. You are much better off to see which way the industry is going and then, if necessary, you have to make a hard choice. De facto standards often emerge through letting it sort itself out in the marketplace. Whilst we would be reluctant to intervene, we would certainly reserve our right to do it as a last resort. If and when it becomes an issue, then no doubt the review and other processes of the parliament will address it.11:39:004546Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—On the issue of standards, which is covered by these amendments off in the review area, I was informed by FACTS about two or three weeks ago in a press release they kindly sent to me—I think you probably were too—that the FACTS technical committee had adopted the European system for digital television called DVB—I think that is the acronym. I have to say from what I have heard in the industry, including datacasters, people were pleasantly surprised that the FACTS committee chose the European system rather than the American system, because the datacasters believe that the DVB system is more sympathetic and more flexible for the use of datacasting.Will that recommendation be dealt with by one of your review committees? What I want to find out is—although the FACTS committee has taken that decision—whether it does go to a review committee. I want to make sure that in public process terms it is not FACTS deciding the digital standard. I want to make sure that in the end—even if it is the correct decision—there is a process where the government will decide that standard on the basis of all the evidence. If someone has a more compelling argument for the American standard or something else, then that can be debated. The issue of picking the right standard—whatever standard or system you pick—does have a major advantage for the Europeans vis-a-vis the Americans, and vice versa. What is the process with that recommendation coming from the FACTS technical committee; how will that be dealt with in your review; when do you expect the review committee to make public its final decision; and will that be the body which announces the one that the government is willing to work with?11:41:004547Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—If I can just refer to the FACTS press release. I might say in passing I do not know that it was a huge surprise. There were some suggestions that the networks might have been split between themselves.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I am sorry—`The data people were pleasantly surprised' was the expression I used.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—If they had looked at international experience, they would have seen that countries with the PAL transmission systems generally went for DVB and the others, SECAM and NTSC, went for ATSC. So in that sense it was reasonably predictable. The answer is that it was merely a recommendation—albeit a unanimous one—of the digital terrestrial television broadcasting selection panel. That panel consisted of not only the commercial networks but also the national broadcasters, ABC and SBS; regional broadcasters; the Department of Communications, Information Economy and the Arts; and the Australian Broadcasting Authority. According to their release, the decision has to be ratified.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—By whom?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—They say:The recommendation will now be forwarded to the department for its formal ratification and to Standards Australia for formal documentation and public comment.Then they say:After ratification of the decision by the department, full development of the detailed standards will now be progressed through industry and Standards Australia committees. Draft standards are expected to be completed by the end of 1998.It is my recollection—I may be wrong—that at the end of the day the minister formally proclaims it. So you go through all these processes. Presumably you take account of any competing views from other industry bodies, but it looks at this point in time as though it will be relatively uncontroversial. At the end of the day, it is our call.11:43:004547Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—On that same point, when the flow-on effects into the actual standards are looked at by the industry bodies and through Standards Australia, can you make sure that the department of communications is represented on the subcommittee of Standards Australia that will be established to look at the issue of drawing up the standards for receivers, et cetera, based on DVB? When the flow-on effect goes down into Standards Australia, it will establish an industry committee to determine the standard for the receiver that has to be manufactured to receive the digital HDTV signal. Standards Australia will round up by some—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—We are on the Standards Australia committee.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—That is fine. I just want that assurance because in the past—as a former minister who had responsibility for some period of time for Standards Australia—there was considerable argument in industry circles about how people actually got on the committee.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—We have got it back on the rails since then.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—No, I got it back on the rails because I had a complete review of the whole issue of standards. I made some significant changes because the industry was complaining that, if you were in the loop, you got on the committee and you might actually make a decision that is useful for your commercial interests rather than for a broader national interest. But if the department is represented on that committee, I think that is a most useful development. I hope the department is proactive on that committee to ensure that the national interest on standards is considered here. That is fine, I am pleased to hear that.The next issue I want to raise—someone might say that what I am about to raise is contrary to WTO and so on—is that the decision to adopt the DVB, the European system, was not an inconsequential economic decision vis-a-vis the advantage people who manufacture the European systems get in manufacturing, development and so on. Therefore, though we have Labor amendments dealing with industry development plans, before you sign off if you are still the minister, or whoever the minister is, I would want to say that this is a critical decision that some countries always use when they adopt a standard to leverage an industry outcome privately and quietly.I do not want you to do anything that is contrary to WTO, but we are taking a decision that is going to give some economic advantage to those who are associated with the European system. If you are talking about subsequent industry development in Australia for manufacturing, for R&D development in digital and so on, the Europeans are going to claim this as a considerable victory. They will be waving the flag all over the world saying, `Australia has taken our system. They see it as better than the American system.' Whatever the historical reasons, et cetera, they will be claiming that this is a considerable victory for their system. Therefore, we ought to say to those people, `Yes, and in the industry development plan that means, under the industry plan, that by picking your system, we want you to do the best to get an outcome for manufacturing and R&D development in Australia.'In the past—this is not a criticism of the government; it is just a general comment—we have often adopted international standards and have not used it to leverage an industry outcome in Australia to our best advantage whereas other countries are quite blatant about saying, `We will adopt a standard that gives us the best internal industry development outcome for investment, et cetera.' I know that you will say, quite rightly, that some of these old arrangements and practices are now outlawed and contrary to WTO, but, as all of us know, smart international lawyers find a way around these things. I just hope, Minister, if you are still in the job, or whoever it may be on all sides of politics, that that is put into the equation. I want to get a response to that.11:48:004548Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—The equipment manufacturers are certainly part of the consultative process. As we understand it, some of the major Japanese manufacturers like Panasonic have already indicated support for the DVB standard. I am not sure precisely what you have in mind in seeking to get some leverage from the fact that we have chosen to go down the European path. If, by that, you mean that we should impose higher standards on them or somehow get them to pay a penalty, then I will be interested to see what you have to say when you flesh this out in your press release. But, beyond that, all I can say is, yes, we will be WTO consistent. We will also be wanting to maximise the extent to which equipment is manufactured in this country. Panasonic, for example, do that already. It may well be that this decision will be very helpful in that regard. We hope it is.11:49:004549Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—When the decision flows through to the minister of the day to tick it off—I agree with you that there does not seem to be much controversy in Australia at all because of choosing the European standard—does that mean we have to go to some international body to have that standard recognised as the standard we are using for some international broadcasting or industry arrangement? I know that that has happened in other areas. For example, I remember some time ago the spectrum use for satellite broadcasting had to go to an international arrangement where each country, under certain arrangements, had eligibility for a number of satellite slots, et cetera. Those would be agreed to at the international level and were a useful national asset to have, so to speak, on behalf of the community. Once you formally decide the standard, do we have to register that and go and seek agreement with some international body?11:50:004549Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am not aware of any requirement in this area. Certainly, with the ITU for mobile roaming technologies, it is obviously desirable to have consistency so that the same block of spectrum is available for a particular use as widely through the international community as possible. But this press release from FACTS does not suggest that there is any need to go further than the bodies we have mentioned. I think you can safely assume that we are entitled to make our own decisions on this matter.11:51:004549Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—On a final matter, taking Senator Lundy's concerns further, as far as the broadcasting side is concerned and not just the datacasting side, many people during the next decade may choose to put a converter on their present analog television set rather than purchase a new digital set in HDTV form or standard digital. Will the issue of the standard of that converter be one of the issues that the review will look at so there is a general standard for the converters? There will be a big demand for them I suspect. A lot of people may find it cheaper to buy a converter rather than a complete new set.11:52:004549Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I would expect so. Once again, the general principle of interoperability applies classically to set-top boxes and therefore to conversion facilities.11:52:004549Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—In relation to set-top boxes, you have expressed the general philosophical approach that we want open access to the interoperability of the set-top boxes. In the review, if it became clear that different broadcasters, whether they be in pay TV, free to air or whichever area, were moving to not have interoperability and open access in the boxes, would you be willing to say that, irrespective of the standard, there has to be open access to the set-top box so that someone does not use the technology to create a natural or near natural monopoly for themselves? That is the major concern we would have.That again is a regulatory matter on which the ACCC in general regulation over competition policy might rule, but I suspect it is more an issue for the ACA. I would like to get on the record here that it is the government's view, as it is the opposition's view, that if it became apparent that someone was trying to use a technology advantage to create some sort of monopoly by closing off access to the set-top box the government would take action—not in defining what the technology would be but by saying that the box must have open access for new players to come and for others to use it.11:54:004549Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I think what you foreshadow would be an unnatural monopoly. We do not have any more sympathy for those than we do for natural monopolies.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I take your point. Describe an unnatural monopoly.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Between the free to air networks, the issue would not arise because the converter box would presumably enable you to access any of those services; in other words, the full suite of commercial television. The issue would probably only arise in terms of access to individual datacasting services. Again, the principle of platforms providing open access is one that will be part and parcel of the reviews. Therefore, we will ultimately have the ability to determine the extent to which there is a need to mandate interoperability.11:55:004550Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I hope this is not perceived as a frivolous question, but it goes to the heart of the legislation we are considering. Minister, do you have access to any figures of how big a television screen has to be to perceive a visual difference, in the first instance, between analog and digital TV and, in the second instance, between digital TV and high definition digital TV?11:55:004550Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am really only talking off the top of my head, and I still think in inches. I think the standard television set is about a 23-inch set. At some of the trade shows, particularly in places like Las Vegas, they have had 51-, 61- and 72-inch sets. I think it is all a matter of gradation. On a standard television set you would still be able to recognise the advantages of digital transmission. The first point of distinction is the aspect ratio, which is currently four to three and it goes to nine to five or something.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Nine to six?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It would not be nine to six. That would make the ratio three to two. I have been advised that it is 16 to nine. So you would have a different aspect ratio for a start. Then, as I understand it, there is a ceiling, but if they are out there pushing 72-inch screens at the moment, then presumably it is on the basis that that gives you better aspect resolution than something smaller. I am not sure what the optimum is. What the minimum is before you start to notice a difference, again, I think the industry would probably say that even with the standard size you would notice a difference, but it just gets better the further you go.Amendments agreed to.11:57:004550Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—by leave—I move:(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 5 to 7), omit the item, substitute:1 Section 28Repeal the section, substitute:28 Limitation on allocation of commercial television broadcasting licencesThe ABA must not, after 25 June 1998, allocate any new commercial television licences in any licence area before 31 December 2006.(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 53 (lines 22), after "with", insert "up to".(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 54 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph (a).These opposition amendments are, I suppose, in one sense, about the most covered issue in the package of digital television, which is the exclusivity period for commercial television—an exclusivity period when no new commercial television licences can be issued. The government proposed that as of the date when they introduced this legislation, back in March I think it was, there be no new commercial television licences issued until 31 December 2008, which would mean that it would take effect from the beginning of 2009. There has been considerable comment from the various players in the media and elsewhere in Australia about the length of time. There has been considerable criticism. I think the Australian Financial Review wrote an editorial demanding that the minister resign over proposing such a lengthy ban.The opposition has taken the view that on all the package of issues in the digital bill that the government proposed the issue of the exclusivity period was not absolutely connected in any way to the development of a digital television plan in Australia. Reading the ABA report from July last year, there was no recommendation from the ABA about an exclusivity period for no new commercial licences. That was added to the government's package in private in the last six months when they were obviously in discussion with a commercial television station in Australia. It only came to light when the government announced its package.Some people have confused the simulcast period with the exclusivity period. They are absolutely separate. At times, the supporters of commercial television networks have not been very careful and have allowed the confusion to take place. Some people believe that the simulcast period is inorganically connected to the exclusivity period. It is not. They are two separate issues. The only justification the government puts forward, and the only justification for the exclusivity period, any time period, is that this would enable the certainty, in commercial terms, of the licences for the existing television operators in that they will be able to recoup the considerable expense they claim they are going to incur for equipment, et cetera.There is debate about the claims of how much they are up for. We have commented in our minority report that there was differing evidence at the hearings from various people, and it all depended which side of the argument they were coming from. If you did not have a television licence, you basically debunked the amount the television companies were saying they needed to spend to introduce digital television in Australia. This is a matter of judgment about the evidence.I suspect, not surprisingly, the free to air commercial television stations gilded the lily a fair bit and jacked the price up and those opposed to that view wound it back as far as they could possibly get it. No doubt there is an expenditure required in equipment—in the studio equipment, in the equipment for making new programs in the HDTV format and in the transmitters and translators across Australia. I think it is true that that will run into some hundreds of millions of dollars.The opposition tried to make a judgment on that evidence and asked, `What is a reasonable period to recover the investment?' We also understood that it is not just a straight economic argument. We have always been strong proponents of local content rules. We want Australian television to have its maximum content produced in Australia, written by Australians, made by Australians, directed by Australians and acted by Australians showing an Australian character, showing ourselves. We want that reproduced on our television screens in the various forms of high quality drama and good enough to be export ed to the rest of the world to show the character of Australia.Since the content rules were introduced several decades ago, they have been through some changes and have been overwhelmingly successful. Australians do accept that it is good to see Australian programs. They are the highest rating dramas, the highest rating programs, whether they are on commercial or the ABC. The range of quality is from what some call the soaps and so on right through to the highest quality such as a present ABC drama called Wildside. Both commercial and national broadcasters have made the highest quality which has been exported to the world and has given great credit to Australia and brought great recognition to us just beyond the economic return in selling the rights.It has shown that Australians are capable of being the world's best in production, which has led, of course, to our film industry as well. This is not an economic argument that you can ask someone down in Treasury to draw a line on. It is not just the straight return; it is the broader return that this shows us to be a highly civilised society dealing with major issues of quality, human relations, et cetera.We accept that commercial television cannot pay for that quality of drama. If we had a completely free market, an open dog's breakfast, where there was an unlimited number of licences available, we would get an endless repetition of junk, whether it was produced in Australia or imported. We believe there is an argument on content alone in the national interest to restrict the number of licences so the revenue base is big enough and there is a range of quality production.We accept that you are not dealing with, as our good friends in the Financial Review would write, a total free market. They say that, if Australians want to watch it, they will turn it on and the commercials will pay for it. Sooner or later, someone will find a way to keep cutting underneath the cost. I do not think that is an outcome we want.Therefore, we accepted that, to give that justification for an economic return and some certainty, there should be an exclusivity period, but we did not believe it should be as long as the government has proposed. Therefore, we have moved an amendment that it be reduced by two years to 2006. Also, in our amendment, we have made it very clear that there will be no review before 2006 to possibly extend the exclusivity period. We want people to understand that, if our amendment is adopted by the Senate, that is the exclusivity period. It ends in 2006, and that is it. There is no review written in to say that we will have a look at it in 2004 and 2005 to extend the period.We accept that there is a review to extend the simulcast period in 2005—it may be extended on the basis of how many people have a digital television set. We want to make that clear to everybody so no-one is under any misapprehension. As far as the opposition is concerned, the exclusivity period ends two years earlier than the government's proposal. There is no review of it, no way to extend it.People can argue here—I think Senator Margetts might have argued in her general remarks, if she was here—that this period is still far too long. Letters received only this morning from FACTS, not surprisingly, express horror at the idea that the exclusivity period in the opposition's amendment is being reduced by two years. They go on at some length about content, local content, et cetera. I think we have taken account of all of those arguments. Therefore, the exclusivity period, we believe, is about appropriate.There are purists who say there should be no exclusivity period. I would call them the `Tom Burtons' of the Financial Review, which includes Michael Stutchbury of the Financial Review—the ultimate economic rationalists, as they would describe themselves, and free marketeers. I do not think they understand that we are not starting off with a clean blackboard here. We have existing analog operators who have been granted licences under provisions this parliament has made. If you just say, `On a certain date you will go off air and analog will end. Someone else will pick up the digital broadcasting thereafter,' I think you are asking the consumers of Australia to take an enormous leap. Suddenly they would find, without any warning, that their existing analog screens would go blank and someone else would start broadcasting in digital. That is not something Australian consumers would accept. Although it may be a perfect free market outcome, it is not a practical outcome for ordinary Australian consumers.We are not in any way ashamed to say that there should be an exclusivity period. And we are not ashamed to say that during the simulcast period, which is a different issue, they should have access to the seven megahertz to do both. When that runs out, they hand the analog megahertz back. We commend these amendments to the Senate. We believe that, of all the arguments that have raged around it, this is the best balance between the interests of stability and investment in the broadcasting industry. It ensures that someone is not given an unnecessarily long access to a rare community resource—that is, the spectrum.12:10:004552Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—The Democrats will be agreeing with this. As Senator Schacht said, there will be some people who think it is a bit long. I think it is a bit long, but I understand the numbers as well as anybody. As I understand it, and as Senator Schacht has said, the commercials are saying that they need the exclusivity period because of the cost to them not only of converting to digital but also of producing the amount of Australian content needed to stay within the law. I accept that there are significant costs in both of those factors.I would like to see improved Australian content, of course. It will be interesting to see how we go on my amendment later on Australian content. But, as far as the costs go, the ABC's digital plan has been checked by Arthur Andersen. They have agreed that it would cost about $180 million for the ABC to convert. That is because the ABC has metropolitan, regional and rural networks. I suspect the cost of $740 million, all up, between the commercial metropolitan networks is probably a bit high; in fact, it is very high. But it is the case, and we accept this, that it will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars for everybody to convert, so I think that some exclusivity period is reasonable. I think that it is a bit long but I understand that, because the government is now agreeing to it, at least it is a bit shorter than before and I am happy to accept that.12:11:004553Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—There is just one other aspect I wanted to mention about this exclusivity period and what our amendment does, which was not in the government's original proposition. I know Senator Quirke will speak on this matter as well because he and I have both been spoken to and lobbied by regional television operators in South Australia who appeared before the Senate committee.Our amendment does one other thing that the government's original proposition did not do: we have extended the exclusivity period to take into account commercial operators in solus markets, as it is called—that is, markets where there is only one commercial operator. The initial government proposition was that, because they were the only operators in those areas, they should not have the advantage of exclusivity. If someone else wanted to go into those markets to start a second television commercial service, that was a bit of competition. The representatives of GTS4 and SES8 from my own state came along to speak about how they seemed to have been singled out, or had not been given the same advantage as every other television operator. There was some incredulity in the Senate hearing room when the government's response was, `This is because there is no competition in those markets and therefore they are not deserving of it.' A number of people pointed out that we had accepted that we were giving the major advantage of exclusivity to other operators.The second thing is that those operators, not only in the regional solus markets but in Western Queensland and New South Wales where aggregation has not taken place, operate in commercial markets where the revenue base is very limited. The opposition believed that to say that these operators were not able to get the same protection even though they were the only operator was rather unjust, to say the least. Most of these solus market operators are very heavily connected to the local community. They do a lot of community broadcasting and, as a result, they are some of the better examples of community involvement in television in Australia, which is something you do not see in metropolitan television. Our amendments will give them the same advantage on exclusivity as the aggregated regional markets and metropolitan operators. That is part of our amendment as well. There are other amendments still to come that deal with the solus market on other matters. We will deal with those later on.12:14:004553Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—As Senator Schacht has indicated, there are two of these solus operators in South Australia. They have been around to see us. In fact, they have a very just case. For all the arguments that have been put forward for a period of exclusivity, the two solus operators in South Australia have a legitimate argument for the same claim. You have to start from first principles on this. It is quite clear that in the metropolitan markets we cannot expect hundreds of millions of dollars—as I understand it, it is well over a half a billion dollars—to be invested to bring about the digital revolution in television without some protections.For all the purists and free marketeers, of which I have been generally described as one, this is a different arrangement. The fact is that we have something like 10 million households in this country and something like 18 million people living in Australia. We will not have the luxury of having an absolutely open market without considerable problems eventuating from it.When you accept that there has to be a market limitation, that there are already analog licences out there and that we have to set the framework for the new digital television revolution, and when you accept the period, as we do, of exclusivity for the metropolitan markets, the same arguments come out in other jurisdictions where there is only one television player. As a consequence of the arguments the opposition has put forward and what I said in my speech during the second reading debate about this, in the Spencer Gulf region, in Mount Gambier south-east of South Australia and in the golden west around the goldfields in Western Australia—there may be other solus markets that I am not aware of—we cannot expect the two South Australian operators to put in the necessary $31 million investment if they are not given the same period of exclusivity.I want to talk a little about local content. This is one of many threats to local content in South Australia. Had we not protected the investment that these people are expected to make in digital television, we would have seen local programming and local news services and a number of other things in serious jeopardy. This is not the appropriate place to talk about this. Obviously when the Telstra bill comes before the House, Telstra has a few cases to answer. I am sure that the shadow minister will be flogging it on these issues. It is also not a very good story. I hope these amendments are accepted by the Senate because they will set the basic parameters to protect the investment and the local content in two of the solus markets in my state.12:18:004554Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I draw to the attention of the minister an issue regarding the definition of `broadcast' contained within the Broadcasting Act. Given that this exclusivity period relates to those who are in possession of a television licence, the definition of broadcast is obviously inherent to that licence. I am seeking some indication from the minister that the definition of broadcast in the context of the review that will take place prior to the year 2000 will not be broadened in any way so as to further disadvantage those entering into the provision of datacasting services or, indeed, services relating to video on demand. It also includes all those services that currently could, depending on how you feel about it, be easily defined as point to point or point to many or very clear broadcast services.Video on demand is probably one of the critical points, particularly if the supply side of that video is on continuous streaming and the definition of broadcast becomes increasingly blurred. My point is to ensure that the definition of broadcast in the context of television licence allocation and its relevance to this exclusivity period is not used as a mechanism by which to further preclude the activities of other content service providers between that review and the year 2006.12:20:004554Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—In the absence of the Manager of Government Business, I am obliged to put on the record my concerns. 4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Where is he?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—It does not matter where he is. He does not need to be here if I am here. I am saying what he would have wanted to say, which is that it was our understanding, after discussions, that the likely duration of this debate would be an hour or maybe two. Indeed, Senator Schacht's assessment was that, as far as he was concerned, it would take an hour but that he could not speak for the Australian Democrats and the Greens. I fully appreciate that. I have not taken full account of the number of competing would-be shadow ministers around the place on the other side.The fact is that Senator Schacht alone has spoken for well over an hour. I think three contributions at least, maybe four, have been made, each taking a maximum of 15 minutes.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You are provoking me, are you?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I want you to understand that out of one side of your mouth you say that you want to have the bill pass through in the quickest possible time. You say that you are cooperative and do not want to string it out; you think it will be all over in an hour or so. After almost three hours, however, we are on the second amendment. A large part of the reason for that is that Senator Schacht has spoken for more than 50 per cent of the time. I am simply saying that Senator Schacht should choose his words a bit more carefully in the future. I will move to Senator Lundy's concern.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I am glad I didn't because you get up and mislead on what I have been saying.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—In every instance I have responded to you. Senator Lundy mentioned broadcasting. There will not be a specific review of the concept of broadcasting. It will obviously be part and parcel of any assessment of what is intended to be meant by datacasting. It is pretty well understood what broadcasting means at present. The issue of new licences to allow traditional broadcasting activities will be obviously ruled out as a result of these amendments.We have considerable sympathy for the regionals. We understand the additional demands that will be placed on regionals that are converting. It is reflected in the fact that we have given them a three-year period in which to commence the start-up. We thought it made sense to conduct a review before we made final decisions on the arrangements that might be put in place.In most instances, there was not a direct need to protect the regionals because they have what are probably classic natural monopolies. There have been inquiries conducted by the ABA which have determined that there is not a viable basis for competition. On that basis, we did not think there was any urgency about such statutory protection. We wanted to conduct a review to look at promoting the prospects of competition, particularly in places like Tasmania where, as it stands now, residents only get two services. That is what we had in mind, but we certainly do not downplay the importance of the regional areas.In terms of the period of exclusivity, there might be arguments at the margin, but I am very pleased that at long last the opposition and others in this chamber have recognised that there are very considerable up-front costs that have to be borne by those that we are requiring to convert—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We always recognise that.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I am not sure you have. If you look at some of the campaigns that have been run by the Financial Review , for example—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It is not part of the opposition.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—I agree with that. Sometimes there is a bit of convergence, but I would not accuse you of being the ultimate dry, so I do not suspect that you had any major input into that editorial, which has to be one of the most over-the- top ideological propositions, demonstrated by the fact that not one person took it seriously. It was met with a universal yawn and sank without trace.I make the point that, with all the sound and fury that has been out there on this issue, when you boil it down, there has been remarkably little disagreement. Most of that confected outrage has been driven more by concerns about a very narrow agenda, which has probably had more to do with winding back cross-media and foreign ownership than disputing the essential building blocks that are necessary for the digital revolution.I am pleased that you have supported not only all of those basic principles but, essentially, the need for a sufficient payback period which recognises the very substantial up-front costs in terms of production, transmission, rebroadcasting, the fact that there will, if anything, be a splitting of the advertising revenue, the fact that there is a leakage away from free to air television to the Internet. There are a range of very significant measures which, in our judgment, make it inopportune to be contemplating new entrants when you have not been contemplating them for a period of many years.As one very senior newspaper manager said to me, `It is no coincidence that we happen to have limited the number of players and at the same time have achieved the highest quality free to air television in the world.' He is in print; he is not in television. But he does not see it as any coincidence, and he is dead right, because there has been this trade-off with local content which, obviously, does cost more than if you had a free market in that area. That has been an acceptable situation probably for 40 years.To suggest that somehow, at the very time that they are going to face a lot more up-front costs in having to address all these issues, you then allow new players to come in in the short term seems to me—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You are not talking about Sex/Life as being one of those high quality programs?LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No, I do not think many others in the community would be, either. I know you are a staunch defender of it. I recognise your right to watch it religiously.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Order! Senator Schacht, would you mind not conducting a conversation across the chamber.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—He is more into free love than free speech. I simply say that now is not the time to be contemplating new entrants when there are all of those very substantial up-front costs to be borne. At the end of the day that is recognised by the opposition as much as by the government. The only argument at the margin is about the length of the period. No-one can make fine judgments about precisely when you achieve payback, but it seems to us that if you look at the approach adopted in the UK and the US—I do not know whether the Financial Review has ever done this—they certainly took the view that there would be a very significant payback period and they have gone very much down the path we are proposing to follow.Amendments agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Alston) proposed:(1) Schedule 1, page 57 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, insert:Part 11—Regional equalisation plan64 Regional equalisation plan (1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this clause, the Minister must, by writing, formulate a plan (the regional equalisation plan) which specifies the measures proposed to be taken by the Minister or the Commonwealth Government: (a) to facilitate the provision of commercial television broadcasting services transmitted in digital mode in regional licence areas; and (b) to facilitate the provision of datacasting services transmitted in digital mode in regional licence areas by the holders of commercial television broadcasting licences.Objectives (2) In formulating or varying the regional equalisation plan, the Minister must have regard to the following objectives: (a) the objective of maximising the diversity of choice in television services provided in regional licence areas; (b) the objective of bringing to regional licence areas a similar range of entertainment and information services as are available in metropolitan licence areas; (c) the objective of maintaining the financial viability of the commercial television broadcasting industry in regional licence areas; (d) the objective of providing commercial television broadcasting services in regional licence areas that are relevant to, and responsive to, local needs in those areas; (e) the objective of discouraging the concentration of media ownership in regional licence areas. (3) Subclause (2) does not limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard.Variation of plan (4) The regional equalisation plan may be varied, but not revoked, in accordance with subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (5) Subclause (4) does not limit the application of subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to other instruments under this Act.Disallowable instrument (6) An instrument under subclause (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.12:28:004556Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—This amendment relates to a regional equalisation plan. We agree with it. It is basically what we raised and what the government raised and has been lobbied about. We think there should be no argument about this and it is a very good outcome for regional television.Amendment agreed to.12:29:004556Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 9), after item 6, insert:6A Subsections 38A(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) Repeal the subsections, substitute: ABA must grant additional licence (2) As soon as practicable, the ABA must allocate an additional commercial television broadcasting licence to the existing licensee for the licence area.6B Subsection 38A(12) Repeal the subsection.6D Section 73 Repeal the section, substitute:73 Additional licence under section 38A not to result in breach of ownership limits If an additional licence has been allocated under section 38A to the holder of an existing licence, the existing licence and additional licence are to be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as being only one licence.6E Paragraph 75(1 )(e) Omit"71; and", substitute "71.".6F Paragraph 75(1 )(fl Repeal the paragraph.(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 11), after item 7, insert:7A Section 204 (table row relating to refusal to grant an additional period) Repeal the row.These amendments amend section 38A and section 73 of the Broadcasting Services Act to provide for, on application, the automatic allocation of an additional licence to an existing licensee in an under-served area. We are really ensuring that it is still possible for supplementary licences to be issued.12:29:004557Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—This is an issue which the opposition raised by way of amendment as a result of the Senate committee hearings. It was clear that, in a solus market, if you wanted to provide the consumer with a wider choice of programs, if you issued an extra licence, they would both go broke. The best way to do it is to provide what is already happening in Griffith, where one licensee has two different signals. It means that, when the digital system operates, they will also be able to have a second digital signal to provide two signals. If these operators in solus markets want to apply to have a second signal, they can do so and therefore provide the local community with a broader range of content, without all of them going broke by demanding that a new commercial operator come in in a very limited commercial revenue base. This is an amendment which we raised. We and the government have reached agreement on it. Accordingly, we support the amendments.Amendments agreed to.12:30:004557Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 29), after clause 36, insert:36A Modifications if the National Transmission Network Sale Bill is not enacted(1) This clause applies if the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 has not been enacted.(2) For the purposes of dealing with the consequences of that non-enactment, the regulations may provide that this Schedule applies in relation to a national broadcaster subject to such modifications as are specified in the regulations.(3) In this clause: modifications includes additions, omissions and substitutions.This amendment is simply a fail-safe provision to ensure, if the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 is not enacted, that there will be sufficient flexibility to manage the process. It would enable the Commonwealth to prepare implementations for digital conversion via the minister if the NTN is not in the picture if the bill has not been passed.12:31:004557Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The opposition supports this amendment. If this bill comes on for debate during this session, we will be voting against the privatisation of the National Transmission Agency. But, either way, this bill—I agree with the minister—will cover that arrangement. It is really a consequential process, one which everyone should support.12:31:004557Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Would this be an opportune time for me to move my amendments which relate to access to NTN sites for the ABC?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Would you mind identifying the amendment numbers?TW4Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNE—They are amendments 35 to 40 on sheet 1062.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will move through the government amendment first and then come to your amendments, Senator Bourne.12:32:004558Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—If we run out of time, it might give us an opportunity to consider the implications of these amendments. Otherwise, it would be helpful if Senator Bourne could perhaps indicate what is intended by this. It says, `After "operator", insert "of the site".' I have no idea what that means. We can probably deal with that separately from the amendment that I am proposing. If we just follow through on the sheet to the industry plan and the Democrat amendments on ABC and SBS, then I think that will give us time.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Minister, I think we will run through the running sheet as planned.Amendment agreed to.12:33:004558Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:(1) Page 2 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:4 Industry action agenda(1) Not later than 6 months after the commencement of this Act, the Minister for Communications, Information, Economy and the Arts, in consultation with the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, must cause to be prepared an industry action agenda to assist the development of the Australian broadcasting electronics industry.(2) An agenda prepared under subsection (1) must be directed towards ensuring the achievement of the following policy objectives: (a) the objective that the Australian broadcasting electronics industry be efficient, competitive and responsive to the needs of the Australian community; (b) the objective of encouraging investment in innovation and value-adding activities in the broadcasting electronics industry; (c) the objective of providing effective support for Australian exporters of broadcasting electronics technology in gaining access to markets; (d) the objective of encouraging technology transfers throughout the broadcasting electronics industry; (e) the objective of establishing links between educational institutions and the broadcasting electronics industry to improve the skills base for the industry; (f) the objective of promoting strategic commercial relationships between the Australian broadcasting electronics industry and international telecommunications industries.(3) An agenda prepared under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument.This amendment refers to the industry development plan. It is based on legislation in other areas of government activity and industry activity. I understand the government accepts it and I hope everyone else in the Senate accepts it. The fact that there was no industry development plan available was, I think, a major omission in the legislation when it first came forward. Remember that the expenditure that will take place in Australia as people buy HDTV sets will run into billions of dollars and we will be a major world market. We should ensure that, as much as possible, this equipment, particularly receivers and transmitting and studio equipment, is manufactured in Australia—not just assembled here—and ultimately we should look at ways of doing R&D in new digital forms so that we become a centre of excellence in digital development worldwide and thus create jobs and economic growth in Australia. I commend the amendment to the Senate.12:34:004558Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—There are a couple of matters which have been discussed between us, or with our officers. They relate to an amendment to the title.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We have done that—`Industry action agenda', and it is on sheet 1071.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Are you happy with that?12:34:004558Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—What I have moved in 1071 is the title `Industry action agenda'. Is that what you wanted?12:34:004559Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—Yes. I did not have that. Have you also made the other amendments?12:34:004559Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—No. There are other minor amendments in a couple of clauses. In 4(2) you wanted `An agenda prepared under subsection (1) must'; we have the word `must', you wanted `should'. We cannot see any reason why `must' cannot stand. In (2)(c) you wanted to have a change of word about gaining access to markets. Again, I could not see much difference semantically. It might have been interpreted as being a little less of a commitment to getting into export markets. When we have agreed to take the title from the government's `Industry action agenda', I thought you could have lived with the other two minor amendments.12:36:004559Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I am grateful for the indication of the support for the change of the title. I also understand that you are prepared to agree that the third line of (1) should be amended to read `to cause to be prepared an industry action agenda designed to assist the development of the Australian broadcasting industry,' but you disagree with the other two.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—We agree with that first one, yes.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—As far as the other two are concerned, I simply say that we prefer our version. I will not die in a ditch on it, but it is on the record.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You have two; we have two. Let's call it quits.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—That is the usual Labor Party approach. It does not matter about the merits of the argument as long as it is a numbers game.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—It usually works.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—No wonder the country went downhill for 13 years!12:37:004559Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—We agree to the first two amendments: the name, which is already in the title, and the other one.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Are they already in the amendment?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I want to make it clear that, on the sheet that has been circulated, we have agreed to accept two of the government's amendments and we reject the other two. So I do not have to move any more in an amended form, as is circulated.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reynolds)—Senator Bourne, I understand that some of the Democrat amendments previously noted have already been overtaken. Could you clarify the situation?12:38:004559Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Thank you, Madam Temporary Chair. Some of them have been overtaken. They come in several sections. On page 1, amendments Nos 2 and 3, and on page 3, amendment No. 17, have been overtaken by previous amendments. So I will not be moving those at all.I see that it is only five minutes to lunch. There are a few sections of our amendments that I still wish to speak to the government about. If the Senate is happy with it, I might first go into the content, the Blue Sky amendment, which I think everybody has talked about. I would like to make a few points, and that will, I am sure, take us to lunchtime, and then I can speak to the government about my other amendments. I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 11), after item 7, insert:7A Paragraph 160(d)Repeal the paragraph.Everybody will remember the High Court judgment on Blue Sky where the High Court noted that one interpretation of the act was that equal access might require 50 per cent of Australia's quota being given to New Zealand programs. Of course, if that happened, Australian audiences could see half of their favourite television programs disappear and be replaced by New Zealand programs. Even if that interpretation did not prevail, for every single New Zealand program that gets into the Australian quota there is one fewer Australian program in there.In addition, of course, New Zealand does already have a generous subsidy scheme available exclusively to its producers because subsidies are exempt from the CER. With their subsidies, New Zealand programs will have a distinct price advantage over Australian programs. In some categories, particularly children's drama, of which New Zealand is a significant producer and Australian networks are not noted for a willingness to pay high prices, one of the greatest fears is that Australian audiences might see all of their Australian children's drama disappear and be replaced by New Zealand programs. I certainly hope that will not happen, but the possibility is there.In other words, the New Zealand government, which will not regulate to create its own domestic television market, has supported its subsidised producers in an action in our High Court that has allowed them equal access into our domestic market, and that is the flaw. So far, of course, this is just New Zealand. But I think we all know about the all-encompassing multilateral agreement on investment which is looming on the horizon and which our government still apparently intends to sign—and who knows whether we will have a reservation on cultural content? Of course we should have had a reservation on cultural content in the CER, but that did not happen.The Australian content standard was written with a definite purpose in mind. That purpose was to ensure that Australians will be able to hear our own accents and see our own stories and our own heroes in our largest mass medium. The history of Australian television demonstrates that, before the standard was introduced, there were very few Australian dramas, comedies, children's dramas or documentaries on commercial television. The success of programs like Neighbours, Home and Away, Blue Heelers and Water Rats is built on that content standard.Most countries in the world have local content quotas. They have them for the same reason we do: not to protect an industry but to preserve their own culture in the face of the enormous pressure from the largest producer of film and television and multimedia in the whole world—the United States. US film and television is now that country's largest export industry. As an English language country, we are particularly vulnerable to that kind of cultural domination.There is no doubt that television, and its extension in the future digital age, will be the medium through which most Australians experience much of Australian culture. Our successful programs play an important role in reflecting and even in shaping our culture and our society. They help to promote a sense of unity, social cohesion and nationhood. And they show our most recent arrivals that we are in fact a fair and tolerant society which resolves its problems through the processes of justice and democracy. That is in contrast to so many foreign programs where solutions to problems come from guns and violence.When our television programs are seen in other countries, they show Australia to be a country which is modern, technologically advanced, safe, stable and democratic. That, of course, is of enormous benefit to trade and tourism.But our successful programs are only able to be exported because our Australian content standard creates a stable and viable domestic market. Any country that does not have a stable or viable domestic market is unable to make and then market programs to the rest of the world. That is the way it is in television production.The recent High Court decision was a warning. Our Australian content standards are vulnerable. We know that the government's response to the High Court decision has been to wait and see if the Australian Broadcasting Authority can pull a rabbit out of its hat and find a way to reconcile what appears to us to be irreconcilable. We cannot combine our culture with the culture of another country and still maintain the uniqueness of our own. Solving this dilemma is not a job for the Broadcasting Authority; it is up to this parliament.For the record, I will take a moment to outline the position of the New Zealand government on this issue as put to me by the New Zealand High Commissioner. The New Zealand government would have liked the Democrats to reconsider our position on this amendment. Their preferred outcome would involve the disputing sides to the debate, the New Zealand and Australian production industries, waiting for the ABA and then debating their findings, getting together and deciding how best they can resolve the issue.Naturally, the New Zealand government is concerned that the issue will be returned to the High Court if this amendment progresses, but we have received advice that the removal of section 160(d) should not result in a new challenge, and we certainly hope that is the case.Interestingly, we understand that the New Zealand government has moved to exempt culture from the multilateral agreement on investment. I hope that this government will be considering doing that as well.The carve-out of culture from GATT, and from treaties like the MAI, demonstrates the importance of culture and its inappropriateness in any trade treaty. But the Democrats are acting in accordance with the original intention to remove culture from the bilateral closer economic relations treaty that we have with New Zealand. We do not believe that culture is a commodity to be traded like primary or other products. We believe that that was an oversight on behalf of the treaty drafters in not exempting culture from the CER, and that is why we are moving this amendment today.Progress reported.Matters of Public Interest4561456112:45:004561Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The 38th federal parliament has been marked by a consistent campaign by the Australian Labor Party to misrepresent and misinform the Australian people about the nature and implications of coalition government policy. The Australian people have a right to expect a standard of accuracy from all of their elected representatives. They have a right to expect that all members of parliament will accurately report other people's positions, the cost implications of government measures and government policy. It is fair game and it is cricket to criticise. It is not fair game and it is not cricket to misrepresent. The Australian people have a right to expect that public discussion of government policy will be free from scaremongering. This standard has not been met by the Australian Labor Party.I just want to highlight—or perhaps I should call it `lowlight'—the Australian Labor Party's campaign of misinformation and scaremongering. To document every single example would take me far longer than I have today, and I am systematically doing that because it is unbelievable to see their misrepresentation of policy.Labor's record on economic management when in government was abysmal. They left the incoming coalition with a whopping $10.3 billion debt for one year. On 2 June 1998 we witnessed the spectacle of Gareth Evans's declaration to the gathered media that Australia was experiencing the worst current account deficit ever. In fact, the record deficit was $7.8 billion in March 1995, when Labor was in power. But he forgot to mention that.Labor has also trumpeted its conversion to fiscal responsibility. In an article in the Melbourne Age on 24 April 1998, the shadow Treasurer was quoted as saying:As much as we want to reverse the savagery of the Howard-Costello Budget cuts over the last two years, the economic conditions we will confront—especially a likely blow-out in the current account deficit—means that we will have to exercise real budgetary restraint.Yet, to date, Labor shadow ministers have made unfunded promises worth $6 billion. Every time they make a promise, click, over goes the cash register on the taxpayers' account. The Australian people deserve better than what they are being dished up by the Labor Party.On 2 June 1998, the opposition leader was interviewed on radio and was asked if he had a credibility problem given the actions of Labor in 1993 when, the interviewer said, `you jacked up a whole raft of wholesale sales taxes'. We did not see great press releases out which said, `Here's the good news: we're going to jack up the wholesale sales taxes' on the things that people do not realise they pay—the wholesale sales tax on pet food, glad wrap, alfoil, confectionery, drinks, cars, hammers and other commodities. No, we did not see them announcing that, but they jacked them up. In answer to this comment, Mr Beazley said:Well we'll find out . . . and I would dispute your analysis . . . that's Liberal propaganda. . . It was propaganda that we said that it was a matter of fact that Labor had put up the wholesale sales tax—that is Liberal propaganda! Mr Beazley made the allegation that the coalition had made up the fact that the wholesale sales tax went from 10 per cent to 12 per cent on items that were taxed at 10 per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent on items that were taxed at 20 per cent, and 30 per cent to 32 per cent on items that were taxed at 30 per cent. What did they score out of that? They reaped $10 billion extra in tax increases, but Mr Beazley said that it was Liberal propaganda.That is absolutely unbelievable. It is an undeniable fact that the wholesale sales taxes were put up, and the then Labor government reaped $10 billion extra in taxes. They did not bother to tell the taxpayers; oh, no. There it is: wholesale sales tax was jacked up; a hidden tax that a lot of people do not realise they pay was jacked up. And Mr Beazley said that it was Liberal propaganda. What an unbelievable statement! They go on further in these sorts of statements where they just cast things aside. Don't worry about the truth; don't let the truth get in the way of a good Labor propaganda story.An address that Mr Beazley gave to the Australian Education Union on 23 May was littered with misinformation on coalition funding to education. I will just give a couple of examples: He said:The effect of this year's Budget is that total spending on all education will fall by 6% between 1996-97 and 2001-02. Spending on schools will fall by 1.3%, though enrolments are expected to be about seventy thousand higher in 2000 than in 1996.The truth is that Australia's schools received $4.1 billion in the 1998-99 federal budget—an increase of over $153 million, or 3.8 per cent, over the estimated 1997-98 outcome. The last three coalition budgets have provided additional funding for schools of almost $750 million—a 22 per cent increase over Labor's last budget. Don't worry about the truth; just get up and say whatever comes into your head that makes a good story. Truth or no truth—it does not matter. Whatever suits Labor's purposes, they get up and say that it is Liberal propaganda that wholesale sales taxes were put up. I think that is the best of the lot. Going on in his speech, Mr Beazley said:Nominal funding for government schools this financial year will be $1,289 billion dollars. Discounted for price increases, this works out at $1,193 billion dollars—or nearly ninety million dollars below the level for the last financial year.What is the truth? The truth is that Commonwealth sourced funding to the government sector in 1998 is expected to increase by $382 million on 1996—Labor's last budget. Funding has increased from $4.68 billion in 1997 to $4.86 billion in 1998. On a per capita basis, funding in the government sector is estimated to increase by some 13.4 per cent from Labor's last budget to the year 2000. In 1996, the per capita Commonwealth funding figure was $1,962 billion; it is now $2,130 billion. So per capita spending on each child in school has gone up. But, no, Mr Beazley made the bald statement that expenditure on education has gone down. The Australian public deserve better than this.I will turn to the shadow minister for social security and the aged, Ms Macklin. I could do a whole two hours on Ms Macklin and the way she misrepresents the truth. I have already had a go at her about how she scared older people—she spent the whole of October and November scaring older people about our policy. On 13 May 1998, the shadow minister for social security and the aged, Jenny Macklin, issued a press release entitled `National network of 160 rehabilitation services under threat'. She stated:Just when you thought that it couldn't get any worse for people with disabilities trying to get a job in the new employment services market, the government has introduced a Bill which threatens the quality and accessibility of employment services provided by the CRS. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Reform Bill contains provisions which will see the CRS and its network of 160 services across Australia partially privatised by 1999.The truth: the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service will not be partially privatised by 1999. Ms Macklin was wrong when she says that the bill partially privatises the CRS. The bill does not contain any provisions to privatise the CRS in any way. The bill covers administrative measures necessary to establish the CRS as a new organisation dedicated to the delivery of first-class rehabilitation services to its clients.I can tell you that it has not been doing that. Despite the best intentions of the staff of the CRS when it was under Labor, there was disorganisation, there was a lack of coordination and it did not fulfil its mission. Ms Macklin went on to say:The effect of this will be felt hardest in the bush, where over 80 of the CRS outlets are based and where the CRS is the only provider of rehabilitation services around for miles.The truth: there are no plans to withdraw CRS services from current areas. CRS will continue to provide quality services in regional and remote areas under its contractual arrangements with the department.What else did she say? Ms Macklin said:And we have to consider just how many of the 1,400 CRS workers the Government intends to sack as a result of this measure.The truth: Ms Macklin is wrong when she suggests that many of the 1,400 CRS staff will be sacked as a result of these measures. CRS staff will be transferred to the new company under the Public Service Act with their existing entitlements, and they will have mobility rights providing them with the rights of return to the Public Service. Were there any apologies from Ms Macklin? Were there any retractions of the release? No. The Australian public deserves better than this.What about Labor on child care? One of the more persistent myths peddled by the Australian Labor Party relates to child care. A typical example was found in a press release put out by Senator Neal on 17 May 1998. She said:The child care sector is in crisis and parents are leaving in droves because they can't afford child care. The truth: recent ABS figures show that more women with dependent children are now working either full-time or part-time than three years ago—an increase of 36,000 since April 1995—and the labour force participation has remained stable at around 59 per cent. There were no retractions from Senator Neal. Do not worry about truth getting in the way of a good story. Just say that women are leaving the work force in droves. Do not worry about the ABS statistics; just make up a story that fits your argument whether it is the truth or not.What about pharmaceuticals? I think one of the most despicable things I have seen was a pamphlet put out by Mr Michael Lee, the shadow minister for health. How can he claim to be the alternative health minister when he frightens older people in this way? The pamphlet was about the changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme was increasing at a rate that was totally unsustainable—something like 15 per cent per annum. Drugs that ought to have been available to people with multiple sclerosis and to people with Parkinson's disease—and I think there was one other very expensive drug that was needed for people with advanced breast cancer—were not on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.By bringing in some of these changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, Dr Wooldridge enabled those drugs to go on the PBS for those people who deserved them—for those people whose whole lives were ruined by their Parkinsonian tremor; for people with multiple sclerosis whose symptoms could be alleviated. Women with advanced breast cancer are able to get a drug. But, no, you do not bother telling the people about that. You do not bother telling them that those measures have benefited some people with profound disease and disability as a result of that disease. No, you did not tell them that.You put out a nasty and misleading pamphlet which Labor MPs and candidates were encouraged distribute to their electorates. The claim was made:Under Mr Howard's plan wealthy people will be able to afford the newest, safest and most effective drugs but battling Australians will be forced to make do with the cheaper, less effective and less safe drugs.Wrong, wrong, wrong; lie, lie, lie. That is what it was: an absolutely outrageous, disgraceful, scaremongering, lying campaign. What are the facts? The suggestion that the benchmark-priced drugs are less effective and less safe was made without one shred of evidence. Mr Lee has not had the good grace to come into the other House and apologise to all the older people he scared by saying that these drugs were less effective and less safe. He has continued to peddle this misinformation, and every single person who distributed one of those pamphlets deserves to be ashamed.The government engaged independent medical experts to ensure that the medicines affected by the change had very similar clinical effects to others in the same group. The drugs are alike and work just as well as one another for the vast majority of people. A generous and broad exemption is available if people cannot change to a lower-priced drug for clinical reasons. The doctor can make that clinical decision, and those people will be exempt. The exemption is available if the doctor believes that prescribing an alternative drug would cause patient confusion. Was that in the pamphlet? No. So the Labor Party continues to peddle lie after lie, misrepresentation after misrepresentation, and they should be ashamed. The Australian public deserves better than that.A letter was circulated by a candidate, purporting—pretending—that he is going to represent people in the House of Representatives and lying that we are going to abolish Medicare, lying about the nursing home policy and lying that we have closed down Medicare access in the electorate to the north of mine. I will not deign to name the electorate because I will not give him the credit of being recognised. Dr Wooldridge in the other place has rebutted those claims—those outrageous lies.Labor has focused its campaign of fear and misinformation on the most vulnerable people in our community. The aged, the sick and struggling families have been the targets of Labor's misinformation campaign. Is it any wonder there is widespread cynicism in our community? Is it any wonder that Australians do not trust politicians? Is it any wonder that One Nation gets votes when Labor continues to behave in the way it does? The Australian people have a right to expect better than misinformation and misrepresentation from their elected representatives. (Time expired)456413:00:004564Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Today I want to speak about salary packaging, tax minimisation and, frankly, tax avoidance strategies that are being pursued in the community. I recently saw the statement, `Make hay while the sun shines'. It was an accounting firm, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu providing that advice on the website to those thinking about salary packaging. Quite frankly, it is more a question of `evade tax while the law is lax', because what we are seeing is an explosion of salary packaging in order to minimise the appropriate payment of taxation, largely by the wealthy but spreading through what would normally be considered middle income salary earners.Deloittes correctly conclude that recent tax changes appear to have sparked another wave of salary packaging. They are at pains to answer in the negative the question: is this all too good to be true? They are very keen to encourage people to take advantage of the loopholes in the existing law and the government's failure to apply pressure to ensure that people pay appropriate taxation, just as in the area of trusts law which has been the subject of great debate in this parliament over recent years. Salary packaging is another example of where the government has failed to act to avoid tax minimisation by wealthy individuals.We are seeing an explosion of salary packaging not only in the private sector but also in the charitable sector and now in the public sector. The causes include the recent tax changes such as the super surcharge, or tax, and the additional Medicare levy. But they also include the failure by the government to combat the growth in salary packaging for the purpose of tax avoidance.The government, contrary to some of its rhetoric, is even encouraging excessive salary packaging within its own government departments. We now see evidence that the government is encouraging individuals in its own employ to salary package up to 50 per cent of their salary in non-cash benefits for no purpose other than the minimisation of taxation. There is no legitimate reason that can justify 50 per cent of salary being taken in non-cash benefits. I know that a lot of people view tax minimisation as a legitimate taxation strategy, and I think to a certain extent the community accepts that, but not when it is pursued in the form and the manner in which it is being pursued in the community currently.Serious problems are being caused by the explosion of salary packaging and the resulting tax minimisation and avoidance. The first is revenue loss. By people packaging their salaries and avoiding paying income tax on that component of their salary, considerable income tax is forfeited to the Commonwealth. That reduces our ability to provide services such as child care and health care to the community. It is hard to get a hold on how much is being lost in this way, but in 1995 the Industry Commission estimated that if salary packaging became widespread just within the public benevolent institutions—the charitable area—the loss of revenue would be approximately $200 million each year. In one small sector of the economy, the Industry Commission estimated that the sort of development that has since taken place in terms of the explosion of salary packaging could lose the government $200 million of revenue per annum.If we look at what has happened in the much larger private sector in recent years and the explosion that has taken place since the government's super surcharge and Medicare levy, and at what is now developing in both the state and federal government areas, we find that this is a major drain on revenue and a major problem for our community. We complain about the standard of our schools, the lack of child care and the inability to get operations in public hospitals, but this is partly caused by the reduction in government revenue as a result of the minimisation strat egies being pursued as part of salary packaging.The other impacts of salary packaging include people now being able to access family payments. People lower their total taxable income by taking part of their salary in non-cash benefits and that allows them to access things such as family payments. Executives who would have been on $80,000 per annum, with two children and a non-working spouse, could, by packaging their salary, reduce their accessible income to $60,000 and, as a result, qualify for a family allowance payment of $47 per fortnight. By reducing and packaging their salary, they have a net benefit of not only lower tax but also government assistance to which they would not normally be entitled.A problem is also developing in the child support area where children are living in poverty when the non-custodial parent is able to reduce his or her taxable income. I know the major focus on this has been in the area of trusts and businesses, but salary packaging is beginning to become a real problem in terms of the child support payment system. The Australian Taxation Office has identified salary packaging as a serious threat to child support payments. That is another area where there ought to be a great deal of public concern.The other question is one of equity. The essence of salary packaging is to allow wealthier individuals to be treated as if they are poorer than they really are for the purposes of assessing the tax they pay. This creates inequalities between people at different income levels. Rather than having a progressive tax system where the rich pay more, they are able to pay less as a result of this device. That is inequitable. It undermines our taxation system and it causes frustration among those who properly pay the appropriate level of tax. Traditionally, this has been available only to very high income earners. We think of salary packaging applying to private company executives, but it is spreading throughout the community—in the public, private and charitable sectors.The government seems unwilling, or unable, to deal with the issue. It does, however, recognise that there is a problem. The mid-year economic and fiscal outlook for 1997-98 identifies the evasion of the super surcharge through salary packaging as a specific risk to revenue. It states:Because the income levels are largely based on taxable income, there is a risk to revenue if otherwise high income earners enter into salary packaging arrangements to reduce the amount of their taxable income (but with no net impact on their total remuneration). The risk of such arrangements becoming widespread is likely to increase in 1997-98 . . . Even the government, in its mid-year economic outlook, recognises the problem in relation to superannuation. On top of that, there is the Medicare surcharge for high income earners and the range of developments that are occurring in relation to salary packaging in the community. In his booklet, The Australian taxation system—in need of reform , the Treasurer (Mr Costello) proclaimed:A rapidly expanding tax minimising strategy involves salary sacrificing—taking a portion of salary in the form of fringe benefits.He described it as `rapidly expanding' and went on to say:For example, by taking salary of $70,000 in non-salary fringe benefits, a high income earner can avoid the superannuation surcharge and access some government benefits.So the Treasurer acknowledges that, firstly, the system is rapidly expanding; secondly, people are avoiding tax; and, thirdly, people are getting access to social security benefits designed for those in need. But what does the government do about it? It accepts that there is a problem but does nothing about it. It offers no solution. The only action that is taken is that Mr Costello offers the observation that, when taxes are high, people try harder to avoid tax: therefore, the answer to that is to lower their tax. I think there is an alternative approach. We ought to be concerned with the equity involved. We ought not just concede that high income earners are able to avoid tax and that if we tax them more they are encouraged to find minimisation strategies. We should not just say, `That is the way of the world.' I would have thought we should say that they should pay their fair share of tax. We have to take action to make sure that happens.The Labor Party thinks there are alternatives. We do think we can crack down on tax avoidance by the wealthy. We do think we can ensure that they pay their fair share of tax. We certainly think they should not be encouraged and allowed to access family payments and other social security measures that are designed for those people in need—those raising children who are struggling to make ends meet. It is just not good enough to say, `It's all too hard. Maybe we ought to impose a GST on everybody—that way we will raise some money from a broad-based consumption tax—and give up on trying to make the wealthy pay their proper level of tax.' That is not acceptable. Certainly, the government should not be looking to encourage excessive salary packaging among its own employees.We are now seeing the growth of salary packaging and tax minimisation in the public sector, without any realisation, it seems to me, that the source of those departments' income is revenue raised from the very people that they are now assisting to avoid paying tax. We see agreements being struck in the public sector where Public Service executives can package up to 50 per cent of their income in non-salary measures, such as superannuation, cars, hospital insurance benefits and God knows what else. The workplace relations and veterans' affairs departments allow 50 per cent of salary to be packaged in that way, thereby allowing tax minimisation and tax avoidance on up to 50 per cent of the income of the people employed by those departments. I do not think that is acceptable.The tax commissioner has taken a quite different view. Mr Carmody has said that, from the tax office's point of view, they will not be encouraging this tax aggressive measure. I gather that they frown on anything in the private sector that exceeds 30 per cent. I have been told informally that to charities and others they—the tax office—say that anything above 30 per cent salary packaging will incur close scrutiny by them. But their own fellow Public Service departments are encouraging salary packaging by up to 50 per cent. That is a disgrace. The government ought to take a serious look at what is being allowed to occur under its own auspices.The only defence the government offers—and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) did this in the House in answer to a question—is to say that the public sector ought to be treated like the private sector. So if the private sector are allowed salary packaging and tax avoidance, salary packaging and tax avoidance should be allowed in the public sector. What nonsense! If something is wrong we ought to fix it, not encourage the flow on to public servants. The tax commissioner, as I say, took a very different view. In a memo to staff he said:. . . I believe it would be inappropriate for us, as the organisation with a pivotal role in supporting the integrity of Australia's tax and child support system, to aggressively take up the option of salary packaging.In contrast to his strong leadership, the government vacillates on the issue. Mr Carmody did not think it appropriate for the tax office in dealing with its own employees to pursue the tax minimisation strategy that other departments are following. The best the other Commonwealth departments can do is to ask employees to sign a declaration, which is really quite cute. They encourage people to avoid tax on up to 50 per cent of their salary by taking these packaging measures, but then they ask them to sign a declaration which says:For ethical reasons, employees will sign a declaration that they will not access any Government provided benefit, such as Department of Social Security benefits or AUSTUDY, or adjust payments for child support, that would result solely through the reductions in gross salary from salary packaging.If ever you have seen a system damned, there it is. They know there is an ethical problem and they know there is a tax minimisation and avoidance problem, so they ask employees to accept responsibility for not accessing those entitlements that this device allows them to access. It is a cop-out. It is unenforceable, and they know it is unenforceable. What they are doing is trying to provide some minor protection against the criticism that will flow of the departments and the government in allowing this tax minimisation strategy to flourish in government departments. There are all sorts of ethical problems with this approach. There are all sorts of revenue problems for the government with this approach.We ought to be taking a far different approach to the problem of the excessive salary packaging that is occurring in the community. We ought to be setting limits and enforcing appropriate behaviour to ensure that only legitimate salary packaging occurs—not the tax minimisation strategies that are flourishing in the private and public sectors at the moment. The government is, by this device, encouraging tax minimisation, encouraging accessing of social security benefits by those who would otherwise not be entitled to them, allowing people to escape child support payments, undermining its own super and Medicare surcharges and bringing the taxation system into disrepute. It must take steps to ensure that proper taxation is paid by individuals and it must support the continuation of equity in our taxation system.456713:15:004567Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I want to talk about the real problem in Australian politics at present. Explicitly, this concerns the organisation, function and structure of political parties. Political parties are less regulated than corporations, associations and unions. They are subject to little if any real control as to the propriety of their conduct and the fairness of their internal processes. If it is in the interest of some powerful figures within political parties to keep their wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, that is not a position universally supported by the members of political parties. And it is not in the public interest.The Democrats believe that reform is long overdue and that political parties must meet the ordinary standards of accountability and openness demanded of other vital institutions in our society. This is even more essential now that parties receive public funds to conduct their political campaigns. Everyone knows that politicians are on the nose. A Morgan poll of 21 May 1998 found that only seven per cent of Australians believe that members of both state and federal parliaments have high or very high standards of ethics and honesty. This has fallen from 20 per cent in the late 1970s.The Morgan poll found that the only professionals rated lower than politicians were used car salesmen. That seven per cent rating for politicians is for people whose calling is supposedly to serve the public. On 3 May 1998, Channel 9's Sunday program produced a documentary on Labor Party branch stacking in Victoria. Whether or not that program got matters right, the effect was the same. It reinforced the public perception of party politics as corrupt, dishonest, venal, immoral and unprincipled.Perhaps the most outstanding recent example of the way in which political parties can be a law unto themselves is the new Pauline Hanson One Nation Party. As we learn each day from disenchanted former supporters, this political party appears to have all the hallmarks of a political dictatorship. Its elite—David Oldfield, David Ettridge and Pauline Hanson—has used the attraction of its being a grassroots organisation made up of ordinary Australians as a key part of its rhetoric and political strategy, and yet it seems apparent from what has been said by observers and commentators that the two Davids and, to a lesser extent, Pauline, as sole directors and executives of a public, non-listed, limited liability company, have complete control over the party. That is not grassroots: that is dictatorship.Contrast this with the set-up of my own party, the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats also claim to be a party of the grassroots. With us, every crucial decision in terms of policy, every preselection and every leadership contest must be made by the membership via ballot. I do not want to claim excessive virtue for my party, but it does abhor, reject and constitutionally prohibit the kind of shady backroom factional balloting that political parties are notorious for. The Australian Democrats believe in a fully open and accountable process that genuinely involves the full membership.One Nation, a party that could in the future be represented in this chamber, will, like all political parties, be less regulated than the local tennis club. If it were not for the recent revelations in the media, its members, the public, and this parliament would not even have been aware in the upcoming election of the true nature of this organisation. Let me give you someone else's assessment of that party.That someone else is Barbara Hazelton, Pauline Hanson's former personal secretary. In the Australian yesterday, 30 June, Barbara Hazelton wrote what appeared to be an honest account of her experiences with One Nation. In the article, she described herself as a `heartbroken supporter', and reading it, I think she really meant it. I will quote selected passages from what is a very long and very revealing article. Barbara Hazelton said:What needs to be exposed is David Oldfield's One Nation.. . . . . . . . .Oldfield is a manipulative, hypnotic, hugely narcissistic individual . . . . . . . . . . . .Literally hundreds of people have contacted the office complaining about mismanagement by the One Nation head office in Manly.. . . . . . . . .. . .. many had not received a receipt for their $500 donation.Talking of Pauline Hanson, Barbara Hazelton says:. . . she was working out with Helen and me how to get rid of them (the two Davids)—but she was concerned about an agreement she'd made. I didn't then know anything about such an agreement but subsequently read about the "secret pact"—it sounds like Germany and Russia—- which I assume is the One Nation corporate structure—binding the three of them together. She seemed very puzzled/worried that she could not find her copy of the agreement.Hazelton continues:A few weeks ago, members of the relevant committee wanted to declare all positions in One Nation vacant and have a democratic election to fill them. They then found out that this was impossible because of One Nation's corporate structure. At present, solicitors are being consulted to investigate ways whereby Pauline could remove the two Davids—under the company structure—but my feeling is that Pauline needs to be careful lest she find herself beyond being able to take any action to rein in the two Davids no matter how good the intentions of the people trying to help her by doing this.Further on, Barbara Hazelton says:My biggest single worry about Oldfield is that he holds the ordinary people who support Pauline in contempt.And this is from someone who knows him intimately. She continues:The week before the election, I asked Heather Hill (the Queensland leader of One Nation) why, in her launch speech, she had said we weren't directing preferences. She replied: "Because we aren't." I told her, "yes, we are", and suggested she contact Oldfield about it. When she got off the phone, she said words to the effect that Oldfield had said that "yes, we were distributing preferences in a handful of seats, maybe six or eight."I do not know about you, but I only have five fingers on my hand! Hazelton went on to say:I knew that cards had been reprinted distributing preferences in many more seats. Oldfield couldn't even tell the truth to the Queensland leader of One Nation.It is interesting that she says `the Queensland leader' and not `the national leader'. The article continues:Pauline used to say that if she ever lost control she would resign. She knows she's no longer in control . . . Those are not my words. I have quoted extensively from an article written by Pauline Hanson's former personal secretary, Barbara Hazelton.Obviously, it is not possible to fix all the problems of political parties and politicians that concern us but, through better regulation, you can install greater democracy in political parties, better standards of governance, better accountability and better safeguards against parties which might be run by a political dictatorship or elite. The experience the legislature has with corporations law, workplace relations law and associations law—all of which cover the functions and structure of organisations—concerning the regulation of organisations and the standards required of them and their office-bearers, gives us a useful starting point.Increased regulation of political parties is not inconsistent with the essential freedom of expression and freedom from unjustified state interference, influence or control. Greater regulation would offer political parties better protection from malpractice and corruption, and it would reduce the opportunity for the use of public funds for improper purposes.The Commonwealth Electoral Act registers political parties and sets out minimal requirements for their registration. Formal public scrutiny of political parties commenced with the public disclosure of donations in 1984. The introduction of federal public funding of political parties based on votes received led to the requirement for the registration of political parties, as well as their legal recognition at the Commonwealth level. I would suggest that those areas of registration regulation are minimal and not maximal. The internal rules and procedures of political parties remain largely self-regulated, except where the act imposes certain requirements.Arguments that political parties are private institutions and should not be subject to regulation are fallacious for three principal reasons. Firstly, political parties are now publicly funded, and that requires accountability to the public. The public has a right to know the ways in which political parties receive and spend public funds. Secondly, political parties are extensively and intimately involved in public life in every way. In particular, political parties are capable of exercising enormous power that affects all Australians. In government, they may even lead us into war. The public influence and purpose of political parties therefore demands that they be open to scrutiny, be publicly accountable and be run to the highest standards.Thirdly, arguments that political parties are private institutions do not justify their freedom from regulation. In comparison with a public listed company or a private limited company in the private sector, the regulations and requirements placed on political parties are negligible. There are common standards of governance and public interest requirements for companies that should be at least equally applicable to political parties.The Australian Democrats believe that political parties and organisations cannot be treated as purely private bodies. Because of the huge impact such organisations have on public life and on the fortunes of the nation, it is in the public interest that they perform under special financial disclosure regulations, as they mostly do at present, to help create a corruption free and honest political system. However, existing income and expenditure disclosure deals with only half the problem. The same principles of transparency and accountability should apply to ensure that political parties will behave in the manner in which their members under their constitutions say they will act.In that regard, electoral legislation should draw on the Corporations Law. The most relevant aspects of the Corporations Law for political parties are: firstly, the procedural aspects which underlie the participatory nature of corporate affairs to see that they operate democratically in the organisational sense; and, secondly, oversight by a regulatory authority. Further legislative regulation of political parties is desirable in the areas of internal party organisation and procedures, the relationship between the party machine and its membership, and the preselection of candidates.The Commonwealth Electoral Act could include a limited list of principles and items to be included in a political party's constitution, together with a requirement for party constitutions to be approved by the Australian Electoral Commission as a condition of registration. I can assure you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that the commission would not accept an elite of three controlling an organisation. The key constitutional principles might include: the what, who and how of membership; how office-bearers are preselected and elected; how preselection of political candidates is to be conducted; what processes exist for dispute resolution; and what processes exist for changing the constitution.The Australian Electoral Commission should be empowered to receive and investigate complaints of breaches of a political party's constitution, but obviously only after the full internal processes of the party have been exhausted, otherwise—as with every organisation: unions, companies or others—it would do nothing else. Obviously, the AEC would not be empowered to act as a court, but it could have dispute resolution procedures. The AEC's main aim would be to encourage much better self-regulation and management by the membership and its office-bearers.The relationship between the party machine and the party membership requires better and more standard regulatory, constitutional and select systems and procedures, which would enhance the relationship between the party hierarchy, office-bearers, employees, political representatives and the members. Greater regulation and scrutiny of political parties' preselections by the AEC would enhance fairness, transparency and legitimacy in the eyes of the public and members of political parties.The current system of preselection by Australian political parties is discredited. The advantages of greater scrutiny by the Electoral Commission would be that including the commission in some way in the preselection process would help secure an authentic and unchallenged ballot. If external independent scrutiny is desirable, the preselection ballot could be run by the Australian Electoral Commission rather than by the controlling party elite or faction.The Electoral Commission could conduct the count, which would increase transparency and ensure fairness through the use of a neutral umpire. It would also mean that parties could use fairer voting systems. In this way, the public could be reassured that preselection was not some private, corrupt, dishonest and rigged intra-party affair and that the successful candidate got up fairly.In noting that some of the regulation appropriate for companies is similarly appropriate for political parties, I note that some of the protections are too. Like many companies, political parties guard some of their internal processes and information zealously because politics is a highly competitive activity. The competitive edge each party feels it has is vital to it. Legislation that provides for sufficient transparency and good process, without affecting a political party's ability to retain confidentiality where essential, can be achieved. Like the present disclosure regulation, any further regulation would need to be equally applicable to all.457113:30:004571Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Today I want to comment on a matter of public importance, and that is the issue of funding for eduction in New South Wales. The New South Wales Teachers Federation, with the backing of its mates in the Carr government, has recently embarked on a campaign of misinformation over Commonwealth funding of schools in New South Wales. Part of this campaign was a totally irresponsible strike that left 800,000 students without adequate supervision at schools throughout the state. It also caused anguish and angst for parents who suddenly found they had to stay at home and mind their children when they needed to go to work. Needless to say, employers were not amused.But, rather than condemning what can only be described as a blatantly political exercise and an excuse to attack the Howard government, Bob Carr and his team hopped onto the bandwagon. The Carr government used the strike, predictably, as a vehicle for some more Canberra bashing. The teachers called the strike to protest against what they claimed was an increase in spending on private schools at the expense of public schools. The reality is that the shortfalls in funding for government schools in New South Wales have been caused by Bob Carr's failure to match the Commonwealth's commitment to the government school sector. The Commonwealth has, in fact, increased its funding to the New South Wales government for the government school sector by 7.4 per cent. This compares with the Carr government's paltry increase of 3.4 per cent—and that is for its global schools budget.The facts speak for themselves. Government schools in New South Wales will receive $520 million in direct Commonwealth funding this year, and this compares with federal Labor's last year in office when $471.7 million was provided in direct funding. That is almost $50 million more than New South Wales government schools received from Labor. On average, Commonwealth funding from all sources for a government school student this year is $2,144 a student—up $157 a student on Labor's last year.But the Teachers Federation is not really interested in the facts. As the Sydney Morning Herald editorial on the day after the strike put it:It is hard to imagine a more transparent political stunt than yesterday's stopwork meeting by teachers in NSW government schools.The editorial went on to say:. . . yesterday's stopwork will achieve nothing for the public school sector.But, of course, the Teachers Federation is a political body with very little real interest in education, I am sad to say. In its printed 16 objectives, only one deals with education. The rest deal with superannuation, wages, conditions and nuclear disarmament. Yes, you heard correctly. Can you really believe this? Nuclear disarmament is the union's eleventh objective and it sits next to its tenth objective which is, in fact, education. Perhaps we should be grateful that education cracks a mention at all. Nuclear disarmament is no doubt important and a worthy issue but one that hardly fits into the role of teachers who perhaps should be more interested in the students they teach, what they teach, how they teach and, heavens above, what outcomes they can achieve.Mind you, this is the same union that so far has opposed literacy standards, opposes proper reporting to parents, prevents and opposes proactively helping school leavers get a job and has deep-seated opposition to the right of parents to choose the school which best suits their child. This is the union that, during the recent strike action, made the totally false and fatuous claim that 42 non-government schools were receiving the same amount of federal government funding as 478 government schools. To arrive at this mischievous and misleading claim, the union compared the funding for government schools from one specific government program—in fact, it was formerly the disadvantaged schools program and is now absorbed into the overall literacy program—with total funding for non-government schools.Put in terms which even the union might understand, it compared one fraction of the Commonwealth funding for government schools with the total funding that the federal government provides to these non-government schools. It is beyond the realms of imagination to believe that the Carr government was not aware of the truth about the level of Commonwealth funding. But, in its usual manner, it decided to twist the truth and to try to hide its own maladministration of funds for the school sectors. The Sydney Morning Herald editorial, to which I referred a little earlier, stated that the reason schools in New South Wales were under stress and morale was low was:. . . more to do with state government policies than federal policies.Further on, the editorial highlighted the deceitful stance of the Carr government and stated:The Premier, Mr Carr, is happy for teachers to believe that the blame should be sheeted home to Canberra—or even on to the private school sector.I suppose it is understandable. Mr Carr is desperate because he sees his premiership slipping away from him at the next election. The voters will not be fooled about funding and the excuses are finally being seen through. It is therefore an opportune time, given Bob Carr's support for the Teachers Federation tactics—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Order! I ask you to address the Premier of New South Wales by his correct title. It is Premier Carr.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—Premier Carr. It is therefore an opportune time, given Premier Carr's support for the Teachers Federation tactic, to examine education funding. The facts are: the Commonwealth has increased its funding by 7.4 per cent to the New South Wales state government for the government school sector; the state government has major responsibility for this sector; and the Carr government has increased global schools budget by 3.4 per cent—and this figure includes the Commonwealth growth funds.As I stated before, government schools in New South Wales will receive $520 million in direct Commonwealth funds, nearly $50 million more than they were allocated in federal Labor's last year. Per capita spending is now $2,144—up $157 on the Labor government's last year. The high level of funding demands answers as to where all the money has gone. How has it been applied? It is the state government that decides the funding levels for government schools, not the federal government. It is all very well for Premier Carr and his education minister, John Aquilina, to point fingers at the federal government, but it is they who actually decide what schools get what funds.If the Teachers Federation was really concerned about the government school system, it would be asking Premier Carr and Mr Aquilina some pretty tough questions. But the truth is that the Carr government and the union have simply hopped into bed together on this issue. Under the sheets their motto is more `Let's get political' than `Let's get physical.' But what they have to realise is that the Howard government is committed to government school education as well as non-government school education. The Teachers Federation should be asking the Carr government where the money made available for government schools has actually gone.The union and the Carr government also handily forget about the range of initiatives taken under the coalition government for schools across Australia. These programs directly benefit New South Wales and include: increased funding of $45 million over four years for literacy and numeracy in schools; cooperative development of literacy and numeracy benchmarks to identify students most in need of help; funding of $187 million over four years to support vocational education in schools and to promote effective and reliable pathways from school actually into employment; $44 million over three years for initiatives to help students returning to school in response to the youth allowance and for existing students at risk of leaving school prematurely; a clear commitment to ensuring educational justice for indigenous Australians from preschool to university through funding of $333.8 million in 1998-99 for indigenous education; a $17.5 million `Discovering Democracy' civics and citizenship program providing free materials to all schools; a $7.5 million school drugs strategy to provide a national framework for the delivery of drug education in schools; an additional $42.6 million for the national Asian languages and studies in Australian schools strategy, which aims to help young people learn Asian languages; and $163 million for targeted programs to help students with special learning needs, including rural and isolated students—the kids in the bush who always miss out—and new arrivals in need of `English as a second language' tuition and assistance for disabled students.But it would be asking a bit too much of the Carr government and the union to remember all these initiatives in the never-ending quest to try to blame anyone but that government for its own inadequacies. One of the great bungles from the Carr government bunker has been the much-vaunted $50 back to school allowance which has been paid to some families. Others have been overlooked, and some have been overpaid. The list of reported bungles in this one area is impressively woeful: delays of months for payment of the allowance; one family spent what they budgeted for from the allowance but, although the cheque was apparently posted, it did not turn up; a family with three children received $350 instead of $150; parents of HSC students doing TAFE courses through the HSC pathways program did not receive the $50 allowance; and some parents cashed their cheques at local pubs.The Carr government's appalling record is, of course, worthy of note. But, rather than rectifying the problems that this government has foisted upon the people of New South Wales, Premier Carr has formed an alliance with the Teachers Federation. What has become very apparent from the Teachers Federation tactics is that one of the items on its agenda is that it seeks to unravel the system of two competitive school sectors. It does not want a non-government school sector and, by trying to destroy faith in the government school system, it aims to bring pressure to scrap the non-government system and boost the government system.But the coalition government is committed to the development and maintenance of two strong and competitive school sectors that maximise the choices available to both students and parents. When the union claims that the Commonwealth has restricted funding to the government sector in favour of the non-government sector, it is simply distorting the facts. But what it does not realise, or does not want to realise, is that, when a student moves from a government to a non-government school, the state government makes a saving and the Commonwealth pays more. Under the enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme, the state government is required to return to the Commonwealth half the savings that accrue when the proportion of students in non-government schools increases against the 1996 enrolment benchmark.Explaining the system, the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, Senator Ellison, wrote in the Australian newspaper on 4 May this year:The EBA is calculated at the end of each year following a student census to determine the actual drift in enrolments in a State compared to 1996. The calculation involves using actual average expenditure by a State on students in government and non-government schools. If the census shows no change in relative enrolment shares, or an increase in the government share, the EBA is not triggered.So the NSW government helped, of course, to establish the system and actually profits from students switching to non-government schools. But, again, the question that remains unanswered is: where does all the money go?Rather than pursue this legitimate exercise in accountability, the union has simply now joined the Labor Party in a blatant attempt to damage and talk down government schools and the faith of parents in government schools. It is seeking to erode public support for government schooling by embarking on a misleading campaign. But it will not succeed. The coalition government will continue to fight for quality education for all Australian children. It will defend the right of parents, particularly low income parents, to choose their own schools—schools that suit the needs of their own children.This government will not be deterred by campaigns to mislead waged by the union and its Labor mates. Those very campaigns will haunt the Premier at the next election, because so many people now see these excuses for what they are—damning evidence of yet another way in which the Carr government is failing the people of New South Wales.457413:44:004574Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise to draw the attention of the Australian public to the fact that today, 1 July, is one of the blackest days in the history of this country for Australian workers. This morning, many thousands of Australian workers would have gone to their place of employment not knowing that their conditions of employment had changed—that many of the conditions they thought were enshrined in their awards and were there as a right had been abolished as a result of the actions of this government, and that in fact they were now open to exploitation by their employer.These changes are as a direct result of legislation introduced by this government over the period of the past two years as part of this government's approach to the issue of industrial relations. It is again a very clear demonstration of the difference between the promises made by Prime Minister Howard prior to the 1996 election and the outcomes that we have received from the Howard coalition government. What did Mr Howard say in 1995? On 6 October 1995 he said:No worker in Australia under the Howard industrial relations system can have his or her award conditions taken from him or her.That was a cast-iron guarantee. He went on to say on 8 January 1996:Under a Howard government you cannot be worse off.That was a bit like his commitment on the GST: `Never ever, until I get the opportunity to put the boot into you.'He did not only con Australian workers before the last election. He actually conned a lot of the journalists around this country, because the industrial editor of the Sydney Morning Herald in an article on 23 February 1996 observed:John Howard has very successfully neutralised the brunt of a planned Labor scare campaign—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson)—Order! Senator Campbell, it is not appropriate to call the Prime Minister John Howard.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I am quoting from a Sydney Morning Herald article.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I have been advised by the clerk that you cannot say anything in a quote that you are not permitted to say in the Senate. It would be appropriate to rephrase that to `And they addressed him as Prime Minister John Howard.'NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I find it difficult to know how I can quote the exact article out of the Sydney Morning Herald without changing it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sure you have got the creative ability to do that.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—The industrial editor of the Sydney Morning Herald in an article on 23 February 1996 observed that the Prime Minister:John Howard—who was then opposition leader—has very successfully neutralised the brunt of a planned Labor scare campaign by giving `a rock solid guarantee' that his policy will not result in a cut in the take home pay of Australian workers. By this he means that the present system of awards that set out in great detail the minimum wages and conditions of workers will remain intact.It just goes to prove that, if you tell a good enough lie, even the experts will believe you.The reality is that, when you look at and examine carefully the actions of this government, you have to clearly distinguish between the rhetoric that they use in terms of addressing the Australian public and the outcomes that they actually put into practice. The reality is that the actions of this government and the impact of those changes that apply from today, 1 July, will in fact attack the most vulnerable in our society. The most vulnerable in our society are the ones who will pay the greatest penalty as a result of these changes.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Particularly women.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—As Senator Mackay says, particularly women in the work force. But that is not enough for some. Mr Stan Wallis, the head of the Business Council of Australia, is quoted in the newspapers today as saying, `Labour reform has not gone far enough. We have to take it further if we are going to be able to compete in the rough and tumble of the global economy. We need more labour reform.' Labour reform, in his words, means a reduction in workers' living standards.It is a very sad day in many respects that, after 90 years of history of a conciliation and arbitration system in this country which has underpinned the living standards of the Australian community, we have now seen the introduction and application of a decision by a government that has reversed the positive and progressive trend that has occurred out of decisions of the commission over 90 years—starting with the 1905 harvester decision, the 1956 boilermakers case, the 1969 total wage case, the 1974 wage indexation changes, the 1986 superannuation decision and the 1992 decision to introduce enterprise bargaining and to underpin that bargaining with the award system as a safety net for all workers. Now, in 1998, we see that whole process of progressive change on behalf of Australian workers being turned on its head. We have had a journey of some 90 years, and we have now seen a conservative government take the first steps to neutralise a system that has underpinned the living standards of Australians over that whole period of time. They have now used the legislative processes to cut back on the living standards of workers.I suppose the greatest tragedy in all of this is that the groups that are targeted include the people who will best be protected in the process. The reality is that the unionised work force in this country will hardly be impacted by the changes that have been introduced today, because those workers operating as a collective will ensure that their living standards are not impacted by this type of decision. They will be able to sustain those conditions that have now been wiped out as a result of the award stripping exercise through their process of enterprise bargaining and collective agreements. But the real tragedy is that the groups in this society who will be most impacted by these changes are the groups that the award system in fact was built up to protect—that is, workers in regional and rural Australia who in the main are employed under the award structure, whose living standards are determined by what is in their awards.We have recently been travelling around the country on an inquiry into regional unemployment, and it was said to us in a number of areas that some companies have had difficulty getting workers because the award rates of pay in the area are not much above what is available through the welfare system when you add in the cost that those workers have to endure in terms of travelling to and from work, et cetera. That is a very clear demonstration that the vast bulk of workers in regional and rural Australia rely on the award system to underpin their living standards. That no longer is the case. We will see over the forthcoming months many examples emerge where workers in this country will start to become exploited by their employers, now that the underpinning of their conditions have been removed.As I said, the union work force will not be impacted. As the MUA dispute clearly demonstrated, the unions have a capacity to maintain their position and to do it well. If there was one comment that came out of the dispute on the waterfront which I think was pretty telling, it was the comment of one of the employees coming out of the gates of Webb Dock after he had been given the bullet by PCS. He said to a television reporter, `One of the lessons I've learnt in this dispute is you've got to get yourself a strong union to look after your interests.' This was from a person who was engaged to go through the process of union busting on the waterfront.However, the reality is that the other group of workers in this community who are going to be severely impacted by these changes is non-union labour: the very people the government encouraged to get out of unions and the union movement, the very people the government told, `We will protect you. Prime Minister John Howard will protect you. We will give you a rock solid guarantee that your conditions of employment will not be touched.' They are the ones who will be exploited the most by these changes. They are the ones who are the most vulnerable in the process and they are the ones who will have little opportunity to defend themselves when employers start to strip away the benefits of those conditions that were in those awards that applied to them.There is an upside to all of this of course, because what will also happen, as happened with the MUA dispute, is that workers will come knocking on the doors of the trade union movement saying, `We want to join. We now understand what unions are there for. More importantly, we understand that, if our living standards are going to be protected, we can only do it through collective organisations, through trade unions.' The same message that many thousands of workers in this country got through the MUA dispute, they will get through the process of what is occurring with the award stripping exercise today.I also want to say to those workers that they should not take any comfort from the fact that their position may be protected or resolved by the policies of One Nation, because the leader of that sordid group supported the Workplace Relations Act introduced by this government. She voted for it. So her philosophy, her principle, is consistent with that of this government.I just want to say in the few minutes that are remaining to me that workers should not despair because the Labor Party has got a plan to restore those entitlements to you. We have a 10-point plan, but it is a positive 10-point plan. It is about restoring to workers those rights that underpin the living standards of every worker in this country.What are the 10 points that the next Labor government will put in place? They are very clear and simple commitments. We will fix up the award system and we will restore the AIRC. We will make awards effective and we will make them comprehensive. We will give all employees access to the federal award system. We will make the system of bargaining fairer. We will ensure that employees are no worse off. We will give priority to collective bargaining, but collective bargaining underpinned by a comprehensive award system. We will abolish the Office of the Employment Advocate. We will provide an effective right of entry for unions to protect the interests of workers. We will put an emphasis on the resolution of industrial disputes—not the creation of industrial disputes, as has been the record of this government. We will not go out to create disputes on the waterfront; we will go out to resolve those disputes. A Labor government will take the necessary steps to protect the interests of every worker in this country.Government senators interjecting—NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I can understand the interjections from the other side, because they know that they conned the Australian workers in 1996. But the reality is that, in 1998, they will not con the Australian workers a second time.Questions Without Notice457645764576Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is to Senator Vanstone representing the Attorney-General. Can the minister confirm that there are at least four agencies within the Attorney-General's portfolio with vacant office space on leases ranging up to 2007? Is the minister aware that the Human Rights Commission has vacated 1,200 square metres in central Sydney but remains liable to pay $2.71 million until expiry of the lease in 2004; or that the Australian Government Solicitor remains liable to pay $5.65 million until 2002 in the Sydney CBD, $471,000 until 2002 in Darwin, $1.34 million until 2006 in Adelaide's CBD, and $1.52 million until 2007 in the Melbourne CBD; or that the Australian Protective Service remains liable to pay $481,000 until 1999 on a property in Kingston ACT; or that the Federal Court remains liable for vacated Industrial Relations Court premises in Sydney at a cost of $83,000?UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Time, time!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator! The time for asking the question has terminated.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—She had to wait for the minister to come in.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I call Senator Vanston to answer the question.4577Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I thank the senator for her question. She has obviously done a significant amount of research to prepare that question. She nods in appreciation. I hope she is nodding truthfully, and has not simply accepted work someone else has done on her behalf. If she has done that work, then good luck go to her. It would not be a surprise to you, Madam President, to know that I do not have a brief on the vacant space through the Attorney-General's Department, as I am confident a number of other ministers would not have, but I will seek some advice for the senator in regard to that matter and get back to her.What I can say is that I am absolutely confident that the Attorney-General's Department, along with all other departments, are managing their property services—to the extent they have control over them—as best as is possible. Sometimes as a consequence of policy changes, sometimes as a consequence of a change in size of an organisation—going up or down and needing different accommodation—there can be vacant space in any organisation. The key requirement of course is to properly manage one's responsibilities and liabilities. The Commonwealth is no different from another lessee of space in that, when the space is no longer required, it cannot just walk away from a contract; it has to live up to its contractual obligations. That, of course, means managing one's property responsibilities as best one can. I am confident we are doing that. I am confident that this government would be doing it across the board far more efficiently and effectively than the previous government. As to the specifics, I will seek some information for the senator.4577Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given this projected waste of $12.255 million up to 2007, couldn't the government have better prioritised this expenditure to enhance legal aid or Family Court counselling? How can this gross waste of money on empty offices in this portfolio possibly be defended?4577Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPMinister for Justice10—I regret that the senator was obviously not listening to the answer or perhaps does not understand the contractual arrangement that one might enter into when one leases property. Perhaps the senator thinks that the Commonwealth can be a bad renter or client in that respect and just walk away and not pay up. Perhaps the senator thinks that where there is vacant space that can be just turned into cash overnight and that the Commonwealth responsibilities can somehow be removed with a magic wand. The plain facts are that where the Commonwealth has entered into a contract it is liable under that contract. And, as with any other business that moves from one premises to another for whatever appropriate reasons, there may then be a vacant space not taken up that has to be paid for until it can be sub-let or alternative Commonwealth uses made of that space. Senator, for you to simplistically assume that you can take the cost of vacant space, turn it into cash and spend it on something else is naive in the extreme. (Time expired)45774577Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TASLP10—My question is to Senator Kemp. The coalition government's $3.9 billion savings rebate initiative starts today. For the first time, all Australians have the opportunity to benefit from a tax cut on their savings. Will the minister inform the Senate of the benefits of the rebate? Could he also outline the types of savings and investments that will be covered, and how many Australians are expected to receive the rebate?4577Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Abetz, for that important question and for drawing the attention of the Senate and the Australian public to the fact that this is the day on which the savings rebate commences. The savings rebate, as senators will recall, was a major initiative of the 1997 budget. It offers a significant tax break to people who earn income from their savings or investments, and will be a real incentive for Australians to save more. In my view, it is an important step in building Australia's savings culture. Many millions of Australians are expected to receive the savings rebate. In fact, all Australians have the opportunity to benefit.The rebate also rewards those who have already saved, particularly—and I stress that—self-funded retirees with income from privately funded pensions and annuities. I think that is a very important feature of the savings rebate. Of course, those people, you will remember, Madam President, would not have benefited under Labor's discredited so-called co-contribution scheme, which was tied up with Labor's broken promise on the l-a-w, law tax cuts.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You broke your promise on that one.WW4Senator KEMP—I am glad that Senator Sherry confirmed that Labor did break the l-a-w, law tax cuts. Thank you, Senator Sherry, for confirming what I said.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—No, I am just reminding you that you have broken your promise.WW4Senator KEMP—Now don't change your mind, Senator Sherry. The bulk of the rebate will flow to Australians with an annual income of less than $40,000. Taxpayers should start saving now to ensure they obtain the maximum rebate. Eligible taxpayers will be able to claim the rebate from today through the PAYE and provisional tax systems or on assessment at the end of the year. The rebate is designed to encourage private savings and to enhance Australia's retirement income system in a simple, fair and flexible way which allows individuals to choose the form of savings which is most suited to their needs.The savings rebate will work as follows from today: the first-year rebate of 7.5 per cent will apply to every dollar of saving or investment income or personal undeducted superannuation contributions, up to a maximum of $3,000; and the full rebate of 15 per cent will apply from 1 July 1999 to the $3,000 cap, thus providing a maximum rebate of $450 per person. For low and middle income earners, the first $1,000 of personal superannuation contributions will attract both the savings rebate and the existing 10 per cent rebate that is available to individuals earning up to $31,000. Unlike Labor's unworkable proposal which was to apply to super savings only, the savings rebate will be allowable on income from a wide range of savings and investments, such as interest on bank accounts and dividends from shares. This was a very important budget initiative which I believe was widely welcomed by Australians. (Time expired)45784578Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—My question is also addressed to the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that the Australian Taxation Office expects to pay some $40 million in dead rent between two office buildings it has vacated in recent months—namely, Bankstown in Sydney and Cheltenham in Melbourne—with leases still to run until 2002? Is the minister aware that these offices have not been vacated because the ATO has been downsized; but rather their staff have been transferred to other offices and, in the case of Cheltenham, some have been sent across Melbourne to Moonee Ponds? How can the government possibly justify this wasted rent money, these forced transfers and this removal of taxation offices from important business centres in Sydney and Melbourne? Is this not just another example of this government withdrawing Commonwealth services from the people who pay for them and wasting money at the same time?4578Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Labor Party used to be regarded as a party of reform—indeed, some people like Senator George Campbell used to be regarded as radicals—but now, in many ways, we find that it is a party that hates change and resists change. Frankly, I would have thought that Senator Campbell would have recognised that times change. It is important that we have an efficient tax office which delivers best practice, and this does involve change. I am sorry, Senator Campbell, that you are a person who resists change.The ATO is looking to maintain accommodation in holdings in step with the ATO's changing business requirements. The benefits gained from these approaches will be used for additional staff and support for the improved operation of the tax system and will benefit the Australian community. The application of these approaches foreshadow that the existing site in Cheltenham, which you mentioned, will not be required in the medium term and that a reduced requirement will exist in Bankstown. Earliest dates for the subletting of these sites—you mentioned the issue of subletting—will be this June. It is a very important objective to ensure that the service to clients is maintained.The ATO is examining and developing alternative means of meeting clients needs. While issues have been raised as to the impact on the local community and business, the plans are predicated on subleasing the offices in Cheltenham and Bankstown, thereby maintaining, through new tenants, the total numbers employed in these locations. On the staffing side, the plans will result in existing staff being placed in jobs—wherever possible in reasonable locations. There was consultation with groups on this proposal. As the tax office always does with proposed changes, it consults widely with staff and the unions as appropriate.4579Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given this utter waste of some $40 million on 19,800 square metres of vacant office space until two years into the next century—money which could have been put to much better use in the public health system, in child care or in public schools—has the government imposed any similar political decisions on the tax office in relation to any other regional offices? If there are other examples, how much more taxpayers' money is being wasted by this government on dead rent?4579Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator George Campbell does not seem to understand that we are in the business of creating a more efficient Taxation Office, which is what the Australian community expects. I am surprised that you, Senator Campbell, along with some of your colleagues resist making public services more efficient in this country, because that is essentially what you are trying to do. The Australian taxpayer is entitled to believe that the tax office and other government departments are operating at best practice. That, of course, is our intention.45794579Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Warwick Parer, the popular Minister for Resources and Energy. My question relates to the alternative, simplistic economic prescriptions being promoted for the future of this country. Minister, what would be the impact on our resources industries, particularly our primary industries, on proposals that foreign investment be curtailed, Australia abandon job creating export opportunities, Australia return to a fixed exchange rate, and the belief that artificially low interest rate loans can be made available to select groups at the expense of others?4579Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I would like to thank Senator Watson for that question and for his compliments. It is important to remember just how much Australia relies on its primary and resource industries particularly when there are crazy proposals flying about, the bottom line of which would be to decimate those industries. There is a simple answer to all this political quackery: it would cost real jobs with rural and regional areas hit the hardest.Foreign investment provides us with many business and employment opportunities which would otherwise be lost, along with access to new technology and management skills. Our exports would decline such as our level of beef exports to Japan, influenced by Japanese investment in the beef industry, and there would also be no further sales of Mitsubishi cars to Japan. Our resources and primary industries are fully exposed to international competition and must therefore be truly internationally competitive. We should be very clear: if we reduce foreign investment in Australia, we will more than likely lose substantial sections of our domestic industries to other countries which are not flirting with anti-investment policies.Abandoning trade liberalisation might appear to help primary industry, but, with three-quarters of our output being exported, the rural sector would be hit extremely hard. Stopping imports, for instance, of pork from Canada would jeopardise Australian exports to Canada which have a far greater value. We export eight times more primary products to Canada that we import. The damaging effect of abandoning trade liberalisation has been recognised recently in media statements by no less than the Cattle Council of Australia, the Wool Council of Australia, the Queensland Canegrowers Council and the Australian Dairy Industry Council, with the canegrowers noting that:. . . attempts to limit the entry of foreign farmed products into Australia would have a massive detrimental effect on our great sugar industry.Similarly, at a first glance, fixing the exchange rate to reduce volatility might seem to provide a buffer between Australia and the fortunes of other countries. In reality, it would make us more dependant on those countries, not less.If the Australian dollar was tied to the US, fluctuations in the US would force the Reserve Bank to buy or sell large amounts of Australian dollars. We have all seen what happened to Asian countries which did exactly that. Providing artificially low exchange rates may also seem superficially attractive. The price, however, would be paid by small business and other rural industries. The bottom line of all these proposals is they could be counted in the loss of real jobs. They would reduce the attractiveness of Australia as a place to do business for both foreign investors and domestic business. The jobs impact would be worse in the rural and regional areas, the very areas which these policies are intended to protect.The government established the market development task force to focus on bilateral trade activity, boosting the importance given to this by the previous Labor government. Successes include Australian banks in China, dairy products into Saudi Arabia and live cattle exports to China. This has created real jobs for Australian companies operating in Australia, real jobs in rural and regional areas instead of anti-investment policies which would cost jobs.45804580Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is also to Senator Parer. It is now 111 days since the minister was exposed in a massive conflict of interest in relation to his shareholdings and 100 days since he made a statement in this place promising to divest himself of—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Parer is entitled to hear this question. I would ask people not to interject and shout, especially those near to him.RF4Senator COOK—It has been 100 days since he made a statement in this place promising to divest himself of `public company shares in mining companies'. Will the minister now table those documents that prove he has actually divested himself of his interests in all relevant companies? Will the minister also table a statement on his revised shareholding arrangements in this chamber so that Australian people can be assured that he has genuinely divested himself of those shareholdings that gave rise to this conflict and not merely siphoned them off to entities in which he retains an indirect interest such as trusts or family members?4580Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Senator Cook made some outrageous statements there. It is the old trick: to make a statement and then ask the question. I reject all the comments he made about conflict of interest. There were attempts made here to cover that in the past. It did not go anywhere. There was no conflict of interest and no potential for conflict of interest. He also in his question referred to me divesting myself of public company shares. I never ever had any, Senator Cook, if you look up public company shares in mining companies.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—It was in your statement.KI4Senator PARER—Not public company shares, Senator, definitely not. I have made full disclosure in accordance with the Senate requirements not only prior to the time when I was unaware of the changes in the Senate requirements but also post that time. Those are available, Senator, for the public record.4580Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Parer, you can run but you cannot hide on this.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It is important that the question be heard.RF4Senator COOK—Will you table in this chamber the documents that prove that you have divested yourself of a financial interest in companies that fall within your ministerial portfolio? Will you also confirm that as minister you have structured the pseudo-divestment so that you can, within minutes of ceasing to be a minister, regain all of your interests in resource companies including the very valuable dividend stream from the Jellinbah coal mine?4581Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I have divested myself of—UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Prove it; table the document.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Robert Ray, you have been persistently interjecting this afternoon.KI4Senator PARER—I have done everything that I have said I would do in accordance with the statement I made. I have nothing further to add.45814581Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of calls by the Business Council of Australia for a new round of labour market changes, including reducing the safety net, introducing a savagely limited number of minimum conditions, stripping awards right back beyond the safety net, restricting the ability of unions to take industrial action even during bargaining periods, and stripping the Industrial Commission of most of its powers to solve disputes? Minister, does the government recognise that the act's changes to the award system are not complete and therefore calls for further major change are simply ambit claims? Will you confirm here that the government will continue to stand by its commitment that no worker will be made worse off as a result of any further changes planned by the coalition?4581Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I do not claim to have come across that article. I do not know that Senator Murray was being specific when he talked about some business group, but it does not sound like a reasonable proposition to me. The approach that we have taken to the award process has certainly been much more concerned with simplification, and it could not be described as stripping. That is the sort of jargon you get from the other side, who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the trade union movement, because anything that affects their power base obviously affects their capacity to provide finds to the ALP at election time. So we are not surprised you get that sort of ongoing rhetoric from people, most of whom have not had real jobs.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What sort of job have you had?LD4Senator ALSTON—I have been a member of the BLF, which is more than you can say. I know what it is like at the coalface. If you think real work is going around belting up defenceless party members and branch stacking, if that is what you think constitutes working for a living, that is pretty typical.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, I draw your attention to the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—The measures that we have taken to date provide not only adequate safety nets but also opportunities for all, particularly small businesses, to be able to negotiate in a transparent manner, not to be overwhelmed by all the minutia of award processes which have been used traditionally by the trade union movement as a means of binding hand and foot many small businesses who have been wanting to provide incentive and performance structures. We did certainly undertake that no worker would be worse off as a result of these changes. No-one has ever demonstrated that they are—in fact, quite the contrary.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Come on!LD4Senator ALSTON—The only people who might be are a few union organisers who have found that they have actually got to get out there and perform. I presume that because they spend most of their time preparing questions for you for estimates and all sorts of other helpful activities, you regard that as working for a living. Well, we do not. We think that people ought to be paid on per formance in terms of the wider community, not in terms of servicing interest groups like the ALP—one of the narrowest interest groups in the country, I might say, and one that has no interest or comprehension of what is happening out in rural areas.You are the ones running around with scare campaigns. You are the ones playing into the hands of Hanson. You are the ones who are not interested in policy reform. All you have done is ignore the real issues. We believe in proper workplace reform, and so does Senator Murray, and that is why he agreed with the approach we took. We were very grateful to Mrs Kernot at the time. I am sure she will not recant on that position she has taken. Even in her heart of hearts she must know that sensible workplace reform was well overdue in this country, and we have delivered in full.4582Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, thank you for your answer. Do you agree that more than ever the safety net provided by awards, the vetting of agreements and oversight by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission are vitally important to protect the position of all Australian casual, part-time and full-time workers? Will you or the government be telling any extreme economic rationalists that might approach the government that the Workplace Relations Act still needs to settle down and that what is needed now is more attention to job security, not more attention to stripping the rights of employees?4582Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I think it is generally correct to say that awards based on the new simplified approach do provide an adequate safety net. I certainly would not agree with what the other side would argue that all awards are the ultimate and only safety net and the more complicated they are the less ability there is to negotiate the better. We do not believe in any form of awards, but we do believe that the approach we have adopted, which provides for a minimum level of supporting critical areas but still provides flexibility, is the way to go.I very much appreciate Senator Murray's general support for the approach the government has adopted. I only hope that he will be out there exposing the inadequacies of the Labor Party in this area, showing that they are the troglodytes when it comes to reform in a whole range of areas. Their idea of security is to run around and tell people how insecure they ought to feel, to tell them that they have no hope, to tell them that only government can solve the problems, that people like Pauline Hanson, effectively, are saying what they believe. Well, it is not good enough, and it is about time you cleaned up your act. (Time expired)45824582Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. What does the minister say to the Newcastle family who has just been told that their 18-year-old daughter will lose all of her unemployment benefit, her health care card and her public transport concessions due to the introduction of the youth allowance today? How does the minister explain to this family where one parent has a chronic illness and the other earns an average wage that they have to find an extra $87 a week to support their daughter? How does the minister explain to their daughter that she now has to pay an extra $39 for her asthma inhaler and pay full fare on the bus, not to mention the fees that job seekers who are not on social security now have to pay to get help with finding work?4582Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I have learnt enough in these years in politics to take claims like those I have just received from Senator Forshaw not at face value but subject to investigation. Having said that, and not, therefore, confirming the figures in his question at all by any means, I would say that people are starting now to get calls from Centrelink where their parental income is over the cut out level. Let me make it quite clear that that is the same cut out level that students will also be facing, and it is a much more generous cut out level than the Austudy parental means test, which was, of course, introduced and maintained for many years by Labor.It does depend on the family income. It depends on the number of children in the family. There is not enough information in your question to indicate just how well off that family is, just how many children there are. The circumstances are that no longer will young unemployed people have different entitlements from students of the same age and in the same family circumstances. No longer will we be paying more to young unemployed and less to students. They will have the same entitlements, but they will also all be parentally means test under the same parental means test. It is a more generous means test than you administered for many years on families for Austudy purposes. Let us be clear: if there is one young person in the family and they are living at home, the parental means test cuts out at just over $41,000.B36NEALSenator Neal—It starts cutting out at $23,400.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Which is your Austudy start, Senator, so do not give me any of that crying poor. It is intriguing that the people who would do nothing effective for young people in all those 13 years are now sitting wringing their hands on the sidelines. We are treating young people, regardless of their circumstances, better than Labor did because we have a more generous means test and we are treating brothers and sisters, unemployed or students, on the same basis.Students are now going to be more comfortably off—comfortable, I suppose, is not the word, but they are certainly going to have better income support opportunities than they had under Labor. Young unemployed people will expect the same level of support from their parents as their brothers and sisters who are students. That is the rationale of it. It is a rationale which is accepted by Australian parents around the country who understand that it is not moral to be paying young people more to be unemployed than to be students. It sends a powerful message: it is a good thing to be a student, it is a good thing to improve your qualifications and, therefore, if you have the opportunity to do that, get out and do it, but do not come and say that young unemployed people should be treated more generously than Australian students.4583Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I point out, Minister, that you have not addressed any of the issues raised in the question. This is a real family. This is not the Wright family. Why is the minister so determined to deliberately conceal the many negative impacts of the youth allowance? Why is it that, after spending $4 million to promote this measure, so many of those who will be affected by it are still unaware that their benefits will be reduced or lost altogether?4583Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I am delighted at the supplementary. Can I ask in return why it is that the opposition and their friends see a need to frighten families in Australia by peddling some quite disgraceful fallacies? For example, they say it is a savings measure. It is not a savings measure. It is an extra $212 million worth of expenditure over the next four years. Let that be clear.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You have cut $500 million.BH4HILLSenator Hill—No, an extra $200 million.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, cease shouting!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Stories are being peddled that the parental means test cuts out at $23,400, that there will be no support for families over that. That is untrue, and I have already given you why that is and what the figures are. They are peddling that the implementation of it is being bungled. Not true. The implementation is going according to plan, and young people have another week to return their forms. We just heard that it treats the unemployed unfairly. It does not. It treats all young people equally. (Time expired)45834583Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is addressed to Senator Parer, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The largest experiment on earth into integrated river catchment management is being overseen by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, which has a budget of $45 million per annum. I ask about the Hume Dam, the world's second biggest dam of that type when opened in the 1920s, which sits between the electorates of Farrer and Indi. It will require $70 million to upgrade the dam, including measures to stop the movement of the dam. This year, as part of the total contribution of $18 million to the Hume Dam remedial works program, the Commonwealth is paying $3.18 million. I ask: is it true, following a cabinet rebuff for alternative financing, that this money is being diverted from the Natural Heritage Trust fund, previously promised by the Prime Minister to be allocated to environmental spending?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Why don't you answer it, Robert?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Because they don't ask me.4584Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I am aware of the problems with the Hume Dam and the requirements to actually correct it because they were discussed some 12 months ago. With regard to the source of funding regarding the remedial work, I have no brief from the minister for primary industries, but I understand from Minister Hill—and you may like to direct your question to him—that it is coming out of the Murray-Darling 2001 program, which comes from the Natural Heritage Trust.4584Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Exactly the point. Now we have had it confirmed that this $3 million is coming from the Natural Heritage Trust, I ask the minister: how can this government, which guaranteed that that money was allocated to spending on environmental works, spend it on capital works on the repair of a dam between the seats of Indi and Farrer in this coming financial year? How can it justify that?4584Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—The only response that I can give to the senator is—and I had suggested to him that I will refer some of the parts that I could not answer because I do not have a brief from the minister—that it actually comes from the program.45844584Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Ellison, rather than Allison, in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Honourable senators interjecting—B36Senator NEAL—Well there does seem to be an error made from time to time. How does the minister respond to the case of a 17-year-old unemployed person from Nora Head on the Central Coast who is disgusted with the new Job Network arrangements? How does the minister explain to this young woman why she was referred by Centrelink at Tuggerah to three employment agencies? The first, in Gosford, had a recorded message on the telephone service, and she gave up in frustration—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On a point of order, Madam President. In view of the fact that we have now had two questions in a row which seem to be revealing some very personal details about families, I would have thought that you should not allow those questions unless it is indicated that the families concerned have consented to their privacy being invaded in this way or, indeed, whether these are real families. If they are, then we ought to have full details of them provided and put on the public record. Otherwise, we are simply being asked to respond to something which may or may not be an entire misrepresentation of the true situation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The minister need not answer hypothetical matters which are put to him.B36Senator NEAL—The woman was referred to three employment agencies. The first, in Gosford, had a recorded message and she gave up in frustration after 10 minutes; the second, also in Gosford, was a $20 return trip by public transport; and the third, at Wyong, was a $10 public transport trip. Is this what the minister was referring to when he proclaimed yesterday that, `With the Job Network we are providing choice and convenience for unemployed people?'4584Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—I am not about to discuss in the Senate the personal details of any individual job seeker. What I am going to talk about are the increased opportunities for job seekers. What we have here is a situation that Senator Neal is not aware of. Job seekers can go to Centrelink where choices are available to them. They can call job network providers from Centrelink using the facilities that Centrelink has available—the touch screens, the telephones—and they can produce job resumes there. They can contact a variety of job network providers that they have available to them.Senator Neal said that job seekers are referred to providers. They do not necessarily have to go there—they have all that facility at Centrelink. This is what we have given job seekers in Australia. We have given them over 300 organisations to choose from. And guess what? At the close of business last night, we went past our target of 125,000 referrals for intensive assistance. We did 126,000. Well done, Job Network, I say—well done.UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Hear, hear!9X5Senator ELLISON—A few more hear, hears. We beat our target by 1,000 for intensive assistance—they are the people we have to help, the sort of people Senator Neal is referring to. We have increased the site numbers to over 1,500. Remember I said it was over 1,400? Well it has got bigger. There is more—it is over 1,500. That is over four times what we previously had. Things have got better for unemployed Australians.4585Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. How can the minister continue to defend a system which further disadvantages these people in our community and makes them even more disadvantaged than they presently are? We are talking about getting them jobs, not just referring them somewhere else.4585Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—We are referring job seekers to the opportunity of getting a job. We are giving them more opportunities, more avenues, to get a job. The CES, which existed previously, was all about case management: putting people on this roundabout, churning them around and getting them nowhere. What we are looking at is getting them a job—job-matching—and we are paying incentives for that to happen.45854585McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to the Minister for Social Security. Will the minister outline the benefits to young Australians of the government's youth allowance initiative which begins today? How does the youth allowance contrast with the income support schemes left by the previous government? 4585Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPSocial Security10—I thank Senator McGauran for his answer.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is `question' actually.BE4Senator NEWMAN—For his question. It is a pity—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise is absolutely unacceptable.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, small minds do enjoy small games. Senator McGauran is acknowledging what most sensible and fair-minded people do acknowledge—that this is a very beneficial measure despite the claims of the opposition and some of their friends on that side of politics. Under this government at last, young people who are studying are going to receive the entitlements that their brothers and sisters receive if they are on unemployment payments. There is no longer a financial penalty for young people to undertake study. Of course, it is a serious matter, not just for the individuals but for our country, if we do not encourage young people through the financial assistance that we can give them.And yet, the Labor government, throughout 13 years, perpetuated a system where it was more attractive financially to be unemployed than to study. Really, when you think about it, rent assistance can be worth up to $75 a fortnight, a pharmaceutical allowance is included as an entitlement and young people from remote areas can be entitled to remote area allowance. Those are important measures which are available to young unemployed people but which have not been available to students.It is amazing that we could have a party opposite that would go on and on proposing that there is something nasty in the woodpile about the youth allowance. The benefits are clear. It is very clear that Australia will be benefited. More students will be eligible for assistance than were eligible under Austudy. That is why I make the point that the more generous income test means that there will be more families that can afford to have their children educated. It is particularly important for young people who have to come away from regional centres to get a further education. It is particularly important for those families with several children that, until today, had to choose which student it would advantage.AW5CARRSenator Carr—That is quite right. You cut $500,000.BE4Senator NEWMAN—It seems very difficult for the opposition to allow the Australian people to hear about the benefits of the youth allowance.AW5CARRSenator Carr—There are 45,000 students worse off under your government.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, stop shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am sick to death of Senator Carr trying to bully by using a loud, aggressive voice while I try to give Australians this important information. Of the 560,000 young people who will be affected by the youth allowance, 153,000 will receive more money, 361,000 will receive the same money, 32,000 will receive a reduced payment and nearly 13,000 will receive no money because their families do not satisfy the parental income test which is applied to students. But it is a more generous income test than it was previously.All we have heard from Labor is complaint. Does it really want us to go back to the days when students were getting less? Will it try to cut out the additional $212 million of expenditure that we are making to pay for the youth allowance? This is a spending measure. Labor presided over a hotchpotch of payments, where departments administered five payments at 13 different rates. Even then, young people could fall between the cracks. If you got glandular fever and you could not do a full study course, you would not be eligible for Austudy, newstart or the unemployment benefit. You would get no assistance. It was a terrible state of affairs, and it will be fixed. (Time expired)45864586Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Could the minister inform the Senate why it is that, almost eight weeks after the launch of the job network, job seekers are still unable to assess the performance of specific job providers. Is it true that the decision not to release performance data on the Internet was not a departmental decision but a government decision? Why is the government deliberately denying job seekers the opportunity to make an informed choice about job providers?4586Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—This is a competitive environment, as I have said time and time again. It is a system where you will see exactly how these people are performing by the results. Those results depend on incentives provided by the Commonwealth government. It is the best possible way of assessing how good a particular jobs provider is. We are also monitoring the system. Senator Gibbs might not know, because she was not at the estimates committee, but there will be departmental reviews of the jobs network providers and their performance in due course.4586Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister acknowledge that the reason the government is denying information about job providers to job seekers is that the placement rates are so appalling in comparison with the rates under the former CES?4586Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSchools, Vocational Education and Training10—We have just seen one of the greatest reforms in Australia's history in relation to job seekers. It has barely been in place a couple of months. It is really too early to make any valuable assessment at this stage.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I ask for at least relative silence so that I can hear the answers. The level of noise in the chamber is unacceptable.9X5Senator ELLISON—If you really wanted to assist the job seekers of Australia, you would not provide them with immature data at this early stage as it would not be of any assistance to them. We are ensuring that the unemployed have the choice of over 300 organisations over 1,500 sites and that they have a choice of programs available, such as job matching, job search training and inten sive assistance, which is so much needed by the long-term unemployed.45874587Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The World Trade Organisation has released its report recommending that Australia be forced to lift import bans on fresh Canadian salmon. If this occurs, yet another primary industry faces devastation from cheap imports as well as the threat of foreign diseases devastating our fisheries. Will the government use the mechanisms available to appeal the WTO salmon report, or is our salmon industry doomed to go the same way as the Australian citrus and pork industries, which is down the gurgler?4587Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—I thank Senator Woodley for the question. I will correct an incorrect comment he made about cheap overseas imports. The salmon industry has not been concerned about competing with any imports on price; it has only been concerned about any disease that might be introduced into this country.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are senators on my right interjecting. I ask them to cease.KI4Senator PARER—The World Trade Organisation publicly released the report of the dispute settlement panel on 12 June this year. The panel was established by the dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organisation on 10 April 1997 in response to a request from Canada. This followed Minister Anderson's announcement on 20 September 1996 of the AQIS decision to continue the quarantine restrictions on uncooked salmon on quarantine grounds.It would be prejudicial to Australia's interests to comment on the legal correctness or otherwise of the panel's findings. The report has not disputed Australia's right to adopt strong, scientifically based quarantine measures which are appropriate to our domestic circumstances. The Australian government will continue to protect our national interest by maintaining the policies in place to protect our very favourable animal and plant health status.The report has three main findings which relate to Australia's risk assessment procedures, consistency in the management of quarantine risk and the application of existing measures. The panel's report is subject to appeal under the dispute settlement procedures of the World Trade Organisation. A decision on whether to appeal the panel's findings will be made in the light of detailed analysis of the report which is now under way, including consultation with the stakeholders. I also point out to Senator Woodley that an appeal can really only be based on points of law.4587Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I thank the minister for his answer. Minister, what is the implication of the WTO decision on salmon, if it is upheld, on other Australian quarantine decisions, particularly on chicken, pork, apples and pears? Has the government explored the far reaching repercussions of this report? What will the government do, if this report is upheld, to minimise the impact on Australian primary industry?4587Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—This has been made clear to Senator Woodley over and over again. I do not know how often we have to say it. It is in Australia's interests, because of the volume of rural and fishery type exports, to break down tariff and non-tariff barriers. We have said on many occasions that we will continue to protect our very valuable animal and plant health status. We will continue to direct our attention in that regard. But to go down the track of introducing into this country tariff or non-tariff barriers, particularly non-tariff barriers, which would adversely affect the size of our exports overseas, would be absolutely stupid.(Time expired)45874587Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. If in fact the minister, `never, ever had any public company shares, not in mining companies, not any public company shares, no, Senator,' which the minister said earlier in question time today, why then did the minister inform the Senate on 23 March that he had divested `public company shares in mining companies'?4588Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—You have got a pretty silly memory. If you go right back to the beginning, you will find that the only shares that I ever had in mining companies—public company shares—was at the time of my appointment as a minister, and I divested myself of those shares at that time.4588Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have a supplementary question. On 23 March 1998, the minister informed the Senate in a statement, following a significant amount of questioning in this chamber in relation to—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is making a statement rather than asking a supplementary question. If I can be helpful to him, he should phrase it in such terms as, `In such circumstances, how do you explain,' and then it would be legitimate. But in the form in which he is putting it, it is illegitimate. He should comply with the standing orders in the same way as everyone else has to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Your question should be phrased properly, but proceed with it, Senator Faulkner.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President: I would have thought, given that I was commencing my question, that there was nothing improper in the question. I was about to conclude my question and it was perfectly in order, and I would ask you to rule accordingly.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Let us hear the question.5K4Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam President. To conclude the question that I was in the process of asking: on 23 March 1998, the Minister for Resources and Energy informed the Senate that he had sent—and I quote:. . . a copy of a letter from Brisbane stockbrokers Nevitts to the Prime Minister in relation to (a) divestiture of public company shares in mining companies . . .I ask: was the Senate misled today or on 23 March?4588Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—It has never been misled in regard to that. The statement from the stockbrokers was incorporated in the letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister which was released. You would have a copy of it, Senator, and everyone else in Australia seems to have one.45884588Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Is it a fact that, a few days prior to the last election, Senator Faulkner, as the then environment minister, approved a massive expansion of the Roxby Downs uranium mine without an environmental impact statement? How does the government's approach on environmental safeguards compare with that of the previous Labor government? Is the minister aware of recent support from Labor identities for the government's approach with respect to the Jabiluka uranium mine?4588Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—It raises the issue again as to what is the Labor Party's position on uranium mining. If anyone can define it, I will be very surprised. Labor tries to win with both constituencies. It sends a confused message in the hope of winning the Greens on the one hand and industry on the other. Before they got into government previously, their published policy was to phase out uranium mining in this country. They then converted it into a three mine policy. In actual fact, during their 13 years in government, Australia exported more than twice the amount of uranium than was exported in the previous 27 years of the coalition government. So they said to the Greens, `Three mines means less uranium exports,' when in actual fact there were more uranium exports than ever before.They say to industry, `We are on your side,' and they say to the Greens, `We are on your side as well.' It was so typical, in the action of Senator Faulkner before the last election—Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, I can't hear you.BH4Senator HILL—I know why he is interrupting: it is very embarrassing. Before the last election—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner and Senator Alston will cease talking across the chamber.BH4Senator HILL—Before the last election he granted an enormous increase in the Roxby Downs uranium mine, and did so without even requiring an additional environmental impact statement. It was reported in the press in the following terms:Senator Faulkner has been putting off the signing of the Roxby Down review for several weeks because of the potential backlash from the environment group—You see, that is the Green side. It continues:But it is understood he finally agreed to sign the paperwork to avoid the South Australian Liberal government making political mileage out of the issue during the election campaign.Just before the election, with all secrecy, a wink and a nod to Roxby Downs, but really saying to the Greens, `Don't worry, we've got the three mines policy, therefore exports are not being increased.'They are now trying to do it again in relation to Jabiluka. Their current spokesman said a little while ago, `If the mine hasn't got its approvals, we won't let it go ahead.' That became difficult because the approvals had been given. So he then said, `if it's not operational'. Again, he wants it both ways. He knows that the shaft is currently being excavated, but the export licence will not be given for a couple of years. So he says to the Greens, `We're on your side; it won't go ahead if we get into office.' He says to industry—interpret exactly the same words the other way—`We're on your side; the mine will be allowed.'This puzzling position of the Labor Party was put well by another well-known Labor identity last week. Perhaps not everyone in the Senate happened to be listening to 2GB on Thursday last week at 8 a.m. when that identity said:We have had a uranium mine operating within Kakadu for the whole time it has been in existence and that, of course, is the Ranger uranium mine, a very, very big uranium mine. That mine has been there and not caused one skerrick of damage to Kakadu through the whole of its existence. So I for one am not going to condemn the Jabiluka mine. Why couldn't Jabiluka, as an underground mine, be operated even more safely than Ranger? It seems to me, the federal government might even be right.Thank you, Graham Richardson, former Labor environment minister. So you have Graham Richardson, former Labor environment minister and Senator Faulkner, double-talk former Labor environment minister. It is about time the people got a bit of straight talk from this Labor opposition. It is not possible to fool all Australians all of the time.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On a point of order, Madam President: in answering the last question, Senator Hill read copiously from a document. I ask that that document be tabled.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is a matter for Senator Hill.Questions Without Notice4589458915:02:004589Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLPResources and Energy10—Yesterday in question time, Senator O'Brien asked me a question, on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, in regard to pig industry assistance. I referred that question to the minister and I now have a response which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—I refer to yesterdays question from Senator O'Brien regarding a press release from the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy entitled, "Government Announces Pig Industry Assistance."The media statement said;"The Government has decided to correct a surprising administrative anomaly it identified when looking at the safeguards issue.""The previous Labor Government inexplicably failed to include such a safeguard mechanism in legislation introduced into parliament at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1994."Senator O'Brien questioned whether, "the Minister agrees that the claim that legislative amendments were required was no more than a delaying tactic by the government."Senator O'Brien, the minister never claimed that LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS were required, he merely highlighted the fact that the previous Labor government failed to avail itself of implementing such a mechanism, when logic suggested it should have been included in 1994 with the associated legislation.That is precisely the point, Senator O'Brien, the previous Labor Government INEXPLICABLY FAILED to nominate a body to conduct such safeguard investigations, or even to make any mention of safeguards action, at the time.Indeed at the Senate Estimates Committee on Wednesday 10 June, Senator Cook was questioned on the issue of implementing safeguard mechanisms during the previous—Labor government, and I quote from the transcript.Senator Hill—Who was it who missed this important opportunity to safeguard Australian industry?Senator Cook—Well, the argument is whether an important opportunity did go past to safeguard the Australian industry.Senator Hill—And are you arguing it did not.Senator Cook—I do not know. I was not in charge of this part of the legislation at the time.Senator Hill—Are you washing your hands of your government's failure.Senator Cook—No, I am not. I am absolutely sure we focused on this at great length in cabinet. I am sure we devoted a whole day to debating it.Senator Hill—Anyway, we can be assured that you will cooperate with the current government now.Senator Cook—I am pretty sure you will find that we will cooperate with the current government on this initiative.I would pose the question, was the Labor Government short sighted or did it choose to ignore the issue.I would also pose the question to Senator O'Brien whether he has discussed with Senator Cook how he plans to cooperate with this government on this initiative.The Government on discovering this INEXPLICABLE FAILURE to nominate a body to conduct such safeguard investigations, set about rectifying this problem as quickly as possible and I AM PLEASED TO SAY that WE HAVE FIXED the problem without the need for specific new legislation.The fact of the matter is that the safeguards mechanism can be put in place via specific legislation or regulation, or through incorporation of the mechanism into existing domestic law. Given the commitment of this Government to address the pig industries concerns we have put in place the general procedures as an urgent priority, in a manner fully consistent with our WTO obligations.In regard to Senator O'Brien's fallacious accusation that the government has used delaying tactics, I am pleased to assure him that is not the case, as is evidenced by the speed with which these procedures have been put in placeIndeed, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has today welcomed the finalisation of the reference from the Treasurer to the Productivity Commission for an inquiry into imports of uncooked pork and the profitability and competitiveness of the pig farming, pigmeat and processed pigmeat industries."The inquiry will examine whether safeguards action is warranted against imports of—frozen pigmeat under the WTO safeguards arrangements.The industry asked for this inquiry and the Government has met the industry's request by setting up the required procedures for safeguards inquires and now initiating an investigation into pigmeat imports."It is now up to the industry to make submissions to the Commission and to present it with the evidence that substantiate its claims that safeguards measures on imports could be justified under the WTO Agreement. This is now industry's responsibility",The Government has swiftly and decisively responded to the requests of the pig industry, and in the process it has yet again identified the previous Labor governments failure to exercise our legitimate rights under the WTO, in this case having a safeguard mechanism in place.The accusation by Senator O'Brien that, "the 140 day reporting date for the productivity commission report is a ploy to delay any government decision until after a possible election" is noting more than blatant political opportunism.Senator you are purporting to have a genuine interest in rural Australia when all that you are really doing is promoting yourself within your party for your own ends, with scant regard for the gravity of this issue.459015:02:004590Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday, Senator Bishop asked me a question in relation to Medicare offices. I have now received an answer from the Minister for Health and Family Services and I seek leave to have that incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted.The answer read as follows—SENATOR BISHOP—(1) Can the minister confirm that these 43 Medicare offices closed down 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? (2) How many of these offices remain vacant? (3) What is the potential total Commonwealth liability in dead rent in these offices? (4) 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.SENATOR HERRON—The Minister for Health and Family Services has provided me with the following answer:(1) Approximately 4,361 square metres of leased office space are involved. The longest leases outstanding expire in May, August and November, Year 2000. The Health Insurance Commission is currently negotiating with a number of landlords and potential sub-lessees to surrender the leases before expiry.(2) Ten.(3)-(4) The amount of dead rent outlaid as at 31 May 1998 was $303,502. This includes rent payments and negotiated payments for the surrender of leases.Negotiations are continuing to terminate leases and therefore the potential total Commonwealth liability in dead rent is unable to be calculated.459115:03:004591Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEALB36NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman), to questions without notice asked by Senators Forshaw and McGauran today, relating to the youth allowance.Today is a very important day. It is 1 July and for those who are young and unemployed—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Big deal!B36Neal, Sen BelindaSenator NEAL—It is a pretty big deal. Obviously, Senator Alston does not think it is a big deal, but for many unemployed young people, 1 July is very much a black armband day because their lives are certainly taking a turn for the worse. The minister does not seem to think it is very important. She does not understand the sorts of income levels that are adversely affected by these changes.Senator Newman tries to emphasise the positives that are contained in this legislation but chooses, not only in her public declarations within this chamber but also in the $3.8 million publicity campaign, to omit the negative effect that the youth allowance and its introduction are having on a very large group of people. We are talking of about 48,000 people being affected, not just a small number. This is a situation where young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 will no longer receive unemployment benefit except where it is means tested on their family's income.The minister tried to argue in the debate that it would only be those families who are well off who are affected by this change, but this really is not the case. Senator Newman is talking about family incomes which start at $23,400. That means a family with one income earner earning $23,400 possibly supporting a spouse and an adult child—that is, three adults relying on an income of $23,000 or about $440 per week gross. To date, that young unemployed person would have received a payment of $87. That is not a huge amount, but it is enough to deal with their own food, maybe for them to make a bit of a contribution to the household and also for them to provide clothes to go to job interviews, pay for public transport and to make some effort to return to the paid work force.What has occurred with these changes which are brought about by the youth allowance is that this type of family is much worse off. They lose $87 per week. If the minister truly believes that families on that sort of income bracket are well of and that they will be going around saying, `I think it is wonderful that this government has taken away our income. I'm so well off, I really don't think I deserve it,' then they should think again.The worse thing is, with all these changes coming into effect today, the minister went out and spent $3.8 million, not $3.8 million of the minister's money, not $3.8 million that was in her personal pocket, but $3.8 million of taxpayers' money to tell everybody how wonderful the youth allowance is.But the minister failed to tell this particular group of people who are really struggling at the moment and who have all sorts of increased costs in health, in education and in all the areas in which the Commonwealth has generally provided services that they are all paying a bit more. They are waiting longer at hospitals because of cuts by the federal government. Families are being knocked around by these changes, but the minister did not bother to tell them that Senator Newman did not have $1 out of that $3.8 million to explain to this particular group of 50,000 people that in fact they would be worse off.This government constantly talks about honesty, it constantly talks about the cynicism of the electorate, but it fails to recognise its own failings. (Time expired)15:08:004592Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—It is amazing that we are back on this issue yet again, two days after we last discussed the matter in taking note of answers. I would have thought the people on the other side would have seen the error of their ways in relation to this matter, because what this government has introduced with the common youth allowance is a much superior system to what Labor had for 13 years. For 13 years they struggled on with a whole series of rates of pay. They had jobstart and they had Austudy, and students in this country had great difficulty moving between one and the other.We had a major Senate inquiry, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman found 17 major errors with the way in which the previous Labor government was administering the Austudy allowance. One of the major problems, the inquiry found, was that there was an incentive for people to go from Austudy onto the newstart allowance. In other words, if they went from study to laying on the beach, they would actually receive a higher rate of benefit and they would also be entitled to rent assistance, something they were never entitled to under the old Austudy system.So the previous government in this country struggled on for 13 years with a ramshackle system of varying rates of benefit for people in different categories. And, when they moved between categories, they were penalised; they were fined; often, if they were overpaid, they had to pay it back in a short period of time, creating enormous hardship for them. This government has created one common youth allowance across the whole system. People do not move between categories; people do not get fined; people do not have to pay back money.But one of the great things about this system, of course, is that we are putting a lot more money into the total system, to the point where 137,000 people will be better off. Senator Neal cannot quite get her figures right. Obviously some people will be disadvantaged under the system. But those opposite keep getting the figures wrong. The figure is actually 33,000. The group of people who are most in need are the ones whom we target benefits under a very longstanding system in Australia. I would have thought that was a principle that the Labor Party would find quite easy to support.And if parents are able to support their own children in these circumstances, they should. But of course the people on the other side keep giving us the wrong figures. They keep trying to blow out that figure to a higher figure. The figure is 33,000. The number who are better off, who will get more money, is 137,000. And it is not just that they get more money; a lot of them are entitled to rent assistance as well.It is great that this system is starting today. We have replaced the old system with a comprehensive system for all youth who are having difficulty finding employment or who are studying. Those who cannot find study courses will still be able to access the benefit if their courses are not available.It is very important that the incentives in this system that we have set up direct people away from sitting back doing nothing and actually involve them in education. We are very concerned that the young people of this country who cannot find work should stay in training as long as possible. We have set up arrangements so they can do this. We have a new program whereby there will be additional resources for high schools for those who stay at school. We have set up a program whereby there will be more apprenticeships in this country. This year, of course, our universities actually over-enrolled by 29,000. So there are plenty of places right across the system for our youth.Whether they are studying or unemployed, this common youth allowance we have set up—a properly administered, integrated system of youth support—will actually put more money in; it will not take it out. Under this program, the vast majority of people will be much better off.15:13:004593Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I find it extraordinary that Senator Tierney claims that it is amazing that we are debating this issue. Of course we are debating this issue today.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—We debated it two days ago.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Today, 1 July, marks the introduction of the common youth allowance. Do you realise—through you, Madam Deputy President, to Senator Tierney—that 45,000 who apparently may be eligible for those benefits—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Wrong!O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—Wrong! Wrong figure!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—still have not put their forms in. Before you try to interrupt, Senators, and suggest that I have the wrong figure, the figure I am referring to is the number of people whose forms have not yet been put in. And I dare them to stand up and deny that figure.Madam Deputy President, I will tell you the figures they are referring to. When talking about 32,500 who will have reduced payments, quoting from Senator Jocelyn Newman's press release, Senator Tierney forgot to mention the 12,800 who will receive no money. That equals 45,050 people whose money will be reduced in some way, or approximately 13,000 people who will lose their benefits altogether.From the beginning of this debate the Democrats have acknowledged the benefits of having a streamlined national income support system for young people. We know that it can lead to greater flexibility, we know it means people will not have to shuffle between departments, and we also acknowledge that the parity between unemployment benefits and student assistance is a good thing. That is why we have called for it for many years. It is only being delivered now.However, as Senator Newman would say, there are nasties in this woodpile, and that is the fact that we are going to see a number—tens of thousands—of young people between 18 and 20 years of age whose benefits will be reduced. We are going to see approximately 13,000 people between the ages of 16 and 18 lose their benefits altogether. I ask you, Madam Deputy President, how those 16- and 17-year-olds not in employment, education and training are going to survive.We are going to see the operation of an income test, a means testing arrangement for parents, that kicks in at just over $23,000 per annum. It is not a generous threshold at all. And we are seeing a redefinition of the ages of independence. If you are young and unemployed, you are not considered an adult until the age of 21; you are considered dependent on your parents until the age of 21. As for students, 25 is the age at which you will be considered independent, despite the fact that this is unlike nearly any other legislation or policy relating to income support or payments in this country today, whether it is family payments or family law.We have also seen a $2.8 million advertising campaign that the government could not even get right. I do not deny that the government should spend money on advertising, but not on propaganda, not on propaganda that fails to mention the fact that students or young people currently eligible for Austudy or unemployment benefits, or who may be eligible under the new criteria for common youth allowance, will attract penalties if they do not get their forms in on time. There has been no clarification in this place or in any other place that some people who are current Austudy recipients may have their benefits docked by 18 per cent for six months if, for some reason, they fail to get their benefit form in by the first week of July, and yes, it is being reported that from 8 July they will be breached if current Austudy recipients do not get their forms in on time.This is despite a promise in the form of a letter from Senator Tambling, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Security, to various youth, social and other organisations that assist young people with their entitlements, that individual phone calls would be made to people who risked losing their benefits. To our knowledge, we have no examples of where those individual phone calls have taken place. It was said that two letters would be sent to people who are current recipients or who were going to be eligible under the common youth allowance system. We have heard of only one letter and, again, that letter makes no mention of the penalties that these young people may attract if they get their application forms in late.We have seen promises, too, of an advertising campaign, both in literature and on television, that would mention these penalties. That has failed to happen. It is no coincidence that today also marks the first day that the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition will be operating without government funding. Yes, as of yesterday, that national peak body for young people has been defunded, and I wonder why. What a coincidence when the government is insisting on implementing a strategy that is full of nasties, that will see tens of thousands, at least over 45,000, of young people with severely reduced benefits or benefits that are cut off altogether.It is hardly any wonder that this organisation has been defunded by this government that seems to think that young people should be seen and not heard, but certainly not paid, compensated or given a livable income or some kind of student assistance, whether it is for study or for training. This government cannot even pour adequate resources into the education and training sectors, let alone ensure that those students have enough money to live on. (Time expired)15:18:004594Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Under this government young people are being encouraged through the common youth allowance to undertake study and not face a penalty, as young people did under the previous Labor government. It was a constant complaint of students who said, `I would be better off on unemployment benefits. I would be better off going on the dole than I am being a student.' It was constantly remarked upon by students and, of course, that was the case.What we have done is to introduce a common youth allowance and to bring in equity. There are going to be some winners and there are going to be some losers. Senator Stott Despoja comes in and talks about the 12,800 young people who will not receive money, but there are about 153,000 who will receive more money and about 3,600 who will receive the same money. So over half a million young people will receive the same amount of money or more under the common youth allowance. Look at the rent allowance, which is something that we have addressed because young people, especially from the bush—rural kids coming down to study in the city—were not able to get rent allowance when they were on Austudy. We have rectified that, and it means that for some young people there will be up to $75 a fortnight to assist them in finding accommodation. That will make an enormous difference, especially to country kids being able to come to the city to study.We also do not hear about the fact that there are 100,000 new apprenticeships available. We recognise that there are some young people who do not go on to higher education, who do not go on to university, but that we need a skilled labour force, and those young people who may have been on unemployment benefits under Labor have access to 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships. We will also have a school-to-work program to encourage people, to develop their skills, and to breach the gap between school and work to encourage them to find jobs rather than being on unemployment benefits.We needed a common youth allowance. We had five payments at 13 different rates administered by two departments. As young people changed from being students to unemployed to whatever, they were moving backwards and forwards, falling between stools, and were likely to be in receipt of overpayments or underpayments as a result of that. Young people fell between the cracks if they were ill; there were all sorts of anomalies. It was complicated to administer and it was difficult to assess their entitlement.When the youth allowance saw the light of day, there was an enormous reaction to it. I will give you an example of some of the editorials. The Herald Sun on 19 June 1997 stated:The Federal Government's reforms to youth welfare payments are welcome . . . This age group is much too young to begin life in an environment which could lead them into the mistaken belief that the world owes them a living.The Daily Telegraph on 18 June 1997 stated:The Federal Government's new youth allowance program will end the rort of using the dole as pocket money for a few months and possibly a few years of loafing around.An editorial from the Financial Review of 19 June 1997 said:The Federal Government's decision . . . should be vigorously applauded . . . the changes . . . are weighed towards solid Australian values of responsibility and hard work . . . the existing system has clearly not worked.The Sydney Morning Herald on 19 June 1997 stated:the change . . . is desirable and overdue . . . In too many cases it [youth unemployment benefits] has encouraged young people to leave home prematurely and inclined them to welfare dependency.A final quote comes from the Brotherhood of St Laurence. On 18 June 1997, they said:We have been asking for better support for this group of young people for many years and finally their needs are starting to be recognised.They were comments about the common youth allowance, but we have the other side carping away. They came up with no reforms on this issue in 13 years. We have here a significant proportion—500,000—of young people who will be better off or will get the same money. There are 32,000 who will receive a reduced payment. Many of them are young people who would have been on unemployment benefits, who would have got unemployment benefits that they would not have got, or a level of benefit they would not have got with their parents on the same income, if they had been students. That is not equitable. What we are saying is that young people should be treated equitably, based on their parents' income, and that we should not have a system which is a disincentive to study, to go on to an apprenticeship scheme or to better your skills. What we want to do is give young people the skills, the knowledge and the tools to last them into the next century. Giving them an incentive to take the dole rather than to be a student or to take up an apprenticeship is not the way to do that.15:23:004595Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Senators on the other side have tried to justify the changes that are being introduced today, and I suppose that is their job. Senator Newman, for instance, spoke of the benefits and diverted attention away from the very specific case that was raised by Senator Forshaw. She said that she would have to get more information about that particular example.It is the specific examples that I am concerned about. I know that a number of senators and members of the House of Representatives are receiving many complaints, both by phone and by letter, and they know the very specific instances where people are going to be severely disadvantaged. But in this climate, in this rarefied atmosphere, you talk about what the advantages are and that there will be only a few people affected. Whether the figure that has been debated across the chamber this afternoon is 33,000 or 48,000 does not seem to matter very much, but I want honourable senators to focus on individual families, individual needs and what it is going to do to them.I would have thought that, in the current political climate, honourable senators would have been far less keen to quote generalised statistics and would be far more concerned about the individual impact on specific families. Senator Neal quoted a figure of the loss of $87 a week. If a family on an average low income is going to lose $87 a week they are not going to be interested in hearing from coalition members that, on average, many other people will be better off. We have to look at individual needs and individual families. I want to quote some of those examples that I have heard. For example, take the case of a family who have just been told that their 18-year-old daughter will lose all her unemployment benefits, her health care card and her public transport concessions. One parent has a chronic illness and the other earns an average wage and now they have to find an extra $87 a week to support their daughter. On top of this, the loss of the health care card means the daughter has to pay an extra $39 for her asthma inhaler and a full fare on the bus.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What is the parents' income?XI4Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDS—All I can tell you is that this is a real case. This is not like the Wright family; this is a real case. Here is another example:I am 18 years old, live with my parents and currently am unemployed. As of December, my family has lived off one income of just under $28,000 per annum. Under the new legislation, my family is now means tested on past income, despite the fact that for the last six months we have been a single income family. I am now no longer eligible for any payment of any kind, health care card, etc.I think the problem, Senator McGauran, is that there will be a whole range of circumstances that no well-intentioned bureaucrat could have considered.The numbers of people that Senator Stott Despoja claimed have not yet returned their forms indicate that, although it is 1 July, people are not aware, despite the amount of money that has allegedly been set aside for a public relations campaign. I would like to ask the Minister, who unfortunately has not bothered to remain in the chamber for this debate, whether she has asked her department to set up any kind of process to consider an impact assessment of the changes. How is the department going to manage the various hardship cases that will arise? If we are all receiving them in our offices, I am sure the departments are going to become aware of them very soon.I would also like to know what has happened to the $70 million that was given to the Department of Social Security, presumably to help them administer these changes. How is that money being spent, and why is it, on 1 July, we find that so few young people are really aware of what their entitlements are? There are many confused young people; there are many disillusioned families. I think the minister really needs to look very closely at some form of impact assessment and should closely monitor the impact of this policy, because I would predict that it is going to be—(Time expired)15:28:004596Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—Here we go again. Senator Reynolds, you brought the Senate's attention to the fact that the Minister, Senator Newman, had to go and attend to ministerial business. I would like to bring the Senate's attention to the fact that the person who thought that this was important enough to raise, Senator Belinda Neal, has also seen fit to leave the chamber—that is really a great shame. You do not want to hear the facts; you do not want the good news; you do not want to hear that we are spending $212 million more on Australia's young people.You know as well as anyone that attack is the best form of defence, and you are looking pretty shabby over there today. How can $212 million extra towards Australia's young people possibly be construed as something negative? It cannot; it is a great positive. I am sure that most people in the Australian community, perhaps with the exception of ALP and Australian Democrats members, would recognise that. It is a great day for our nation's young people. Today we take the incentive out of being unemployed. Today we are about targeting the benefits to those most in need. Today there are 137,000 young people who are better off, Senator Reynolds, and you had—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Synon, would you like to address the chair, please.FQ6Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNON—Yes, thank you, Madam Deputy President. There are 137,000 young people better off. And Senator Reynolds—which I thought was quite incongruous—happened to mention that the facts were not important. I mean, `Let's talk about the incidental cases. Let's forget about the 137,000 young people who are better off. Let's talk about Susan from Newcastle.' This is about targeting assistance. This is about helping the majority of Australians.Today, we encourage young people to study, to stay at school, to improve their knowledge and skill base, as Senator Patterson very ably described. We all know that if you stay at school, that if you continue your education to the best of your ability, your chances of becoming unemployed are cut to a third. Is that not something that is good for Australian young people? I would like to suggest that indeed it is.From today, rent assistance and remote area allowance are available for the first time in rural and remote areas. It is clear that the ALP currently has very little representation in rural and remote areas amongst its members of parliament. If it had it would be in this chamber applauding this decision, applauding the fact that for the first time young kids from the country are being looked after.Now, 27.5 per cent of people are going to get more money. And you have the audacity to come into this chamber and carp about it. And 64 per cent will get the same amount of money.A very small percentage will have reduced benefits because of more effective targeting of the social security system. If that is not enough of a positive, there is an extra $42.6 million to assist with the expected increase in school enrolments. Isn't that good—keeping young people at school, giving them the option to increase their knowledge and skill base to prepare them for a rapidly changing world? Well, I think today is a great day for young people. The coalition is about empowering young people to speak for themselves. Youth allowance is not a savings measure; it is costing $212 million more.In the Herald Sun, a Victorian newspaper, last year in December we read that country teenagers drop out of high school up to 20 per cent more than their city counterparts. In general terms, 75.7 per cent of metropolitan students finish school compared with only 62.6 per cent of our country students. And why is that? Because country kids have done it very tough. And under the ALP there has been an incentive to become unemployed rather than to stay at school.Unemployment is coming down under this government. We care. Unlike Keating, we do not yell out to Australia's young people, `Go get a job.' We have not presided over one million unemployed. We are not churning billions of dollars through Training Nation. Your record is a disgrace. We are here to spend $212 million more on unemployed people, but you complain. How typical. How pathetic.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices4597459715:33:004597Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That:(1) The Senate shall sit from Monday, 6 July, to Friday, 10 July 1998.(2) On Monday, 6 July 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm; (b) the routine of business shall be: (i) Government business (ii) At 2 pm, questions (iii) Motions to take note of answers (iv) Government business (v) Adjournment; and (c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.(3) On Tuesday, 7 July 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 1 pm and 2 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm; (b) the routine of business shall be: (i) Government business (ii) At 2 pm, questions (iii) Motions to take note of answers (iv) Government business (v) Adjournment; and (c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm. (4) On Wednesday, 8 July 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 8.10 pm; (b) the routine of business shall be: (i) Government business (ii) At 2 pm, questions (iii) Motions to take note of answers (iv) Government business (v) Adjournment; and (c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7.30 pm.(5) On Thursday, 9 July 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 1 pm and 2 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm; (b) the routine of business shall be: (i) Government business, including the giving of government notices (ii) At 2 pm, questions (iii) Motions to take note of answers (iv) Government business (v) Adjournment; (c) divisions may take place after 6 pm; and (d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.(6) On Friday, 10 July 1998: (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 4.25 pm; (b) the routine of business shall be government business only; (c) the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended from approximately 12.30 pm for up to one hour until the ringing of the bells; and (d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The notice of motion is self-explanatory and will clearly be dealt with tomorrow. I wanted to add a couple of points to it by way of statement. The extra sitting is required to enable the Senate to deal with essential government legislation. As far as possible, it is the government's intention that the extra sitting hours for that week be used for that purpose.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What bills? Name the bills.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am just talking about government business. It will be clear from reading the proposal that the maximum time has been allocated to government business, although there are allocations for question time and taking note. I indicate, however, that if any notices of motion need to be given or dealt with during the week—to disallow regulations, for example—leave will be given for that purpose. I also indicate that committee reports could be tabled during the week. But we indicate now that the government would not be of a mind to grant leave for motions to take note. I just make it quite clear that we are trying to maximise the amount of time available for government business during that week.15:35:004598Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—The manager of government business would be aware that to date the opposition has granted the equivalent of an extra 20 weeks of government business time throughout this session. You are seeking here, I see, a substantial additional amount of time which, as you have indicated, precludes a whole lot of normally available procedural matters which are available to the opposition. There has been no discussion with the opposition on these matters. There has been no discussion with us about the prospect of our sitting late on every one of the nights next week, bar Wednesday. I think we are entitled to have an explanation as to what it is that the government is intending to debate, what the legislative program is that the government is proposing to put before the parliament which would justify the extension of hours that it is seeking.I think we are also entitled to have an explanation as to what the government intends to do in regard to supplementation for staff and the other resources that are required to bring personnel to Canberra so that we can maintain orderly operations as required by our parliamentary responsibilities. I gather that the government, given that it has introduced this measure and given notice on this unilateral basis, intends to proceed whether we like the measures being proposed or not. If that is the case, I expect that the government will allow plenty of time tomorrow to debate this proposal.45994599Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) take action to address the Government's failure to adhere to and implement the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy of 1995;(b) notes the Government's lack of policies and interest in preventing the loss of jobs in the forest and paper industry, such as the 250 jobs to be lost at the Burnie Pulp Mill due to Government inaction; and(c) calls on the Government to immediately: (i) constitute the Wood and Paper Industry Council under its original terms of reference with the appropriate funding necessary to enable it to achieve the outcomes contained in the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, (ii) announce an implementation timetable for the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy, with particular attention being paid to the actions that can be taken to further process and `value-add' timber in Australia, (iii) enter into discussions with Amcor, the relevant trade unions, the Tasmania Government and the Burnie City Council to determine what actions need to take place to retain the pulp mill in Burnie, (iv) encourage all governments in Australia to recommit to the definition of `ecologically sustainable development' contained in the National Forest Policy statement, which was signed by all Australian governments in 1992, (v) recognise that the Australian community will not tolerate the export of largely unprocessed forest products especially logs and woodchips while our own manufacturing sector is suffering a serious decline and increasing competition from imported products sourced from forests that are not, in any way, managed on an ecologically-sustainable basis, and (vi) implement measures legally available to ensure that any wood, pulp or paper products imported into Australia come from forests that meet applicable and internationally-certifiable environmental standards of forest management. 45994599Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the work being done by the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee on the powers of the Commonwealth in environmental protection and ecologically-sustainable development in Australia, and (ii) that the Government is shortly expected to introduce a bill into the Senate on the Commonwealth review and reform of environment legislation; and(b) resolves that, in view of the expertise developed by the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee in this area, the bill, or bills, after their first reading in the Senate, stand referred to that committee for inquiry and report by the last day of sitting in November 1998.45994599Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) congratulates the National Breast Cancer Centre and the organising committee of women for their successful consumer forum held in Tasmania on 20 June and 21 June 1998; and(b) notes that: (i) the aim of the forum was to give all Tasmanian women affected by a diagnosis of breast cancer the opportunity to voice their needs and concerns, and ultimately to unite and take strength in their own confidence to do something together to address these issues, and (ii) suggested solutions to problems arising out of the forum would be forwarded to the national Breast Cancer Conference to be held in Canberra on 18 October and 19 October 1998.45994599Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) acknowledges the importance of the 20th anniversary of self-government for the Northern Territory on 1 July 1998;(b) notes the significant cultural, social and economic development that has taken place in the Northern Territory in the past 20 years, which has benefited all Territorians;(c) accepts that the success of independent self-government exercised by the Northern Territory Parliament and Northern Territory Government is a sound foundation for further growth and stability and the aspirations of Territorians for statehood; and(d) calls on the Australian Government to assist the Northern Territory Government in developing proposals for statehood, further regional engagement with Australia's Asian neighbours, resource development and the improvement of government services for health, education and aboriginal communities.46004600Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—On behalf of Senator Brown, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the Senate—(a) notes moves within Indonesia and the United States of America to investigate the wealth and assets held by ex-president Suharto and his family and associates;(b) calls on the Australian Government to establish an inquiry into such wealth and assets in Australia; and(c) urges the Australian Government to take prudent measures to ensure that any future request from Indonesia for such assets to be frozen or returned is not compromised in the meantime.46004600Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act relating to the protection of the environment and the conservation of biodiversity, and for related purposes. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 . 46004600Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 , and for other purposes. Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998 .46004600Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the joint statement released on 1 July 1998 by more than 50 youth organisations on the Common Youth Allowance (CYA), and (ii) the concerns contained within this statement, notably that 45 000 unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 20 will have their payments reduced or cancelled and that unemployed 16- and 17-year olds not in full-time education or training will largely be ineligible for support; andN26ABETZSenator Abetz—How many will have them increased?FQ6SYNONSenator Synon—How many will have them increased? Give us the facts, not the fantasy.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Madam Deputy President, I will respond to those interjections.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, please address the chair.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you. If they would stop interjecting—Government senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order on my right!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—My notice of motion continues:(b) urges the Government to: (i) recognise that mutual obligation means the Government must take responsibility for the provision of opportunities and support for young people and address the inequities in the CYA, (ii) fulfil its promises to inform current recipients that they must return their CYA data collection forms, (iii) exempt current recipients from penalties for late return of these forms, and (iv) restore the funding of the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition so it can continue to act for young people and advise government and the community of the ongoing effects of this and other youth policies developed and implemented by this Government.46014601Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—On behalf of Senator Woodley, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the submission by the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) to the Government on the concept of a tertiary access allowance, and (ii) that, according to figures from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, rural students have only two-thirds the participation rate of city students in higher education;(b) condemns the Government for: (i) not implementing its own policy of increasing the discount allowed for all children of farming families applying for Austudy from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of farm assets, and (ii) voting against its own policy when recently moved as an amendment by the Australian Democrats; and(c) urges the Government to implement the proposal by the NFF and the Isolated Children's Parents Association for an allowance of $2 900 per annum free of means and assets tests.46014601Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting on behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in Senator O'Chee's name for the disallowance of the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan Direction No. NPFD17 made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991. 46014601Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the legal dispute between Microsoft and the Government of the United States of America;(b) encourages the Australian Government to: (i) track and analyse this legal action carefully, and (ii) review the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act and their effectiveness in dealing with these circumstances, if appropriate; and(c) notes the significant implications for Australia whatever the outcome of these proceedings.46014601Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the order of the Senate of 26 June 1998, relating to the days and hours of sitting and routine of business, be varied so that the question for the adjournment of the Senate on Thursday, 2 July 1998, be proposed at 7.20 pm.46014601Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—At the request of Senator O'Chee, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, he will move:That the High Court Rules (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 61 and made under the Judiciary Act 1903 , be disallowed.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—High Court Rules (Amendment)Statutory Rules 1998 No 61 The Rules increase the amount.which solicitors who are entitled to practice in the High Court may charge and be allowed on taxation of their costs. The Committee is concerned with the 4.5 per cent increase in costs which is more than three times the consumer price index for the relevant period. The Explanatory Statement gives no explanation for this increase apart from the advice that the Justices accepted the recommendations of the Federal Costs Advisory Committee. The Committee has written to the Chief Justice for advice.46024602Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the order of the Senate of 26 June 1998, relating to the days and hours of sitting and routine of business, be varied to provide that the Senate not sit on Friday, 3 July 1998.46024602Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes the recently-announced Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program as part of the Federal Government's Federation Fund, established to celebrate the centenary of Federation;(b) recognises that: (i) the closing date for applications under this program was 30 June 1998, giving approximately 3 weeks for local governments, in particular, to complete applications, and (ii) despite reasonable requests for extensions of time these requests were refused; and(c) expresses disappointment at the Government's impractical and unreasonable short time frame for the lodgement of applications, which has affected the opportunity for community input into these projects.46024602Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate, in noting that 1 July 1998 is the 15th anniversary of the High Court decision which saved the Franklin River: (a) notes that the original bill on which the protection of World Heritage areas in Australia, including the Franklin River, was based, was an Australian Democrats bill, introduced by former Australian Democrat senator, Colin Mason; and(b) congratulates all those Australians involved in the protection of the Franklin River, including all those on the ground in Tasmania, especially then Dr Bob Brown, as well as all those who supported the campaign from around Australia.46024602Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the announcement made during the week beginning 28 June 1998 by the New South Wales Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) in signing major companies to its energy smart program, (ii) that the companies which have signed in the program's first 6 months include AMP, Optus, Boral, Macquarie Bank, Arnotts, Big W, Canon, Panasonic, Fuji, Xerox, Compaq, David Jones and P&O, (iii) that a total of $3.3 million in energy savings a year has been identified for the companies that have signed the program, (iv) that the director of the SEDA estimates that energy savings and the consequent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2003 will equate to taking 600 000 cars off the road, (v) that the SEDA's funding has recently been extended to $60 million over 5 years, and (vi) that the Federal Government's funding of the Greenhouse Challenge is $60 million over 4 years;(b) congratulates the SEDA on its efforts and success; and(c) urges the Federal Government to make a genuine commitment to helping businesses reduce greenhouse gas emissions by introducing targets stricter than those set by its Greenhouse Challenge. Committees4603460346034603Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the ninth report of the Selection of Bills Committee. I move:That the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I also seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—REPORT NO. 9 OF 19981. The Committee met on 30 June 1998.2. The committee resolved: That the provisions of the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateSocial Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Payment Processing) Bill 1998 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs13 August 19983. The Committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Australian National Training Authority Amendment Bill 1998. Constitution Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament--Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill 1998. Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998. Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998. States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998. War Crimes Amendment Bill 1998.The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 31 March 1998). Australian Hearing Services Reform Bill 1998(deferred from meeting of 23 June 1998). Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998.(deferred from meeting of 30 June 1998). Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998. States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998.(Paul Calvert)Chair1 July 1998Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill: Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Payment Processing) Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration :Clarification is required regarding the numbers and circumstances of people who are likely to be positively or adversely affected by the proposal to change the payment of pensions to fortnightly in arrears. Discussion is needed regarding the proposal to reduce the period within which recipients are required to notify Centrelink of relevant changes in circumstances from 14 days to 7, especially in the light of the difficulties many recipients are having in their attempts to contact Centrelink.Possible submissions or evidence from :ACOSS, Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' Federation, Welfare Rights.Committee to which bill is to be referred :Community Affairs Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) : July/August 1998Possible reporting date : 13/8/98(signed)S. ConroyWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member15:51:004603Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:At the end of the motion, add "but in respect of the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill 1998 , the bill be referred to the Employment, Education and Training Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on 13 August 1998.".I understand that this is an amendment agreed around the chamber. I spoke to Senator Brown and Senator Margetts about such matters. I have spoken to the Democrats and I have spoken to the government. I understand that that is in fact the case. I see the nodding, so I will not speak at length on the matter.I indicate that at the meeting that was held of the Selection of Bills Committee it was understood that this was not a particularly controversial matter. Advice has come to us since earlier advice was given. As a consequence, there are issues that I would like to explore. I believe it can be done without affecting the legislative program—that is, the government did not intend to debate this matter this week. As a consequence, this issue can be dealt with before the next scheduled sitting period which will be undertaken in such a way so as not to disrupt the legislative program.Amendment agreed to.Motion, as amended, agreed to.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Brown has just come in here like a walking billboard with a `No dams' sign all over him. I ask you whether that is breaching any standing order. If it is, could you ask Senator Brown to remove it.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—On the point of order, today is the 15th anniversary of the High Court decision which saved the Franklin River. I was just celebrating—no harm meant. I am happy to take down the placard if it offends the honourable senator.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You have describe it as a placard. Placards are not permitted in the chamber, so if you would like to remove it please. Senator Brown, you are also not permitted to put placards on your desk either.Business46044604Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Chris Evans for today, relating to disallowance of Regulation 15 of the Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 104 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4604Motion (by Senator Synon) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1195 standing in the name of Senator Synon for today, relating to human rights in Cambodia, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4604Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, proposing the reference of a matter to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.4604Motion (by Senator Woodley, at the request of Senator Allison) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1198 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the hepatitis C virus, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees460446044604Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Ferguson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Part-Time Students) Bill 1997 be extended to the next day of sitting.Committees46044604Motion (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.4605Motion (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.4605Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That general business notices of motion No. 1089 (relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act), No. 1101 (the appointment of a select committee on government consultancies on waterfront reform) and 1190 (proposing an order for the production of documents by the Leader of the Government in Senate (Senator Hill) prepared by Commonwealth departments) standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees46054605460515:56:004605McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name and relating to unauthorised disclosure of a report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, be taken as formal.Leave not granted.Miscellaneous4605Motion (by Senator Margetts and Senator Cook)—by leave—proposed:(1) That the Senate notes: (a) the observation expressed in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration entitled Cultivating Competition: Inquiry into aspects of the National Competition Policy Reform Package , that there has been no major analysis of the broader socio-economic costs of the National Competition Policy; and (b) that many voters in the 1998 Queensland election indicated that they were disillusioned with economic reforms such as National Competition Policy and the broader impacts of such changes.(2) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, be appointed to inquire into and report, on or before the first sitting day in 1999, on the following matters: (a) the broader socio-economic consequences, including costs, of the National Competition Policy, as implemented by the Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 , including, but not limited to, the impact of the policy on: (i) unemployment, (ii) changed working conditions, (iii) social welfare, (iv) equity, (v) social dislocation, and (vi) environmental impacts; (b) the relative effect and variation in impact of the National Competition Policy on urban and rural and regional communities; and (c) clarification of the definition of public interest and its role in the National Competition process.(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats and 1 nominated by the Greens (WA) or independent senators.(4) That the quorum of the committee be 3 members with 1 representing the Government, 1 representing the Opposition and 1 representing either the Australian Democrats, the Greens (WA) or independent senators.(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.(6) That the chair of the committee be elected by and from the members of the committee. (7) That the deputy chair of the committee be elected by and from the members of the committee immediately after the election of the chair.(8) That the deputy chair act as chair when there is no chair or the chair is not present at a meeting.(9) That, in the event of the votes on any question before the committee being equally divided, the chair, or deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.(10) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the senators appointed to the subcommittee.(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.15:57:004606Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I seek leave to make a short statement.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I will grant leave on the condition that I also have leave to make a short statement in relation to the amendments that the minister is proposing.Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I do not know whether one can grant conditional leave. If you can, I am happy to accept that if that is what Senator Margetts is worried about. I have had circulated in the chamber two amendments to this motion. Let me just briefly explain why. It is clear that there will be an inquiry along the lines that were suggested by Senator Margetts. We believe that the inquiry is better conducted by a references committee, specifically the Economics References Committee. We believe that that is the body which has the expertise and the membership to conduct this inquiry.One of the reasons that we set up the references committee was for the very reason that these sorts of references should go to that references committee. I think the intention was at that time that this would have the effect of significantly reducing the number of references to select committees. So I urge the Senate, as I said, to bear in mind that general agreement, as I understood it to be. I agree that there is no written agreement. Equally, I agree that we do, from time to time, set up select committees. In my view, the idea was to have all these references committee and wherever possible and practical references should go to those committees.If the objection is that Senator Margetts will not be on that particular references committee—and I assume she wants to be on that committee, and I have pre-empted this, I might say, without discussion with Senator Margetts—if my motion gets up—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Is the government going to give up a spot?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Carr, that is not even clever.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, that is enough interjecting, and Senator Kemp will address the chair.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—If the objection is that Senator Margetts is not a member of that committee, the government would, therefore, be prepared to support her appointment to that committee for the duration of that particular hearing, if that was in line with what Senator Margetts wanted.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Big deal!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We are just trying to accommodate people. This may be unusual for you.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Kemp, would you please address the chair and ignore the interjections from Senator Carr, which are out of order.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Madam Deputy President, I am being provoked, but I take your advice. I will try to ignore it, but please try to control your colleague, if you do not mind. It is clear that the inquiry will proceed. The numbers in this chamber are there for an inquiry, but the government's view is that this should be going to the references committee. I seek leave to move those two amendments.Leave granted.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I move:1. Omit all words in paragraph (2) before subparagraph (a), substitute:(2) That the following matters be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report on or before the first sitting in 1999:2. Omit paragraphs (3) to (13), substitute:(3) That, in addition to the membership provided for in standing order 25, Senator Margetts be a member of the committee for the purpose of this inquiry.16:01:004607Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—by leave—I have heard from the government and, obviously, I have heard the words of Senator Kemp today in relation to the government's preferences. I would like to, first of all, thank the government for, after a year, agreeing to the fact that we as a community and as a Senate do need to look at the socioeconomic and the public interest impacts of competition policy.Quite clearly, the message that is coming through from the community is that it is necessary to do that, not in a couple of years time, as was suggested to me by a member of the Treasury in Western Australia—and that is after they have implemented their side of it—but now as it is being implemented in the processes that are going on to see whether or not we have the right checks and balances within that system.I am very appreciative of the level of support that is now in the Senate for this inquiry, but I have to say that it is missing the point to suggest that it is an economic issue per se. There needs to be an inquiry because a growing number of people in the community are realising that the socioeconomic and public interest impacts on health and education in rural and regional Australia, as well as quality of service and access and equity, are not necessarily dollar issues. The one thing that is missing is the ability to judge those matters in terms of social impact and public interest. We believe that the set up of the original competition policy may not have been broad enough to deal with this, and dealing with public interest in terms of the market only may have missed the point.Delivering this to the economics committee, I believe, will be self-defeating and may still leave a whole number of people in our community believing that the parliament has not given them the chance to look fully at all those issues. There will be a necessity to look at education, health and other social impacts, and I do not think one standing committee could consider all of those elements together.I believe that the government has been prepared to support things like community standards being looked at by select committees. It is not good enough to be selective and say, `We'll support the select committees that we like, not the select committees that we don't.' Either way, it is necessary to take this opportunity and to do it right, if we can. I would like to indicate to the government that I thank them for their support for the inquiry, but I will not be able to support their amendments.16:04:004607Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—Senator Margetts, it is nice of you, at last, to say something nice about the government. You should not have interpreted from my remarks that I support the inquiry. I said that I recognise the numbers in the chamber, Senator. That is what I said. Therefore, I am seeking to improve this motion.Amendments not agreed to.Motion agreed to.Miscellaneous460716:05:004607Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1191, standing in my name for today, relating to a call for an act of self-determination in West Papua—that is, Irian Jaya—to be supported, be taken as formal.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?2L6BISHOPSenator Bishop—Yes.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is an objection.460816:06:004608Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 1191.I have moved this motion because this is an urgent matter. The people of West Papua, or Irian Jaya, as the Indonesians call it, have been dispossessed of their freedom since the Indonesian paratroops dropped in in 1962. At the behest of people condemning this action from right around the world, there was a sham act of self-determination whereby some 1,000 representatives from different groups in the West Papuan countryside were brought together and, under the watchful eye of the army, given the opportunity to vote for integration with Indonesia in 1967, but that was the end of it. Since then, the people of West Papua have had their freedom suppressed.There has been extraordinary repression of their culture and their indigenous way of life. There has been a takeover of vast areas of the more productive parts of their lands—without the people having a say—by loggers and by thousands of transmigrants from Java and elsewhere to their west in Indonesia. To highlight the awesome difficulties that these people face, let me quote from the Guardian Weekly of just four weeks ago:Amungme tribal leader Yosepha Alomang, a mother of 10, should be in Britain. But as she boarded the plane this month in Irian Jaya, Indonesia, to head for London and the Rio Tinto annual meeting, she was stopped by the military.Had she come, Ms Alomang would have told the mining firm's corporate shareholders a harrowing tale of torture at the hands of the authorities. Four years ago she was imprisoned without charges, sexually abused and threatened with being shot. Held for a month in a filthy room, she was made to eat her own faeces. Ms Alomang is one of many outspoken critics of the huge Freeport copper mine, high in the mountains of Irian Jaya, which is part-owned by Rio Tinto. For years the mine has been the centre of well-documented human rights violations against indigenous groups.And I might add that within recent months there has been the shooting of a number of West Papuans on their own lands, in the vicinity of this giant Freeport copper mine owned by an international cartel with its head office in the United States. It is time the suppression of the rights of West Papuans was matched by an opening up of their plight to world view and a renewal of the debate about their freedoms. That is what my motion urgently seeks to do.I have watched in horror, since I was a youth in 1962, not only at the way these people have been suppressed, but also—and this the worst thing of the lot—their case for freedom and their fight for self-determination, their culture and their lands being taken off the pages of world discourse, not least by successive Australian governments. Australia, by and large, has refused to even recognise the plight of people fleeing from West Papua to Papua New Guinea. We have, therefore, refused them access to asylum in Australia simply because they are classed as Indonesians, which they are not; they are West Papuans. Our nearest neighbours, along with the East Timorese, are suffering similar repression, torture and, really, genocide in terms of the definition of that word by the United Nations. It is an horrific story.We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the plight of these, our nearest neighbours. They are in a terrible position. They do not have international defenders. Their issue has been suppressed. Part of the reason that this motion should be declared formal so that it can be brought before the Senate and voted on before the Senate rises for what is ostensibly a long break leading to an election, is that at this critical time, with West Papuans demonstrating in Jakarta and elsewhere, we need to give them some support, some international backing and the force of humanitarian thinking that they have deserved for so long. Many of the students from West Papua have been recently protesting in Jakarta against what they say is the loss of 400,000 lives in their home country since the paratroopers arrived in 1962.It is a cause that has been out of the public eye for too long. It is a cause that deserves world attention and indeed, condemnation. But more importantly, this motion calls for the people of West Papua to at last be given a proper, democratic act of self-determination. (Time expired)16:11:004609Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I did listen closely to Senator Brown's case for urgency and I must say that if he had developed his case in relation to the government's mismanagement of its own legislation program, I think it may well have been more telling. It is extremely difficult, at the moment, for the Senate to understand what the government's priorities are in relation to the government's own legislation program. We had the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Ian Campbell) on his feet in the chamber a short time ago, unable to explain to the Senate why the government is proposing to have the Senate sit an extra week; unable to inform the Senate what legislation was likely to be dealt with in these five extra sitting days that the government is proposing that the Senate sit. It is those sorts of issues, along with the substantive ones, Senator Brown, that the opposition would give consideration to in this motion of urgency.On balance, I think the opposition's view would be that we cannot support the urgency motion that Senator Brown has moved. I want to say, for the record, on the substantive issue that the approach of the opposition to the issue of Irian Jaya is, of course, set out in a resolution that was adopted by the Labor Party at its national conference in January of this year.For the benefit of the Senate, I will outline what that resolution says:In the light of Australia's support for the United Nations International Decade for the World's Indigenous Peoples, Labor supports the right of the people of Irian Jaya to develop their own distinctive culture and institutions, and expresses its concern about government and commercial activities such as unrestrained logging, mining, transmi gration and expropriation of lands that impact negatively on local communities.Labor notes reports of social unrest, environmental damage and human rights abuses associated with the activities of the Freeport mine, and urges the Australian government to ensure that Australian companies conducting operations in Irian Jaya fully respect the rights and traditions of local communities and develop and observe appropriate codes of conduct.This resolution goes on to urge the Australian government, particularly through the government's aid program, to provide more support to local communities and non-government organisations to enable them to better protect their interests and rights.I also inform the Senate that the resolution passed by the Labor Party's national conference concludes by calling on the Indonesian government to respond to concerns regarding conditions in Irian Jaya by allowing unhindered access by independent media and humanitarian and human rights organisations. The Labor Party went on to urge the Australian government to send a parliamentary mission to Irian Jaya to observe the situation and needs of the Irian Jayan people, including with regard to the adequate provision of drought relief, and to consult with local communities on how Australia can better assist their development.These are important issues. Senator Brown says to the Senate that these are very significant issues. We agree that they are. The Senate now has to decide whether this motion of urgency to suspend the standing orders of the Senate ought to be supported. On balance, given that we are faced with a government totally incapable of managing the Senate's legislation program and completely divided in relation to its approach on the important national issues of the day—preferences for the One Nation Party, the privatisation of Telstra and the imposition of a GST—we have to see what the government has to say for itself. It is for that reason that we oppose the motion of urgency. (Time expired)16:17:004609Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—The Australian Democrats are and always have been concerned about West Papua along with East Timor and, particularly, Aceh in Indonesia. This is probably an important topic to discuss with some reasonable urgency. I do not think it would take the Senate very long—we have heard quite a bit already about the substantial topic—to vote on the motion if we believed it to be urgent. I am not averse to voting for this urgency motion, because I think it would be dealt with very quickly.The self-determination of any peoples anywhere is dear to the Democrats' hearts. As we all remember, West Papua had a vote. It was one of the very first that was ever carried out by the UN. Even the UN will now tell you that it was not the West Papuans' finest hour. Obviously, if we want a true vote for self-determination in West Papua we have to do it properly and we have to do it again. The Australian Electoral Commission is an expert at doing these things. It is invited all around the world to carry out votes in countries which are not used to having democratic votes. We could certainly request the Australian Electoral Commission to assist in such a vote. I am sure that it would do it and do it very expertly.We believe that we should be looking at the current situation in West Papua. It is still a situation which needs review. There are still observations of torture and problems with disappearances. There are still problems not only around the mining areas but in several other areas. Aceh is another area that needs looking at. I am pleased to say that the Senate remains focused on East Timor. We support the urgency motion because I do not think it would take very long, if we did agree that it was urgent, to get a vote on the substantive motion.16:19:004610Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The government opposes the motion to make this a matter of urgency, and not for the silly and spurious reason that Senator Faulkner raised in his diatribe. We are well used to Senator Faulkner standing up and generally lashing out vigorously on every opponent he sees. As a former manager of government business, he was quite notorious for the mismanagement of government business in the Senate. To be quite frank, for him to be standing up and giving lectures to others is quite absurd.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You were such a good manager that you got sacked.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I got promoted, actually.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You got sacked, I thought.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—This former failed minister for the environment continues to butt in. His record does not bear close examination. Senator Faulkner is the only minister for the environment to lose the green vote. Mind you, he had a pretty good opponent, if I remember correctly. It was a real achievement on Senator Faulkner's part to lose the green vote at the last election.I will not get diverted. We oppose this being made a matter of urgency. There is a very heavy program before the Senate.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What is it?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator Carr is the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate. No wonder John Cain mentioned Senator Carr's performance in his book. That comment causes no surprise. There are many vehicles available to Senator Brown if he wishes to debate a motion of this type. He can use what is available to him in the Senate procedures. The fact is that he has not bothered to use them. Therefore, we will not be supporting the suspension to make this a matter of urgency.16:21:004610Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—This matter is urgent not only because of human rights issues but also because this is the right time in history to deal with it. The transition in government means that Australia can play the right role in relation to Indonesia and support self-determination for those areas taken over in the 1970s. No less a radical spokesperson for human rights than Robert Menzies made very strong and clear statements about West Papua. These concerned whether Indonesia had the right to take the action it did and the role of the colonising powers in relation to West Papua. We have had similar statements from spokespeople regarding other actions by Indonesia in the 1970s, including war veterans. However, in relation to Irian Jaya, it is right that the Senate deals with this issue. It is right that we have the opportunity to debate it or take it to a vote. I support the motion for the suspension of standing orders.16:22:004611Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—First, let me respond to Senator Kemp's remarks. He implied that management of this place was easy. He was only given the job for a few months. You should reflect back, Madam Acting Deputy President. When the Howard ministry was first formed, even though he was a shadow minister, he did not make the ministry. He missed out, if you like, on the November draft and was picked up in the March draft after a few ministerial resignations. So his own Prime Minister (Mr Howard) did not rate him too highly. He made him a parliamentary secretary and Manager of Government Business. The only way to get rid of him as Manager of Government Business, as he was so incompetent, was to promote him into the ministry. He took Senator Short's spot, so he no longer managed government business. This was one of the few moves by the Prime Minister that we welcomed. Little did we realise that Senator Campbell also would not be up to the mark.I think we have a problem as a chamber with constantly carrying resolutions on foreign affairs that are eventually transmitted to countries, day in, day out on a very selective basis. Yes, we care about self-determination in East Timor, and apparently in West Papua. What about the Polisario in the Western Sahara or the Albanians in Kosovo and so on?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Move the motions then.QD4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I am told, `Move the motions.' In the general disposition of powers and influence, the running of foreign affairs is usually left to the executive. The Senate can express a view. We have at least said, in one element of consistency that Senator Brown will not agree with, that we do not believe these resolutions should go forward without debate, because not all aspects of them would necessarily be agreed to, but some aspects might be. Therefore, the only point we now have to consider is whether this matter is urgent.Senator Kemp said that there are other more urgent matters, that the government's legislative program is more urgent. I wonder how Senator Brown reacts to that. Senator Brown, do you know what this urgent government program is? Have you been sent a letter saying, `We want X amount of bills passed'? Have you been told what is coming on next week? I tell you what: if you have been told, you are well in advance of the rest of us. All we saw was the discourtesy of bringing in a notice of motion today, saying that we would sit all of next week. I do not mind sitting all of next week, but what sort of preparation time can we have? Absolutely none. We do not know what is coming up next week. We have got no idea. Maybe we will give your motion priority next week, Senator. The issue of self-determination for what you term West Papua has been around for 36 years.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—When was it last debated here?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I have no idea when it was last debated here. Again, I do not know that a chamber composed like ours should be sending off some new foreign affairs resolution every day. You want this issue progressed. You want this matter investigated. I do not know about my colleagues, but I will try to influence them. When you put forward terms of reference for an inquiry by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade or the Senate committee, if this is an important issue, I will do my best to convince my colleagues to have these matters examined in depth and reported to the Senate. That will be far more effective than a one-off motion which slides through and which is then sent to the ambassador of their government. They scratch their heads, saying, `Who is the Australian Senate? Is it the government or is it not the government?' As such, their knowledge of the Australian political system may not be what we desire, but it all comes back to the fact that Senator Brown has not made out a case for urgency.One must say that he put up a much better performance than the rather pathetic performance put up by Senator Kemp. He could not indicate to us, after we finish dealing with the digital television legislation, what this chamber is going to do tomorrow, on Friday and for five days next week. You have not got a clue; if you have, you are being deceptive. You are not telling anyone, so that they can prepare, what sort of legislation will confront us next week. You would not have a clue.Where is the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Ian Campbell)? Why isn't he here to explain why this matter is not urgent and what more urgent matters he has got? He is not here. We have not heard the argument but, on balance, as our leader, Senator Faulkner, said, the case for urgency has not been made out.Question put:That the motion (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.16:32:00The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President—Senator R.A. Crowley)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V.* Brown, B.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.39Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.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.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous4612Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that Friday, 26 June 1998, is the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, (ii) that torture is a global problem inflicted by some police and security forces as a repressive tool and perpetuated by the global trade in weapons of torture, (iii) that Amnesty International has documented cases since 1990 showing that electric shock torture and ill treatment have been carried out in prisons, detention centres and police stations in at least 50 countries including Algeria, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Lebanon, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United States of America, Yugoslavia, Vietnam and Zaire, and (iv) the increasing trade in weapons of torture and the growth in more than 100 companies that trade in modern stun technology and electro-shock weapons since 1990; and(b) calls on the Government to: (i) work internationally and bilaterally to end torture through gaining state accession and implementation to the Convention against Torture, (ii) actively pursue a strong Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture with a strong investigative mechanism, (iii) support measures to end the trade in weapons of torture, particularly ensuring that Australian companies have no role in the production, transfer or sale of weapons of torture, and (iv) ensure that policies in relation to refugee applicants are reviewed to show proper concern for the physical, psychological and social difficulties faced by these survivors of torture.Matters of Public Importance4612461210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—The President has received a letter from Senator Woodley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The government's failure to combat the rising tide of racism in Australia and the unleashing of David Oldfield's One Nation Party by its preference decision in the Queensland election.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 concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.16:36:004613Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—There is something very wrong in the state of affairs in Mr Oldfield's One Nation party. Increasingly, it appears that the Prime Minister has entrapped himself between Senator Lightfoot and a double dissolution race.The spectre of racism has risen its head in this nation due to both the negligence and recklessness of the Liberal and—I must include, because he asked me to—the National parties. For the record, we should be absolutely precise about how racism found a vehicle for political expression in this country through—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: under no circumstances did I ever ask Senator Woodley to say that the National Party was racist or the coalition was racist. That is just a blatant untruth. Would you withdraw that, Senator Woodley, please?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Senator Boswell, there is no point of order.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I withdraw whatever offends Senator Boswell. For the record, we should be absolutely precise about how racism found a vehicle for political expression in this country through Mr David Oldfield's machiavellian and Svengali-like pursuits.On 10 September 1996, when the member for Oxley made her first speech, the Prime Minister remained silent and, we now know, politically impotent on the issue. Gone was his decisiveness on guns in response to the Port Arthur tragedy. What is so remarkable about this, and we should never forget it, is that Mr David Oldfield's racist One Nation Party is, and always will be, a child born out of the Liberal Party of Australia.The government will no doubt be quick to say that if the Wik 10-point plan had been passed by the Democrats then all of this could have been averted. What the Prime Minister is really saying is that if only the Democrats had been prepared to rip rights off Aboriginal people, then David Oldfield's One Nation would not have happened; if only the Democrats were prepared to wipe out the property rights of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, then David Oldfield's One Nation would not have happened; and if only the Democrats were prepared to treat Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders as third-class citizens then David Oldfield's One Nation Party would not have happened. Well, Madam Acting Deputy President, the Australian Democrats are simply not prepared to use the indigenous people of this nation as a human shield against the attack on the coalition by the One Nation Party.So how did One Nation happen? That is the question. It happened because, in 1996, the Liberal Party of Australia, through a sloppy preselection process, endorsed Pauline Hanson as a candidate. It happened because, despite the dis-endorsement of Ms Hanson before the election, she still appeared on the ballot forms as a Liberal Party candidate. It happened because, 10 months after the member for Oxley had made her blatantly false and racist first speech, the Prime Minister finally and belatedly—and reluctantly—began to refute those inaccuracies. It happened because the member for Warringah, Mr Tony Abbott, did not have sufficient control or supervision over Mr David Oldfield when he worked for him. It happened because, during the Queensland state election, the Liberal and National parties made a clear and conscious choice to direct preferences to Mr David Oldfield's One Nation Party ahead of Labor. If they had not done so, One Nation would have won only one, at most two, but certainly not the 11 seats that they did win.Let me here and now also disavow any coalition senator who may be still entertaining the fantasy that to speak out against Mr David Oldfield's One Nation Party is to provide Mr Oldfield and the member for Oxley with further publicity. That simply will no longer wash with the Australian community. Clearly, the racist genie—or is that the racist Pauline—is well and truly out of the bottle, and it is now incumbent upon people who crave democracy and justice to defend what I regard as honest Australian values to the teeth. To do less under the present circumstances is to give your consent to the policies of David Oldfield's One Nation.It is massively dishonest of the Prime Minister to claim that the Senate has held its legislative program to ransom. The Senate has passed and improved well over 350 bills, and only three have been rejected—and then only on the basis of their injustice and lack of fairness. Let me put on the record once and for all that the Prime Minister cannot threaten the Democrats with a double dissolution election, for we will not back down on Wik, we will not compromise our stand on racial equality in this country, we will not treat indigenous Australians as third-class citizens, and we will not be intimidated by shady and shadowy figures of organisations such as David Oldfield's One Nation.As we all know now, the next election will really be about control of the Senate and will, because of David Oldfield's One Nation and the Liberal Party, be a race election. For the last 21 years, the Democrats have brought consistency of policy and integrity to everything we do. We have guaranteed supply to both Labor and coalition governments. Despite that, we hear that some coalition members would prefer to deal with One Nation instead of the Democrats.At the launch at lunchtime today of the immigration and population policy, and what is euphemistically called the social cohesion policy, of David Oldfield's One Nation, the member for Oxley and Mrs Robyn Spencer, David Oldfield's Senate candidate for Victoria, made a number of offensive and inaccurate statements. They said that ethnic leaders are part of the problems we face in this country; they said that children born of refugees should be denied citizenship; they said that Australia should not become Asianised; they said that 70 per cent of Australia's present immigrants are from Asia; they said that the real figures for immigration are in fact double what the government alleges.No facts were offered to support these figures. Their other policies are quite plainly and simply racist. But not only that, despite their claims, they are manifestly unchristian. It is a consistent theme of the Old and New Testaments, as I have consistently pointed out in this place, that we should care for refugees and migrants. Consistently over and over again is that statement made.Last year when the Democrats refused to enact legislation that denied migrants access to social security for two years, the major parties voted together to defeat our moves. This is racial discrimination. The so-called larger parties of this parliament chose less than a year ago to give succour to a policy that David Oldfield's One Nation Party embraces.Let me plainly put on the record that the strength of the Australian nation in the view of the Australian Democrats has been our success at enshrining multiculturalism within this country. We repudiate the White Australia policy that David Oldfield would seek to revive in this land. We can never be complacent again about this rising tide.People need to know that, despite the dishonesty of the coalition's rhetoric on Wik, the High Court found in favour of pastoralists. Let us note from today's press that Mr Donald McDonald, the National President of the National Party knows this full well. He understands that there is no problem for pastoralists; why else would he pay out $4 million for a Queensland cattle property subject to native title claims?You cannot help thinking that the issue of Wik would have been settled by now if the coalition had stayed out of the debate altogether, and you cannot help wondering who is running the country: Senator Lightfoot, Richard Court, Shane Stone or whom? The speculation over leadership from within the Liberal Party is all over the corridors of Parliament House. It is like the dying days of Bob Hawke's prime ministership. The Australian Democrats ask the Prime Minister to come clean and once and for all truly distinguish himself from the party that his inaction has created—David Oldfield's One Nation Party.16:47:004615Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—The federal coalition in the Senate is on the public record as opposing the divisive and impractical policies of One Nation and their leader from the very earliest times. Senator O'Chee and I have stood in this place and in other public forums that were available to us and explained time and time again how One Nation is bad for Australia, and particularly bad for regional Australians. I have gone to great lengths to point out that One Nation is fatally flawed because of its connections with the far right groups.The unwholesome stain of the far right cannot be washed out by denying that it exists. The facts are on the table that two state presidents of One Nation have connections with the League of Rights. The Victorian president has addressed two League of Rights functions and the Queensland president has been published in the League's literature. One Nation is not run by ordinary Australians who say what we all really think. One Nation is run by extraordinary Australians who say what the far right and David Oldfield want us to think.One Nation has come a long way since the first sparks from the One Nation leader's maiden speech. It has become a bushfire threatening to consume the very person it was built around—the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). It is important to note that the flames of the One Nation fire have been fanned not only by the cynical manipulators and the far right but by the actions taken in this very chamber.The proposer of this MPI, in particular, has done much to aggravate the situation. The hours of abuse and slander heaped on the bush by the smaller Senate parties during the marathon Wik debates have brought the bush to boiling point. They seethed under the ill-informed comments of people like Senator Woodley, who profess to be friends of the farmers. By blocking the native title legislation, by incorrectly branding pastoralists as wealthy and guilty of racism and bad treatment of Aboriginals and by seeking to restrict farming activities, these minor party senators have caused untold grief and anger in the bush.This MPI is a cynical attempt on their behalf to escape the rightful blame for pushing the bush into a corner. Just as it was the Senate Nationals who stood up for the bush families through the native title debates, it is the Senate Nationals now who have been on the front foot exposing the fallacies of One Nation. This has not been an easy task. It is hard times, people look for easy answers and there aren't any.So far, One Nation has burnt up one conservative government and installed Labor in power in Queensland. The first cab off the rank in congratulating Peter Beattie was the sex industry, which is pushing for changes to the prostitution laws. Is this what the people of rural Queensland voted for when they voted for One Nation? I don't think so. Did they vote to install the very leftist Dean Wells as education minister? I don't think so. Who will look after the bush now in Queensland—Henry Palaszczuk, a school teacher and the suburban Labor member for Inala? Definitely not.One Nation is a political movement offering everything and delivering nothing. It has been waylaid by strange forces and power hungry men from Sydney in slick suits. It trades off state presidencies and Senate spots for access to extremist networks.I wish to conclude my comments by once again referring to the hypocrisy of the Democrats in bringing on this MPI. They seem to have forgotten their role in electing the member for Oxley. In doing so, the Democrats helped give birth to the One Nation phenomenon. As Laurie Oakes wrote in the Bulletin in September last year:The Australian Democrats, despite their holier-than-thou attitude, were pivotal in her election in the first place. Even after the offensive comments about Aboriginal people that caused Howard to insist on Hanson's expulsion from the Liberal Party during last year's election campaign, the Democrats did not direct preferences against her. They stuck to their double-sided how-to-vote card preferences to Labor on one side, to Hanson on the other and helped her get over the line. Cheryl Kernot and her colleagues should be embarrassed and ashamed.In light of his comments here today, Senator Woodley owes the Senate an apology and an explanation as to why he went along with the decision to give preferences to Hanson. Perhaps if he had stood up for his principles then, we would not be debating this MPI today.16:52:004616Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—As far as the Labor Party is concerned, we say that One Nation is a blot on the Australian political landscape. It feeds on paranoia; it functions on paranoia; it runs hard on policies about the evils of immigration—evils that are non-existent; and it promotes destructive, racist perceptions about Australia's indigenous people. While One Nation gains succour from people who feel left behind by the changes in our society, the One Nation party does not have a clue about how to address these issues—and, of course, it does not want to.One Nation's party structure is totalitarian, with tight control of information and with regular purges of personnel. David Oldfield's and Pauline Hanson's One Nation is a very unpleasant outfit, and yet One Nation's existence owes everything to the Liberal Party. One Nation has flourished, as no other embryonic political party in this nation has ever flourished, and it is all thanks to one man—John Howard, the Prime Minister.Contrary to what the Prime Minister and Mr Andrew Robb said at the time of Ms Hanson's disendorsement from the Liberal Party during the 1996 election campaign, we now know that her disendorsement was a unilateral decision of the former director of the Queensland state division of the Liberal Party, Mr Jim Barron, and former Queensland Liberal Party president, Mr Bob Tucker. The Prime Minister's office tried to rewrite history by claiming that John Howard intervened, but this weak and snivelling caricature of a Prime Minister did not intervene. He did nothing of the sort.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I rise on point of order. It is not an appropriate way for either party to refer to the Prime Minister. I ask that you ask the senator to withdraw it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—I believe those remarks are out of order, Senator Faulkner. Would you care to withdraw them?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—If they are out of order, I will withdraw them, Madam Acting Deputy President. The Prime Minister let Pauline Hanson escape from the political starting barriers, and he let her go from strength to strength. Mr Howard's ideological soul mate, the member for Warringah in the House of Representatives, Mr Tony Abbott, gave Mr Oldfield his springboard into politics. He gave him his springboard into political infamy by employing him as an adviser and also, as you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, by giving him a mobile phone. But once legitimised in parliament, Ms Hanson made her infamous first speech which is now recognised on nearly every ultra right-wing web site around the world.That was a speech that sent shock waves around Australia's body politic, because here was a former candidate for the Liberal Party of Australia now legitimised as a member of the House of Representatives, uttering the rhetoric of, until now, marginalised white supremacist groups. The Prime Minister's silence on this matter was deafening. He would not even utter her name, let alone criticise her. In fact, he glorified in her right to express these points of view.What about the speech that he made to the Liberal Party faithful in Queensland on 22 September 1996? He said:The election of the new government has done something to make that kind of neo-McCarthyist, zealous prejudiced reaction against something that you don't agree with, make that a little less acceptable.That is what the Prime Minister said. After Ms Hanson's maiden speech, he also said to the Queensland Liberals that the pall of censorship from the Keating years had been lifted.That was Mr Howard, the Prime Minister. That was Mr Howard's clarion call to the Queensland division of the Liberal Party.Of course, it is true that others were extremely concerned about this. On the Sunday program on 21 October 1996, when Laurie Oakes asked the National Secretary of the Labor Party, Garry Gray, and the Federal Director of the Liberal Party, Andrew Robb, where they would place One Nation preferences. Mr Gray, on behalf of the Labor Party, was absolutely explicit. He said that One Nation would be placed last on Labor how-to-votes. Labor has kept that principled position to this day and will continue to keep that principled position. We were under no misapprehension at any stage about where Pauline Hanson was coming from. We were under no misapprehension about how you had to minimise the impact of Pauline Hanson, and we have never deviated.What did Andrew Robb think? He is a senior Liberal, and he has strong connections in the business community. When Laurie Oakes asked him the same question, `Would you put Labor ahead of Pauline Hanson?', Mr Robb said, `Indeed; indeed.' The Prime Minister turned out to be either one of the very poorest judges of political reality or a silent admirer of Ms Hanson's view. Mr Howard hoped from the start to get some political rub from Ms Hanson's unpalatable brand of wedge politics. That is the truth.After Mr Robb resigned as national director of the Liberal Party, John Howard promptly sat on the incoming federal director of the Libs, Mr Lynton Crosby. In October 1997 on the same television program the Liberal tune had changed, of course. Laurie Oakes asked Mr Crosby to affirm the pledge of Mr Robb. Mr Crosby said:Laurie, I can't do that, because the decision in relation to preferences is a decision for each of the state divisions.And this continues to be John Howard's mantra to this very day, even as late as question time in the House of Representatives yesterday.So from 1996 onwards you had a situation where senior Liberal figures like Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Fred Chaney, Mr Tony Staley, Mr Michael Kroger, Mr Jeff Kennett—and many others privately—implored the Prime Minister of Australia to show a skerrick of leadership. They told Mr Howard in no uncertain terms to denounce and expose the One Nation Party and its racist agenda, and put One Nation last. But as early as October 1996 Mr Fraser stated:I believe One Nation is extraordinarily dangerous for the future of Australia. I believe the debate is more serious than at any time since I began in politics.That is Mr Malcolm Fraser, former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia. It was only in 1998, this year, two years after Labor made its clear and explicit declaration on preferences, that one by one, grudgingly, senior Victorian Liberals started coming out of the closet on preferences. Let us be fair about this and acknowledge that they were led by the Victorian division of the Liberal Party whose hatred of Mr Howard runs so deep. It was Mr Costello—the man who is now out there organising numbers as fast as he can against Mr Howard for leadership of the Liberal Party—who said on Meet the Press on 10 May 1998 that he would put One Nation last on his how to vote in his seat of Higgins in Victoria.But do not forget, Mr Acting Deputy President—you would know—that the same Mr Costello, who now undermines John Howard at every opportunity, was parroting the Howard-Crosby line on preferences being a choice for state divisions of the Liberal Party at a doorstop on 28 July last year. That was well after Ms Hanson's very damaging first speech in this parliament. That was well after that speech was affecting the social fabric of our nation, affecting race relations in our country, clouding the views of our nearest trading partners, and of course damaging Australia's international reputation.Even during this year's groundswell in his own cabinet over putting One Nation preferences last, Mr John Howard did not criticise it. He did not at any stage try to exert his own diminished authority in the Liberal Party and in the government. He continued what can only be described as a disgusting political flirtation with Pauline Hanson. Ms Hanson—and I recall this—even declared just prior to the Queensland election:John Howard has been in a lot of ways a gentleman and I respect him for not attacking me personally.That was uttered at a One Nation Queensland launch on 21 May 1998. She had not felt a breath of criticism from John Howard, not a breath of criticism from Australia's Prime Minister, from the time of that infamous first speech she made in the parliament to her notorious speech on indigenous Australians on 2 June this year.I would like to remind the Senate that a week after that notorious speech that Ms Hanson made in relation to indigenous Australians John Howard's cabinet decided not to proceed with the planned $10 million anti-racism advertising campaign. Let us acknowledge something about Mr Howard, let us give him credit for something. He has real skill in the application of wedge politics. I acknowledge that. That is what he is known for. Just before the Queensland election, Mr Howard was being outwedged by One Nation. The Liberal Party's pre-election polling was coming in in Queensland and it was revealing a disaster for the Liberal Party and a disaster for the coalition in the Queensland state election. Mr Howard finally decided, after Ms Hanson's speech about indigenous people in this parliament on 2 June, to peep up on 3 June and state that Ms Hanson's speech was `racist and deranged'. They are the first critical comments from John Howard about Ms Hanson. But he did not say it out of principle or because he believed it. He said it because of political opportunism; he said it because of the change in the political situation in this country; he said it because he had been told about the internal polling of the Queensland Liberal Party. But, incredibly, the Liberal Party and the National Party still preferenced to One Nation in the 13 June Queensland election.Who could ever forget how Senator O'Chee puffed himself up before the election, toured the countryside, and said, `It doesn't matter who the National Party send preferences to. It doesn't matter if we send our preferences to the One Nation Party, because they will never be distributed'? Did the same Senator Bill O'Chee come into the parliament and apologise for that outrageous misleading of the Australian people and outrageous misleading of Queenslanders? No, of course he did not. There were no apologies from those who said that these preferences would not be distributed.But the Labor Party stuck by its guns. The Labor Party stuck by its principles. We elected a significant number of National Party or conservative members of parliament instead of One Nation members of parliament. Of course, we know what the outcome of that election was. We know that the preferences of the conservative parties were responsible—in many cases—for electing a record number of One Nation candidates. The truth is that the Liberals and the Nationals facilitated the election of 11 One Nation MLAs in Queensland, and their own action contributed to the elimination of the Liberal Party as an official party in the Queensland parliament. Mr Howard's strategy ended up in tatters after the Queensland election, because the Liberal Party does not even have party status in Queensland. One Nation does; but the Liberal Party does not. Congratulations, Mr Howard, on that great achievement. As Michael Kroger was moved to say on the Lateline program on 30 June:All I can do is tell you what the view has been in Victoria from day one, that Pauline Hanson should have always been put last. It's a funny thing to say, but you would prefer a Labor Government with all its faults in principle terms to a One Nation Government.But I remind the Senate it still took an entire week after the 13 June Queensland massacre of the Liberal Party and a bit of prodding from senior Liberals—not to mention a lot of undermining from Mr Costello—for John Howard to grudgingly, belatedly, finally declare, in all his importance as Prime Minister on the Meet the Press program, that he would put One Nation last on his own how-to-vote card in his seat of Bennelong in Sydney. He did not declare that One Nation would be last on all Liberal Party how-to-vote cards; he did not have the guts to say that. He did not declare that One Nation would be last on coalition how-to-vote cards. No, he did not have the guts or the leadership capacity to do that. He would only talk about his own seat.And now, after the 13 June massacre of the Liberal Party in Queensland, hypocrisy is rampant among those opposite. They are now realising not only that they will not get any political rub from the One Nation phenomena but also that they stand to lose their seats. As soon as that realisation occurred, quickly Mr Howard and the coalition have changed their tune. We did not hear a word of criticism beforehand, but now it is a different story.Mr Costello says, `The unsavoury elements that have always existed are back in the political game through One Nation.' Why didn't the coalition, who knew that that was happening, say something before the Queensland election? Why didn't they put One Nation last in the Queensland election? Why didn't they do something about One Nation before it had a chance to flourish as a political force? But, of course, that is not the way they work. It is certainly not the way Mr Howard works. We know the great principle that Mr Howard operates on: hear no evil about One Nation, see no evil about One Nation and wait to collect the preferences of One Nation. That has been the principle that he has adopted.The coalition has been outwedged by Pauline Hanson. Only now has Mr Costello started to rigorously criticise Ms Hanson, although he is criticising Mr Howard behind closed doors. They have started to criticise Mr Oldfield, Mr Ettridge's tax haven, the monopoly money and the connection with the League of Rights—out it all comes now. What a bunch of hypocrites! Why didn't they do it when they should have? At last they apply rigour when it comes to analysing the ultra right which the Liberal Party have conveniently planted in our midst. It has been nourished by the Liberals and by Howard's inaction, and it has been legitimised through party status in Queensland.As I said, One Nation grows on paranoia. John Howard gave Pauline Hanson the nod when he declared that people had been stifled in their ability to speak on issues such as immigration and `the aboriginal industry'. Don't ever forget that Mr Howard said, `The pall of censorship of the Keating years has been lifted.' I have to say that Mr Howard will go down in history as the Prime Minister that allowed the disparate racist forces in our society to become organised and institutionalised, when his government should have been continuing the long battle of other governments in their endeavours to fight the pernicious evil of racism. (Time expired)17:15:004619Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment10—We have heard the usual hysterical diatribe from Senator Faulkner, full of misrepresentations and distortions. Senator Faulkner operates on the principle that if you throw enough mud some will stick. Fortunately, we have heard it so often that no-one believes it any more. I do welcome, however, the opportunity to reaffirm the position of the coalition and of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on some of these important issues before the chamber.The coalition's view is that all individuals have a fundamental human right to be respected, whatever their race. It is a tolerance upon which civilised societies are built. Yet in all communities we recognise that there is a racist element. Sometimes it is based on pure prejudice, but more often it is based on fear and ignorance. We who respect a civil society have a responsibility to combat prejudice. We should never shirk from that responsibility. We should endeavour to avoid acts which legitimise that prejudice or might be interpreted as doing so.Fortunately, in my observation, racial prejudice in our community is not widespread. I believe we live in an overwhelmingly tolerant society. In many ways we are a unique society. We are multi-racial. We are multi-cultural. Apart from the indigenous Australians, we all came here within a few generations and from all corners of the world. We came in waves—most as economic refugees looking for better economic opportunities, some as political refugees to escape oppression, and some to escape the sort of intolerance One Nation preaches.In more recent years more have come from Asia, and there is nothing surprising in that. Like some of the first Australian immigrants came from Asia, some of the most recent immigrants have come from Asia. They all legitimately help build Australia. The more recent immigrants are legitimately helping making contemporary Australia.Ms Hanson spoke of the Asianisation of Australia, but what does she mean? Asian Australians share the values of all Australians—freedom, democracy, work, family, home ownership and so on. What is unique about Australia is that we have been able to embrace a unity of values whilst embracing diversity. It is an Australia that I am proud of. I do not know whether the leaders of the One Nation Party, Ms Hanson and Mr Oldfield, are racist, but they certainly communicate in a way which reinforces racial prejudice, and for that they should be condemned. It is an unhealthy contribution to Australian political life.Apart from those who are racially prejudiced, there are, as I said, those who lash out in racial terms not because of inherent prejudice but because of fear and ignorance. These individuals are exploited as such by Ms Hanson and Mr Oldfield—particularly, I would suggest, the latter. The best response in my view is to seriously address their fears and endeavour to help these people who have such fears to overcome their ignorance.There is no doubt that we do live in times of dramatic change. The traditional stability provided by work, family, community and church is now no longer so certain. Once we held one or two jobs in a lifetime; now this is rare. To many this is threatening. The need to be flexible and adaptable, to recognise the need for a lifetime of further education and training, to accept the likelihood of quite dramatic employment changes during a working life is stressful. It is not unique to Australia; it is a worldwide phenomenon.Demographic changes are dramatic and result from a more dynamic economy. Areas of competitive advantage are changing rapidly. They are much more based on information and knowledge based industry than natural resources. Natural resource based industry is becoming less labour intensive. No doubt all of this contributes to the high level of family breakdown that we have seen in the last decade or so, but so do changed aspirations and attitudes. With a more mobile society, a sense of community and the security of that sense also suffer. Even the churches do not seem to be able to provide the sense of security that they once did, perhaps because they are going through their own process of difficult change.This environment of rapid change is made to order for those wanting to exploit fear and prejudice. The real answer lies in policies and programs to ease the stresses, in providing an economic framework which maximises job opportunity, in providing infrastructure which enhances competitive advantage, in providing quality education and training, and in cushioning the consequences for those most affected by change beyond their control. We have only been in office for a little over two years, but many of our programs have in fact been directed towards those specific challenges.You only have to look at our successful efforts to bring down interest rates, to ease the pressure for home owners and to help small businesses become more profitable. You only have to look at the very massive investment we have made in rural and regional Australia, because this process of change is more dramatic in those areas than what is occurring in the cities. We have made big investments in roads. Infrastructure is so important. We have spent $4.8 billion there and $250 million on regional telecommunications, and one can go on.You only have to look at the money we are putting into cushioning the change of social stress that is occurring. There is our support for the family through the family tax initiative. There is our support for pensioners through maintaining their level of support at 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings. It is not the time to contribute the full range of the government's efforts but to make the point that it is in addressing these stresses that we believe we can best address this problem that we are witnessing in our society.It also requires honesty. It is unfair to build false expectations. It is cruel to tell people that they can return to the 1950s, as I heard one One Nation leader proposing only last night. To claim that it is possible to isolate ourselves from the world, to believe that we can in some way hide from this process of global change and be better off, is to live an illusion. In fact, the result would be a disaster. Starved of markets, starved of capital, starved of the stimulation of external ideas, we would shrink both economically and socially.In fact, we are better off than most to adapt to the process of change and build an even more prosperous and fair society, but it will not be achieved by exploiting the fears of those who are doing it tough. Always in times of dramatic change there has been a tendency to lash out at minorities—those who are racially, culturally or spiritually different. What is sad is that there has always been those—One Nation's leaders are the latest—who exploit those who are vulnerable.I am proud of the record of racial tolerance of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party. It is a racial tolerance that we exhibited in getting rid of the White Australia policy and in throwing Pauline Hanson out of the Liberal Party. It is the coalition who proudly sponsored the Indo-Chinese refugees to Australia after the conflicts in that region. This is a racial tolerance on my side of politics which has not and will not change. I regret that rather than address the basis of the insecurity that provides the opportunity for One Nation to exploit racial fears, Senator Woodley has rather sought to use race to make a cheap political point. It does him and the Australian Democrats no credit.17:24:004621Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Quite the contrary, Senator Woodley and the Democrats have every right to represent a large section of feeling in the Australian community that things have changed dramatically for the worse in our society in the last two years not only in terms of the public discourse, but also in terms of the feeling of security that many people had before and the feeling that we did have one nation but it is now being torn to shreds. That threat and that lack of security is going to be a very difficult thing to overcome.At the same time as the member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson, was giving her inaugural speech in the House of Representatives, I, as the first Australian Green in this parliament, was giving a contrary speech in the Senate. In that speech I spoke about the need for compassion between we human beings and also a new regard for this planet of ours. It was ignored by the media. But the media did take up the racist epithets which were being brought to the surface in the other place by Ms Hanson.Let me say at the outset, we human beings who want a civil society do so with great forbearance, because inherent in all of us is a certain wish to be secure from people we see as different. The civilising motive is to keep a cap on that. The need to put energy into that is a permanent thing. What Ms Hanson and One Nation are doing is removing that cap or at least releasing some of the energy that goes into civilising society, making us less civil—less civil towards people within our own ranks who we might think are different and less civil towards people in the rest of the world who we know are different very often in appearance, language, culture and the way they celebrate life.In doing this, we fail to recognise that the very variety of cultures and human beings on this planet is the spice of life for all of us, just as the very variety of nature on this planet itself and its diversity, which is now under such awesome threat from the environmental degradation of our age, is. It is this great variety that we can celebrate in life itself.From that moment in October 1996, the responsibility for the failure to keep the cap on can be sheeted home very strongly to the Prime Minister and the government of the day. Twice at that time in this place I called for the Prime Minister to name Ms Hanson and condemn her bigotry. At first I could not get support. Later on it was blocked because it was seen as a stunt. Well, it was not. I could see what was going to happen. I could see the sort of divided society and change coming down the line that we have now to endure.But, as I am standing here in the Senate this evening, an act of great intolerance, an act which I believe is racist, an act which I believe panders to the lowest common denominator in terms of regard for the first Australians, is occurring in that we are immi nently going to hear the Prime Minister of this country say that the parliament is coming back to deal with an agreement with Senator Harradine on Wik. Let me say two things about that. The aim of this is to take away the rights of indigenous people in this country. Already the parliament has taken away their rights to negotiate on almost all forms of land use—sure, recognise their ownership and prior occupation of the land, but then say that they have no right to have a say in what happens to that land. It is disempowerment by parliament.The one last piece that was left intact in this place, because the Labor Party supported it and Senator Harradine supported it, was the right to have a say on mining. It was whittled down to a fraction, five per cent maybe, of the land use changes that are going to occur on indigenous land in the coming century. What this agreement that Senator Harradine is striking with the government does is take away even that right. It leaves the indigenous people of this nation disempowered. That is racism, and it is coming from the government of this country.Taking away people's rights is an act of racism when it applies to one particular part of the community, as it does here. That is why the Prime Minister does not want the Greens in here. He would prefer One Nation. That is going to be an albatross around Senator Harradine's neck, because when it comes to this issue we do not need One Nation in here. Senator Harradine is doing that job of giving away the indigenous people's rights through his own act of perfidy while this debate is taking place. (Time expired)17:30:004622Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Despite my differences with the Democrats, I have always respected their right to come into this chamber and put before this parliament any issues and matters for debate. If this issue that they have brought forward was so important as to actually take up the time of the Senate when we are sitting an extra week to deal with issues, I would have thought it would have been appropriate for Senator Woodley to at least have the good grace to stay here for the debate, or at least stay here for the person who spoke after him, or have at least one Democrat here. But they propose a matter for debate that is so important that we need to take up the time of the Senate, and they disappear out of the chamber.I rise to say that I am disappointed to give yet another free kick to One Nation through this matter of public importance. I can only surmise that it is a self-serving, cynical, opportunistic act on the part of the Democrats to try to do something about the fact that they are vanishing off the political landscape. That is the only reason I can think of why Senator Woodley would choose to do this. I regret it, and I have told him personally that I regret the fact that he decided to do this. I thought better of them, but that is what they chose to do. I can assure him that it will not do anything to enhance his party or enhance his party's profile, but it will have the reverse effect of giving One Nation another day in the limelight, another lot of time in this parliament.The MPI makes this gross assumption that a vote for One Nation in the Queensland state election correlates to a rise in racism. Any tyro of social studies, or the study of society, would know that `correlation' does not necessarily mean `causation', but Senator Woodley puts those two things together—that is, correlation equals causation. Despite the triumvirate that heads One Nation—the triumvirate of Pauline Hanson, David Oldfield and David Ettridge, which heads it by owning it and dictating—and despite its views, which have been debated here, and Senator Boswell has eloquently today and last week suggested the links and the murky people who hide behind One Nation, those people who voted for One Nation—and some in Victoria have said to me, `I think I'll vote for One Nation'—are not necessarily racist. But they are people who are concerned, as Senator Hill said today, about the change that is going on around them. They are angry. They are frightened. They do not know where to turn.Reports indicate that, in casting votes for One Nation, the people of Queensland were sending a message to all parties—Labor, Democrats and Liberal alike—about their concerns. They indicated that they are irritated by aggressive and self-serving behaviour in parliament, by abusive behaviour from their parliamentary representatives. I think one of the problems is that they see us in question time, they do not often see what happens in the committee hearings when we can actually cooperate.Despite the fact that I might yell at Senator Cook or Senator Ray across the chamber, often in those committees, especially in the scrutiny of legislation committees, work is done that protects the rights of individuals, but people do not see that. It is most probably one of our faults that we have not told people about some of the things that go on in here, but they see us as parliamentary representatives in the cut and thrust especially of question time and they do not like it. They believe that the parliamentary debate does not reflect their concerns. They are irritated by the very sort of sanctimonious statement we have before us today that we are debating as a matter of urgency. Again, I say that Senator Woodley does not feel this is sufficiently urgent to actually be here in the chamber.This disillusionment is not the result, as Senator Brown would have us believe, of two years. It has been brewing for over a decade. I have to just remind people, and you do not need to be reminded, that, for much of that time, Australia was governed by a Labor federal government.RF4COOKSenator Cook—We kept the genie in the bottle; you let it out.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—There we are. Senator Cook said it in his interjection: `We kept the genie in the bottle; you let it out.' The genie was there, Senator Cook. The genie was there building up, building up and building up, until one rub and it burst out. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. What we have to do is ask, `How do we respond to that?'Senator Hill outlined the changes taking place in our society, the changes that people are concerned about. The Democrats have a case to answer about the rise of One Nation as well, but I must take this opportunity to say that the press cannot be the Pontius Pilates and wipe their hands of it. One Nation is partly a press creation, and the press also needs to take a cold hard look at itself, as we all do, in the role that it has played in the creation of One Nation. If any of us had asked to have our advisers sitting beside us on the program on Channel 7 on Sunday morning, we would have been laughed out of court.Senator Knowles interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—We would have been laughed out of the country, Senator Knowles says, and yet the press allowed that. For not one of us in this chamber—backbencher or frontbencher—would they have tolerated that fact. All of us have a responsibility.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! The time for debate has expired.Committees46234623462317:37:004623Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present the 9th report of 1998 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 9 1998 dated 1 July 1998.Ordered that the report be printed.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I suppose the future of this parliament has not yet been decided. But we should take into account one particular eventuality. I would like to say a few words about the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I notice the most recent member—RD4BROWNHILLSenator Brownhill—It is a very good organisation; they have done a good job.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—It is. Senator Brownhill has been on it and Senator Quirke, who sits on my left, is its most recent member. I think they will agree, and you certainly will agree, Senator Brownhill, that it carries out—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I don't know whether to agree or not; because I am not a member.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I voted against its formation.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—It is a most outstanding body. Senator Ray, I will take up your point because you have given me a topic that I ought to dilate upon. Senator Ray said he voted against this committee, which was set up at the suggestion of some very great senators from both sides of the chamber.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Name them.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Senator Missen.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Senator Evans.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Yes, Senators Missen and Evans, Senator Chaney and Senator Tate. The idea was that it would put into the parliament a flow of thought which I think is very essential to the process. This is the sort of thing the Deputy Clerk, Anne Lynch, has advocated for years, because it is quintessentially a parliamentary institution and a parliamentary instrument. I think it has been a famous one. Perhaps it has not been as potent as it should have been but I think it has done good and effective work over the years.Another reason I want to raise this matter is that yesterday, in this building, there was a meeting of the Judicial Conference of Australia which is a conference that looks at matters of importance to the judges of this country. That committee discussed, with members of parliament and with the Attorney-General, matters to do with the three arms of government—that is, the judiciary, the parliament and the executive itself. Much good came out of that. I would like to note the meeting of that body yesterday in this chamber. I hope that many more of those meetings take place in this building. Perhaps we could go somewhere more akin to what they represent; perhaps we could go to the court. I would hope, Mr Acting Deputy President that you would come. I hope that my leader, Senator Faulkner, who is a man with a huge appetite for justice and a huge appetite for the rule of law would come along as well.I want to set out for the record the five tests that the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills measures legislation against. The committee has corrected a lot of legislation over the years and has made Australia a much freer place to live in than it otherwise would be. I use that word `much' advisedly, because if we did not have a body such as this in the parliament there would be what I would call a `creep' in legislation, which allowed officials and policing authorities to search people when they should not be doing so, to take property or documents from people when they should not be doing so and confining personal liberty when they should not be inclined to do so. Unless this body did it, this role would have to be left to the courts.We in this chamber often criticise the courts. If you have listened, over the years, to the things that have been said about the courts and, in particular, the High Court, you would understand what I mean. There has been great criticism that the High Court, it is said—and I do not accept this—has come in and intruded on areas that this parliament ought to pay attention to. There is truth in the proposition that this parliament ought to more often intervene in legislation to make sure that those liberties that every citizen is entitled to should be preserved. I do not think there is much truth in the proposition that the courts interfere when they should not. I think the courts should interfere more, at times.Parliament certainly should do more than it has. I will express on this broadcast day the five tests that this body applies to legislation. It looks at each piece of legislation and decides whether or not, by express words or otherwise, that legislation trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties. It sees whether that legislation makes rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers. It sees whether it makes rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions, whether it inappropriately delegates legislative power or whether it insufficiently subjects the legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. It has applied those tests over the years and applied them well.Given the uncertainty of the future of this parliament, I pay tribute to fellow members of that committee. They are Senator Crane, the Deputy President; Senator Ferris; Senator Sandy Macdonald; Senator Murray; and last, but by no means least, Senator Quirke. I also pay tribute to Professor Davis, who advises us on whether the particular legislation intrudes upon those five tests that I read out. Professor Davis gives us advice. As Senator Quirke says, we then decide whether the advice of Professor Davis is correct.I also pay tribute to James Warmenhoven, our secretary, who is the latest in a long line of quite outstanding secretaries in this area. I also pay tribute to Margaret Lindeman and Sue Blunden. They form the secretariat and they get ready the legislation so that it can be examined by the professor and then sent across here with advice. I also thank the whips, including those who are now present, for the way that they have helped over the term of this parliament.I have taken this opportunity to speak on this report because I think it is a report that should be spoken to more often. Depending on the course of this parliament, it may be appropriate from time to time to simply point out to the Senate the sorts of things that it ought to be looking at. That includes not just party political matters. All of us should be able to talk about our values and the common values that we live by as Australians, which come at the end of a long tradition where rights and liberties are of such essential importance. (Time expired)17:48:004625Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I am going to be brief. I congratulate Senator Cooney on the job he is doing on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. He reflected on an interjection by me that I voted against this committee when it was set up in 1981 and 1982. That was on the voices. No-one joined me, which is just as well, because then I would have had to actually call a division. My concern at that time was not that bills should be scrutinised but that the job would be delegated to staff and consultants and that senators would merely rubber stamp the recommendations that came through.What became clearly obvious from the work on both sides of the chamber on this committee as it evolved in the 1980s is that the committee took its task very seriously. It looked at legislation. I found it most valuable as a minister when we had legislation up before the chamber. Quite often, matters brought up by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had not been thought of by the minister in scrutinising the legislation. It was quite a useful tool for a minister to have some other body away from departmental advice evaluating the legislation and pointing out weaknesses in it. So I have to say—this is very difficult for me—that back in 1981 and 1982 I was probably in error in voting against it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Is that the only mistake you have made in the intervening 15 years?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Supporting Senator Faulkner on one occasion, as he will recall, was the second mistake. The committee has done good work over the years. Its reports are succinct. The senators who serve on it take their task seriously and put forward suggestions that the executive can value and use as independent advice. I congratulate the members of the committee on the work that they are doing. However, I am not quite enthusiastic enough yet to join them on the committee.Question resolved in the affirmative.4625462517:50:004625Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator O'Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present the traditional end of sitting statement on the work of the committee. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—OverviewDuring the present sittings the Committee scrutinised the usual large number of disallowable legislative instruments tabled in the Senate, made under the authority of scores of enabling Acts administered through virtually every Department of State. Almost every legislative scheme relies on delegated legislation to provide the administrative details of programs set out in broad policy in enabling Acts which authorise such delegated legislation.The Committee acts on behalf of the Senate to scrutinise each of these instruments to ensure that they conform to the same high standards of parlia mentary propriety and personal rights which the Senate applies to Acts. If the Committee detects any breach of these standards it writes to the Minister or other law-maker in respect of the apparent defect, asking that the instrument be amended or an explanation provided. If the breach appears serious then the Chairman of the Committee gives notice of a motion of disallowance in respect of the instrument. This allows the Senate, if it wishes, to disallow the instrument. This ultimate step is rarely necessary, however, as Ministers almost invariably take action which satisfies the Committee.As usual, by the end of the sittings Ministers have given the Committee undertakings to amend many provisions in different instruments or enabling Acts to meet its concerns, reflecting a continuing high level of cooperation from Ministers in its nonpartisan operations. The Committee is grateful for this cooperation.During the sittings the Committee scrutinised 1,028 instruments. Of these, 258 were statutory relies, which are generally better drafted and presented than other series of delegated legislation. The other 770 instruments were the usual heterogeneous collection of different series.Each of the 1,028 instruments was scrutinised by the Committee under its four principles, or terms of reference, which are included in the Standing Orders. There were 144 prima facie defects or matters worthy of comment in those 1,028 instruments. The defects are described below under each of the four principles.Principle (a)Is delegated legislation in accordance with the statute?The Committee interprets this principle broadly. Together with the Committee's fourth principle, it covers not only technical validity, but also every other aspect of parliamentary propriety. The Committee noted that there may have been problems with instruments for the following reasons.ValidityLegislative instruments are generally void if they subdelegate legislative power without the express authority of the enabling Act. During the sittings there were numbers of instances of apparently invalid subdelegation. One instrument purported to give the Minister power to extend its effect. Others provided for agencies to issue guidelines and determinations. Another delegated powers to other agencies. One provided for an agency to exempt itself from its own rules.Subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that prejudicial retrospectivity affecting anyone apart from the Commonwealth is of no effect. The Explanatory Statement for several instruments did not advise that retrospectivity was beneficial, although it was by no means clear that this was so. Another instrument provided that it commenced from the date of making, with the result that it was invalid, because it was not gazetted until later. The Explanatory Statement for another instrument advised that it did not adversely affect anyone, although this did not appear to be the case.Legislative instruments must comply with provisions of the enabling Act and any other relevant legislation, such as the Acts Interpretation Act. Several instruments were made on the assumption that the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 had passed through the Parliament.There appeared to be no connection between another instrument and its putative enabling provisions. Another instrument appeared to be inconsistent with its enabling provisions. The enabling provisions for another instrument appeared to be unnecessarily complex.Legislative instruments must comply with the constitutional requirements for legislation providing for taxation. One instrument appeared to impose a tax in breach of those requirementsParliamentary proprietyNumbers of instruments appeared to offend parliamentary propriety. One instrument provided for a mandatory report to Parliament but did not specify a time limit within which this must be done. Several instruments provided only for documents to be gazetted although it appeared that they should be tabled as well. Payments were received from January 1998 in respect of one instrument which was not made until May 1998. One instrument provided for the Minister to appoint board members for up to three years and another to appoint board members for an unlimited duration, which may give too much discretion to the Minister and reduce the independence of the board. Several instruments provided for the Minister to appoint people to senior positions without criteria for qualifications and experience, to guide and control the Minister. One instrument included safeguards in respect of propriety for some operations of a board, but not others. One instrument repealed the existing provisions of a principal instrument and immediately made them again, with no explanation. One instrument was made with a deficiency which the Minister had previously undertaken to avoid.Excessive delay or duplication in making legislative instruments may breach parliamentary propriety. One agency delayed making an appropriate instrument for a year, relying instead on administrative instructions. Apparent delay in making another instrument resulted in a seven week gap in important legislation. One instrument removed provisions which had been obsolete for more than 10 years. Another instrument corrected provisions which were in conflict for four years, during which time administrators apparently did not enforce some of the provisions. One instrument took what appeared to be an excessive time to correct drafting errors. There were other instances of delay. Four sets of regulations amending the same principal regulations were made on the same day.DraftingThe Committee considers that the standard of drafting of legislative instruments should not be less than that for Acts. A number of instruments did not appear to meet this standard. One instrument provided for a benefit from a time when it appeared that entitlement had lapsed. Another instrument provided for remuneration without specifying whether it was an annual allowance or a special payment. The legislative intention of another was not effected. One instrument referred to a matter for which there was no definition, although one appeared necessary. A number of instruments included unclear provisions. One provided for an appeal period with an uncertain commencement. Another included conflicting provisions. One included gender specific expressions.One instrument was not dated, while another included an uncertain commencement date. Several instruments included reference errors. Several provided for mandatory provisions with no sanctions. Another was unclear in relation to material incorporated. Several instruments were reproduced so poorly that they could not be read. Others were reproduced with parts missing.Inadequate explanatory statementsDue to the earlier efforts of the Committee it is now accepted that every legislative instrument should be accompanied by a proper Explanatory Statement. One instrument did not have an Explanatory Statement while others were deficient in quality. The advice in the Explanatory Statement for one instrument conflicted with the provisions of the instrument itself. The Explanatory Statement for another advised that most of its provisions were minor, which mean that some were not minor, but did not explain which these were.NumberingDue to the earlier efforts of the Committee it is now accepted that every legislative instrument should have a unique citation or number. During the sittings several instruments were not numbered and two were given the same number.Principle (b)Does delegated legislation trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties?The Committee also interprets this provision broadly, to include every aspect of personal rights. The Committee noted possible breaches of personal rights for the following reasons.Protection of the rights of individualsDuring the present sittings a number of instruments may have breached the rights of individuals. One instrument provided for a presumption of receipt of documents sent by public servants to members of the public, but there was no corresponding presumption for documents sent by members of the public. One instrument provided that an agency could summons witnesses, with a penalty of six months imprisonment for failure to obey without a reasonable excuse, but the summons gave no notice of these consequences or of what was a reasonable excuse. Another instrument provided for property found on Commonwealth premises to be sold, with all rights in the property extinguished and any money raised given to the owner, which protected the owner but not a lessee or bailee of the property. One instrument provided an unreasonably short time for people to do things. One instrument provided that a review board may only accept the original evidence, rather than the usual appeal process under which new evidence may be considered. Another provided that presumably aged and frail veterans must keep travel records for six months. Another provided that people must keep certain records for five years, when a shorter time may have been adequate. One instrument did not provide that migration agents must put their clients' money into a trust fund. Several instruments did not give a person the opportunity to respond to adverse material. Another instrument placed unfair restrictions on the advertising of personal services. Another provided that migration agents must have legal qualifications, which appeared restrictive. One instrument discriminated between male and female judges and another discriminated against people more than 65 years of age.Fees, charges and allowancesThe Committee questions any instruments which include unfair or unusual provisions in relation to government charges or payments. During the sittings one instrument included a harsh fee structure under which late penalties could be applied almost immediately. Another fee structure did not appear to be commercially reasonable. The Explanatory Statements for a number of instruments did not explain the basis of fees. one instrument increased some allowances by 20% and others by 7%, with no explanation. Another increased some allowances and decreased others, again with no explanation. Some instruments increased allowances after an apparently unreasonable delay, in one case five years. The Explanatory Statement for another instrument advised that allowances had fallen behind. Another instrument provided that an agency may summon witnesses but did not provide for expenses and allowances, in contrast to other instruments. The rules of a court increased solicitors' costs by three times the CPI. The Explanatory Statement for one instrument advised that a reduction of benefits was small, but gave no indication of the total amount involved.One instrument reduced fees by 30%, another reduced a fee from $2,000 to $400, another reduced the base of a levy from 19 cents to 3 cents and another reduced total fees by $1.6m per year, for $5m over three years. In all these cases the Committee asked whether this indicated that the previous fees were exorbitant.One instrument provided for a refund or remission of some levies but not others, with only a short time to apply. One court provided for a refund of fees for that court after other courts had the same refund for seven years; the refund was also now harder to access. One instrument did not provide for the payment of interest on money owing by an agency.Safeguards on powers given to public officialsThe Committee ensures that there are proper safeguards on powers given to public officials. One instrument provided that an agency must give a draft determination to parties prior to a formal determination, but did not provide for a time limit between the two. Another provided that an agency may request any person to provide information about the operation of an Act and regulations, but did not provide safeguards against self-incrimination in the form of request. Another instrument provided that an agency may exercise a power, but with no requirement for a statement of reasons although this appeared desirable. One instrument did not provide a time limit within which a decision must be made, although there were time limits and deeming provisions for similar decisions. Another instrument did not provide for notice before public officials exercise an important power. Another instrument did not provide appropriate safeguards for mandatory mediation procedures. One instrument provided that an official could wait for 12 months before announcing a by-election, which appeared too long.Safeguards for businessThe Committee ensures that legislative instruments which affect business operations are as fair as possible. One instrument reduced an application period from six months to two working days. Another instrument provided for an adverse decision to operate at once, with commercially harsh consequences. One instrument provided for a right to attend meetings, but did not provide for mandatory notices of meetings.PrivacyDuring the sittings some instruments may have breached the right to privacy. One instrument provided a permissive rather than a mandatory standard of privacy. The Explanatory Statement for another advised that a provision for identity checks was to assist law enforcement agencies, although it actually went further than this. Other instruments provided for the release of information in relation to, among other things, electors and travellers, with no indication that the Privacy Commissioner had been consulted.Offence provisionsThe Committee question offence provisions which may be unfair. One instrument provided for strict liability offences which could operate harshly. Another was unclear about who was affected by offence provisions. Another instrument did not provide for notification of the advantages of paying an administrative penalty rather than going to court. Another did not provide any criteria to decide which offenders would be dealt with by contravention notice and which would be summonsed to court.Principle (c)Does delegated legislation make rights unduly dependent upon administrative decisions which are not subject to independent review of their merits?Many legislative instruments provide for Ministers, statutory office holders and other public officials to exercise discretions. The Committee considers that such discretions should be as narrow as possible, include objective criteria to guide and limit the exercise of the discretion, and provide for appropriate review of the merits of a decision by an external, independent tribunal, which would usually be the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.Some instruments did not provide for merits review in cases where it appeared appropriate to do so. It was uncertain whether another instrument provided for review. It was also uncertain whether discretions given to State and Territory agencies were subject to Commonwealth merits review. One instrument provided for a decision which could have been made under each of two Acts, only one of which provided for review. Some instruments did not provide criteria to guide and control decision makers, even in cases where a decision would affect personal reputation. Others provided subjective, inconsistent or subjective criteria. The Explanatory Statement for one instrument expressly advised that it introduced a subjective element to decision making. One instrument gave power to an agency to determine subjectively that matters are relevant to a decision and then take them into account. Other instruments did not provide for notice of review rights.A number of instruments affecting business operators did not appear to provide for merits review of decisions. One decision related to authorised instruments, another to service providers, another to exemption from health and safety tests and another to approved hostels.One instrument provided for a discretion where a discretion was not necessary. Another did not provide for a discretion where this was necessary. Another provided a discretion to exempt although similar exemptions were given as of right. Another provided for a conclusive certificate. Another provided for AAT review of a decision of an agency but not of the departmental secretary. Another did not provide for review of an important decision even though the Minister did not have to exercise the discretion personally. One instrument removed a right of review to the AAT and substituted the right to apply to a court; the Explanatory Statement advised that this was a benefit.Principle (d)Does delegated legislation contain matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment?The Committee raises this issue less often than its other principles. Nevertheless, it is a principle which goes to the heart of parliamentary propriety. During the sittings one instrument provided for the censorship of books, magazines, films and computer games. Another provided for a code of conduct and whistle blowing in the Australian Public Service. Another prohibited the advertising of natural remedies as drug free. In all these cases the Committee considered that it may have been more appropriate to include these provisions in an Act.Other developmentsIn addition to its main task of scrutinising legislative instruments, the Committee was active in other ways during the present sittings.The Committee made the following special statements to the Senate:. National uniform legislative schemes, 12 March 1998. Disallowable instruments and parliamentary propriety, 7 April 1998. The accountability of the executive and the judiciary to Parliament; the role of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances: paper presented to the 1998 National Administrative Law Forum, 24 June 1998. Presentation of Annual Report 1996-97, 24 June 1998 . Provisions in legislative instruments which may have been more appropriate for inclusion in an Act, 30 June 1998 . Scrutiny of Great Barrier Reef Zoning Plans, 30 June 1998The Chairman and research officer attended a meeting of Chairs of Australian legislative scrutiny committees; Sydney, 10 March 1998.The Chairman, Legal Adviser and Secretary met with the Chairman and Secretary of the South Australian Legislative Review Committee, 11 March 1998.On 3 April 1998 the Chairman wrote to all Chairs of Australian legislative scrutiny committees about coordination of scrutiny of national uniform legislative schemes.On 19 June 1998 Senator Kay Patterson, on behalf of the Committee, presented a paper to the 1998 National Administrative Law Forum.The Committee is grateful for the assistance which it has received during the sittings from its Legal Adviser, Professor Jim Davis.The Committee is grateful for the support which it has received from the Senate during the present sittings.4629462917:51:004629Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I present the Register of Senators' Interests, incorporating declarations of interest and notifications of alterations by senators of interests lodged between 21 November 1997 and 30 June 1998. I also present the register of gifts to the Senate and the parliament, incorporating declarations of gifts lodged between 26 August 1997 and 30 June 1998.17:52:004629Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I was very keen to speak on this report. Senators would appreciate that it is always difficult to do so because you do not actually receive the report until it has been tabled by the chairman of the committee. Like most recent reports on the Register of Senators' Interests, those who have an interest in it go immediately to the letter `P' and see what Senator Parer has been up to lately. That is exactly what I have done upon being provided with a copy of the report.It appears that Senator Parer has enclosed two returns of registered interests for himself and his wife. I can assure the Senate that I will be very closely examining this particular return at great length, as I am sure it will be of interest to a significant number of people in the parliament and may even be of interest to a number of people who watch the proceedings of the parliament closely.I think you can state a couple of principles, however, without even going to all the detail in the Register of Senators' Interests that has been tabled by Senator Denman, because I do know that if anyone expects to find in this report the whole truth about Senator Parer's many and diverse interests, I am absolutely certain that they will be very disappointed. In fact, I think the electorate probably could be forgiven for being a bit cynical about the Register of Senators' Interests when they reflect on Senator Parer's case.If there is such cynicism, it is misplaced, because this is an opportune time, with the tabling of this report, to reflect on the extent to which Senator Parer was able to conceal his multiple interests, not only from the Senate, but from the Australian people, notwithstanding the requirements of the Register of Senators' Interests.Of course, the problem for Senator Parer was that he was sprung by the opposition. Who can forget the fact that Senator Parer was warned, not once, not twice, but three times about his obligations in declaring the shareholdings of his family trust in the Register of Senators' Interests? On 20 March 1997, the chair of the committee, Senator Denman, who has tabled this report today, announced to the Senate in regard to family trusts that, where a senator alone or with their family can exercise control over the voting rights or disposal of shareholdings, the shareholdings should be declared. Senator Denman at the same time released a very informative and important background paper that stated—and I quote:By implication, the Senate resolution of March 17th 1994 currently requires a declaration of such actual shareholding rather than merely a declaration of the name, activity and beneficiary of the trust.Then, on 20 March, the Registrar of Senators' Interests, Mr O'Keefe, wrote to all senators outlining the changes that were announced by Senator Denman in the chamber. First, we had the announcement by Senator Denman, then Mr O'Keefe followed that through with a letter on 20 March.Because of the continued questioning of the opposition, holding Senator Parer accountable on these issues, we were able to establish that Mr O'Keefe again wrote to all senators on 26 March to clarify the changes to the Register of Senators' Interests. In that letter, he attached the new explanatory notes which drew explicit attention to the requirement to declare the shareholding in family trusts.So we were able to establish that Senator Parer had three clear warnings. On each and every occasion he ignored those warnings that his family trust coalmining interests must be disclosed in the Register of Senators' Interests. He had ample opportunity to comply with these orders of the Senate, and he chose not to.I do not have long to outline this view in relation to the importance of the declaration of senators' interests, but I do think that Senator Parer's cavalier attitude in relation to the Register of Senators' Interests probably would not surprise many people, because the requirement for registration of pecuniary interests has never been a principle that the conservative parties in Australia have signed up to. The coalition parties in the Senate, in particular, have been adamantly opposed to this. They opposed, for years and years, the establishment of a pecuniary interests register. They were forced into it, kicking and screaming, by the Labor Party.We tried for years in government to introduce a Register of Senators' Interests similar to the register that was introduced into the House of Representatives in 1984. The coalition in the Senate, the Liberal and National parties, filibustered, delayed, obstructed, used every device that you could imagine, every way possible, to try to stop the introduction of disclosure rules.We consider this to be another disgraceful performance from the coalition parties in the Senate, bearing in mind that there had been a similar system in place for 10 years in the House of Representatives. It took 10 years for the Liberals in the Senate to agree to have these interests on the public record.We have seen a most contemptuous attitude on the part of coalition ministers and parliamentary secretaries, particularly in the Senate, in complying with the requirements of the Register of Senators' Interests. The Liberals were only forced into this because we encour aged the minor parties and Independents to adopt the principle of, as you would recall Madam Acting Deputy President, a voluntary disclosure of pecuniary interests from Labor Party senators, which all my colleagues complied with. I must acknowledge that a very significant number of minor party and Independent senators also agreed with the Labor Party here because of the obstructionism of the coalition senators in relation to the establishment of the register.I will be looking very closely at Senator Parer's latest return. I hope it is more complete and I hope it is done in better faith and better spirit than his previous lodgment of his registrable interests. I guarantee you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and the Senate that these returns will be scrutinised closely by the Labor Party because Senator Parer has form on this.18:02:004631Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I want to speak on the report that has been tabled, the Register of Senators' Interests , and I start by acknowledging that the requirement that senators sign off on a report of what their pecuniary and financial interests are is a reform made to the Senate procedures at the instigation of the Labor Party. As just indicated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner, after some 10 years of trying the reform finally came into being in the late 1980s-early 1990s.It is important to reflect on why this reform was necessary. One of the questions now being argued abroad is the question of the veracity and credibility of politicians. Allegations are made from time to time that politicians as a class tend to confuse their public duties as elected representatives of the Australian people, sitting in parliament presiding over the making of laws to govern the country, with their private interests and that that confusion results in pecuniary advantage to them because they are in a key position to manipulate the making of laws to suit their own hip pockets.Politicians having to declare their pecuniary interests and put them in a register which is open to public scrutiny at all times at least provides some transparency for the voting community in Australia to assess whether as such politicians—in this case senators—are acting in the national interest, from the principles that they espouse, or whether they are acting in their material interest to their own personal advantage. That is why the reform was necessary, to put that question beyond doubt.The reform works in the first case because we now have a register and we now have before us the latest report on the update of pecuniary interests. That is the first half of the reform. The second thing that is necessary is that the electors of Australia know what the pecuniary interests of senators are and can evaluate how they vote according to whether it serves those pecuniary interests. It is very important, when this report is tabled, that there be some assessment as to its significance.One of the key points is the issue of whether, if senators vote for propositions which advantage their pecuniary interests, they declare in advance that they have a financial or other interest in that field. The argument then is whether they actually benefit or whether they are thought to or seen to benefit. In some cases, they may not benefit at all; they may be motivated by the high-flown importance of policy and their benefit may be an intangible matter. Whether or not they benefit is as important as whether or not they are seen to benefit or have the opportunity to benefit.What Senator Faulkner has addressed himself to—in my view, quite rightly—is the notorious example of one of the members of this chamber, Senator Parer. Senator Parer did not, after three warnings, fully declare what his true pecuniary interests were. To go to the first test that is on display so that voters can have access to see what are the pecuniary interests, up until Senator Parer finally put down his full interests, it was unclear to Australians what his pecuniary interests were.That was, in my view, an offence against the requirement that senators should be open and transparent at all times and denied voters an opportunity to assess whether a particular senator, in this case, was driven by motivation of personal gain or whether he was acting as a minister in the national interest. Until he declared it, one could not answer the second part of the question. The fact that he did not declare it, when it is a well-known obligation upon senators, is in itself a matter for considerable concern.When we saw the full list of his interests and we became aware of them before he declared them, it did raise the other substantial doubt. Senator Parer was at the relevant time, and still is, the Minister for Resources and Energy. In the resource portfolio is the coal industry. We now know from his declaration of public interests that, until he announced his full divestiture of those interests, he was a substantial owner and influential figure, if not controller, of particular companies in the coal industry and a beneficiary from the profits that they made.Turning to the second part of the concern—was justice seen to be done here?—what we have is a situation where, until the Senate, led by the opposition, forced him into announcing his divestiture of those shares, a minister presided over an industry in which he was a shareholder and was capable of making decisions in which he advantaged himself.What was the response of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to these circumstances? The Prime Minister's response was to say, `Senator Parer is an honest man, and until you prove that he has indeed advantaged himself I will not countenance any argument and I will not remove Senator Parer from his ministerial duties.' Never mind whether or not justice was being done or being seen to be done. The onus was on people not to establish that he was a shareholder and the minister, which ought to be enough in any fair society, but to catch him red-handed over some self-motivated, materialistic opportunity that he presided over.That does not go anywhere near the standards that the Prime Minister declared ought to be the standards of ministerial conduct. In fact, it is contrary to the standards that the Prime Minister himself put down. You could ask yourself: where is the double standard here? It is clearly at prime ministerial level for not enforcing the standards that the Prime Minister waved before the people of Australia prior to the last election saying, `These will be the enforceable standards of my government, and this will be the conduct I expect of my ministers.' The first shot goes to the highest person and the one with most responsibility—the Prime Minister. It does not absolve Senator Parer of a single thing, but it certainly puts the responsibility where it stands.The nature of the way in which Senator Parer received remuneration or financial advantage is also a matter of considerable concern to the opposition. We did not have a straight-out shareholding arrangement here. What we had was a very complex system of private and family trusts which enabled the financial gain to be masked through a series of interlocking directorships and shareholdings by trusts and various companies. In other words, if you looked at the list on the surface, it was not immediately obvious what the financial advantage was. It was only when we were able to trace through this complex system of interlocking directorships and companies and pecuniary interests and to see how it worked that bingo, out came the financial reward. If the system of registrable pecuniary interests is to work, it has to be set out clearly so that anyone going to the documents can see how it functions.In question time today I asked Senator Parer a direct question along the lines that 101 days ago he announced that he was divesting himself of his interests and would he now table the documents in this chamber to show that he had, in fact, divested himself of those interests. To that question, reinforced in the supplementary, he declined an answer. A substantial doubt has been raised about his conduct. He is three times delinquent in answering the needs of this declaration. He has said that he is going to divest himself. I think it is important for the principle of this chamber that he now come forward and use this debate and this opportunity—or one very soon—to put on the table in this chamber that he has delivered what he said he would. I say that because it is not good enough to say, given the form that the senator has on this matter—(Time expired)18:12:004633Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Senator Denman has tabled the latest update in the Register of Senators' Interests. The scheme, basically, has been going for five years. It is interesting to reflect on how long it took for this regime to come in. I think it was first moved in 1988. It took something like six years for the regime to be introduced in this chamber. There was a situation where Senate ministers had revealed all their details but the rest of the Senate had not. This was because of obstruction by the coalition. The coalition refused to countenance this measure. They knew that they merely had to talk the matter out and the government would have to go on to other legislation. However, the regime has been in operation now for some four years.The rationale for it is that the public and other senators have a right to know whether senators have a direct pecuniary interest in matters that are being transacted in the Senate. This is especially so of shareholdings and companies, as well as organisations that senators belong to. I am pleased that we have finally resolved the declaration matter. I have maintained for a long while that, if this register had accurate information in it, it would suffice to alert anyone to a conflict of interest. I did not think we had to go through the charade before every division or second reading speech of nominating, no matter how vague the connection, someone's ownership of shares or involvement in a company or organisation. The system basically, as Senator Denman's report shows, has bedded itself down. The senators' interests committee is well-represented across the broad spectrum of the parliament and is now in a position to regularly produce these reports.Turning to this particular report, there are a few matters of interest to me. The first is Senator Richard Alston's declaration, which is contained very shortly into the document. He has informed the Senate that he has sold his shares in BHP, CBA, Amcor, Walker, Lihir, Cherny, Collins and Leahy, Plaspak and—it is hard to read his writing—QCT. It is interesting to look at the date of that. Senator Alston notified the registrar on 22 April 1998. There is not much doubt that Senator Alston was prompted to do so by events affecting another frontbencher in this chamber. Out of caution, I think, he has had a look at those events and thought, `Time to unload; this is just not worth the effort.' Of course, he made no public announcement of that, but he has basically made a public announcement by putting these amendments in time in the Senate. It is a little similar to the Prime Minister getting off the directorship of the Robert Menzies Trust, not having properly declared it on, or properly deleted it from, his form.I am puzzled by another entry here, and that is a reference to ownership of shares in ANZ, Australian Tourism Group, CBA, CSR, Devine, Email, Forest Place, Foster's Brewing, OPSM, Pacific Dunlop, Plaspak, Suncorp-Metway, Westpac, et cetera, and then in a second one several other company shareholdings are listed. The only thing that puzzles me is that this particular senator cannot concentrate for 10 minutes to brief his defence counsel in another place but can manage such an extensive share portfolio. That I regard as passing strange.I notice that Senator Lightfoot has bought into the West Australian newspaper. So I must look at the West Australian newspaper to see how they give one of their shareholders a run in the next few days.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—He made the front page today.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Senator McKiernan says that he got front page today, but I am not sure that he wanted front page today. Anyway, we have a newspaper proprietor in the chamber rather than just trying to influence the chamber, which is particularly good. I also notice that my colleague Senator O'Brien owns a share in a horse. I understand that it is a four-year-old maiden, but I am not going to give the name out because it is expected to perform fairly well first-up when it appears. I cannot reveal the name but, if you can squeeze it out of him, it may be worth an each way bet.Basically, though, this particular document will be a valuable document provided it carries the correct detail. Where it has come into disrepute is when senators do not put the correct detail on this particular form. We heard again at question time today assurances from Senator Parer—assurances that all his affairs were in order. Our problem is that we have seen no proof of that.He referred in today's question time to the fact that the rules got changed and he did not pick up the rules change. Let me say in regard to the ESP matter that the rules did not change. Senator Parer should have properly declared those matters in 1994 and onwards, and he basically failed to do so. With regard to the rules change, Senator Parer's excuse is that he did not see the correspondence; then when he realised that two letters had been sent out, he did not see either piece of correspondence. That could be due to poor staff work—it is quite possible that they did not pass these matters on to him. So he basically failed to comply with the requirements of the Senate.We have always presumed that he in fact complied with the Prime Minister's guidelines, but we have no evidence of that. We have no evidence that he detailed his full financial interests to the Prime Minister. That is not FOI-able. It is not a document that we would ever argue should be a public document, because involved in the declaration to the Prime Minister are far more details of financial transactions than privacy would warrant ever being put on the public record. We understand that. We think a more appropriate method, given the controversy at the time, would be that the Prime Minister appoint someone, not a lackey of a secretary but someone with some independence, to go and actually check and be able to verify that Senator Parer complied throughout with the appropriate declarations.But we do not have that assurance, and Senator Parer today rather offhandedly dismissed Senator Cook's question, which basically asked him, having tabled a series of documents 100 days ago, to come back into this chamber and now table documents that show that Senator Parer has at last properly divested himself of his QCCM shares, and that he has not done so in such a way that he would be in further breach of the prime ministerial guide by divesting them to other family members.But we do not know any of this; we just have assertions from Senator Parer that in fact he has complied, without him actually producing any evidence. It is normal that we would take the word of someone who made that particular assertion, but if you have a track record of failing to comply in the past, then a higher evidentiary base is required. But, of course, we will not get that because the Prime Minister himself has basically said now, not by way of direct words but by way of action, that the ministerial guide to accountability no longer exists, it is no longer extant, you need not bother about it at all.What is particularly galling about the Prime Minister's code of conduct is that when you read it, it is basically a cobbled together set of ideas that bound the previous government. They bound the previous government in the cabinet handbook and by way of correspondence to ministers when they were first sworn into their portfolios. It was put together by a deputy secretary in PM&C in just 11 days. It was signed off by the Prime Minister—all well and good. But what they did was to come in and brag and say that they were setting higher standards. They did not acknowledge the antecedents of a prime ministerial guide; this was something whiz bang new. They argued, `We are better than anyone else; look at these standards.'Well, five ministers and two parliamentary secretaries later, you really have to wonder about it. The real wonder about it is that at least two people have survived who should never have survived, and I suspect there is one person who has gone who should never have gone under these criteria, and that happens to be Senator Gibson. When you compare the case of Senator Gibson with that of Senator Parer, Senator Gibson is a mile more innocent. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous463418:21:004634Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 99th Inter-Parliamentary Conference held at Windhoek, Namibia and bilateral visits to Angola, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, which took place during April 1998. I seek leave to make a few brief comments.Leave granted.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—I thank the Senate for its indulgence. When speaking about this parliamentary delegation tonight, I would like to focus not so much on the IPU conference, which the leader of the delegation, Mr Halverson, spoke about in some detail in the House of Representatives this morning, but rather, in the short time I have, on the particular aid programs in which Australia has an interest—that is, the de-mining projects in places like Angola and Mozambique, and the prosthetic limb factories.The whole delegation was particularly touched by the way in which these countries are trying to rebuild. It was very much a bipartisan delegation, and we visited some of the de-mining areas and also the prosthetic limb factories. It is estimated that there are millions of landmines in Angola and Mozambique. The devastating and cruel consequences of the Angolan landmines were brought to international attention when Diana, Princess of Wales, visited the de-mining projects in 1997.The delegation received and accepted an invitation from Dr Guy Rhodes of the Norwegian Peoples Aid project for a briefing on the work of his organisation to rid Angola of these insidious weapons. Australia, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark contribute funds to this project. Dr Rhodes showed the delegation several varieties of landmines that are found in Angola, ranging from the small plastic anti-personnel mines designed to maim to the large sophisticated anti-tank mines. He also briefed the delegation on several de-mining projects in various provinces of Angola.From that briefing, the delegation was left in no doubt that the task is enormous and is made more difficult by the fact that there are next to no records of where the mines were planted in any of the countries. Some of them are made of plastic and are so light that in monsoonal rains they can float to the surface and float down into the waterways where they can be picked up by children at any time at a later date.We also noted that this de-mining project involves a very slow and painstaking effort. It has been estimated that, on average, it costs $10,000 to remove one mine. Dr Rhodes, however, emphasised that this estimate has to be considered in the context of the significant benefits of opening up agricultural areas to production, as well as the national and international commitment to remove this terrible scourge from the daily lives of Angolan people.It was interesting to visit the de-mining program in Moamba in Mozambique. Much of the de-mining had been taking place on one side of a line, where we were obviously able to walk. The women of the community were already farming right up to the line that had been de-mined only in the weeks before we arrived, so not only do they have a lot of faith in the project but they also put themselves to work immediately after the process has been undertaken.It has been estimated that in the years of conflict the mines may have claimed over one million lives, displaced over five million people, and inflicted an economic cost of over $US15 billion. It is generally recognised that these mines pose a very real hurdle to the effective rehabilitation of the Mozambique infrastructure and economy. The United Nations accelerated de-mining program began in September 1994 in Maputo, and it is estimated that there are 218 mined areas in the Maputo province. Since 1994, the ADP has cleared 280 hectares of land, located and destroyed 10,440 mines and destroyed 5,331 items of unexploded ordnance.The ADP maintains 10 de-mining platoons with a total strength of 497 personnel, the majority of whom are demobilised soldiers drawn from former Frelimo and Renamo factions. Only five of the ADP personnel are expatriates and are employed as technical advisers only. In March 1997 the ADP program was extended for a further three years.There are a number of recommendations that the delegation has made in connection with Australian aid projects in southern Africa, and one of them relates to the prosthetic limb factory. The delegation was most impressed with the targeting of aid to these projects and the commendable results that have been achieved. The delegation recommends that the Minister for Foreign Affairs reviews the funding and aid projects in southern Africa in order to continue funding to the prosthetic limb factory in Angola. The delegation also recommends that relevant ministers review the optimum duration of deployment of Australian technical advisers to the UN de-mining projects in Mozambique.The delegation understands that the duration of deployment is currently six months, and it is of the view that continuity and effectiveness would be better served with a longer deployment. The delegation understands that Australian and New Zealand advisers have adopted a common and cooperative approach to de-mining activities in Mozambique and therefore recommends that Australia's deployment be part of a wider Anzac commitment.With those few short words on that aspect of the delegation's visit to these countries, I want to emphasise that it was very much a bipartisan approach, as I mentioned before, in making sure that Australian money is being well spent and producing absolutely viable outcomes. In those prosthetic limb factories it is tremendous to observe the progress that has been made with the assistance of Australian money. The white wooden legs and feet that the black people of South Africa obviously never wanted to use or wear—because, to put it bluntly, they were not colour-coded correctly—are being replaced by pliable, dark-brown rubber legs and feet with much more durability. There is great turnover rate for these products—particularly because the growth of young children means that most of the young children need the prostheses changed probably every six months—and it was good to see that Australian money is being so well spent. After seeing young children walking around with missing lower limbs—or not being able to walk around, as the case may be with some of them who might have lost both limbs—it is really heartening to be able to answer some of the criticism by Australians about money going abroad. To see the money being used like that first-hand is very encouraging.With regard to the IPU conference, I have to say that, as the continuing government delegate to the meetings of women parliamentarians at the IPU, I am pleased that the delegation's report records in detail the debate and deliberations of these meetings. I would also like to record in Hansard a list of IPU publications that I have provided to the Parliament Library. They include:Men and Women in Politics: Democracy Still in the Making—a World Comparative Study ; Towards Partnerships Between Men and Women In Politics ; Mapping Progress—Assessing Implementation of the Beijing Platform ; and Women in Politics—A World Bibliography . I seek to table all these documents.18:31:004636Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—by leave—I begin by acknowledging the part played by the speaker immediately before me, Senator Knowles. On this tour, she showed just what we as Australians can do—along with the rest of the delegation: Mr Halverson, the leader; Mr Clyde Holding, the member for Melbourne Ports, the deputy leader; the Hon. Bruce Reid, the member for Bendigo; Senator McGauran; and me.We are in a global situation. I do not want to go into the mantra that many find it disappointing that we should not think locally but globally. It is important to see the importance of both aspects. As a matter of fact, with communications being as they are, the countries of the world are much closer together. I think that we have not paid as much attention as we should have heretofore to southern Africa. Our exports to southern Africa are growing every year and growing rapidly. But it is not only economic opportunities we have there; we also have obligations to help them find their way to democracy—and I use that word advisedly.The countries we visited included Angola and Mozambique, which are now coming out of a separate civil war in each of their countries. They are now looking for a parliamentary democracy. They are looking for help to set up those institutions that give us the sort of democracy we have here which, with all the strife and frustration we might find with those processes, are the best processes in the world. It is good for Australians to go over there to help those countries with those sorts of structures.While over there, we were guided by the Hon. Kerry Sibraa, who was previously a President of this chamber, a man who has great knowledge of southern Africa and who was able to show us not only the economic opportunities but also those political, cultural and social opportunities that we have to contribute to fellow countries around the world. He was quite magnificently helped by his wife, Julie Sibraa, and by people on his staff: Mark Lynch, Fiona Leonard and Don Smith. I notice Senator McKiernan in the chamber. He was not on the delegation but has made a trip over there to look at migration and was also helped by those people. I think he is acknowledging that now in the chamber.I have paid tribute to the spouse of the High Commissioner in Zimbabwe. I also pay tribute to two spouses who were on the tour with us: my wife, Lillian Cooney, and Jenny Reid, the spouse of Bruce Reid who took a very active part in establishing Australians' presence in this area and in getting from those places the sorts of things that might help Australia and help us as well. As I say, the world is becoming more and more a village. We do feel the effects of overseas competition and of overseas forces in this country. But they need not be negative influences. My son Justin works in the meat industry union—AW5CARRSenator Carr—A very fine industry.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—As Senator Carr says, a very fine industry. The meat industry is affected by overseas activities. My son, in his position there, understands that and tries to adjust this globalisation so that it impacts well not only for the people who may own the meatworks but also for the people who work in them. That is the great issue we have to face.In the last few seconds, I want to pay tribute to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Clyde Holding, who is secretary of a human rights body of the Inter- Parliamentary Union which does magnificent work in making sure that the parliaments around the world realise it is not only in words but also in deeds that they have to serve. There are many parliamentarians around the world imprisoned, and imprisoned wrongly. Mr Holding helps in that area. (Time expired)10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Order! The time for dealing with these reports has expired.Miscellaneous4637463710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the decision by senior officers of the Department of the Senate to declare their interests on the same basis as senators, I present a copy of the notifications of alterations of interests lodged between 21 November 1997 and 30 June 1998.BUDGET 1998-99 463746374637Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Abetz, I present additional information received by the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in response to the 1998-99 budget estimates hearings.Committees46374637463710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking a variation to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Brownhill)—by leave—agreed to: That Senator Cook replace Senator Mackay on the Economics References Committee for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office.Bills4637Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws: Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 Crimes Amendment (Enforcement of Fines) Bill 1998 Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies Collection Bill 1998 Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Bill 1998 General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Payment Systems (Regulation) Bill 1998 Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Company Law Review Bill 1997 Managed Investments Bill 1997 Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Income Tax (Untainting Tax) Bill 1998 Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998 Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998 Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-99 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-99 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Bills4638Message received from the House of Representatives returning the following bill without amendment: Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills: Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997 Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1998Bills4638r5074638Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Brownhill) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.463818:42:004638Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is the result of a detailed examination by the Government of the structure and operations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The Government's examination found that the current structure of the Commission is inefficient and top-heavy, and does not always operate in the best interests of the entire Australian community. The bill provides for the reorganisation of the Commission's membership, which will comprise a President and three Deputy Presidents The Commission and its members will have a common responsibility to protect and promote human rights for all Australians. In order to maintain areas of expertise, each Deputy President will also have responsibility for particular subject areas. One Deputy President will be responsible for human rights and disability, one will be responsible for social justice and race, and one will be responsible for sex discrimination and equal opportunity.Most importantly, this bill will be the catalyst for a fundamental cultural change in the Commission. The bill makes it clear that the new Commission's priority will be to educate Australians about human rights and discrimination, and to help them to understand their responsibility, as members of the Australian community, to respect other people's human rights.The bill also emphasises the Commission's role to assist business and the community to avoid discrimination by issuing practical guidelines for that purpose.This re-focusing of the Commission's functions is reflected in its new name—the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission.Consistent with this cultural change, the bill will make the Commission's power to intervene in court proceedings which raise human rights issues conditional upon it first obtaining my approval. The bill provides very broad criteria for the granting of my approval, which will enable me to ensure that every intervention by the new Commission is in the best interests of the Australian community as a whole.The bill also separates the Privacy Commissioner from the new Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission by creating a statutory Office of the Privacy Commissioner. This provides the Privacy Commissioner with an opportunity to further increase , . the profile, and thus the effectiveness, of her work in promoting the protection of individual privacy across all sectors.The bill provides further evidence of this Government's commitment to the affective and equitable protection of human rights of all Australians.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be adjourned until the first day of the spring sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills4639r5614639Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Brownhill) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.463918:43:004639Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The bill amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 to give effect to initiatives announced in the 1998-99 Budget. These initiatives will provide:$20 million for the introduction of Full Service Schools over three years from 1998 to deliver additional support for schools to develop innovative programmes and services that address the needs of young people returning to school following the introduction of the Youth Allowance and for current students who are at risk of not completing Year 12 or making a successful transition from school to training, further education or employment; and$40.2 million for the extension of the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) strategy over two years from 1998 to support enhanced and expanded Asian languages and Asian studies provision through all school systems in order to improve Australia's capacity and preparedness to interact internationally, particularly with key Asian economies.The bill also contains a number of other minor amendments which will:Allow for flexibility of funding allocations under the Literacy and Country Areas programmes so that funding allocated to State and Territory government and non-government education authorities under these programmes is based on relative need using the most up-to-date Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data; change funding schedules for capital grants for government and non-government schools to insert amounts of capital funding for 2001; andvary the amounts of 1997 recurrent and capital grants in respect of the 1997 supplementation and provide for its flow on effects for 1998, 1999 and 2000.The bill will also rectify an inadvertent omission in the original act for grants for expenditure on special education at or in connection with non-government centres to allow the full range of special education services to be provided under the legislation; incorporate a technical amendment to clearly define the role of the Governor-General in making regulations under the act; and incorporate a minor stylistic change to the format of the act.The government is committed to reducing youth unemployment and believes that it is important to encourage our young people under 18 to complete their schooling, or if they leave school early, to move on to further training or employment. The new Youth Allowance is an important element of the government's strategy to achieve these goals.Youth Allowance, which begins on July 1, is a major social policy reform which provides more financial incentives for young people to develop the skills they so desperately need to improve their chances of finding a job. The Youth Allowance is a big win for young people. It will mean students will no longer be financially disadvantaged in comparison to the young unemployed.The Youth Allowance provides a simplified system of income support which better caters for the various circumstances faced by young people, while ensuring that incentives for education and training are maximised. It is a simpler more flexible payment system which incorporates 5 payments into 1 and 13 different rates of payment into 5.As well as providing positive incentives for young Australians to take up education and training to improve their long-term job prospects, Youth Allowance removes the financial incentives for young people to go on the dole rather than undertaking skills acquisition.Introduction of the Youth Allowance will mean additional expenditure to the social security budget of $212 million over the next four years. 153,750 young Australians will receive more money under the Youth Allowance. 358,600 will continue to receive the same amount of money as they do now. In short, the Youth Allowance will provide a better deal for young Australians who receive income support.In order to receive the Youth Allowance from January 1999, eligible young people under 18 years who have not completed Year 12 or equivalent must be in full-time education or training unless specifically exempted. In recognition of the possible additional costs associated with these high needs students, the Commonwealth has established the Full Service Schools programme. It will target students who are not likely to benefit from mainstream pathways and enable them to achieve quality learning outcomes.The $20 million for the Full Service Schools programme is part of a package of Commonwealth initiatives which provide additional funding to schools, industry and community groups to provide education and training for these young people. The other measures are an additional $13.5 million over the years 1998-2000 for the Jobs Pathway Programme and an additional $6.21 million over 1998-2000 for the New Apprenticeship Access Programme.During 1998-99, the Jobs Pathway Programme will assist around 20,000 young people while the New Apprenticeship Access Programme will assist some 7000 young people.Funds for Full Service Schools projects will be directed to schools in areas with the highest numbers of young people affected by the implementation of the Youth Allowance.Funds will be available to schools for a variety of activities including the employment of specialist teachers or counsellors; providing professional development for teachers and other staff; delivering and developing special courses such as courses in pre-vocational education or training; and assisting students to access other government and community support services.To facilitate links between the government and non-government sectors and to ensure comprehensive services are provided in any given regional area, a steering committee will manage the implementation of Full Service Schools in each State and Territory.State and Territory Steering Committees will consist of representatives of government and non-government education authorities, the Commonwealth, principals' organisations and parent groups.The NALSAS Strategy is a cooperative initiative between Commonwealth, State and Territory governments.The NALSAS Strategy assists government and non-government schools to improve participation and proficiency levels in language learning, particularly in four targeted Asian languages—Japanese, Chinese (Mandarin), Indonesian and Korean, and to introduce or increase Asian studies content across the curriculum.Commonwealth funding is matched by the States and Territories. Most of the Commonwealth funds are paid direct to the State, Territory and non-government education systems on the basis of student enrolments up to the limit of the available funds.Part of the Commonwealth's contribution is also used to fund projects developed in collaboration with the States and Territories to support the implementation of the Strategy. The Commonwealth agreed to fund the programme for four years, with further funding subject to an evaluation of the programme.New funds of $40.2 million were provided in the Budget to take the programme through to the end of 1999 to allow full consideration of the evaluation.This extra funding for the NALSAS strategy will be used to provide continued support to teachers and students.The government's funding policies for schools will assist in ensuring quality educational outcomes for students in government and non-government schools. Total direct Commonwealth schools funding will provide in excess of $16 billion for schools over the period 1997 to 2000. The Commonwealth Budget Papers show that funding for schools is estimated to increase each year to 1999-2000, with an average increase of around 3.6% per year.This funding affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to schooling in Australia.Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading speech of this bill be adjourned until the first day of the spring sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills4641r5534641Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Brownhill) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.464118:44:004641Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Family Law Amendment Bill (No.1) makes two changes to the Family Law Act 1975 to facilitate Australia's international arrangements on intercountry adoption.For many years State and Territory governments have operated programs with other countries to bring children to Australia by Australian parents. The government understand that some 300 children are adopted each year under these programs.In recent years the Victorian Department of Human Services has been negotiating with authorities in the People's Republic of China to establish a new bi-lateral agreement on adoption of children from that country by Australian parents. Unfortunately the conclusion of an agreement has been delayed because of concern on the part of Chinese authorities that adoption decisions made under Chinese law are not given automatic recognition under Australian law. There is no consistent mechanism in Australian State and Territory law for automatic recognition of overseas adoptions.This bill will amend the Family Law Act to enable regulations to be made giving automatic recognition to adoption decisions made under the law of prescribed jurisdictions. At this time, the jurisdictions which will be prescribed is the People's Republic of China. However in future, if State and Territory Governments agree, it will be possible for further regulations to be made prescribing other jurisdictions.The bill will also amend the Family Law Act to facilitate arrangements for implementation of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Alexander Downer. MP, tabled the Convention in Parliament on the first of April this year. Arrangements for implementation of the Convention have been developed by the Commonwealth Government in consultation with State and Territory Governments. State and Territory Governments have proposed that certain State and Territory Courts exercise jurisdiction to make adoption decisions under the Convention. Existing provisions in the Family Law Act permit jurisdiction to be conferred on some but not all of the relevant State and Territory Courts. The bill will amend the Act to enable regulations to be made to deal comprehensively with the conferral of jurisdiction on courts in intercountry adoption matters.The amendments made by the bill have no financial impact.On 6 April this year, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in answer to a question from Senator Harradine, expressed the hope that these amendments can be passed in time for the implementation later this year of both the Hague Convention and the proposed bi-lateral agreement with the People's Republic of China.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator McKiernan) adjourned.Business46424642Motion (by Senator Heffernan, at the request of Senator McGauran)—by leave—agreed to:That matter of privilege notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator McGauran for today, relating to the apparent unauthorised disclosure of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Documents4642464218:46:004642Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This is a report, a weighty tome, that provides a considerable amount of information, most of which I am afraid to have to report is of little value in the immediate debate. This is an historic document. This is a document that purports to inform the parliament of the state of schooling in Australia in 1996. This is a report being presented today into the events that occurred two years ago. It would have been better, I would have thought, if, after several years of complaint, the department was able to move things along a little more quickly so that we had information that was actually current.On the first measure, one has to say that the document has failed to meet the normal requirements of accountability in so far as it provides us with little information that is current about what is occurring in the Australian education system and in Australian schools in particular. What is provided is an improved format in terms of the national overview of what occurred in our schools in 1996. However, the longstanding complaints about the nature of the data collection and the manner in which the material is presented, in my assessment, remain. There are obvious problems with the way in which this national report has failed to produce significantly valuable information on the policy changes that have occurred in this country in the period from 1996 to the present, and on what occurred in 1996. There are significant lapses in the material contained in the report.In 1996 there was a change of government in this country, but you do not have any understanding of that from reading this report. You have no understanding, for instance, of the policy changes that occurred within that year, of the way in which significant cuts in expenditure were forced upon the education system by the change in government, and, as a result, of Dr Kemp assuming responsibility for the schools portfolio. You have no understanding of the way in which the changes were recorded in terms of the broad banding of literacy programs, changes which cost Victoria, from my recollection, about $8 million.You have no understanding of the implication of the abolition of the new schools policy and the introduction of the EBA. You have no understanding of the removal of funding for various programs and the introduction of VET in schools. You have no understanding of the abolition of the students at risk program or the national professional development program for teachers. You have no understanding of some simple propositions such as the effect of the raising of private fees and charges by schools on parents, which, in the case of Victoria, amounted to, according to the Auditor-General of that state, some $187 per student in 1996.You have no understanding that, according to the Auditor-General, amounts totalling $97 million were raised as a result of the extraction of funds from parents, some 16.9 per cent of the school operating revenue. You have no understanding of the fact that, as was recently revealed in Victoria, during this period there was $275 million worth of backlog of arrangements for the maintenance of school programs and capital works projects within the state of Victoria which would take five years to address.What we get is bland, flag waving by state governments, flag waving which does not address fundamental questions in terms of the need for reform in the education system, even in 1996. You have no understanding of the realities of the changes that occurred within that period. It is a failure by this government in yet again presenting a report which is hopelessly out of date and does not measure up to the basic requirements of accountability in terms of providing adequate, detailed and accurate information as to what is occurring in our school system. Once again, we have to acknowledge that the government has failed. Once again, we have to acknowledge that this is an inadequate method of presenting information to the parliament, even on the basis of material two years out of date.18:50:004643Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—We are considering the National Report on Schooling in Australia 1996 . It was a matter that was considered by the Senate Employment, Education and Training Committee about two years ago. We did have some criticisms of the way in which the report was formatted at that time. It is useful to note, going through the report, that there have been some improvements in the reporting style. This document is a much more informative document than it has been in the past. But, as usual, Senator Carr has used this as an opportunity to try to slag the government on various aspects of population in schooling. It is interesting of Senator Carr to note that this is actually the calendar year 1996 report.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Which minister is named in the front of it? Which minister?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—We brought down our first budget in August 1996. We are talking about calender year 1996. By the time those programs were implemented and started to have some operation after August 1996, it was about November 1996. So this report you have been criticising, Senator Carr, is really the outwash of your government, because the funding that is involved was out of the 1995 budget into 1996.Senator Carr often goes on and talks about lack of funding in schooling. As a matter of fact, a recent Senate inquiry looked at matters such as private and commercial funding in public schools. Through anecdotal evidence, not any scientific evidence, people from the Labor Party on the committee tried to make out that schools were short of funds. The lie was put to that in a publication in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 April this year. The source of this document is the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs from 30 November 1997. It outlines how much money is in the high schools of New South Wales.I seek to incorporate this document in Hansard. I did talk to Senator Chris Evans, who agreed to it. Because Senator Carr was on his feet when I took the document over to show him, I did talk to the senator who was the acting whip at the time. I do not think he had any great problem with it. As I pointed out, the source of the schools and figures is the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 30 November 1997. I seek to incorporate that document in Hansard.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—I did ask Senator Tierney if we could see the full list. What he showed me was an incomplete list. I also ask whether it is possible for Hansard to incorporate the list as the senator showed me. Other than with those considerations, I do not think there would be any objections.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I agree. As Senator McKiernan very astutely pointed out when I showed the document to him, the top line has a little problem with the photocopying, but we will get a complete copy.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—With those reservations, is leave granted?1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Subject to the logistical requirements of it being included. It may not be possible, as I understand it, for it to be incorporated.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Tierney, we will return to the granting of leave at the end of your contribution.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—The list shows some interesting things about funding in New South Wales schools. It is a list of the high schools of New South Wales and the amount of funding each of these schools has in the bank at a particular time. If we go through some of the 250 schools that are listed in the report from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 30 November 1997, we would discover, for example, that Bossley Park High School, not exactly your North Shore area of Sydney, has reserves of over $1 million; Goulburn High School has reserves of $620,000; Blacktown High, in western Sydney, has reserves of $250,000; Liverpool High has reserves of $340,000; Tempe High School, which is near the centre of Sydney and has some of the poorer suburbs nearby, has reserves of $283,000; Wollongong High School, in the steel belt, has reserves of $219,000; and Young High School has reserves of $432,000. That does not sound to me like schools are starved of funding. If they can put away reserves of that amount—a reserve level has actually been criticised by the finance director of the New South Wales Department of Education—I would have thought the schools are in pretty good shape financially.Over the years governments have funded our school system quite well. Under all shades of government, state and federal, there has been a very high commitment to the funding and schooling in this country. This has been carried on by this government, particularly in a number of programs that have been added under Dr Kemp's administration, such as the incredible importance he puts on literacy and numeracy as basic skills in this country and the huge emphasis he has put on vocational education and training and creating pathways through to employment. It is through these sorts of programs that we have set in place an education system in Australia which is one of the leaders in the world. As we move into this new era of the information age, Australian schools, particularly under the leadership of this federal government, are very well placed.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted to incorporate the document?1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—We still have not seen the complete document. I understood that Senator Tierney said that if it could not be incorporated he would be happy to table it.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—I would be happy to table the document if it is not technically possible to incorporate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted to table the document?Leave granted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment464410000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Consideration of government documents having been completed, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.464418:57:004644Synon, Sen KarenSenator SYNONFQ6VICLP10—On this day in 1851, Victoria became a separate colony from New South Wales. This important act marked the beginning of the sovereign state of Victoria. The state is aptly named after a monarch who reigned over one of the most stable and progressive periods of history—Queen Victoria. It was a time of progress in science, a time of rich progress in discovery, and a time of immense social and cultural enlightenment. These and many more elements of the new modern world were influencing our new colony during Queen Victoria's peaceful and prosperous era.Victoria, the modern state, has all the hallmarks of this most wonderful time in world history. We in Victoria now enjoy one of Australia's, and indeed one of the world's, most vibrant, sophisticated, multicultural and commercially dynamic societies. Today our sovereign state also has a proud record of achievement to its name. Victoria has provided Australia's Prime Ministers for most of the post-war era, the most notable of these being our nation's most successful statesman and father of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies.The year 1851 also marked the initial economic surge in Victoria with the beginning of the gold rush and the beginning of an era of great vision in which many of our major institutions were established—civic institutions that have built up the fabric of our modern state and helped to shape Australia. Victoria now boasts a number of sparkling urban centres, not the least of which being the city that was only recently nominated as the world's most livable city, our wonderful state capital of Melbourne.However, Victoria Day 1998 gives me a special personal reason for pride in my state today. This morning, Victoria's Governor, Sir James Gobbo, named somebody I greatly admire and respect as Victorian of the Year 1998—Andrew Kay of the Here for Life Foundation. Andrew works with the appalling tragedy of youth suicide, a tragedy that affects too many families. As I think of all the good things that our modern, vibrant state offers and the great fortune and prosperity that is the birthright of all who are citizens of Victoria today, I am almost mindful of those who do not share a sense of confidence and security. Sadly, many of those who are affected by depression and grief are young. Sadly, too many of our young people take their own lives.Andrew Kay, while an apprentice electrician living with his family in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, built Victoria's first skateboard ramp at the back of his local church while he himself was little more than a teenager. Andrew was a young man with a sense of gratitude for all that he had received from life, a man who knew the love and trust of a close family. He was a happy, outgoing young person determined to make a meaningful contribution to society.While he was still a teenager, Andrew was, I know, profoundly influenced by the suicide of a close friend, and this set the path of Andrew's Christian journey and, indeed, his career. Andrew chose to work with young people to prevent this awful waste of life that he had experienced so close to home.A few years ago, Andrew founded the Here for Life foundation. Here for Life is an organisation dedicated to the awareness and prevention of the tragic phenomenon of youth suicide. Here for Life, with the help of some philanthropic and corporate sponsorships, has set about stemming the tide of the tragic loss of young lives. Knowing Andrew as I do, and watching the way he leads a team of dedicated volunteers, I am aware that he sees this award as a recognition of the importance of this social problem.Andrew feels rewarded when suicide is prevented, and I know that he is encouraged when he sees the real fruits of his efforts. He sees this in the trust that has been built up among families who have lost young sons and daughters to suicide over the years, those same families who are prepared to share the horror, the pain, of these deaths in an effort to prevent others from choosing death over life. Andrew now revels in the fact that so many more young people are learning how to support their peers in time of depression and grief. He is helping to ensure that education and counselling about emotional illness are now a part of school cultures, where awareness is growing and, slowly, death is being prevented.I know that Andrew also feels very encouraged when money is raised to continue the precious, but often depressing, research and to support the work to prevent suicide. Most of all, Andrew sees the results of his efforts when young people gather together with a positive and a confident energy that augurs well for their future. They did this, for example, at the Victorian Youth Forum at the Melbourne Town Hall that Here for Life organised a few weeks ago.At this marvellous forum, 4,000 young people came together to celebrate youth. They came to own their own futures. They came to speak for themselves. They came to take a life affirming message back to their peers and to learn that they can make a difference. They said, `We care, and we are here to help build our society.' Our federal minister, David Kemp, was there to hear these young people speak up, to listen to the voice of youth.It is in results like these that I know Andrew Kay finds his true rewards. Just as Victoria has grown in independence and strength from 1 July 1851, I hope that many more young people in Victoria and Australia continue to learn the positive message that motivates Andrew and the Here for Life team.In closing, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Victoria Day Council, led by Dr Anthony Cree of Ballarat University. In doing so, I wish to congratulate them on their efforts and applaud their hard work. Today, Victoria Day, I salute Andrew Kay, the founder and director of the Here for Life foundation and a worthy Victorian of the year 1998.464619:03:004646Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise to speak on this adjournment debate not only to commemorate today 50 years of the reserve forces in Australia, a force which plays a vital role in supporting the defence forces in the north, but, more importantly, to salute the Northern Territory and the 20th anniversary of self-government. In 1977, the Commonwealth parliament passed the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, and, in 1978, the first ministry was appointed, giving the assembly authority and responsibility for the finances of the government of the Northern Territory. But there were, and still are, limitations to this power. The Northern Territory assembly remains subordinate to the Commonwealth, which retains the power of veto over any act of the Legislative Assembly, as we have seen during the recent years with the issue of euthanasia.Secondly, the Commonwealth retains sole authority over a number of policy areas such as Aboriginal affairs, national parks, uranium mining and industrial relations. The issue of the transfer of these powers is linked to the capacity and economic viability of the Territory and confidence in the political processes and representation of its government. Statehood for the Northern Territory, in theory, is the next logical progression in the constitutional development of the Territory. It is important, though, that we do not ponder over the last 20 years but look forward to the next 20.Firstly, many Territorians do not understand or appreciate the historic significance of self-government. It is celebrated by families and communities, as well it should, but it is fireworks night, or cracker night. This day deserves greater recognition, and I call upon the Northern Territory government to gazette this day as a public holiday, possibly to replace the Queen's birthday, a day which is becoming more and more irrelevant and meaningless in the context of a modern day and culturally diverse Northern Territory. A public holiday would ensure that this day is given proper acknowledgment.Secondly, I hope that Territorians will benefit from and have a system of government that is honest and open and that they will finally have access to a freedom of information act. Thirdly, the Territory will be a place which provides jobs and life opportunities for all, no matter where in the Territory you live or how remote your community may be. I note the call by the Central Land Council for an inquiry into the Northern Territory government and the claim by the Central Land Council that self-government has delivered nothing to Aboriginal people. It is not the process, though, of government which is at fault but the policies of the government of the day. While I too would welcome an inquiry, the real answer is to make a change at the ballot box during the next Northern Territory election.Fourthly, we will have travelled many times on the Darwin to Alice Springs and Adelaide railway in 20 years, and Darwin will be the export capital of the country, with the opportunities being enhanced for Territory businesses and trade relationships with Asia finally being realised. Finally, we will have put divisive politics behind us. Accordingly, I call upon the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Shane Stone, to put pressure on the Country Liberal Party, and to intervene in the decision making forums of his party, to ensure that One Nation is placed last in any election in the Northern Territory.The people of the Northern Territory know that the Territory will prosper and grow only under a majority party. There is no room in the Northern Territory for One Nation, and the Chief Minister must ensure that his party recognises this and takes action to prevent it so that we can be proud of the next 20 years in the Territory and not look back with regret.464619:07:004646Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise to speak tonight about carers and to report on a survey which was prepared by SANE Australia—otherwise known as the Schizophrenia Australia Foundation. This survey was conducted by SANE in the first few months of this year and asked questions about the services available for carers of people with mental illness. It looks at those services in the context of the national mental health policy. As the background material in the report notes, about 20 per cent of the population experience some form of mental illness in their lifetime and around 3 per cent of the population, more than half a million Australians, will experience psychotic illness at some stage in their lives.Deinstitutionalisation has meant that responsibility for the care, treatment and support of these people has shifted from psychiatric institutions to, in large measure, the members of that person's family. Anne Deveson's book Tell Me I'm Here is a very harrowing but moving account of her life with her son, who was affected by schizophrenia and psychosis, and who died three or four years after his illness was diagnosed. Apart from being a book that I could hardly bear to put down, it brought home to me the enormous toll which mental illness can exact on the family of such people. The problems for that family were made worse by inadequate services and little information. The medication was rejected by Anne Deveson's son because of unacceptable side effects. Her son had to be desperately ill before he could be helped.To return to the survey: 35 key non-government and government departments responded nationally out of a total of 38, so it was quite a large survey. They were asked what services, supports, information and education options were available in their state or territory. The survey looked at current legislation, government policy, and the way that service providers respond to their carers. In other words, it looked at just how carer-friendly each state is.Overall the findings were that carers are rarely acknowledged in their own right and that adding `and carers' to policy references to consumers is an inadequate response to the specific needs, rights and expertise of carers. Secondly, carers are invisible in the current mental health acts in seven states and territories and in the policies of six. State and terri tory budgets make next to no mention of money allocated specifically to carer support. With no explicit budget line, it is difficult to see what is actually being done for carers. Thirdly, on the whole there is a national assumption that support will trickle down and that carers' needs will be recognised and met by general mental health services. This assumption is often not supported by what is happening for carers on the ground.Another point that was made is that there are few state wide structured education programs for carers and scant inclusion of information about carers' needs in the education of mental health professionals. The special needs of carers in rural and remote communities, carers of non-English speaking backgrounds and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers are often not recognised. Regardless of service policies or standards, carers often experience a lack of acknowledgment by staff at clinical mental health services.Responsibility for caring for carers is not shared. A handful of community groups and organisations, most of them reliant on voluntary work of carers themselves, take by far the greatest responsibility for carer support. There are some innovative programs in existence that both acknowledge and support carers, but they are the exception rather than the rule.Those are the points in the summary of that report. It is, of course, just a snapshot of the experience of agencies dealing with people with mental illness and their carers. You can see from the summary that we are still a very long way from the goals of our national policy. As the survey report notes: our national mental health policy provides a framework for a community orientated approach to Australian mental health care and carers are acknowledged as playing an integral role in this approach. The national mental health policy says all the right things about carers. It says that positive consumer outcomes depend on informed and well trained mental health staff and strong support from carers and advocates.It recognises the importance of `sustaining the carers of people with mental disorders.' It highlights the need for legislation about mental health to be consistent across Australia. It requires consumers and carers to be involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the mental health service.We also have a national carers action plan, a national respite for carers program and a Staying at Home package for older Australians and for ageing carers of adults with a disability. Carers of people with a mental illness are, however, not specifically mentioned in that Staying at Home package.This report carries a very important message in its title, that is: `A long way to go.' That is pretty well what the situation is. So I urge honourable senators to read both this report and Anne Deveson's book. We are slowly improving services for people with mental illness but there is a long way to go and carers of this large group of people in our community have an urgent need. For them, it is very often a matter of life and death.There is another group of carers I want to mention tonight whom I think also shoulder an unfair burden on behalf of the rest of us. Those people are the parents of profoundly disabled children. A woman whom I have met a couple of times is one such carer, and she said:I am the mother and sole parent of a 20 year old mentally and physically disabled son. As he needs 24 hour care and supervision, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, every year for life, our government has allowed me to receive a pension of $9,128 per year to stay home and look after him—which of course is most kind of them—I am always taken by the sorts of ways in which these people find humour in their own situations; I am sure I could not do the same. She goes on:. . . and is much better for the financial outlook for the State. I mean, if he was placed in state-funded care the drain on the economy would be much greater—approximately $61,000 a year greater . . .It's just that I'm having a little difficulty maintaining myself and my son on my income supplemented by his very generous allowance of $127 per week. I'm really grateful but feel perhaps I could be allowed pro-rata payments for the special services I provide.You see I fill quite a number of diverse roles in his life. Not only am I a mother and therefore cook, cleaner, counsellor, etc., but I am also his physiotherapist, occupational therapist, speech therapist, nurse, diagnostician, (all areas in which I have had to become quite proficient) translator (he has no speech), accountant, administrative guardian, teacher, chauffeur, dietitian (he requires special foods) and spokesperson. Being a single parent for 19 out of his twenty years I also act as gardener and repair man as well.I do get approximately 8 hours of in home relief each week for which I pay, and the seven hours, five days a week (including travel time) that he is in Day Placement to myself. I use that time to do frivolous things like shower and walk the dogs, banking, household maintenance and any other task which cannot be done at night.As I do not receive holidays, holiday pay with leave loading, sick pay, triple time for Sundays or paid superannuation, and work 20 hours out of 24, a raise in lieu might help with the cost of purchasing and maintaining special equipment such as wheelchairs which some of we parents have to bear, a larger and less economical car than previously to carry the wheelchair in, renovations to my home (I can join a queue and wait several years to receive a maximum of $3000, but the wheelchair could possibly rust waiting outside all that time waiting for a ramp to be built!) . . .She goes on to talk about what it is like to live with a profoundly disabled son.It is critical that we start to listen to this group of carers in particular. This speech was made during the launch of a new group of parents, which has come together to advocate more flexibility in the options that are available to their children as they age into adults and whom they are less able to care for, for 24 hours a day. These parents are not asking for governments to take over that very considerable responsibility of caring for their children. All they ask is that accommodation options include them. At present, there are very few choices.There is community based accommodation, where they will have a degree of independence but be housed with strangers. There are very few places such as these, in any case, for physically and intellectually disabled people. This type of care is very expensive and one reason why unmet needs for supported accommodation have reached over 70,000 people. These parents say that there should be other choices and that their jobs would be made much more bearable if the rest of us took some of the load. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There was an issue prior to the commencement of this debate about whether a table that Senator Tierney wanted to incorporate could be incorporated. I understand that it is not possible to reproduce it as an incorporation. It will therefore be tabled.464919:18:004649Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, the Information Economy and the Arts10—I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate and the Australian people a matter of serious concern. This issue revolves around the potential misuse of taxpayers' funds by a candidate who has the audacity to promote himself as a champion of honesty in politics. His name is Steve Gibbons and he is an ALP candidate for Bendigo. Mr Gibbons has a fax number, which is listed on the ALP's home page, for the electorate office of his current employer, the state member for Bendigo West, Bob Cameron. He has advertised a telephone number on which he can be contacted which is the same number that was attached to him in 1997 in his position as staff member for the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Mr John Brumby, which is a job paid for by the taxpayer.It is my understanding that this telephone is actually located at 40 View Street, Bendigo, which is the Bendigo Trades Hall Council. The question, therefore, is about who pays the phone calls for Mr Gibbons's campaign phone. Here we have an ALP candidate saying to the people of Bendigo `Feel free to ring me' on a phone number allocated to him as a staff member of Mr Brumby while he supposedly works for Mr Cameron. It beggars belief that Mr Gibbons is doing other than using these phones to make calls and send faxes. These questions arise: who pays the bills; who pays for the line rental; who does he work for; where does he work; where does he get the time to do any work, all at taxpayers' expense?It is a matter of very grave concern that a candidate for a federal seat in the upcoming federal election could be misusing telephone and fax services provided to the Victorian parliament by the taxpayers of Victoria. It is a matter that requires full investigation into what, on the face of it, would appear to be a blatant and systematic abuse of the resources and funds of the taxpayer.Labor, of course, continues to mislead the Australian people, spreading misinformation and running scare campaigns. It is doing its best to whip up the pro-Hanson fervour that exists on issues such as Australia Post and taxation reform. We have candidates endorsed by the ALP with an anything-goes mentality. This is one of the longest running games on that side of politics that you could ever come across. These people are fully funded by the trade union movement on the one hand, and work in a state or federal member's office on the other, yet they run around holding themselves out for office as though they are somehow poor and in need of help. This is another classic example and a matter of very great concern to the voters of Bendigo, who I can assure you will very much take these matters into account at the relevant time.464919:21:004649Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I want to talk about a matter in my state that relates to the potential employment of around 100 people. The fact that it has not occurred, as I will try to explain, borders on possibly corrupt criminal activity. I do not say that lightly. It relates to a person who came to the state with a proposal to construct two sawmills, one in the north-west of Tasmania, which is actually three-parts constructed, and the other at Bridgewater in the south of Tasmania. The person proposed to operate those mills and source wood for them from the Forestry Corporation or Forestry Tasmania, primarily from crown forests. He proceeded down the path of establishing an agreement with Forestry Tasmania.As a result of his not meeting what are normally set down as milestones—in fact, he had actually got some 24 to 30 days behind on one milestone—Forestry Tasmania terminated the agreement. The person concerned said that he would take them to court. They subsequently commenced a court action of their own to verify that the termination of the agreement was actually legal—that is, that they had legally terminated an agreement.I reiterate to the Senate that this occurred in a state which has in excess of 12 per cent unemployment. One would think that a public body such as the Forestry Corporation would do everything possible within its charter to encourage employment, but not in this instance.We have to understand why. The person concerned is not in the club of forest industry people in Tasmania. He actually proposed a whole new range of objectives for forestry in Tasmania which would see far greater utilisation of the resource currently being woodchipped. I can recall saying to him back in 1992 that I doubted whether he would ultimately be able to proceed. He felt—I was the secretary of the Timber Workers Union at the time—that I had a somewhat cynical industrial view and had no faith in some of the companies concerned.Coming back to the issue that relates very clearly to this court case, it is now my view—and it was my view at the time—that, with regard to the court case that was ultimately held, and appealed, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Tasmania which found in favour of Forestry Tasmania erred in their judgment. I say that on the basis of evidence that has now come to hand.Not only has the Forestry Corporation taken this person to court, but they have pursued him on the basis of trying to make him a bankrupt, so that he is unable to continue with legal action. Again, that is occurring in a state which has in excess of 12 per cent unemployment. This is in an industry which can do with all the jobs it can possibly get.If Forestry Tasmania are not totally inept, then they are corrupt. I do not say that lightly. There is a whole chain of events which I do not have time to mention here tonight, but I intend, over time, to bring into this chamber a series of evidence that I believe will prove that the Forestry Corporation of Tasmania is corrupt. There can be no other explanation if you follow the chain of events and, indeed, the evidence that is available.By way of evidence, the Forest Practices Board wrote a letter to this person and provided a report to the federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy with regard to the utilisation of the resource. They are obliged under the act to verify or to clarify that sawlogs that are specified under the Tasmanian Forestry Act are not being woodchipped. They, as Isaid, sent a report to the federal department with regard to a woodchip mill in the north-west of Tasmania known as the Hampshire woodchip mill. They said in that report that since the inception of the mill, only two category 2 sawlogs had been found to have turned up at the mill.The reality is a long way from that. I have photographic and video evidence that will contradict that. At least 30 per cent of the timber going into that chip mill would meet the specifications for sawlog in Tasmania. If you ran the ruler over it with regard to sawlog specifications in any other state that conducts a hardwood sawmilling industry, you could take that up to at least 40 per cent, and possibly higher.It is a disgraceful waste of a valuable resource. More importantly, it is even more disgraceful when you look at the circumstances that we find ourselves in with regard to the company that is endeavouring to set up a sawmilling operation in my state and employ people in my state. It is totally unacceptable on the part of the state government, with whom I took this issue up—the premier and the minister for forests.I make one brief comment with regard to the minister for forests. He was asked a question in what is known as the state's estimates process. They do not call it that, but that is in effect what it is. He was asked a question, with the Chief Commissioner of Forests, Mr Evan Rolley, present. The question was: could the minister and his officer advise the committee what volume of category 2 sawlogs are produced compared with that which are sold? Of course, you would expect the minister for forests to have some understanding of that. His response was, `Well, what's the difference?' This bloke happens to be a farmer at the same time. I think he grows spuds occasionally. There is a significant difference between what is produced when you cut trees down and what you actually sell.Forestry Tasmania sells, on average, around 70,000 to 80,000 tonnes of category 2 sawlogs per annum. They tried to convey in that committee that the volume that they sell is the volume that they produce. I have spoken to every other forestry corporation in this country. If you have log specifications, with category 1 being the top and category 2 being the next level of specification, nowhere do you get the same result.Indeed, many people in the Tasmanian industry will tell you, as will people in every other state that has a hardwood forest industry, that where you have the top category sawlog and you go to the next level of specification, the rule of thumb is this: you get two of category 2 for every category 1. But oh no, not in Tasmania. We cannot even get 10 per cent of category 1, not two for one. That is a major problem. That is why I say there is corruption because you cannot be that useless, that inept. That is why corruption exists in the Tasmanian Forestry Corporation. It should be rooted out and I hope at some stage the state government, the state opposition and the Tasmanian Greens will take effective action to ensure that it is.465119:31:004651Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I commend Senator Murphy for his presentation to the Senate. He and I have been old sparring partners on either side of the debate about the conservation of Tasmania forests, but the matter he has brought before the Senate is as a result of a long period of study. It leads him to the same conclusion that I have reached, that there is the need for an inquiry into the past practices of Forestry Tasmania and to discover to what degree corruption has occurred in those processes.I need only point to the fact that in the years between 1970—following the advent of the export woodchip industry in Tasmania—and 1990, Forestry Tasmania accrued a debt of between $250 million and $500 million for selling the trees in Tasmania—trees which were owned by the public and cost it nothing—to the big woodchip corporations to be exported to Japan. We were actually paying to have our grand forests cut down and exported. I do not think much has changed since then.Moreover, despite repeated forest agreements by Labor and Liberal, we have seen the continued shedding of jobs, not least jobs out of the pulping component of the downstream manufacture in Tasmania, while trees are increasingly exported as whole logs, and woodchips are exported in increasing amounts without downstream processing, to northern hemisphere countries where jobs are created and downstream processing occurs, so that the profit goes to corporations elsewhere in the world and not back into Tasmania. The basic fault in Tasmanian politics is that weak-kneed politicians have allowed this to happen in successive Labor and Liberal governments. So whilst Tasmania is one of the biggest exporters per capita of any of the Australian states, it has the lowest per capita income.On Senator Murphy's last reference, let me say that the Greens are ready, willing and able to pursue a full inquiry into Forestry Tasmania to the level of a royal commission, if his Labor Party will come aboard and move to join in such an inquiry. I give Senator Murphy that commitment. The numbers are there in the Tasmanian parliament now for an inquiry at that level, if Senator Murphy can get his Labor colleagues to be as brave as he is in bringing these important matters into the state parliament and acting on them.I want to talk about what appears to be another matter for corruption involving not this country but exploiters in another country, namely, Norway. I have in my hand a letter sent to Geoff Law of my office from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust's Alistair Graham. The letter is headed `Allegation of conspiracy between Ravenor Overseas Inc. and Bergenspanken to evade penalisation under the Australian fisheries law'—Bergenspanken is a bank. The first paragraph says:As discussed, herewith some information on what I believe to be a conspiracy between the Ravenor Overseas Inc., owner of the Aliza Glacial (the longliner intercepted by the Australian Navy and arrested by AFMA on 17 October 1997 and charged with fishing illegally in the Heard Island EEZ)— that is the exclusive economic zone—and the Bergenspanken (a small regional bank in Norway which has loaned Ravenor some US$6M to buy the Aliza Glacial secured against a mortgage over the boat).In short, what has occurred here is that Australia has impounded this Norwegian fishing vessel which is exploiting the fisheries of the southern oceans, in this case within the Heard Island EEZ. Under naval policing, the boat has been brought to Australia and impounded. But what has happened is that this small bank has, in effect, said, `The company that owns that boat has gone bankrupt. We foreclose on the boat.' It appears, under international arrangements, they may indeed be able to take the boat out of Australian waters and back to Norway. The documents that I have here are a prima facie case of a conspiracy of the worst order which precedes the impounding of that boat, whereby this situation of the boat being seized for illegal fishing was foreseen and this arrangement for the company to go bankrupt and the boat then to be seized on behalf of the bank and taken back to Norway was plotted. It is an extraordinarily serious charge.I seek leave of the Senate to table these documents. I am grateful to the government, the opposition and other parties for indicating that that leave will be granted.Leave granted.19:37:004652Senate adjourned at 7.37 p.m.Documents46524652The following government documents were tabled:Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs—National report on schooling in Australia 1996.4652The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aged Care Act—Determinations under subsection 44-30(5)—ACA No. 1/1998 and ACA No. 2/1998.Social Security Act—Social Security (Fares Allowance) Rules 1998.Social Security Student Financial Supplement Scheme 1998.States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act—Amendment No. 98/1 to the scheme.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instrument varying Veterans' Children Education Scheme—Instrument No. 7 of 1998.Instruments under section 196B—Instruments Nos 39 to 50 of 1998.Answers to Questions on Notice4653The following answers to questions were circulated:4653(Question No. 1070)10704653Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 To ask the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, with reference to the proposal for a dam on the Fitzroy River in Western Australia, upon notice, on 3 March 1998:(1) (a) Can the Minister identify the views of the traditional owners of the area; and (b) which of these views have been transmitted to the Government, and how.(2) (a) Has the Government taken any action to consult traditional owners about their concerns; and (b) are there any claims under native title legislation for the area; if so, can a list be provided of these claimants and any pertinent information.(3) What are the employment prospects for the local indigenous people from the dam and any associated industries.(4) What are the employment prospects for the local indigenous people from tourism should the river stay free from dams.4653Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The following information is in response to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) (a) The matter of obtaining the views of the traditional owners and native title claimants in the area is the responsibility of the WA Government under the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993.(2) (b) No.(3) The proposal essentially rests with the WA State Government and I am unable to comment on their employment strategies.(4) This information is not available. There are a number of Indigenous operators in the area currently participating or proposing to join the tourism industry. These include the:. Darlgunaya Aboriginal Corporation which conducts daily boat trips into Geiki Gorge.. Yiyili community is in the early stages of the development of a caravan park and associated tourism venture.. Jarlmadangah community which is interested in starting a tourism venture. . Biridu community which has started an overland day trips venture into their part of the river system.4653(Question No. 1187)11874653Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:With reference to the villages of Bella and Alama, Ilaga district in Paniai:(1) Was a massacre committed in these villages by the Indonesian army or Indonesian soldiers in late 1996 or early 1997; if so, will the Australian Government condemn the massacre.(2) What steps will the Australian Government take to ensure that the Red Cross is given access to the area where the massacre is alleged to have occurred.4653Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) The Government is aware of the report on human rights violations in Irian Jaya issued in May 1998 by three Indonesia-based churches. The allegations contained in that report are, of course, deeply disturbing. The Government has taken up the allegations made in the report with a number of Indonesian interlocutors. On 2 June, Australia's Army Attache in Jakarta raised the Australian Government's concern about the allegations with Chief of Indonesia's Military Intelligence organisation. Officers from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta have also discussed the allegations with the ICRC, the Indonesian Institute of Community Studies and Advocacy (ELSAM) and local church groups.Representatives from the Indonesian Commission for Human Rights (KOMNAS HAM) visited Irian Jaya 12-14 June 1998 to investigate the allegations of violations in the region. KOMNAS HAM announced on 15 June that it believed that human rights abuses had occurred and that it intended to undertake shortly a second visit to Irian Jaya in order to investigate more closely the allegations. The Australian Government welcomes the KOMNAS HAM investigations into the allegations of abuse. (2) The ICRC is responsible for the distribution of humanitarian drought relief in the region in which the violations allegedly took place in 1996-97, and has access to the vast majority of those villages. However, following the OPM hostage-taking incident in January 1996, in which the OPM killed two Indonesian hostages, the military restricted access by NGOs to several of the villages in the region for fear of a repeat of the hostage-taking incident.This is clearly a complex issue. While the Australian Government shares concerns regarding a possible repeat of the 1996 hostage incident, it also supports the ICRC's unfettered access to remote Irianese villages both in terms of allowing it to deliver humanitarian relief to drought effected villages and more broadly in its ongoing human rights role. This is a matter which we will ask the Embassy to take up with the Indonesian Government.While there is no evidence to suggest that the alleged deaths were carried out as a result of a deliberate ABRI policy, inadequate training and indiscipline amongst the military are often factors in human rights abuses. While it is regrettable that human rights abuse by individual ABRI members continue to occur, it is notable that such behaviour is now more likely to be investigated by the Indonesian Government, and the perpetrators brought to account.The Government views human rights as an inseparable part of Australia's overall foreign policy approach, both because the treatment of human beings is a matter of concern to Australians and because promoting and protecting human rights underpins Australia's broader security and economic interests. The Australian Government backs up this policy with a range of practical support measures, aimed at bolstering the ability of those organisations in Indonesia which are trying to address human rights concerns through monitoring, advocacy, training and education.Australia is providing practical assistance to Indonesia in the area of institutional strengthening and good governance, in order to assist Indonesians to develop their own political, legal and human rights institutions. This assistance provides practical, concrete and realisable benefits and better equips Indonesians to address the issues they are facing. The Australian Government recently announced a grant of $2 million of assistance to the Indonesian Human Rights Commission (KOMNAS HAM) for a program of institutional strengthening and technical assistance and English training for KOMNAS HAM personnel. This assistance package results from an AusAID commissioned needs assessment. In addition, a key aim of AusAID's ongoing Specialised Training Project is to promote good governance in Indonesia. Training provided under this program will include human rights training for KOMNAS HAM staff and other Indonesian Government Agencies. Practical assistance has also been provided to the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, Indonesian Institute of Community Studies and Advocacy and community and human rights defenders. The Government has provided $20,000 to the Centre for Human Rights Studies (YAPUSHAM) to enable it to publish six issue of "Index" (a comprehensive compilation of human rights violations reported in Indonesia) and four issues of the journal "Imparsial" (a potentially valuable vehicle for the dissemination of human rights ideas and issues for the development of a more informed human rights debate). The Government also recently announced a grant of $2 million to assist the KOMNAS HAM.General Government funding for governance and human rights activities will increase by $14 million (18%) to $82 million in 1998-99. This includes a five-fold increase in the Human Rights Fund which provides practical support for small, community-based projects that promote and protect human rightsThe Australian Government continues to urge the Indonesian Government and military to exercise restraint in its dealings with all Indonesian citizens. The Australian Government believes that a valuable contribution made by our defence relationship with Indonesia in addressing issues of human rights is in the form of the transfer of values such as professionalism and discipline, and greater understanding of international humanitarian law and the legal and doctrinal basis of the relationship between civil and military law in Australia. By participating in training and exercises with the Australian Defence Forces, ABRI personnel are exposed to Australian values and approaches. In this way Australia can make a contribution to spreading awareness of human rights and their significance in the development of military discipline and professionalism. Only through long-term, persistent engagement with Indonesia, and its armed forces, will the effects of this transfer of values be effective.The Australian Government continues to take a close interest in the well-being of the Irianese people. The Australian Ambassador visited Irian Jaya on 7-10 May 1998 as part of the Embassy's regular tours of the provinces of Indonesia. He was accompanied by a delegation of Embassy officers, including aid and defence officials. Another senior Embassy official visited the province in early April. In late 1997, Australia contributed a total of $3.3 million to provide assistance to the victims of drought in Irian Jaya, including $2.5 million to the ICRC operations in the province. In 1998 Australia contributed a further contribution of up to $10 million to cover drought relief operations in Irian Jaya through a joint exercise between ADF, AusAID and ABRI to deliver food supplies to remote villages. This operation is continuing.4655(Question No. 1195)11954655Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 May 1998:(1) Is the Minister aware that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has announced (ATO ruling 97/D20) that from 1 January 1998 students receiving Austudy and Abstudy will be excluded from claiming self education expenses as tax deductions.(2) Can an explanation be supplied of the policy behind this decision, given that Austudy and Abstudy payments are well below the Henderson poverty line and many students rely on their self-education taxation claims to assist them in their ability to study.(3) Can it be confirmed whether this taxation ruling will apply to people in receipt of the new Youth Allowance payment, which is designed to enable young people to move between employment and study: if so: (a) how will it apply; and (b) how will it apply to those over 25 in receipt of the new Austudy payment.4655Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows(1) Yes, I am aware that the ATO issued a draft taxation ruling, TR 97/D20, which suggests that self education expenses are not deductible against Austudy and Abstudy allowances. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me that TR 97/D20 has now issued as a final ruling, TR98/0. The final ruling issued on 17 June 1998. The draft ruling announced that from 1 January 1998 students receiving assistance payments would not be entitled to a deduction for self education expenses associated with a course of study. After receiving submissions from students, educational institutions and stake holders on this issue, the ATO has deferred the date of operation to 1 July 1998. This will benefit students receiving payments under assistance schemes as they will be able to claim self-education expenses for the full 1997-98 income year.(2) The Commissioner also advised me that the change in the ATO's view of the law came about following a review of the law related to deductions for self-education expenses.As a result of the review, the ATO took the view that the essential nature of self-education expenses for recipients of assistance payments relates to undertaking the study to enable a possible future income-earning activity to be commenced, not the derivation of Austudy and other similar assistance payments that may be available as an incident of the study. In other words, the ATO considers that self education expenses are not incurred in earning education assistance allowances, which are received because a student is enrolled in a course of study and satisfies eligibility criteria. As well as that, no deduction is allowable if a person's study, viewed objectively, is designed to enable a taxpayer to get employment, to obtain new employment or to open up a new income-earning activity. A full explanation of the reasons for this view is included in the final ruling.It should be noted that students who are not in receipt of Austudy or other similar assistance are also not allowed deductions for self-education expenses designed to open up a new income-earning field.While deductions for self education expenses may not be available to Austudy and Abstudy students, there is a special tax rebate available to them, which ensures that those students whose only income is from Austudy or Abstudy do not pay any tax at all. The ATO ruling has no detrimental effect for those students.(3) The same general principles would apply to the new Youth Allowance Scheme.